|
©Malaysiakini
(Used by permission)
by Chua Sue-Ann
Lawyer VK Lingam intends to produce two expert witnesses to
challenge the authenticity report on the video clip prepared Cybersecurity
Malaysia.
Lingam’s lawyer R Thayalan today made an application for two London-based audio
and video analysis experts to testify next week.
The issue of the video clip’s authenticity has been a key issue since the
footage was first made public last September by PKR de facto leader Anwar
Ibrahim.
Lingam’s stand has always been that the video clip’s authenticity cannot be
ascertained from a copy of the video file.
Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, a Cybersecurity Malaysia officer who analysed the video
clip, today rejected suggestion that the video clip he analysed was unsuitable
because it was a copy.
He added that transferring a video file from a camera’s memory card to a
computer and then to a CD would not alter its data.
“In electronic form, a copy is an exact copy no matter how many times you copy
it.”
When asked by Thayalan if he thought that the original video recording was
needed to determine the authenticity of the clip, Zabri answered “No. The
evidence is sufficient and authentic enough.”
On Jan 15, Zabri, a senior digital computer forensic analyst, told the inquiry
that there were no signs of tampering or dubbing of the clip.
Doubts over authenticity process
Recalled for questioning today, Thayalan interrogated Zabri for almost an hour,
attempting to cast doubt over the authentication process and tools used in his
analysis.
Thayalan: (referring to Zabri’s report) Would you agree that the software
DC Live/Forensic and Sony’s Sound Forge are not geared specifically for voice
analysis?
Zabri: I do not agree.
Thayalan: Do you agree that these are specific voice analysis software;
Praat, Soundscape or CSL?
Zabri: I read it somewhere.
Commission member Mahadev Shankar: Are you suggesting that the tools used
are not meant for voice?
Thayalan: Yes.
Mahadev: Then for what is this DC Live if not for voice?
Thayalan: I do not know. (Gasps from the audience)
Commission chairperson Haidar Mohamed Noor: Then you can’t question him
... it’s a question of which brand is better.
Zabri also testified that he did not enhance the recording when performing voice
analysis because the analysis was done by computer software.
“All these unique (voice) characteristics analysis was done by tools. It is an
automated system. So all results are calculated automatically. In order to get
very good results, the recording process must be done following forensic sound
pathology,” he said.
Zabri defended his analysis saying that Cybersecurity Malaysia’s laboratories
and equipment conformed to international standards.
Prior knowledge of Lingam’s voice
Thayalan also suggested that Zabri had received information that the voice in
the clip belonged to Lingam.
Thayalan: Correct me if I am wrong. When you did the voice or speaker
analaysis, did you know whose voices it was?
Zabri: I did not know.
Thayalan: If you can look at page four (of the report), can you see the
file name is “VK to CJ.mpg”. Can you read C.1.3? Iit talks about sample “VK”. So
I’m suggesting to you that you knew.
Zabri: I do not agree. VK can stand for many things.
Haidar: Jeyanthi also so many names (in reference to Lingam’s denial
yesterday, drawing laughter from the audience)
In response to a question by former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul
Halim’s counsel Salehudin Saidin, Zabri said that it was possible to detect any
attempts to dub an audio track over the video clip.
Salehuddin: If in memory card where video and audio are combined, can you
test if it (was dubbed)?
Zabri: It can be done. But our analysis finds that audio is consistent
with the video image’s movement.
Salehuddin: But it was on a copy?
Zabri: Yes.
Sallehuddin: But if the audio was dubbed in the original (file)?
Zabri: Yes, It can be tested on the movement of the object and
spectograph ... Each video file has acceleration. If dubbing is done, we would
definitely be able to spot it.
Need for experts questioned
Later, referring to Thayalan’s request to call in expert witnesses, commissioner
Mahadev indicated that the commission was “quite satisfied” with Zabri’s report
and questioned the need to summon the two expert witnesses.
“The commission is at the liberty to choose which of the two (expert
testimonies) will be accepted,” Thayalan responded.
Mahadev: If I understand your line of questioning, your experts are not
saying that this witness is wrong but what they are saying is that if proper
tools were used, it could be more correct, more conclusive?
Thayalan: That may be on voice analysis, not video.
Mahadev: It’s getting back to “It may be me, it may not be me”. (Laughs
from audience)
Thayalan: I have to tender the report. I can’t say.
Mahadev: But you don’t say the witness is wrong?
Thayalan: No.
In making his application for the two expert witnesses, Thayalan tendered their
curriculum vitae and said that their full report will be made available. He also
told the commission that his experts have been informed to make themselves
available on short notice.
Haidar said that the commission will decide when it resumes proceedings next
Monday if the expert witnesses can be called .
After a lengthy closed-door proceeding today, Zabri was the only witness to be
called. Lingam is expected to continue with his testimony next week, followed by
former chief justice Eusoff Chin and business tycoon Vincent Tan.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
