"If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right. Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business."

Said Hany Farid, "a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation."

Quoted in "Metadata Shows the FBI’s ‘Raw’ Jeffrey Epstein Prison Video Was Likely Modified/There is no evidence the footage was deceptively manipulated, but ambiguities around how the video was processed may further fuel conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death" (Wired).

Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro. The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as 'raw' footage. Experts caution that it’s unclear what exactly was changed, and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation. The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. But the absence of a clear explanation for the processing of the file using professional editing software complicates the Justice Department’s narrative...."

If it was manipulated — and still presented as raw — that was done for a reason. What was the reason if not to deceive? You can't say there is "no evidence" of a proposition when there is a basis for inference. If you manipulate to deceive, you try to cover your tracks. Portraying the footage as raw when it is not raw is itself deceit. The question is how far does the deceit go.

The phrase "the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation" jumps out at me, because it leaves open the proposition that the metadata is probative of deceptive manipulation and certainly doesn't mean that the the metadata proves that there was no deceptive manipulation.

And the phrase "processed for public release" is maddening. What we wanted to see was unprocessed video. Why process it for us? The processing is what makes us suspect manipulation, so it should be the last thing you would want to do. If there were 2 clips, you could give us 2 clips. You didn't need to "stitch" them together. So "no modifications beyond stitching together two clips" sounds fishy.

Finally: "[T]he FBI did not respond to specific questions about the file’s processing, instead referring WIRED to the DOJ. The DOJ in turn referred inquiries back to the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP did not respond to a request for comment.... One media forensics expert... put it bluntly: 'It looks suspicious—but not as suspicious as the DOJ refusing to answer basic questions about it.'"