Destruction of Mostar Bridge video-tape IC00820 IT-04-74:Prlic and Others
Excerpt from Transcript: Report Findings
11. Dr. Pichler found that at least one of the videos upon which Janković based his opinion (TV ORF2, IC00820) was unreliable, edited and discontinuous in sequence. Specifically, Dr. Pichler confirmed the
“existence of an indeterminate time gap in the sequence of images caused by the change in the zoom range. This video sequence thus cannot be used as suitable evidence of the chronological sequence of the demolition process.”13
12. Dr. Pichler’s analysis was limited to the TV ORF2 (IC00820) video because he found the material sent by TV Mostar (IC00821) to be unsuitable for forensic analysis.14 Dr. Pichler found that the TV ORF material showed “individual chronological discontinuities”.15 Further, he noted that in general “video tapes produced for TV stations normally represent a sum of individual parts put together. However, from the point of view of forensic analysis, such video material can only be used for a very limited extent or not at all as evidence of certain time sequence.”16
13. Yet Janković, a mechanical engineer with no background in video forensics, relied on these television videos as the sole basis for his forensic expert report. In addition, the footage that Janković relied upon as “most important because it showed continuity” (TV Mostar, IC 00821) was found by Dr. Pichler not to be continuous, and to be “unsuitable for forensic analysis”. Indeed, Dr. Pichler had access to more original versions of both videos than the diluted versions that Janković viewed and still found them to be unsuitable.
14. Janković’s findings and opinion were based entirely on the “chronological sequence of the demolition process” 20 as shown in the ORF 2 and TV Mostar videos. Since the record clearly establishes that these videos do not contain a reliable and chronological sequence free of gaps or alterations, the Janković opinion has no validity.