Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video
-
Eirebilly - Posts: 2319
- Joined: 03 October 2009
- Location: The Netherlands
- Snooker Idol: Ken Doherty
- Highest Break: 74
eirebilly wrote:What really irritates me is that there are several people all making judgments without knowing the full story or the facts. Obviously i hope that John is innocent but if he is found guilty then he deserves to be banned. Its certain posters (mainly on the 606) that are causing irrepairable damage to his name by jumping on the guilty bandwagon without knowing the full story and really dragging him name in the mud.
Monique wrote:Because the legal rules are that John Higgins and his lawyers have a minimun of 3 weeks to prepare their defence and because the disciplinary committee a 2 weeks reflexion time to cross examine the case. So we can't expect anything before mid June, earliest date. That if no further investigation is required, f. I. because new elements have appeared during the investigations
rocket_ron wrote:yes barry said days and weeks not weeks and months. so why after a month are we still waiting?
wildJONESEYE wrote:Monique wrote:Because the legal rules are that John Higgins and his lawyers have a minimun of 3 weeks to prepare their defence and because the disciplinary committee a 2 weeks reflexion time to cross examine the case. So we can't expect anything before mid June, earliest date. That if no further investigation is required, f. I. because new elements have appeared during the investigations
so basically if new evidence is brought up every 3 to 4 weeks we could stil be here discussing this with John Higgins having to play the Q School to get back on tour (if inocent) in 2 years time
Dave H said...
David Douglas was going to resign if Hearn lost the June 2 vote, so he may have waited for that to be sorted.
Also, have the NOTW given him access to the full tapes (not the edited ones). If not, I'd imagine it would be rather difficult to investigate properly.
Sonny wrote:Let's play a game called "spot the comment by wildJONESEYE"
http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ng-on.html
OK I'll go first:
"i know you didn't say lol...
im not shooting the messenger.
i also hope every case is outed every player thats even been under the carpet suspicion sorted out and we get snooker so clean the pope would feel dirty lol "
I think Dave could do with some help from the Island's Hallenberg with his new blog design.
wildJONESEYE wrote:
thanx for that john no not seen it although we did know that the question is is there a unedited version if not let him off lets move on ok the doubt will be there and possibly he will find it hard but you cant convict him of that....
and to be honest by missing the PTC he has been punished
EXCLUSIVE: Forensic analysis points to ‘cut and paste’ in Higgins ‘match-fix’ sting video
By Nick Harris
18 June 2010
A second analysis of the News of the World video purporting to show the world No1 snooker player, John Higgins, agreeing to lose frames for cash has concluded that sections of the film have been ‘pasted together’, leading to a misrepresentation of events.
A forensic musicologist, using specialist equipment to examine for sportingintelligence the way the soundtrack of the tape was put together, has found “at least some of the audio has been manipulated and rearranged.”
The accompanying graphic represents one snippet of the film’s audio where a sentence has been “pasted” unnaturally into a sequence in the film. The red circle highlights a “giveaway” gap, estimated to be 100 milliseconds (a tenth of a second), which would not exist if the exchange had been left in its natural state.
( http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp- ... Edits1.png )
There are multiple examples in the video where words attributed to the speakers in the subtitles were wrongly transcribed, or not actually said at all. In at least one part of the video, words appear to have been dubbed onto the video later.
Other anomalies in the film include the end section where the figures involved – Higgins, his business partner Pat Mooney, and two undercover News of the World reporters, one of them Mazher Mahmood – toast each other with vodka. They do so next to a table laid out differently to a table featured only seconds before in scenes supposedly from the same meeting.
As sportingintelligence has previously reported, Higgins and Mooney were subject to an elaborate NotW ‘sting’, believed to have cost around £200,000. A fake website used in the sting was then taken down, and it then emerged for the first time that the NotW video evidence was not what it seemed at face value.
An investigation for snooker’s governing body by the former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent, David Douglas, should ascertain what really happened.
On the face of it, his task should be easy: given access to original, unedited footage, he should be able to judge whether the allegations against Higgins stand up, and then bring charges and prosecute.
Snooker does have a problem with match-fixing. Nobody inside the sport disagrees with that. Police action is ongoing, and more imminent, against a number of players.
Match-fixing is a scourge that needs to be eradicated from all sports.
But some disquiet remains about the methods used by the News of the World in the Higgins case, and questions remain unanswered about the evidence as presented, so far.
After extensive inquiries by sportingintelligence using sources including players, officials, agents, WPBSA board members past and present, current and former promoters, and journalists including those with first-hand knowledge of the News of the World’s work, including contemporary work, this website can reveal:
* the NotW has not handed over unedited raw footage, for reasons including legal reasons surrounding protection of identities.
* the NotW is, however, continuing to assisting Douglas with his inquiry, and is believed to have more information than it has published or screened, withheld so far for reasons unknown.
* a media source says the paper was looking “for some months” at one or more other snooker players, and into allegations of match-fixing (nothing to do with Higgins), but failed to gather sufficient evidence for a story, and then switched attention to Mooney.
* the NotW has nonetheless, separately, been in possession of another story relating to allegations of match-fixing against another player, also for several months, and has yet to run it for reasons unknown.
* the NotW has used sources within the world of snooker for its work on Higgins and Mooney, raising questions whether snooker insiders involved in the sting or in provoking it – if identified – should also face charges relating to enticement into match-fixing.
Higgins and Mooney were covertly taped by the News of the World at a meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, on Friday 30 April, at the end of a lengthy “sting” operation.
The News of the World alleged in its edition on 2 May that Higgins agreed to “a disgraceful deal to fix a string of high-profile matches after demanding a £300,000 kickback.”
The paper hasn’t detailed – yet – which matches Higgins allegedly agreed to fix, nor has it yet printed or screened evidence of him “demanding a £300,000 kickback.”
A week after the first allegations, the paper alleged in a headline that Higgins had bet on himself to lose the 2009 World Championship final and then detailed in a story how he had not actually had the bet in question.
There has been no suggestion by the paper at any time that Higgins or Mooney have committed any criminal offence, nor have the police or Gambling Commission been involved at any stage in this case.
Both men are certain to face “sporting charges” to be tabled by snooker’s world governing body. At the very least, they will face charges of failing to report an approach about match-fixing within 24 hours of receiving that approach.
No player is ever known to have been charged and punished for failing to report an approach, even though a number of players have made public statements saying they’ve had such approaches after the fact. Indeed the NotW carried such a claim on 2 May, by Mark King, in the same pages that it made claims about Higgins. It is understood King neither reported that alleged approach, nor faced action for not reporting it.
The head of the WPBSA, Barry Hearn, promised the enquiry would take “days and weeks” rather than “months and months”, but the immense complexities mean that it is taking longer than first envisaged. No time frame has been put on its completion.
The findings of all of sportingintelligence’s own inquiries have been made available to all interested parties.
paperbackwriter wrote:http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/other-sports-news/barry-hearn-confirms-that-investigation-into-claims-of-match-fixing-against-john-higgins-will-be-passed-on-to-an-independent-tribunal-1.1036344
So we should know the answers somewhere in July.
Monique wrote:All I want is the truth also and certainly NOTW are trying to hide something or some things, but what and why?
Just use your brain and put yourself in Higgins/Mooney shoes. Imagine that a tabloid would publish a video making it appear as if you said things you never said. What would be your reaction? Mine, and I think everyone's would be to claim they never said those things and that the video must be faked. But Higgins/Mooney didn't deny ... instead they put forward excuses to explain WHY they did it. So I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that the unedited video would show they indeed agreed to fix matches. Not a hint of a doubt.
So why was the video edited? I can think of a few possibilities and of course this is speculations.
The simplest one is that the unedited video would indeed prove Higgins/Mooney had reasons to believe they were in danger and that they were not relaxed as the intro suggests. That would give their defense substance and certainly cast serious doubts regarding their alledged consent to fix matches.
But there are other possibilities. An interesting one is that the unedited video could uncover the NOTW source. Well I'd love that! Nick Harris suggests that the source came from inside WPBSA. Now think about this for a minute. Imagine you are a member of WPBSA, not just a player paying membership, but an active person inside WPBSA and you come to know, or to strongly suspect, that the World n°1 is involved in cheating. What would you do? Personally I think I would share my concerns with the authorities and try to have an enquiry conducted internally while also confronting the player with the suspicions. This way before the truth is established no one's reputation would be blemished - don't forget people are deemed innocent until proven guilty - and the game would not be thrown in the spotlight in the worst possible way. You would expect someone from WPBSA would care for snooker and this would be important to them. But, no. This, or these, person(s) go and find one of the worst tabloids to get them setting up a very elaborated and expensive sting. You have to wonder about the person(s) motives. And I suppose that if Higgins could be blamed for not reporting the approach, this, or these, person(s) could a fortiori be blamed for not reporting their suspicions. Blamed at the very minimum. They also should be facing actions for "selling" them to the press instead, bringing the game in disrepute and endangering its sponsorship. I put "selling" with quotes because I don't know if there was money involved or just some personal/political motives.
Also Nick Harris states two things: 1. NOTW had suspicions about other player(s) but could not "concretise" them. However when coming to John Higgins/Pat Mooney they went to a very expensive sting setup to trap him and they did succeed. I'm afraid that whatever the NOTW is, they would only go to those extends if they had very solid elements to back their actions, irrespective of the way they came to acquire those elements. 2. NOTW allegedly has a story about another player but has not run it. Why? Again this is speculations but one possible reason I can think of is that there is already a legal action in progress against that player in which case NOTW can't publish anything without being deemed as "interfering" with the course of justice.