Angry in the Great White North

As you know, the Liberals are being sued by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  The Liberals accused Stephen Harper of being party to an alleged May 2005 bribe attempt aimed at the late Chuck Cadman.

Cadman died in July 2005.  In September 2005, Stephen Harper, still opposition leader, was interviewed by Tom Zytaruk in the driveway of the Cadman home. 

On that tape, or so some people say, is an admission from Stephen Harper that he knew of the alleged bribe.

The Conservatives have countered with two different analyses that establish that the tape was edited at key points.

The experts who came to that conclusion have filed independent affidavits.  Their conclusions were pretty damning:

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."

The other, Alan Gough, a former TV producer who provided video and audio forensic services to the Toronto police force before becoming a "truth verification" expert, said Mr. Zytaruk's interview "is not a continuous recording of one conversation."

But apparently there was a third expert.  According to the Globe and Mail, he contradicted the first two:

A former FBI scientist[, former FBI special agent Bruce Koenig,] hired by Stephen Harper's lawyer in the Prime Minister's $3.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal Party has contradicted two other experts who said an audiotape at the centre of the legal action was doctored, court documents reveal.

So by contradicted, I would assume that Koenig is saying the tape wasn't altered.

That would be a contradiction.

Well, not quite.

He doesn't support the conclusions of the other experts, but he's not saying they're wrong either.  He's just saying that he won't come to a conclusion without the original tape and the original equipment used to make the recording:

Mr. Koenig reported irregularities in the copy tape and portions where an earlier recording had been taped over, but concluded Mr. Zytaruk's original recording, his tape recorder and an external microphone if Mr. Zytaruk used one "are required to conduct a conclusive authenticity examination in a forensic audio laboratory."

That kind of examination is required to "scientifically" determine whether the original information is truly original or has alterations, such as deletions or additions, Mr. Koenig said in the report he submitted with his own sworn affidavit.

So let's be clear.  Koenig did find the same irregularities.  He might have what he would call an unscientific opinion about the veracity of the recording, but he is only willing to offer a scientific opinion, and he does believe he has what he needs to do that.

He won't go any farther until he has the tape, and the same equipment used by Zytaruk.  Koenig is former FBI, so he's used to the luxury of field agents serving warrants and confiscating evidence to be analyzed.

This is a civil suit.  Zytaruk and his publisher refuse to release the original tape, but were happy to sell copies for $500 each.  They insist that the copies are accurate reproductions of the original, but then they haven't sworn out affidavits to that effect.

Koenig might still get his chance to get the original tape and the original recorder is sealed plastic baggies accompanied with photographs of where they were found, with those little L-shaped rulers they use to establish scale, but it might take a while.  The lawsuit won't go in front of a judge until September.

Koenig has done nothing wrong, and he certainly is under no obligation to render a conclusion if he feels that the evidence he has to work with is incomplete in some way.  But though he is not ready to support the conclusion, I think that's a more than a few steps away from contradicting the conclusion.  Indeed, Koenig is clear in his statement that there is reason to be concerned about the tape copies that he has to work with. 

Not enough to support the scientific conclusion that the tape is misrepresenting the conversation in Koenig's opinion.  But he's not contradicting the evidence of irregularities and taped over portions.