Edward Video Analysis Report🔗

[https://youtu.be/8lTsoaJWlLw]

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: Hi, my name is Ed Primo, I’m an audio and video forensic expert in Rochester Hills, Michigan. I’ve been practicing audio and video forensics for 28 years, I’m a member of American College of Forensic Examiners International, and I’m a registered investigator. I’ve testified in court on numerous occasions for both audio and video forensics and I’m making this video today as a statement to my report that I created after my investigation into the video of Paramahamsa Nithyananda. First, I’d like to explain, video is not always real. Video is a very powerful medium. In the old days you used to say, you can’t always believe what you read. In this particular case, you can’t always believe what you see. When I’m brought in to examine a piece of video evidence, prior to testifying in court, I have access to the complete original video as it was recorded, the equipment that was used to make the video, as well as the audio portion of the video so that I can determine whether or not the video is real and true. The video that I was provided by LifeBliss Foundation has several anomalies that I’d like to point out. Interviewer: Can you tell me the date the video was created? Primo: Uh, as far as I can tell, the specific file that I examined was created in December of 2009. And I know that because I accessed the properties in the file. Interviewer: Now does that tell us that it was actually created in December of 2009? Primo: That’s when this specific clip that I examined was created. We won’t know when the video was actually created or any more details that we need to know to authenticate this video until we have access to examine the original file. First of all, it’s only a portion of a complete video which is very obvious the way that the video ends. Um, secondly, we have no way of knowing what type of chain of custody the video had from the time it was created until the time we received this copy. We don’t even know if this is a copy of a copy or if it’s a copy of an original. Um, chain of custody is very important on a video if it’s going to be used as any kind of representation of the facts as they occurred, because having a chain of custody helps contribute to the genuineness and the authenticity of the video. Interviewer: So, did you see any signs of alteration or tampering in the video that you examined? Primo: Uh, there was a few things that raised a red flag. First of all, there’s some flickering that occurs to the left of the TV set. Which is more than likely caused by light, and if the light was indeed causing flickering then i’m wondering, it raises a question, why is the television not flickering. Interviewer: What other things concern you about the video? Primo: The fact that there’s no audio. It would have been very easy to record an audio track along with the video and had that been the case, I would be able to conduct a voice identification so that we could be exact as to was there one person in the shot and then another person was overlaid, were there two people in the shot to begin with, do we hear two voices, can we hear the television sound. None of, none of that is available because there’s no audio track. The lack of audio in the video is a huge concern from a forensic perspective because it would have been very easy to record an audio track with that video and I could have conducted a voice identification so we would know if the characters in the video are indeed all together, or if they were assembled. I think one of the reasons why the audio track was left off of this video is because the characters in the video were not all together at the same time, an audio would have revealed that. I also did some research on the internet and looked at some other videos that are very similar in nature to this one and there is all sorts of audio tracks compiled on top of it, music, graphics, pictures, text, and that also contributes to the lack of authenticity on the video because while it was outside of the chain of custody, anybody who owns editing software could have very easily done tampering to this video to create events that did not occur, which is what I believe is a concern here and the only way to determine if that is true or not is to have access to and be able to examine the original, the equipment that created the original, as well as the original digital file.

The media is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the FSL report. While spreading lies about His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda, they seem to talk highly about FSL. Otherwise, any other media talk points out serious issues surrounding FSL such as:

There are serious cases of corruption against scientists of the forensic laboratory where some of them have even been sent to jail.

11 October 2013 : A Delhi court today sentenced two former Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) scientists in CBI to varying jail terms for giving incorrect forensic opinion to falsely implicate a person in a civil suit. The name of the scientists are: Dr S C Mittal, the then Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Division (Documents) in the CFSL wing; V K Khanna, the then Principal Scientific Officer in CFSL wing of CBI, was also handed down one year of jail term.

11 October 2013 - Outlook Now Magazine: Court Sentences Two CFSL Scientists in Corruption Case

09/08/2018 Court Sentences Two CFSL Scientists in Corruption Case

LAKES Aug 2018 Money Business Traveller Hindi Search Login | Signup

MANAGEMENT

Outlook THE FULLY LOADED MAGAZINE

National India Opinion Videos Photos World Entertainment Sports Business Society B-School Survey 2018

ry

Outlook

11 October 2013 Last Updated at 6:02 PM | NATIONAL

TA YTICS

Court Sentences Two CFSL Scientists in

tay Corruption Case

ant

MORE

NEW DELHI

Print Share AAA INCREASE TEXT SIZE

A court today sentenced two former Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) scientists in CBI to varying jail terms for giving incorrect opinion to falsely implicate a person in a civil suit.

Special Judge Kanwaljeet Arora awarded two years of rigorous imprisonment to Dr S C Mittal, the then Principal Scientific Officer and Head (Documents) in the CFSL wing of the agency here.

K K Khanna, the then Principal Scientific Officer in CFSL wing of CBI, was also handed down one year of jail term. [X] Close

The court had convicted both the officials for criminal conspiracy and under the various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Besides Mittal and Khanna, the judge also awarded two- year jail terms to Delhi resident Ramesh Sharma who was also held guilty of the same offences.

"The present case involves the two senior scientific experts of CFSL who, by virtue of their position, were holding the reins of the administration being part of the system of investigation/detection, who allegedly got themselves involved with a private individual and diluted the expected standards of integrity and procedural skills expected of them while working on certain documents referred to CFSL for expert opinion by court," the court said.

According to CBI, in 2005, Mittal, Khanna and Sharma had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy to give undue advantage to Sharma in a case of property dispute filed by him against one Brahm Prakash Sharma.

"In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, both the CFSL officials abused their official position as public servants and framed a report giving a wrong opinion as experts and forwarded the said report to Additional SHO, Defence Colony Police Station, for submission in the court in order to favour Sharma," CBI Special Public Prosecutor Harish Kumar Gupta had said.

READ MORE IN:

NATIONAL

NEXT STORY : COURT RAPS CBI FOR DUAL POLICY ON ARRESTS

DOWNLOAD THE OUTLOOK MAGAZINES APP. SIX MAGAZINES, WHEREVER YOU GO! PLAY STORE AND APP STORE

MORE FROM OUTLOOK INDIA

https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/court-sentences-two-cfsl-scientists-in-corruption-case/813282 1/2

11 October 2013 - DNA: Court Sentences Two CFSL Scientists in Corruption Case

A Delhi court today sentenced two former Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) scientists in CBI to varying jail terms for giving incorrect forensic opinion to falsely implicate a person in a civil suit.

CBI Special Judge Kanwaljeet Arora awarded two years of rigorous imprisonment to Dr S C Mittal, the then Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Division (Documents) in the CFSL wing of the agency here. VK Khanna, the then Principal Scientific Officer in CFSL wing of CBI, was also handed down one-year of jail term.

The court had convicted both the officials for criminal conspiracy and under the various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Besides Mittal and Khanna, the judge also awarded two- year jail term to Delhi resident Ramesh Sharma who was also held guilty of the same offences. "The present case involves the two senior scientific experts of CFSL who, by virtue of their position, were holding the reins of the administration being part of the system of investigation/detection, who allegedly got themselves involved with a private individual and diluted the expected standards of integrity and procedural skills expected of them while working on certain documents referred to CFSL for expert opinion by court," the court said.

According to CBI, in 2005 Mittal, Khanna and Sharma had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy to give undue advantage to Sharma in a case of property dispute filed by him against one Brahm Prakash Sharma. "In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, both the CFSL officials abused their official position as public servants and framed a report giving a wrong opinion as experts and forwarded the said report to Additional SHO, Defence Colony Police Station, for submission in the court in order to favour Sharma," CBI Special Public Prosecutor Harish Kumar Gupta had said.

Delhi CBI Prevention of Corruption Act science criminal Scientists forensic Khanna Mittal Central Forensic Science Laboratory Corruption Act Scientific Officer Kanwaljeet Arora Ramesh Sharma CFSL Harish Kumar Gupta Brahm Prakash Sharma Defence Colony Police Station