A few days ago I received a document that was born to be public. The famous counter-examination of Santos Cerdan in the Koldo case.
I read it calmly, like a good book, without rushing, but without pause.
And when I finished it, I was left with an uncomfortable feeling, familiar to anyone who has spent years diving into reports and sources.
It was not the explosive revelation that some were proclaiming. It was, rather, a decoration of suspicions. A house of cards built with a “could be” and a “cannot be ruled out”, but without a single column to hold it on the firm ground of evidence.
And the press fell into their trap. Biased headlines written by journalists who only understand the report what they want them to understand, because that is what it was created for.
As an expert who has experienced countless judicial and media battles from the front lines, I have learned to distinguish between coup de effect y knockout.
The former Secretary of Organization of the PSOE Santos Cerdán leaving the Court of First Instance of Tafalla.
Efe
And what we have here is, clearly, the first.
The document calls itself expert technical valuation analysis (meta-expertise).
Let’s translate this into plain Spanish: they have not analyzed the mobile phone, nor the computer, nor the original systems. They have given their opinion on the work of the Civil Guard.
And what is more revealing. On their own pages they admit that it is a preinformwho have not had access to the original dumps and who lack complete documentation.
It’s as if they asked me to dismantle an investigation by eldiario.es, giving me only four cut headlines. You can give your opinion, yes, but with humility.
One of the points that caught my attention, as a layman in technicalities, but skilled in dismantling stories, is the issue of hash. They repeat it ad nauseum: “there is no hash.”
He hash It is the DNI of the file, which tells you if it has been manipulated. The basic chain of custody.
Well, the Civil Guard reports do mention it. The counter-expertise, however, affirms that they do not exist or that they are insufficient.
It can be understood that they have not had access to all the information. But to categorically state that something does not exist without having exhausted all avenues to prove it is, at the very least, reckless.
It is in the construction of alternative scenarios where the document reaches its maximum dramatic tension, but also its minimum evidentiary solidity.
They talk about restorations from backups, cloud synchronizations, the long shadow of possible spyware like Pegasus…
Technically, they are possible assumptions in any smartphone.
But in law and in serious journalism the question is not “could it have happened?”, but “is there evidence that it happened?”
And here, the authors themselves acknowledge that they do not have the system logs, nor the internal databases, nor the diagnostic files.
Without that, your hypotheses are fireworks. They shine for a moment and go out in the darkness of non-evidence. It’s “I can’t rule out that there are ghosts” instead of “here is the ghost’s footprint.”
Santos Cerdán upon arrival at his home in Milagro.
In fact, I can think of multiple scenarios under the premises they propose, worthy of a science fiction novel (or a late-night talk show).
For example:
It cannot be proven that the audios were not created by the UCO, by interested third parties or, to put it another way, by intergalactic beings with a master’s degree in computer engineering.
Nor would it be possible to rule out that the audios emerged in a parallel dimension after an unfortunate quantum crossing, and that they have appeared in our universe by technological magic.
“Their conclusion is ‘I can’t say that,’ not ‘what others have said is false.’ It’s a crucial nuance that gets lost in the maelstrom of the facile headline.”
In short, if we follow the thread, we could even include the possibility of a computer wormhole. But, as a professional, I prefer to stick to what is verifiable. In a serious expert opinion, the evidence must be on solid ground, do not orbit in the space of speculation.
And then there is the content, the heart of the matter: the voices.
The counter-examination carries out a biometric analysis and concludes that, with their method, they cannot conclusively identify the interlocutor. Okay.
But from there to insinuating that they are not them there is an immense distance.
Their conclusion is “I cannot affirm it,” not “what others have affirmed is false.” It is a crucial nuance that is lost in the maelstrom of the facile headline.
In the interviews that have been done with me, when someone dodged an answer with a theory, I insisted: “Yes or no?” Here the answer seems to be “I don’t know”, dressed in a “maybe” outfit..
The Civil Guard, with all the defects that they want to attribute to it, has worked on the primary evidence: the devices, the dumps, the chain of custody.
But this counter-examination works on other people’s papers, with incomplete material and does not provide a single direct evidence of manipulation, cutting or editing. It does not dismantle the official report, it surrounds it with a sea of theoretical doubts.
“The biometric analysis of voices is a separate and subsequent aspect to that of the technical integrity of the files”
And in a rule of law, a reasonable doubt is resolved in court, with evidence, not in the public square with speculations.
What is truly important, and often forgotten in the public debate, is that the Civil Guard has carried out a direct analysis of the mobile device on which the questioned audios are found.
When it is verified that the system records, the application used, the database and the audio files themselves match and present integrity, it can be ensured that these digital files have not been altered or manipulated.
Thus, the guarantee of the authenticity of the audio lies in the consistency of the entire digital environment, making it clear that The biometric analysis of voices is a separate and subsequent aspect to that of the technical integrity of the files..
The report is not reproducible because the experts have not had access to the necessary information, which is why they request it.
It is essential that the press understands that this is not a computer expert report, but rather an assessment report that questions the evidence. and requests the remains to be able to analyze them later.
The most technical part of the report is the analysis of IOS versions that do not correspond to the dates:
“Another aspect to highlight from the SECRIM report data is the simultaneous presence of signatures corresponding to two different versions of the operating system (iOS 12.2 and iOS 13.1.2), which constitutes, probably, the most compelling indication. No native recording of Voice Memos can simultaneously contain traces of two technically incompatible operating systems and therefore it is totally impossible for the app on its own to contain a double OS fingerprint.”
The most likely scenario is restoring from a backup in iCloud or iTunes. This is the strongest technical argument to explain the coexistence of versions without deliberate manipulation of the audio.
They can do the test.
That is, the first version corresponds with the creation and the second when it is downloaded. Another possibility is that IOS is programmed to update the system metadata as it is updated.
As citizens, we must value the rigorous analysis of evidence in a trial. What we have seen is misinformation amplified by media that prioritize scandal over accurate contextualization.
If you hear that “the audios are in doubt,” ask if the evidence has been manipulated, if there is concrete evidence or just assumptions, and if they correct errors or generate unfounded suspicions.
The answers clarify the picture. Both in justice and in journalism, evidence must outweigh hypotheses, otherwise our basic principles deteriorate.
*** Jorge Coronado is a computer expert.
The post The house of cards of Santos Cerdán’s ‘counter-expertise’ appeared first on Veritas News.
