Topic locked

New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Roland

"As snooker’s governing body, the WPBSA, continues its inquiry into claims by the News of the World that John Higgins agreed to fix frames, a new analysis of the video evidence against Higgins published by the NotW suggests the footage has not only been cut and edited without full context to suit the NotW’s story but that some sub-titles are factually wrong and that some words presented as attributable to Higgins do not appear to have been spoken by him.

Whether there is a plausible explanation for this remains to be seen. Perhaps haste was to blame: the piece of footage most damning to Higgins involved him and his agent, Pat Mooney, and was filmed during a meeting in Ukraine on Friday 30 April. The edited video “highlights” had to be turned around within a day so they could be on the NotW website by late the following evening.

Whatever the reasons that some “errors” crept in – and on the basis of “innocent until proven guilty”, the assumption must be that the NotW did not introduce them to mislead – they are sure to be of interest to the WPBSA.

Its inquiry is being led by the former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent, David Douglas, and he has apparently been promised full assistance by the NotW, although it is not known whether he has had full access to all the details of the NotW’s sting (including a fake website, now taken down, more of which later), or all audio and video footage amassed during it.

The discrepancies highlighted by the new analysis of the video at the heart of the case against Higgins suggest full context will be required for a full and thorough investigation.

A full transcript of the video as screened is further down this page, but three discrepancies are as follows. (The timings mentioned are as found on this YouTube link of the video).

17-23 seconds: in a context unclear, the “main man” on the NotW sting team (we call him MM), says: “You’re going to tell him frame three I’m going to lose”. This is accurately reflected in the sub-title: “You are going to tell him frame three I am going to lose.”

The NotW sub-title then has Higgins saying: “Oh yeah. Frame three I am going to lose yes, yes”. The sub-title evidently draws the eye. But looking solely at what Higgins actually says and does reveals a difference between presentation and fact.

What Higgins actually appears to say is: “Frame three I’m going to lose, yeah. No. [Shakes head no].

.

42-46 seconds: The MM, again in an unclear context, says to Higgins: “So you narrowly miss a ball go to pocket and that’s it.” This sentence, albeit oddly worded, is reflected correctly in the subtitle.

In the video, it is clear from Higgins’ lip movement that he says only a single word here in reply: “Yeah”.

Bizarrely, Higgins’ reply according to the sub-title, slightly out of sync, is: “Yeah, simple as that.”

Yet the words “simple as that” are spoken by a different voice, apparently in an English accent and not obviously attached to anyone in the room.

From all the footage made public, it appears there were four people in the room: Higgins, Mooney (both Scottish), the MM (whose voice is disguised) and somebody later named as Jaroslav, who speaks in heavily accented English. The person saying “Simple as that” is not known, but the NotW clearly suggests in subtitles that Higgins speaks those words.

It is to be expected that Higgins’ legal team will doing their own detailed analysis of all and any materials that have led to his suspension from all snooker. A sound recording expert who has analysed the video for sportingintelligence says: “This is neither Higgins nor Mooney saying ‘simple as that’ as their lips do not move. It is also highly unlikely to be anyone in the room, as the voice is a clear English accent which has not been treated with the same pitch-shifting effect as the interviewer.”

.

1min 15sec – 1min 17sec: MM’s voice is heard asking a question: “How are we going to do the payment side?” but the question appears not to be in natural sync with the response from Mooney.

The sub-title for Mooney’s answer states: “I suggest put, you know you name the company you want . . . ”

What Mooney actually says on the video is: “ . . . is I suggest you put, you name the company you want . . .”

Analysis of the clip suggests Mooney either began his answer mid-sentence with the word “is”, or else the question and answer were cut together to appear to be something they’re not.

Such issues can quickly and easily be answered for Douglas by him being given the full footage as originally shot.

Douglas almost certainly will not have any access to the “sports insider” who set in train the NotW’s investigation in the first place. As the NotW states clearly on its “Sell a story” page, it has “a duty to protect the identity of confidential sources”.

Protection of sources is fundamental to investigative journalism for numerous good reasons, and sportingintelligence of course endorses protection of sources, especially in pursuit of corruptors in sport; match-fixing is a subject we have already covered often and take seriously.

Douglas may or may not be concerned with the elaborate nature of the sting, but solely its end product.

Higgins and Mooney are sure to argue that context is everything, and that they were entrapped by reporters pretending they wanted to stage events – or “exhibitions” as one NotW reporter was quoted as saying in the paper’s first-day coverage of the story on 2 May.

Part of the sting involved the setting up of a website for a fake company, Alfa Equity, which used details from real and respectable companies to appear authentic.

Some of these companies were and remain unhappy about this. The fake website has been taken down but sportingintelligence saved scans and other related data before it disappeared, a small amount of which we published here.

Most of the cache of the website has subsequently been removed, although other evidence has been left behind.

The News of the World ran two weeks of the Higgins story, on 2 and 9 May, but did not follow this up with any further revelations last weekend. The paper did, however, carry a small editorial on the subject, despite carrying no new copy, saying:

“THE News of the World’s investigation into snooker star John Higgins, leading agent Pat Mooney and match fixing goes to the heart of the game’s integrity and credibility.

This week we handed a detailed dossier of damning evidence to Barry Hearn, chairman of the sport’s governing body.

We know many of our readers are huge fans, and Mr Hearn will be keener than anyone to root out corruption and do for snooker what he has done for darts.

Anything less and the game as a national TV spectacle is finished.


http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... es-180501/

---------------------------------------

Also this sums it up for me:

"Did he throw a match? No. Did he agree to throw a match? No. He simply spoke, in response to much prompting after a great deal of alcohol (and he is no drinker), about how it would be possible to lose frames."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... hn-higgins


I hope Higgins is found innocent and I believe him to be innocent. :santa:

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

Hmmm. Interesting, and it would imply there is more to this story then meets the eye. But one question still remains. Why the hell would Higgins not say this when first accused? Higgins' statement on the day of the final, read by the BBC, claimed Higgins played along because he feared for his life.

If the NOTW had heavily editted it to make it look like he was saying stuff that he wasn't, why did Higgins not mention this? Why did he say he played along if the NOTW were lying? Nowhere does he claim he was made to say stuff that he didn't.

I want Higgins to be innocent, I really do, and I'd jump for joy if the News of the World were proved to have lied, and had to print a retraction.... But it seems odd that Higgins didn't mention this at the time.
Last edited by SnookerFan on 21 May 2010, edited 1 time in total.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

The NotW sub-title then has Higgins saying: “Oh yeah. Frame three I am going to lose yes, yes”. The sub-title evidently draws the eye. But looking solely at what Higgins actually says and does reveals a difference between presentation and fact.

What Higgins actually appears to say is: “Frame three I’m going to lose, yeah. No. [Shakes head no].

.

Higgins <ok>

NOTW :bird:

A nice little retraction should now be enforced highlighting this section. Now I am not saying on the full story but this was one of the most damming sentences in that tape, they have a duty to report the correct words.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Roland

John's initial statement was on the day of the story wasn't it? In which case he was forced into a statement and wouldn't have had time or the level headedness to study the footage in minute detail.

It's quite clear the NOTW aren't telling the whole story, haven't shown the unedited tape so comments can be taken in the right context, and also never mentioned the fact the pair of them were plied with alcohol which as everyone knows is the time verbal diahorrea and bravado can get you into trouble.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:John's initial statement was on the day of the story wasn't it? In which case he was forced into a statement and wouldn't have had time or the level headedness to study the footage in minute detail.

It's quite clear the NOTW aren't telling the whole story, haven't shown the unedited tape so comments can be taken in the right context, and also never mentioned the fact the pair of them were plied with alcohol which as everyone knows is the time verbal diahorrea and bravado can get you into trouble.


True enough. Though, you would assume that Higgins would know if he'd gone along with somebody requesting he'd asked to fix a match or not. If he was completely innocent of any wrong-doing, and the video was entirely editted to make him look guilty, then why did he say he had gone along with it because he was scared for his life? Seems odd. If I was sure I hadn't said or done something, my first reaction wouldn't be to try to explain what I'd said, it'd be to claim that I hadn't said it. If this came to trial, and I was the prosecution lawyer, my first question to Higgins after this came to light would be; "If the News of the World lied, how come you're first reaction wasn't to deny you'd said it?"

On saying that, the NOTW have made themselves look like a right bunch of knobheads with this. I am hoping this is proven. Even the bits we saw were obviously editted. If it is proven that the NOTW has had a hand in editting this, the story falls apart. They will be the ones who have to explain themselves, and not Higgins. And us snooker fans, as has been said, can give one big :bird: to the sorry excuse for a paper. I mean, to be honest, John Higgins, the world number one and three time world champion fixing matches sounded pretty implausible from the start... I think we would all hope this evidence proves conclusive. And the NOTW prove themselves to be dipsticks.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Roland

It's also worth pointing out that NOTW didn't mention this story on Sunday (unless it was mentioned in the actual paper and not the website) which gives the impression of causing a rubbish storm then snake hissing off into the distance to ruin someone else's life leaving a trail of destruction in their wake and no accountability to anyone.

It would be so easy to have a hypothetical discussion about how easy it would be to fix a match. It's the sort of thing you can talk about, to hypothesise about without actually doing it. I know there was a handshake and a "chin chin" moment but that doesn't prove rubbish. Higgins has been a brilliant ambassador for snooker down the years and surely he deserves the fans to stick up for him and trust in him until such time as he's found guilty?

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

I agree the editing or subtitles didn't correspond at times but you really are clutching at straws if you think John didnt say what he said on tape unless they got a dubber in or Alister McGowan to impersonate John he did say it maybee not word for word on subtitles but its his words and he said it.

im not good with written words as you know so i listened very carefully and not read what was said.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

But that is it. The subtitles did say words that John did not. Obviously not all of it but still, on such a critical sentence its something that you cannot get wrong

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

case_master wrote:But that is it. The subtitles did say words that John did not. Obviously not all of it but still, on such a critical sentence its something that you cannot get wrong


yes but listen to the tape it was said as it was said mate he was herd saying it was easy to throw frames he was herd saying how he would money lounder the cash that was not written that was said.

as snookerfan said he has never denied saying these things all hes done is say he felt intimidated to say it so thats his best line of defense if he will go along with this editing story now he will look guilty by changing his story.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Monique

well ... playing a bit of devil's advocate ...

NOTW has promised and will be requested anyway to give the full unedited video to David Douglas, a (former) MET Superintendant, as part of the evidence. If there are blatant decrepencies between the full vid and the published one, NOTW exposes themselves to be sued for libel (at a minimum) and to being forced to publish apologies and probably to pay a little fortune as reparation for the damage done. They are no debutants and I'm sure they have considered the risks before embarking into this.

John Higgins first reaction wasn't to deny the facts, namely agreeing to fix frames in WSS future matches, it was to provide an excuse for doing it ... that's a bit strange to say the least.

I don't know when John was informed about the article, but I can tell you it was already known to the people present in the media room at the Crucible around 9:30 pm on the Saturday; the full stuff was already on the NOTW site... We were asked to embargo the news at the time. And it appeared that time the WPBSA press officer had already be informed earlier, how much earlier I don't know though. I would be very surprised if Barry Hearn hadn't contacted John Higgins and/or Pat Mooney right away.

Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence hasn't seen the full video himself. So this is his analysis, nothing more. In a former article he put forward alledged decrepensies in the fake compagny's name to cast doubts... it was about Alfa and Alpha... well Alpha or Alfa bank is a russian compagny and there is onely one letter in cyrillic alphabet for the sound "f" or "ph" ... so this was totally irrelevant, as you could translitterate the bank's name corectly both ways.

Having said all that I wish John Higgins is proven innocent. But there is a lot to be explained. My only hope for him is that he can prove he was mainly stupid and trusted Pat Mooney too much. Because I really can't see how Pat Mooney can possibly clear his own name in this affair, there were several meetings and some of what he says (involving Graeme Dott and Selby nortably) sounds unedited and pretty damning. And note that Nick Harris doesn't say much if anything to try and defend Mooney.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

i totally agree with what monique has said there and that statement read out by hazel Irvine on that sunday tells me he did say what he said or words to that effect.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:well ... playing a bit of devil's advocate ...

NOTW has promised and will be requested anyway to give the full unedited video to David Douglas, a (former) MET Superintendant, as part of the evidence. If there are blatant decrepencies between the full vid and the published one, NOTW exposes themselves to be sued for libel (at a minimum) and to being forced to publish apologies and probably to pay a little fortune as reparation for the damage done. They are no debutants and I'm sure they have considered the risks before embarking into this.

John Higgins first reaction wasn't to deny the facts, namely agreeing to fix frames in WSS future matches, it was to provide an excuse for doing it ... that's a bit strange to say the least.

I don't know when John was informed about the article, but I can tell you it was already known to the people present in the media room at the Crucible around 9:30 pm on the Saturday; the full stuff was already on the NOTW site... We were asked to embargo the news at the time. And it appeared that time the WPBSA press officer had already be informed earlier, how much earlier I don't know though. I would be very surprised if Barry Hearn hadn't contacted John Higgins and/or Pat Mooney right away.

Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence hasn't seen the full video himself. So this is his analysis, nothing more. In a former article he put forward alledged decrepensies in the fake compagny's name to cast doubts... it was about Alfa and Alpha... well Alpha or Alfa bank is a russian compagny and there is onely one letter in cyrillic alphabet for the sound "f" or "ph" ... so this was totally irrelevant, as you could translitterate the bank's name corectly both ways.

Having said all that I wish John Higgins is proven innocent. But there is a lot to be explained. My only hope for him is that he can prove he was mainly stupid and trusted Pat Mooney too much. Because I really can't see how Pat Mooney can possibly clear his own name in this affair, there were several meetings and some of what he says (involving Graeme Dott and Selby nortably) sounds unedited and pretty damning. And note that Nick Harris doesn't say much if anything to try and defend Mooney.


Agreed, Mon. If Higgins is innocent, he's done himself no favours. If his original story was true, then he did himself no favours by not contacting the authorities before the story broke. If it's true that the video was highly editted, why the need for an explanation of the way he acted? It doesn't matter whether he had studied the video or not, if he was totally innocent, and was lied about, he would've denied the claims, not said; "I did what was claimed because...."

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

I am not arguing with that Wild what I am saying is that not all of the video is correct. That was a vital sentence that they have reported wrong - John said NO.

Its throws the credibility of the footage into question. What else have they got wrong? What was the money for - to throw frames or a backhander for staging the event? What were they toasting at the end? to throw frames or for setting up a new tournament?

Only the full unedited version will answer these questions - the footage from John walked into the room to the second he left. <ok>

Monique - the NOTW had a photo of John Higgins at his house (daylight) breaking the news to him so that must have been the Saturday afternoon.

With regards to suing the NOTW, well its not as Simple as that. The paper are free to edit the video to a fairly high degree, which it look like they have done. They can also put their own spin on it.

Sure take last weeks headline for example ‘Higgins bets on himself to lose’ Eh no he didn’t, the bet did not get placed. The paper are factually incorrect but they cannot be sued as it was an interpretation on the facts.

It would seem they have made mistakes in the documentation of the video footage and I would imagine they will have to re-edit it to show what John said in those clips. As for a penalty for making that mistake, well it would be minimal as they will claim an admin error rather than trying to distort the facts

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

With regards to contacting the authorities, what time did John get back in Scotland at? The NOTW called at his home in daylight on the Saturday…just throwing that out there.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

case_master wrote:With regards to contacting the authorities, what time did John get back in Scotland at? The NOTW called at his home in daylight on the Saturday…just throwing that out there.

on reflection i dont believe john had time to contact anyone....you got to appreciate contacting someone could immediately put his manager,friend and someone he trusted in the rubbish so put yourself in his shoes wouldn't you want to talk it over with your wife or father first before you do something that could be devastating for all.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

I'm still not 100% convinced he's completely innocent but he at least some explanation. He should have mentioned this instead of that nonsence about the Russian Mafia. If he sues the NOTW and wins I'll probably die from laughing so hard.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

Well this is not America. Sue this sue that, balls. It is not that easy in this Country to do so, the press have considerable freedom and are able to edit context and footage to distort the truth. Its not liable because the person has said it, however the context can be something totally different.

Sure look at Jan Moir over the Stephen Gately death, there was a record number of complaints made to the press complaints commission due to her inaccurate report. However the complaint was rejected, her report was totally off the mark which was highlighted by the Gately’s autopsy results. This just goes to show how hard it is to sue the press, they know how to manipulate the boundaries.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:I'm still not 100% convinced he's completely innocent but he at least some explanation. He should have mentioned this instead of that nonsence about the Russian Mafia. If he sues the NOTW and wins I'll probably die from laughing so hard.

mate in any investigation you got to say the truth firstly and be consistent from there on changing stories or saying lies no matter how innocent a lie it is could be your downfall.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:I'm still not 100% convinced he's completely innocent but he at least some explanation. He should have mentioned this instead of that nonsence about the Russian Mafia.


This about sums it up. I think what is obvious, is the same thing that has been obvious all along. The full story hasn't been told. The facts are not all there, there are too many questions.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:I believe Higgins over tabloid scum every day of the week.

believing is one thing proving is another.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Sonny wrote:I believe Higgins over tabloid scum every day of the week.

believing is one thing proving is another.


So he has to prove he is innocent?

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

case_master wrote:With regards to contacting the authorities, what time did John get back in Scotland at? The NOTW called at his home in daylight on the Saturday…just throwing that out there.


Lets, for arguments sake, assume that is true. Higgin's original story about the Russian Mafia is true. And he got home, and chose to not rush the decision, completely unaware that this would hit the headlines. This renders this NOTW editting the video story somewhat of an irrelevance. If what he claims is true, and can be proven, we don't need to start analysis if every subtitle of what was said was accurate. He is already innocent.

However, if the NOTW editting story is proven to be true, and then Higgins is proven innocent that way, it still leaves the original question. What the hell was he talking about in his statement?

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Roland

They have to prove he is guilty, he shouldn't have to prove he is innocent. You should give Higgins the benefit of the doubt instead of making out he's guilty in every post. What's he ever done to you? And why have you conveniently forgotten what he's done for snooker and how much of an ambassador he's been? Snooker people should stick together. The NOTW accusations against Higgins are flimsy at best. His version is entirely believable.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

case_master wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
Sonny wrote:I believe Higgins over tabloid scum every day of the week.

believing is one thing proving is another.


So he has to prove he is innocent?


well yes if punters and fans will believe him again and give him the respect he deserves as a great player..

i think hes innocent i really do but im 1 person sonny is another theres plenty in the media that would crucify him should he miss a easy pot or whatever.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Wildey

what it comes down to is John cant really come back with a verdict not enough evidence to charge him he has to come back with a verdict enough evidence to prove he didn't do it.

we all know of celebrities thats never really worked again with not enough evidence to charge him Michael Barrymore is one theres always a cloud hanging over him.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby Casey

So what, its on John to prove he is innocent or else?

I am more certain than ever he will be back on the tour next year. A dossier of the sporting intelligence reports has been OFFICALLY handed to Barry Hearn.

Although I do wonder what level of play John could produce. Hard to see him picking up at his best.

Re: New concerns over editing of Higgins video

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:They have to prove he is guilty, he shouldn't have to prove he is innocent. You should give Higgins the benefit of the doubt instead of making out he's guilty in every post. What's he ever done to you? And why have you conveniently forgotten what he's done for snooker and how much of an ambassador he's been? Snooker people should stick together. The NOTW accusations against Higgins are flimsy at best. His version is entirely believable.


I personally have forgotten nothing of the sort. I have said constantly, throughout all of this that Higgins was one of my favourite players. And I want him, truly want him, to be found innocent. He is one of the greatest players of all time, in my eyes. And his skills on the table, and conduct off it pryor to this happening are in my opinion, above reproach.

However,,questions haven't be answered here. And I want him to be innocent. I am desperately hoping when these questions are answered, they are done in a manner which proves beyond doubt he is innocent. The top question is why he didn't contact any authorities... But maybe, as has been suggested, the story broke before he had the time to do so. If he was rushed, and flustered as to what to do, and wanted to discuss it with somebody beforehand, then I can see. And the story broke too soon after he arrived back. Problem is, people more important then me rose this question, and it was never explained in his statement.

I hope to god that is correct, and that gets proven.