Indian Media reports falsely on the fabricated video FSL reports, continuing defamation and attack on His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda and Sanatana Hindu Dharma (Hinduism)
22 Nov 2017
On 22nd November 2017, more than 20 national television channels (see the full list here) re-telecast the morphed video which was first telecast on 2nd March 2010 (seven years back) . This video has been condemned by 4 international forensic agencies, courts of various countries, and Bangalore Civil Court, even passed an Order to Writ Petition 8619/2011 and Order to W.P. 7767/2010, making it illegal to broadcast or publish the morphed video in anyway. Why then is the Indian media promoting morphed news risking contempt of court as order to W.P.8619/2011 & W.P. 7767/2010 ?
Let us first see what various news channels said
- A report by FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi) confirms that Paramahamsa Nithyananda is the person who is in the video. Some channels reported it as CFSL.
- This report is out after seven years
- Paramahamsa Nithyananda is in trouble because of this latest news!
- Some news channels went ahead to question the validity of the 4 US-based forensic agencies which said the video is morphed, clearly ignoring the credentials of FSL itself and the credentials of these USA based forensic agencies!
A few million dollars (more than Rs. 8 crore INR) in fined to various courts of both India and the US was not enough, TV channels suddenly decided to engage spreading false news about Paramahamsa Nithyananda yet again.
Now, let us see what the media did not report
1. The report was out on 12 November 2010 itself (not after seven years like they reported, to deliberately make it look like a newly created report).
Yes, you heard it right, the report was released 7 years ago way back in 2010.
Click to read the news article which was released about this forensic report, from 2010.
The report never said that the video is real.
Further, media is claiming that the report came out only on 22 November 2017 – 7 years and 10 days later!
In 2010, it was decided by the State Police not to make the Indian forensic reports part of the illegal trial proceedings against His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda. The report is a crucial evidence which establishes the falsity of the entire matter and the illegal nature of the arrest and proceedings which happened against Paramahamsa Nithyananda.
An RTI application filed by a devotee of Paramahamsa Nithyananda revealed that no such report was ever published by CSFSL.
In an effort to expose the Conspired Media Trial done by the Paid Presstitutes, an RTI (Right to Information Act) application was applied to the “Directorate of Forensic Sciences – New Delhi” on 23.11.2017 seeking information regarding the Analysis reports of Controversial Sex Scandal Video, portraying Paramhamsa Nithyananda and Actress Ranjitha in a compromising position.
The questions asked via RTI was:
- Has any Video, portraying Swami Nithyananda and Actress Ranjitha been sent to the CFSL for analysis, for any Investigation process?
- If Yes, Which Department and/or Personnel requested for the analysis report and when was the request made?
- Has the analysis of that Video been completed and report sent to the Personnel/Concerned Authority? If yes When was it sent?
- If the report is available for public to view please send the Digitally Signed soft copy or True certified copy of the Report.
- If the report is subjudiced and not meant for Public viewing then how the TV media had accessed to the Information. The media never mentioned/showed any proof of document, for the information they broadcast. They only mention the source of information as Central Forensic Science Labs – Delhi (CFSL). Is the Information given by the Media houses True and Authentic?
The Directorate of Forensic Sciences Lab – New Delhi had forwarded the above said RTI Application to the Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) of CFSL Labs of Chandigarh, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Guwahati, Bhopal, Pune and also CFSL CBI – New Delhi, to give appropriate Information.
The Reply/Information from each CFSL Lab is given below:
- 27 November 2017
CFSL Pune: – “No information is available in this office for your queries numbering 1 to 5”
- 04 December 2017
CFSL Kolkata: – “No Information is available in this Laboratory”
- 06 December 2017
CFSL Chandigarh: – “No such case has been received in this Laboratory for Examination. And no such information is available in Material Form”.
- 12 December 2017
CFSL Bhopal: – “No Information is available in material form”
- 06 December 2017
CFSL Guwahati: – “In this regard the requisite Information with respect to this laboratory is NIL”
- 03 January 2018
CFSL Hyderabad:- “This Laboratory does not have any Information related to the questionnaire. Hence the information may please to be treated as NIL”
- 05 January 2018
CFSL CBI – New Delhi:- The CPIO of CFSL CBI – New Delhi had asked for the FIR details if they had to provide any information. After the FIR details was provided the following reply was given by the CFSL CBI
– New Delhi;“This is to inform you that no record or request for the forensic examination in the respect of the FIR numbers stated by you was received in CFSL CBI New Delhi.”
Read more here :
https://backup.nithyanandatruth.org/2017/11/23/presstitutes-exposed-again-with-evidence-nithyananda-video-not-submitted-for-analysis-at-cfsl-labs/
A few of the ‘fastest’ media channels had to apologize to His Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda.
Here are a few recent apologies by National media
- National channel Aaj Tak and Telugu channel TV10 tender public apology to Paramahamsa Nithyananda for airing defamatory news item
- Media caught lying again…. TV Channels Issue Public Apology for Publishing False News About Anti-Hindu Attacks on Paramahamsa Nithyananda’s Ashram and Temple in Chennai
- Television channel ordered to repeatedly apologise to Ranjitha on its channel. No media reports about the order or apology.
- Yet Another Online Media Channel Publicly Apologizes: ‘Top Telegu TV’ Admits to Reporting False Information about Paramahamsa Nithyananda
- Fake video released to Indian tabloids in coordinated media effort. All hell breaks loose. Apologies come though too late.
No where does the FSL report say that the video is real.
The report is written in a double-negative way.
Example of a double negative statement : “It doesn’t look like that fruit is not an apple.”
This statement doesn’t mean that the fruit we are talking about is an apple.
The report does not state that the video is morphed, therefore the media maliciously and incorrectly stated that the video is real.
Four US-based forensic agencies which are employed by FBI, gave 60 points to show that the video is fabricated.
The US forensic experts in total give 60 points. The FSL India report gives only 2 points of opinions. The US forensic experts reports are 30 times bigger on a fact-to-fact basis.
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 Swami 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, 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.
* END OF TRANSCRIPT *
Read the full article here :
https://backup.nithyanandatruth.org/2012/03/16/forensic-evidence-finally-proves-the-morphed-video-was-fake-2-years-later-indian-police-and-media-thoroughly-discredited-but-the-damage-is-already-done/
Some facts about FSLs and CFSLs
The media is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the FSL report. Anyhow while spreading lies about Paramahamsa Nithyananda they seem to talk highly about FSL. Otherwise on any other, media talk more 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.
https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/court-sentences-two-cfsl-scientists-in-corruption-case/813282
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-court-sentences-two-central-forensic-science-laboratory-scientists-in-corruption-case-1902307
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125206916/
Forensic lab FSL Delhi accused of filing false reports, framing innocents
The rape case against his son seemed unassailable. The police had filed a case against the boy, and the DNA test report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) at Rohini only served to buttress their case.
But Prem Singh (name changed to prevent identification), hailing from Shahibabad Dairy in North Delhi, just could not believe that his son was capable of such an act. He requested a re-examination of the DNA sample by another laboratory, and the results – much to his relief – served to prove a claim he had been crying himself hoarse over. The boy was innocent.
Singh has now filed a complaint against the laboratory, accusing them of framing his son.
This is not the first time that the Delhi FSL’s staffers – accused of being poorly trained and lacking in qualifications – have been pulled up for botching up investigations. Recently, a Gurgaon-based man went to court against a lab report that pointed to his involvement in a rape, being investigated by the Tilak Nagar police. The report was overturned after a re-test by another lab came up with a different finding.
Sources say that there are at least six cases, mostly concerning rape, where FSL staffers have been accused of preparing the false reports.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/delhi-forensic-lab-accused-of-filing-false-reports-framing-innocents/story-6NhLWt372aHERFWd4ufTKO.html
https://www.pressreader.com/india/hindustan-times-gurgaon/20160303/281492160403995
Forensic scientists working in FSL have been found to be not qualified for theirs jobs
The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) of the Delhi government runs the risk of botching up criminal investigation by blundering scientists on its rolls.
Over a dozen scientists at the key forensic probe facility are not qualified for their jobs – they were hired after reportedly submitting fudged documents or false information on their work experience.
The appointments of at least 15 senior scientific officers (SSOs) – nearly half the number of scientists hired for the key facility in 2009 – have come under the scanner. The Delhi High Court recently issued notices to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the recruiting authority, after the dubious appointments were exposed in a series of Right to Information (RTI) applications which formed the basis of court petitions.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dud-scientists-working-at-delhis-forensic-lab/1/143249.html
http://www.thesundayindian.com/article_print.php?article_id=9068
Facilities are in poor condition in FSL
“We were told to operate out of this rented floor in Yashwant Place while the lab in Sheikh Sarai was built. But that never became a reality,” said a senior FSL official. Now, the lab needs an immediate upgrade. The official said there is not enough keep space to keep chemicals or conduct tests. “We store the chemicals in a toilet. The samples are also building up as we receive over 200 cases a month from the south and New Delhi districts,” he said. An increase in the number of labs, he claimed, would help in quick solving of cases. The instruments are also outdated, he claimed. “We need machines like inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, which is capable of detecting metals, and electron microscope for better results. Recently, we asked for a snake poison testing machine,” said the official. He further said that rats from a restaurant located on the first floor of the building wreak havoc in the lab. A report submitted by the FSL to the Delhi government states that the rodents cut wires of instruments and destroy other things.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/poor-facilities-plague-forensic-lab/article18710296.ece
https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-07-07/csi-india-forensics-reach-new-low
It is a little counter intuitive, that in general, media gives a very pathetic and low image about FSL. But when it comes to His Divine Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda, they stand by the FSL reports (which are double-negative, by themselves!) and discard the highly scientific and detailed US forensic experts reports.
The important thing to understand here is, neither FSL nor US forensic experts report say that the video is real. FSL doesn’t give the reasons why it could be real or why it could not be real, it just says, that people in the video ‘resemble’, and that is it. US Forensic reports go into the minutest details and give 60 reasons why it is fake. But again neither of them say the video is ‘real’.
Introduction to the US-based Forensic experts who checked His Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda’s morphed video
Four forensic agencies which are often employed by the FBI, investigated the morphed video.
- Edward John Primeau.
- A member of AES, ACFEI, and IAI. A Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI) and a Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC), as well as a member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence with the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:I started Primeau Forensics because I saw the amount of media evidence, audio video and image evidence, entering the court system, and love a challenge and love the science behind exploring and investigating the purpose of that evidence. On a daily basis we work with attorneys, police departments, government agencies, and private citizens. Some of the high profile cases we worked on has been the Palace Brawl in Auburn Hills, Michigan, between the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers. I’ve been asked to restore the Air Force One recordings the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated, I’ve worked on the George Zimmerman case after he shot Trayvon Martin in Florida, I’ve worked on the Michael Brown case. I think one of the reasons why people come to us is our experience. Over the last 32 years, I’ve seen just about everything from horrific to heroic, from analogue to digital; audio, video image, other multimedia evidence. A lot of times that evidence is very crucial and extremely important to the case, which is why we developed a proven methodology – identify, clarify, and testify. One of the first things that we do during the identification process is to understand the evidence. What file format is it, does the file structure match the alleged equipment that it was created on, and we proceed with the investigation by understanding the trial strategy and the role that evidence plays at trial. The chain of custody is important. Some of the time we establish that chain of custody by going on an evidence recovery, other times we continue the chain of custody. That lends authenticity to our work product, our opinions, and our testimony, ultimately. Our clarification processes involve understanding which direction we are going in with regard to the evidence, it can be to authenticate it, it could be to enhance it. If the audio recording has unwanted sounds on it, to clarify is to remove the unwanted sounds so that we can better hear the wanted sounds. Many times it’s a conversation. In video, the camera may be further away from the events that occured, so we zoom in on them so that we can better see and hear if that is applicable to the events as they occurred. Some of the time we need to clarify whether the recording is authentic or if it’s misrepresenting the events that occurred because somebody decided to remove something out of it. When I testify this is where the rubber meets the road because I bring the forensic investigation, the scientific results and my opinions into the courtroom so the trier of fact can make a decision and weigh that evidence against all the other facts and testimony in the case. We’re qualified as forensic experts because of the training we receive on regular basis, the experience we have working on hundreds of cases throughout the years, as well as the courtroom experience testifying about our findings to the trier of fact. We testify in local, state, and federal courts all over the country and in other courts internationally, and one of the most important things I find about testifying is preparation. I like to prep with the client attorney before I get on the plane and then face to face prior to going under oath. Anticipating cross is a very important part of the preparation process. Because that way I understand how my testimony is going to play out based on the attorney’s expectations and we understand the objections – where’s the elephant in the room. It’s very difficult to process your case as an attorney, police officer, private citizen without understanding the role the evidence is going to play in your case. Contact us today so that we can help you interpret the importance and the relevance of your evidence going forward.* END OF TRANSCRIPT * - Authored the book “That’s Not My Voice! A Practical Understanding of the Art and Science of Modern Voice Identification”
- Asked to restore the air force one recordings the day John F Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States was assasinated. Has worked on the George Zimmerman’s case after he shot Trayvon Martin and the Micheal Brown case.
- A member of AES, ACFEI, and IAI. A Certified Criminal Investigator (CCI) and a Certified Forensic Consultant (CFC), as well as a member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence with the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
- David Notowitz
- Mr. David Notowitz is the founder of NCAVF, based in Los Angeles. NCAVF : National Center for Audio and Video Forensics, a full-service audio and video forensics company based in Los Angeles and providing all levels of consulting and media preparation for evidence used in mediations, arbitration, hearings, and court — from 3D recreations of crime scenes to video production, and from forensic video enhancement to testifying in court as an expert witness.
- He is an Emmy award winning producer and multi-faceted video and audio forensic evidence expert.
- His specialties include news, documentaries, and commercial video production. In 1986 he started Notowitz Productions. He has produced and edited corporate productions for clients such as Fox Broadcasting Company, Yahoo!, GM, The Learning Channel, Rhino Entertainment, Miller Beer, IBM, Disney, Fandango, Frigidaire, Pepperdine University, University of California, City of Santa Monica, and UBS Investment Bank.His company produced award winning films and documentaries, including Voices Of The Shoah: Remembrances Of The Holocaust for Warner Bros., and the Emmy-nominated Carpati, which was named by the San Diego Union Tribune as one of the top ten films of 1997. He was also the editor of the nationally acclaimed 1992 documentary The Last Klezmer.
David Notowitz’s Voices of the Shoah is an audio documentary of the Holocaust compiled from over 180 interviews with survivors and witnesses now residing in the U.S. and the U.K. Elliot Gould’s narration links the alternately terrifying and inspiring stories of Holocaust survivors, American soldiers, and military rabbis, which Notowitz spent a decade collecting. A moving and dignified work, this first ever audio documentary of the Holocaust makes history as well as preserving it. All the proceeds from Voices of the Shoah benefit the mission of The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles.
- Mr. Notowitz has worked as a forensic video expert witness on cases investigated by police officers, detectives, private investigators, insurance investigators, public defenders, and criminal defense attorneys with cases across the country.Prominent court work includes his involvement as a video expert with the nationally covered Ivory Webb case.
- In late 2013 and early 2014, Mr. Notowitz was the sole audio and video forensic expert on the team defending Fullerton police officers Jay Cicinelli and Manuel Ramos in the death of homeless man Kelly Thomas. After a six week trial ending January 2014, the jury returned a not guilty verdict for both officers, after 6 hours of deliberation. He worked the civil case for the same defendants and Joe Wolfe, a third officer named in the civil case, until the case settled in November 2015.
- Mr. Notowitz’ most recent high profile criminal case was the March – April 2017 trial People v Downey, Phelps, and Foster, in which three police officers were charged in the pursuit and arrest of a suspect after a two hour, high speed car chase that ended with the suspect stealing a horse and riding it into the high desert. The arrest was captured in high definition by a news helicopter flying overhead.
- Mr. David Notowitz is the founder of NCAVF, based in Los Angeles. NCAVF : National Center for Audio and Video Forensics, a full-service audio and video forensics company based in Los Angeles and providing all levels of consulting and media preparation for evidence used in mediations, arbitration, hearings, and court — from 3D recreations of crime scenes to video production, and from forensic video enhancement to testifying in court as an expert witness.
- YONOVITZ & JOE, LLP.
- Yonovitz & Joe has been retained in thousands of cases involving thousands of recordings and testified in state and Federal courts in civil and criminal matters in various countries such as:
- The U.S.
- Canada
- Mexico
- The United Kingdom
- Australia
- Singapore
- India
- Sri Lanka
- The United Arab Emirates
- REPRESENTATIVE LAW FIRMS
- Steptoe & Johnson (Washington, DC) Shearman & Sterling (NYC)
- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (NYC) Mesereau & Yu (Los Angeles)
- Armstrong Teasdale (Kansas City)
- Ford & Harrison (Memphis)
- Rawle & Henderson (Philadelphia) McAfee & Taft (OKC)
- Bracewell & Patterson (Houston)
- Akin Gump (San Antonio)
- Jones Day (Dallas)
- Hayes & Boone (Houston)
- Vinson & Elkins (Dallas)
- Jenkens & Gilchrist (Dallas)
- GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
- Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (United Arab Emirates)
- U.S. Attorney’s Office (NM)
- Mississippi Attorney General’s Office Harris County (Houston) Attorney’s Office Harris County Sheriff’s Office City of Austin (TX)
- City of San Angelo (TX)
- City of Galveston (TX)
- Plano (TX) Police Department Akron (OH) Police Department District Attorney’s Offices —
- Dallas (TX),
- Maricopa (Phoenix),
- Tulsa (OK),
- Harris (Houston),
- Fulton (GA),
- Summit (OH)
- REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATIONS
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- United Parcel Services, Inc.
- Motorola Corp.
- Georgia-Pacific, LLC Coastamare, Inc.
- Vivint, Inc.
- BankOne
- BlueCross BlueShield Shell Oil Co.
- Shell Texaco & Saudi Refineries, Inc. Reliant Energy 7-11, Inc.
- Evercom Systems, Inc.
- REPRESENTATIVE MEDIA
- Associated Press (AP)
- Dr. Phil TMZ
- CSI: Miami
- People Magazine
- Washington Bureau / newsday.com
- ABC-TV
- BBC-TV
- FOX-TV
- PUBLIC DEFENDERS
- Public Defender’s Offices – Houston, Little Rock (AR), Washington, DC, South Dakota, North Dakota DuPage County (IL), Tucson (NM) Green County (PA), New Mexico, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
- Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy
- Louisiana Capital Assistance Center
- Oklahoma Indigent Defense System
- PROFESSOR AL YONOVITZ
Senior Partner Prof. Al YONOVITZ, Ph.D. His 40 years of teaching and research include appointments at the Speech and Hearing Institute, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, and the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston; Baylor College of Medicine; Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Houston; Conley Speech and Hearing Center, University of Maine; Menzies School of Health Research; consultant to the Veterans Administration Hospital, Houston; Director of the Electronic Prosthesis Laboratory, Mansfield Training School; Research Champion, School of Health Sciences, Charles Darwin University; Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, University of Houston; Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Auditory Branch, Groton, CT; former member of the certification and standards committee of the International Association of Identification (IAI). - ATTORNEY HERBERT JOE
Managing Partner Herbert Joe, M.A., J.D., LL.M., B.C.F.E., C.F.C., D.A.B.F.E., D.A.B.L.E.E., F.A.C.F.E. Attorney Joe has 4 degrees, including 2 science degrees (B.S., M.A.) and 2 law degrees (J.D., LL.M.). His 26-year involvement in the area of forensic audio/video includes expert testimony in state and Federal courts in civil and criminal cases throughout the U.S., as well as overseas, giving regional, national and international (CLE) presentations, conducting research and authoring peer-reviewed publications and being interviewed or consulted with by various news and entertainment entities domestically and overseas.
Attorney Joe’s qualifications include:
• Board Certified Forensic Audio/Video Examiner
• Certified Forensic Consultant
• Diplomat, American Board of Forensic Examiners
• Diplomat, American Board of Law Enforcement Experts
• Licensed Instructor, Texas Board of Private Investigators
• Member, Evidence Code Committee, Oklahoma Bar Association
• Member, Law-Related Education Committee, Oklahoma Bar Association
• Board Member (former), Forensic Expert Witness Association
• Board of Legal Advisors, American Guild of Court Videographers
• Charter Member, Legal Advisory Board, American College of Forensic Examiner International
• Member, The Commission on Forensic Education
• Fellow, American Guild of Court Videographers
• Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners
• Certified Mediator
• Member, State Bars of Texas and Oklahoma
• Registered Patent Attorney, United States Patent & Trademark Office
• Registered Patent Agent, Canadian Intellectual Property Office
• Member, College of the State Bar of Texas
• Member, Summit County (UT) Board of Health
• Graduate Faculty (Law), University of Phoenix
- Yonovitz & Joe has been retained in thousands of cases involving thousands of recordings and testified in state and Federal courts in civil and criminal matters in various countries such as:
- Bryan Neumeister
- Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs.
- In a career spanning 37 years across 23 countries, Bryan has racked up an incredible 39 Emmy Awards and 70+ awards for his video work. As if that weren’t enough, these days he is also a court certified video & photographic forensic expert. Clarifying videos in criminal, civil, military and aviation cases so that jurors can see and hear evidence better.
- Throughout the 1980’s he was a full time helicopter photographer for the station. He logged over 14,000 hours of aerial photography, videography and cinematography from the chopper door.
- In 1990, he went back to his teenage passion – music. That turned out to be a good move and he wrote many commercials and credited album material with bands such as Blue Oyster Cult.
- In a career spanning 37 years across 23 countries, Bryan has racked up an incredible 39 EmmyAwards from the National Association of Television Arts and Sciences for Technical Excellence, and 70+ awards for his video work, along with many other industry awards primarily in the documentary field.
A few of the total, 39 Emmy Awards kept that he won on top of the server rack in his office in Phoenix.
- A few things which make him very distinct from other forensic experts is, his ability to use 3D Sonograph and Spectrograph printouts, which allow him to spot and visually explain the “altering of tapes.”
- Mr. Neumeister has worked on over 200 Forensic Cases since 2010. His non-military court cases include: RICO, Murder, Murder for Hire, Fraud, Robbery, Armed Robbery, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Arson, Kidnapping, Bank Robbery, DUI, DWI, Civil Cases…etc. He is certified in Military, Federal, State, Civil, and Aviation court.
- Large Cases include
- US Government vs. Charles Keating – Retained as Video Expert
- State of Arizona vs. Jodi Arias – Retained as Audio and Photography Expert
- US Grand Jury: The Hope Steffy Case – Video Expert
- US Government vs. Charles Keating III – Retained as Video Expert
- US Federal Government vs. State of AZ. – King Case as Video Expert
- Currently: Encrypted Department of Justice Case
- Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs.
What does the FSL report really say
This the FSL report as it is. Digitized from scans as obtained from here.
| Forensic Science Laboratory
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Madhuban Chowk, Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Tel: 011-27555811, Fax: 011-27555890 Accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) Examination Report REPORT No. FSL 2010/P-3243/PHY-152/10 Dated 12/11/10
To Sh. K.S.R. Charan Reddy, IPS D.I.G. of Police. C.I.D., Bangalore. Your letter No.CRM/11SE/CID/2010 Dated 24.07.10 regarding four parcel in connection with case FIR No. 141/2010 Daled NIL U/S 293(A), 376, 377, 420, 506(I) & 120B IPC. P.S. Bidali. Ramanagar. Karnataka duly received in this office on 27.07.10 through Insp. Sh. Raveesh C.R. I.D.522/2010. |
Signature, Stamps, Address, Report number, etc | ||||||||||||||||
Sealed envelopes :02 (Two) Sealed cloth parcels :02 (Two) Total :04 (Four) Twelve-sealed envelopes: seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding |
Description of Parcel and Packing | ||||||||||||||||
2. Description of articles contained in the parcel(s)/exhibit(s)
|
Description of articles contained in the parcel | ||||||||||||||||
3. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION/OPINION:
|
Results of Examination and Opinion | ||||||||||||||||
| NOTE: Case exhibits sent to this division for examination have been sealed with the seal of ‘Dr.C.P. SINGH- FSL-DELHI’.
Examined by (Dr. C.P. SINGH) Note: This Report is Per se admissible U/S.293 Cr.P.C. However, the scientific expert (witness) shall be available for cross examination, if required. FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI SECTOR-14, ROHINI, DELHI – 110085 Forwarding Letter (Physics Division) No.FSL- 2010/P-2031/Phy-93|10/3664 Dated : 3/6/10 To, K.S.P. Charan Reddy Dy. Inspector General of Police, CID – Bangalore Subject: Examination of case property in FIR No 141|10 Dated 18/3/10 U/S P.S. Bidadi, Ramanagar, Karanataka MEMO Please find enclosed herewith Report No. FSL- 2010/P-2031/Phy-93/10 Dated 2/8/10 In respect of case property received with your Memo no. CRM 11|SE|CID|2010 Dated 11/05/10 All the concerned case property / exhibits are enclosed as per the details mentioned in the report. DIRECTOR. Encls : (1) Sealed Report (2) ______ sealed parcels (3) Sample seal impression Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of NCT of Delhi Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Tel: 011-27555811, Fax: 011-27555890 Accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) Examination Report REPORT No. FSL 2010/P-2031/PHY-93/10 Dated 02/6/10 1. Please quote the Report (Opinion) No. & Date in all future correspondence & Summons. 2. This Report is Per se admissible U/S.293 Cr.P.C. To Sh. K.S.R. Charan Reddy, Dy. Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. Bangalore Your letter No.CRM. 11/SE/CID/2010/Bangalore Dated 12.05.10 regarding two parcels in connection with case FIR No.141/10 Dated 18.03.10 U/S 495(A), 376, 377, 420. 506(i) & 120B IPC P.S. Bidadi. Ramanagar. Karnataka duly received in this office on 13.05.10 through Insp. K. Nagaraja, CID Bangalore. |
Signature, Stamps, Address, Report number, etc | ||||||||||||||||
Sealed cloth parcels : 02 (Two) Total : 02 (Two) Two sealed parcels; seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding letter (FSL FORM). |
Description of Parcel and Packing | ||||||||||||||||
|
Description of articles contained in the parcel | ||||||||||||||||
The memory card marked “Exhibit-1 A” contains 70 video clips and the memory card marked “Exhibit-1B” contains 213 video clips. On examination using ENCASE tool, it was found that there were 24 deleted files in the memory card marked “Exhibit-1 A” and same have been retrieved from memory card marked “Exhibit-1 A” and there were 34 deleted files in the memory card marked “Exhibit-1B” and same have been retrieved from memory card marked “Exhibit-1B” and DVD marked “Exhibit-2” contains 116 video clips. The video clips in DVD marked “Exhibit- 2” are also in the memory cards marked “Exhibit-1 A” & “Exhibit-1B”. On examination of video recordings in memory cards marked as “Exhibit-1A” & “Exhibit- 1B”, the followings were observed:
|
Results of Examination and Opinion | ||||||||||||||||
| NOTE: Case exhibits sent to this laboratory for examination have been sealed with the seal of ‘Dr.C.P. SINGH- FSL-DELHI’.
Examined by (Dr. C.P. SINGH) Dr. C. P. SINGH Asstt. Director (Physics) Forensic Science Laboratory |
Signature, Stamps, Address, Report number, etc |
Now let us see what exactly does the report provide as a “Result” or “Opinion”
Statistically put, the whole report is somewhere around 1500 words, and one-third of it, that is only 500 words is the actual “Result” or “Opinion.”
| FSL Report (all pages combined) | Words | % |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 1548 | 100% |
| Signature, Stamps, Address, Report number etc | 423 | 27% |
| Description of Parcel and Packing | 71 | 5% |
| Description of articles contained in the parcel | 539 | 35% |
| Results Of Examination and Opinion | 515 | 33% |
Out of those 515 words of “” only 141 words are the main report. The remaining 374 words are again description of parcel and software used. These 141 words make only 2 points in total. The US forensic reports gave 60 points so explain how the video is morphed, which means it is 30 times more detailed on fact-to-fact basis.
These are two major points that the “huge” 1548 word report makes.
3. On image analysis and comparison of verbal portrait features, geometric and facial image superimposition of the image of the male person marked “Exhibit- QMFP” from the relevant video frames and the image of the person marked “Exhibit-SMFI” from relevant video frames and still images in Exhibit-4, the image of the person marked “Exhibit- QMFI” has resemblance to the image of the person marked “Exhibit-SMFF” in respect of their facial landmarks. Hence, the images of the person marked “Exhibit-QMFI” &. “Exhibit-SMFI” are of the same person.
4. On image analysis and comparison of verbal portrait features, geometric and facial image superimposition of the image of the female person marked “Exhibit- QFFI’ from the relevant video frames and the image of the person marked “Exhibit-SFFI” from relevant video frames and still images in Exhitit-3, the image of the person marked “Exhibit-QFFF” has resemblance to the image of the person marked “Exhibit-SFFP” in respect of their facial landmarks. Hence, the images of the person marked “Exhibit-QFFI” & “Exhibit-SFFI” are of the same person.
What does this mean?
It is basically saying the person in the video is looking similar (“has resemblance”) therefore the two people are the same.
Even a cat looks like a lion. Does it mean, you will conclude that the cat is actually “the lion”?
There is mention of the words “Verbal Portrait”
3. On image analysis and comparison of verbal portrait features, geometric and facial image superimposition of the image of the male person marked “Exhibit- QMFP” from the relevant video frames and the image of the person marked “Exhibit-SMFI” from relevant video frames and still images in Exhibit-4, the image of the person marked “Exhibit- QMFI” has resemblance to the image of the person marked “Exhibit-SMFF” in respect of their facial landmarks. Hence, the images of the person marked “Exhibit-QMFI” &. “Exhibit-SMFI” are of the same person.
Verbal Portrait is an obsolete Victorian era criminal identification methods. It was used in 1880’s. It did not stand the test of time and was discredited late last century due to its unreliability. Read more about it here. Why should we rely on such old and obsolete techniques.
That is all there is to the FSL report which the media has reported as “proves that Paramahamsa Nithyananda is guilty” etc.
Sun TV COO (Chief Operating Officer) confessed on television, and in a sworn written affidavit that video is morphed.
The ex-COO of Sun TV, Hansraj Saxena, confessed in several interviews to the media and in written affidavit to the Courts, that SunTV aired the video continuously for 3 days on its channel, and the video was created by it for extortion purposes. Saxena was COO of Sun TV from the time of inception of Sun TV (and hence a close aide and childhood friend of MD Kalanidhi Maran, owner of SunTV).
Hansraj Saxena appeared in atleast six television channels with this confession and also gave a sworn affidavit to the Court detailing the usual modus operandi of SunTV and its extortion rackets and how the morphed video against Pramahamsa Nithyananda was also an attempt to blackmail and extort huge money just like they had fabricated false videos similarly several times before.
The actress has categorically stated that she is not the person in the video
Actress Ranjitha has categorically stated that she is not the person in the video, she has no complaints against Paramahamsa Nithyananda; instead He is like her God. When she has not lodged any complaint, where is the question of any legal implications.
The morphed video is not part of any legal proceedings against Paramahamsa Nithyanada.
The morphed video has too many legal implications against many news channels and conspirators and there are several cases being lost by media and media has had to apologize for this.
These are the channels who featured false abusive news
- BTVNews
- News18Kannada
- News9
- OneindiaKannada
- PrajaaTV
- PublicTV
- SuddiTV
- SunTV
- SurvarnaNews24x7
- Samaya News channel
- Tv9
- News18Tamil
- Kasturi TV
No matter how many lies the media spread, the Truth will be out. And more lies they spread, the more in trouble they will get into, in explaining why they broke so many laws.