THE EXPERT REPORT ON THE RECORDING: THE RECORDING UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Apolozan case · ERDF fraud (Bilbao / Alicante / EU)

Four years after the trial, the official recording — the audiovisual record on which the conviction rested — was at last subjected to an independent technical examination. The expert report, signed on 19 July 2023 (A.33), analysed the medium handed to the defence and documented what this Story has been showing with the files themselves: anomalies in the metadata, discrepancies between the recorded start and the real start of the session, temporal discontinuities within the medium.

The value of that report is threefold. It is technical: it does not opine on the case, it measures files. It is reproducible: any expert in the world, with the same medium, will reach the same figures — in fact, the durations and gaps this portal documents (the start at 10:09:21, the cut after the judge's sentence, the 8.87-second block) can be verified by any reader with a video player. And it has never been counter-examined: in the intervening years, no body has opposed a technical report refuting it.

A conviction whose official record presents cuts, a late start and a recorded order not to record the taking of evidence has a problem that does not lapse: the medium that should prove the trial was fair is the same one that proves its record is not complete.

With the report in hand, the defence turned to the avenue designed exactly for this: review. What happened with it is the next milestone.

The key factExpert report of 19-7-2023 on the trial's audiovisual recording (A.33): metadata anomalies, discrepancy between recorded start and real start, temporal discontinuities. No counter-report to date. Findings consistent with the verifiable metadata of A.39.3.

The uncomfortable questionIf the trial record is the recording, and the recording is technically challenged with no expert response against it, on what exactly does the conviction rest?

The ruleThe audiovisual recording constitutes the record of the trial (art. 743, Criminal Procedure Act); the appearance of elements evidencing the falsity of a piece of evidence or new elements of conviction opens review (art. 954, Criminal Procedure Act).

Open in the interactive portal →

EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.