“Meta-Prifti”, court accepts 3 experts

This means that in the session that will be held next Monday will be heard the testimony of the four main witnesses, former Minister of Economy, Dritan Prifti, with three other citizens.

After admitting the most controversial scientific examination, the Supreme Court rejected the Prosecutor’s request for examining the video by EU experts.

 The Prosecutor Bujar Nishani declared that the experts have supported their conclusions on probability, not scientific facts.

The Albanian experts answered to the Prosecution’s questions and Meta’s defense presented their uncertainties about the examination.  

To the most delicate question of this expertise, was if the clock was the object that had held the recording device. The experts declared that the recording device could have been in any kind of clock,  and that the ticking that was heard was insufficient for determining if that was a clock or not.

To put it simpler, the experts are saying that although there is a tick-tack heard on the background, the video is recorded or maybe is not recorded by a recording device.

The prosecutor argued that the experts gave no answer to the main question, if the video has been edited and how can this be proved, and that this shows that the examination has failed.

The prosecutor declared that the experts’ conclusions are theoretical, superficial, based on probability and not on scientific facts. He added that there is no paragraph that says if the voices have been altered or not.

Besides the legal terms, this session was enriched by quotations by science and art figures. According to the experts, the term “high probability” can be explained same as Einstein’s theory that has rejected many others.

Leonardo da Vinci was used as an argument for answering to the question why the voices were not separated by the noises in the audio of the file.

Expert Ardian Pollo declared that the voice filtering would affect the quality of the video file, same as if you remove some elements from a Da Vinci painting, like if you leave only the eyes. In this case, according to the expert, the painting would lose its beauty and would not be a masterpiece any more.

However, the best part was when Judge Ardian Dvorani asked the experts about the probability of error in their examination, and if they would use the term “probability” or not, and the experts answered that their probability of error was absolute zero, the first question that was cut and not relative.

Top Channel