Tale of the Tape: Two out of three forensic audio experts agree ... to disagree. Or not. - Macleans.ca

Tale of the Tape: Two out of three forensic audio experts agree … to disagree. Or not.


Don’t worry, I’ll be back on duty later tonight, and you can bet that I’ll have plenty to say about the most recent developments in the Cadman case:

  • the latest revelations from the case file to be unearthed by Canadian Press: at least one of the still unknown number of forensic audio experts hired by the PM’s legal team to analyse the now infamous tape was unwilling to state conclusively that the recording had been “doctored”
  • Tom Zytaruk’s very public plea for Dona Cadman to set the record straight.

For now, though, amateur Cadmanologists can colonize this shiny, new thread to continue the conversation.

Restore Text


Tale of the Tape: Two out of three forensic audio experts agree … to disagree. Or not.

  1. Maybe it’s two out of four, Kady. As I think I remarked on another thread, there was a CP article that mentioned another audio expert, Steven Pausak, who was asked to review the tape. Article doesn’t say who asked him, however.

    “Audio expert studied controversial Cadman tape for mystery client
    The Canadian Press – 06-13-2008 – 16:50ET – 620 words
    Steve Rennie – says someone hired him to analyze the explosive recording at the heart of the Chuck Cadman affair. But Stevan Pausak won’t say who. He also refused to discuss when he”

    It’s in the CP archives. I am not a subscriber, but ITQ should be. Perhaps this will help.

  2. Yes, Anon, I remember that story and have referred to it in other ITQ blog posts on this topic. Still not sure how it impacts on this continuing saga.

    You know, some complained about the CanWest article that had as its headline the claim that Dona Cadman disputed Zytaruk’s version of events. The facts of the article didn’t appear to support the headline.

    I’m not sure if the facts of this current CP article, published on the Macleans Web site, support the headline that reads: “Expert contradicts two other experts in Cadman-Harper tape controversy.”

    Does he really contradict them? Or does he offer another threshold for drawing a definitive conclusion?

    In fact, he refuses to deem the tape clean.

  3. It seems Macleans blogs won’t post a URL at the moment, but if you follow the path back (to BCLSB)it looks to me that all Zytaruk is being accused of is recycling an old tape when he was interviewing Harper. In other words, audible traces of material copied over appears on the tape in question.

  4. Wow, what is up with the Lower Mainland and suspicious audio tapes?

  5. Dennis (Second Thots) wrote:”Does he really contradict them? Or does he offer another threshold for drawing a definitive conclusion?”

    If an expert says (correctly) that the original recording and the tape recorder *are required* to conduct a conclusive authenticity examination in a forensic audio laboratory, while the two other experts seems it’s not necessary, then there is a clear contradiction; it’s required or it’s not.

    So now we have experts who not only can’t even agree on what was said but also on whenever merely analyzing a copy of a tape (without the original tape recorder) has any value at all when “conducting a conclusive authenticity examination”.

  6. “Does he really contradict them? Or does he offer another threshold for drawing a definitive conclusion?”

    Dennis, I think that CP is saying that by offering another threshold, he’s contradicting Thomas Owen’s affidavit when he says “with scientific certainty that this tape has been edited and doctored to misrepresent the event as it actually occurred.” (this quote taken from the CP article). If Koeing is saying that he needs more evidence, that does contradict Owen’s statement of scientific certainty.

    With that said, I agree that the headline is misleading; if I read it I would have assumed that Koeing said there was no doctoring of the tapes. In the article, they do a very weak job of “proving” that Koeing contradicted Gough.

  7. I don’t know if this will answer that ? but… Back in the day when we needed to explain some sort of B.C. wierdness, (Human feet wash up on shore where I come from!) we always fell back on the following solution. It’s not that B.C. politicians are wackier than anywhere else, but the voters out here like the wacky ones more.

  8. As a radio station tech, I know that 1 noise can come from phone lines or poor quality tape . Who knows if others were not tapping into the line like spies thats why the clicks or changes in levels or noise, I would be real surprised it it was a real clean sounding tape.

  9. Here’s the story about the “mystery client” whom retained expert Stevan Pausak.

    Here’s my guess: someone retained Pausak to examine the tape, and didn’t like his conclusions. Thus, they don’t use his expert report, or it was never written based on a preliminary assessment; the CPC may have retained several more experts to examine the tape than we know; as usual in litigation a party only relies on those reports that helps their case. The rest are protected from disclosure by what we call litigation privileged (documents prepared in contemplation of litigation).

  10. That said, Pausak would certainly be a relevant witness, if he, indeed, examined the tapes. If I were litigating this action, I would probably serve Pausak with a motion for third party production of any documents in his power, possession or control relevant to the proceedings. Sounds like his “analysis” would certainly be relevant. You’d find out pretty quickly who was the mystery client by watching who opposes the motion on grounds of privilege.

  11. Thanks for the link, Anon.

    New information: Daryl Reid takes over as director of policy, and Mark Cameron as director of planning and priorities, which is sorta kinda what was rumoured (I’ve heard a few different titles along that general theme) would happen; Lynette Corbett (a woman!) as director, strategic planning (is that Keith Beardsley’s old job with a new name?) and a former ministerial staffer – Matt Wolf – in issues management.

    Those changes haven’t made it to GEDS yet, which seems to be the source for most of the information. Believe me, I’ve been checking it so often I can recite the members of the correspondence unit *in order* from memory at this point. Hopefully I can get something approaching official confirmation in time for the Monday edition of GiornoWatch. Which will, indeed, return. Eternal vigilance and all that.

  12. Corbett as DoSP, I’m assuming, is in the Strategic Planning group headed by Patrick “SuperStrategist” Muttart. Lots of Chiefs in that group, nothing but Directors and Managers.

    I’m guessing that Novak, as Principal Sec, will also have some role in Strategic Planning as will the GreatGiorno.

    Beardsley was Deputy Chief of Issues Management, whatever that is (rapid response?), which will now be headed by Jenni Byrne.

    Perhaps, Kady, you can also figure out what Neil Brodie’s (brother of the departed but apparently not lamented Ian Brodie) qualifications are to be the Chief of Staff to the Intl Trade Minister.

  13. Well, here’s the latest update to the tale of the tape.

    Summary: Conservatives got court order. Zytaruk will hand over tape to third party, who will be responsible for chain of custody. Conservative and Liberal audio experts will then have at it.

    Oh, and Zytaruk will be given $250 to testify at the lawsuit.

    Note: It’s the Conservatives who want to get to the bottom of the tape issue.

    Have a good weekend.