Malaysiakini has this headline: Is the tape authentic? That's the panel's ONLY job.
The Star confirms this by quoting the Chairman of the panel, Haidar Mohd Noor as saying:
Haidar pointed out that the panel’s terms of reference “is very clear” – to check on the authenticity of the video clip. -OK... then here's a simple question.
Since all we're concerned with is the authenticity of the Lingam video, then why don't we just send the video to the FBI along with Nurin's web-cam recording?
I'm sure the FBI would be able to do a much better job getting to the bottom of the video, than two former judges and a professional collector of directors' fees (apparently all of unquestionable integrity, we're told by our DPM... and there I was... thinking that integrity was earned by a history of honest deeds rather than granted by executive order,.. silly me).
You know what..., you don't even need the FBI... the American CSI, especially the teams in Las Vegas (night shift), Miami and New York, have been known to do some amazing things with evidence analysis. I bet they can confirm a forensic match for the face on the video to Lingam's IC photo and by analysing the background noise, they can tell you if there was indeed someone on the other end of the phone call, who it was and what he said.
So, if authenticity is all we're concerned about, isn't the FBI a better technical choice? Unquestionability of integrity aside.
I wonder if the fact that the "independent" panel of unquestionable integrity -
(1) derives virtually all its power of investigation and inquiry from the leftover (read: tampered) evidence of our police and other govt agencies (also of unquestionable integrity);
(2) Cannot actually make contact with those implicated (??? WTF?); and
(3) has to submit its findings first (for appending and amending, I presume) - to the very Cabinet of Unequestionable Integrity, some of whom might possibly have their integrity questioned by the video;
... have anything to do with not choosing the FBI? (refer to 'How the Panel works)
And does that mean the cabinet member who obviously has the highest unquestionable integrity - especially when he insisted that there was "No crisis, no problem. I don't see any scandal" - could actually be the first one [and quite possibly the only one] to read the panel's report in its original, unamended form?
Despite all the chaps with unquestionable integrity - ummm, I choose the FBI.