Is that ALL this is about? Contemplate, if you please, Experts contradict each other in Cadman-Harper controversy, originally from CP:
Former FBI special agent Bruce Koenig - who lists expert evidence about former U.S. president Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes and analysis of gun shots in the assassination of John F. Kennedy among his accomplishments - said more evidence is needed to judge the veracity and integrity of the disputed tape recording.
[...]
Koenig, who also performed an authenticity analysis of the Linda Tripp telephone recordings in the investigation of former U.S. president Bill Clinton, reported irregularities in the copy tape and portions where an earlier recording had been taped over, but concluded Zytaruk's original recording, his tape recorder and an external microphone if Zytaruk used one "are required to conduct a conclusive authenticity examination in a forensic audio laboratory."
Except the header is misleading. Koenig does not really contradict the report prepared by Alan Gough, one of the two audio experts that the Tories actually cited in their original 'plaint (Koenig's material was left out).
The other specialist hired by the party, Alan Gough, was less certain in his conclusions. Gough, co-founder of a firm called Integra View, concluded that the tape "is not a continuous recording of one conversation."
The interruption of words, changes of background ambiance, and changes of frequency response indicate that this may be three separate recordings. Any further analysis of these anomalies should be performed on the original recording and not on a copy," Gough said...
Was the recording of Harper's interview done over top previously erased material that still might have left audible traces? If so, then it is extremely doubtful that this old material would appreciably alter the content of the interview.
h/t Steve.
I think the title is fine, because he does contradict:
ReplyDelete"One of the initial two experts, the head of Owl Investigations Inc. in Colonia, N.J., said he concluded "with scientific certainty that this tape has been edited and doctored to misrepresent the event as it actually occurred."
This guy says you can make no scientific conclusion, and his comments are a far cry from "misrepresenting" the interview. You mean to tell me, an audio expert, doesn't entertain the notion that the tape was used prior? Isn't that a pretty basic thing to rule out? One guy says it's a fraud, the other says nobody can make any conclusions, based on what he heard, the two have no relationship to each other, hence a contradiction.
Steve, I was thinking of this bit:
ReplyDelete"The initial two experts, one from the United States and the other from Stratford, Ont., categorically ruled that an audio tape recording of an interview Zytaruk conducted with Harper in September 2005 had been altered."
Gough does not say that the interview has been ALTERED, at least from the stuff I've read about his statement. What he says is consistant with the idea that the interview is there in unaltered form but mixed in with fragments from earlier recordings. That's what I was thinking of. Either way though, looks bad on the Tories and I hope someone beyond Ms. O'Malley starts looking at this.
The best part, the Cons have spent some much energy on this tape, it if does stand under scrutiny, they are left with the prospects of a tape that they have elevated, through their reactions. All this energy, on a tape, which they repeatedly said was harmless?
ReplyDeleteWHy would Harper sue the Liberals if the original tape WASN't doctored.
ReplyDeleteReally guys, you liberals are so delusional its comical.
Once the original tape is analyzed, the truth will come out.
I'm sure Harper knows that.
BTW, the Toronto Star article title is slightly misleading itslef.
You know what I find "comical". The fact some colossal loser from Welland spends HOURS on end, touring the Liberal blogs. I can't spend ten minutes on the tripe coming from your side, the fact you are consumed with the "delusions" says more about you, then your juvenile, never persuasive retorts.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely shocking! So from what I gather, the tape was... reused!? Well, that settles it for me. I'm packing up my briefcase and moving to Cuba. Us left-wingers are complete done in here, and stand absolutely no chance now.
ReplyDeleteEr.... Wait. That kind of takes the artificial wind out the sail of Harper's court case, doesn't it?
Why would Harper sue? Cause he's a little tit who likes to sue people.
He pulled the trigger on the suit, and then madly looked around for evidence that doesn't exist.
"WHy would Harper sue the Liberals if the original tape WASN't doctored."
ReplyDeleteBecause he knew if he did so, stupid people woud think the mere fact he is suing means he did nothing wrong.
And/or, he believed that serving a notice of intention to sue would be sufficient to make the LPC stop, and when they didn't he had to make good on his threat. Now that he has done that, and the LPC refused to back down during the mandated mediation, he is pulling out all the stops to try to make it appear as though he is right. At this point, that is all he needs to do prior to an election.
Interesting, by the way, that the LPC do not seem to be arguing their comments were valid and true in their statement of defence...
ReplyDeletegayle
ReplyDeleteCan you expand on that last point? I'm curious what you mean.
Well johnathon has us now.
ReplyDeleteThe fact Stephen Harper has never denied that it was his voice on that tape is meaningless.
The fact that Stephen Harper has never denied that he made that statement about "financial considerations" is meaningless. Of course, the Conservatives have tried to define what he meant but again there have been no flat denials and Stephen Harper has never actually stated publicly what he meant.
The fact, as Steve has pointed out, the Conservatives keep trying to discredit the tape, even though it has been doctored according to them is meaningless.
The fact that Stephen Harper has not launched a lawsuit against the journalist who taped that interview, because he was the only one who could have doctored the original tape, is meaningless.
All of that cannot stack up to the fact Stephen Harper would not have launched the lawsuit unless the tape was indeed doctored.
As I wrote at the Macleans blog, the experts don't really contradict one another, they simply use different thresholds to draw different conclusions. Yet none of them deem the audio as clean, either.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if memory serves me correctly, the Tory audio analysis was quite detailed in explaining why they felt the audio was doctored in a way to deliberately distort its contents. So, we're not talking about stopping recorders, or taping over other material. We're talking about editing.
Furthermore, why in the world doesn't Zytaruk have audio analysis done of his own original recordings? The Conservatives seem eager to get something out of him in this regard, which is why they want him to testify at the lawsuit.
We also have a fourth expert analysis out there somewhere, which I believe was deemed conclusive. Yet the results are confidential.
"We also have a fourth expert analysis out there somewhere, which I believe was deemed conclusive. Yet the results are confidential."
ReplyDeleteYes, because Moore and company would sit on the most conclusive report. Alrighty then.
Hey, have you guys hired Barry Sheck yet?