Canadian Police Officer found Not Guilty in murder trial, but media continues to use fabricated video to prosecute the officer.
Grant Fredericks
Certified Forensic Video Analyst, Law Enforcement Video Trainer, Instructor: FBI National Academy
This week’s ‘Not Guilty’ ruling in the murder trial of Ottawa Police Constable Daniel Montsion has provoked continued misuse of altered video by the Canadian media. The Prosecution’s video contained in the latest Graig Lord Global News reports was rejected by the trial judge last year. I testified for the Defense in this case, and demonstrated how the prosecutor’s video was processed inaccurately, giving the illusion of increased speed and force. The judge chose to use the accurate iNPUT-ACE exhibits created from the original proprietary PSF file. I demonstrated how to create accurate video evidence with iNPUT-ACE live in the court room. The iNPUT-ACE exhibits showed a stark difference to the appearance of force when compared to the prosecution's biased exhibit that was created by screen capturing the video from the DVR player.
Ontario Judge Robert Kelly:
"The Crown’s submissions make no mention of its expert witness, Mr. Segeren. This is not surprising since this witness’ evidence receded into the background after disposition of the stay application and the agreement leading to the admission of the PSF and MP4 videos. Defence counsel rely on the evidence of their expert, Mr. Fredericks, in support of their contention that the video should be approached with caution. In their written submissions, counsel seized on some of the more important considerations underlying Mr. Fredericks’ concerns about the reliability of the video evidence. Crown counsel cross-examined Mr. Fredericks but made no submissions directly challenging his opinions. Again, this may not be surprising. By the end of the trial, once both parties had a sophisticated understanding of the video files, a number of technical issues about the video were no longer the subject of serious dispute."
More from the ruling: https://bit.ly/2ThdOZ3
The prosecutor’s video evidence purports to show an officer slamming the man’s head to the ground. The judge rejected that unreliable version due to a number of technical issues, some of which are well articulated in this July 2019 Blog Post about this case: https://input-ace.com/accurate-video-evidence-tells-another-story-in-uof-case/
The take-a-way from this case, is that video is often processed incorrectly, potentially leading to misinterpretation and unintentional bias.
Grant, Thank you for the work you put into this. It hits close to home. 4 long years and it’s finally over.
Training Manager Axon Investigate
4 年When faced with facts and incontrovertibly correct scientific presentation of evidence, the judge made the right call. Anyone coming to a different conclusion belies their purported search for truth and demonstrates they are approaching the situation with an agenda. Excruciatingly common these days, on all levels.
Detective Sergeant (Retired) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence
4 年Nice work Grant. So glad the court followed the science and you where there to explain it.
Principal & CEO at Joel Johnston Consulting Inc.
4 年The media continues to fan the flames of division, racism, anti-police sentiment, among other destructive themes - the question is why? What motivates an institution to deliberately distort the truth to cause angst, provoke violence, and erode the social fabric? Surely it can't just come down to selling more soap!?
Owner, Director of Training, EastSide Combatives
4 年The media would do that? I'm amazed.