Cerdán submits a report concluding that Koldo García's audio recordings have been "manipulated".
These recordings were the evidence that led to the former number three of the PSOE being put in pretrial detention.
BarcelonaFormer PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) organizing secretary Santos Cerdán presented an expert report on Wednesday concluding that the audio recordings seized from Koldo García have been "manipulated." Cerdán's defense team submitted this document to Supreme Court Justice Leopoldo Puente, who is presiding over the Koldo García case. In July, the Supreme Court ruled out any manipulation of these recordings, which are the key piece of evidence that formed the basis of the report by the Civil Guard's Central Operational Unit (UCO), which led to Cerdán's provisional imprisonment. The former number three of the Socialists was released last week. Cerdán's defense team is now presenting this report in which the experts point to "the presence of iOS version signatures that are chronologically impossible based on the dates appearing in the file names and metadata." The report points out that the audio recordings present "objective anomalies incompatible with a native digital lifecycle," such as "significant discrepancies between the actual recording time and the encoding time," or the "massive" coincidence in the file modification dates, which "can only be explained by export, reassembly, or technical manipulation." The document, prepared by two experts—Javier Martín Porras and Hernán López Mayoralas—also concludes that "it cannot be scientifically maintained that the analyzed voices belong to the same person, nor that they can be reliably attributed to a specific individual." "Since the analysis was not performed..." frame to frame"It cannot be maintained that the recordings have not been altered, edited, or inserted from external sources," the document states. The two experts also question the digital traceability of the files from the moment of seizure, claiming it creates "an unsubstantiated break." They conclude that it is not possible to state with certainty that the files examined "correspond to the first forensic copies obtained by the acting units, nor that they have not undergone intermediate processes of copying, reindexing, restoration, or manipulation."
