The Minister of Justice, Juan José Santiváñezannounced that it will challenge the expertise carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office to the recording delivered by Captain PNP Junior Izquierdo, where it is heard what would be the voice of Santiváñez when it was Minister of the Interior.
As recalled, Fourth Power revealed on Sunday the phonetic-acoustic expert report confirming that the voice in the filtered audios would belong to the current Minister of Justice, Juan José Santiváñez.
The document, prepared by three specialists from the Public Ministry (a Telecommunications Engineer, a Physics and a Forensic Linguist), concludes with high scientific probability that the voice in the recording conducted by the left —alias “Culebra” – corresponds to Santiváñez.
The Santiváñez version
The head of Justice sent a statement announced that his lawyer, Carlos Caro, will present a challenge against the expertise. He argues that “its content is contradicted with the supposed conclusions where it cannot be proven that it is my voice, but that they give it for a certain for the probability they allege.”
Santiváñez said that he will present an expertise of part “that will dismiss the alleged conclusions exposed that are conditioned with the content of the analysis itself.” “The experts themselves declared that they could not do it because the audios contributed for the analysis were not indubitable,” says the document.
“The expert opinion shown in the same content for the fourth power indicates that the audios contributed cannot be used since they do not constitute an indubitable evidence. […] The experts said that they could not practice expertise based on what was delivered by the Prosecutor’s Office since the audios contributed are not suitable for being considered indubitable, “he said
The minister said that “scientific practice forces all experts to go with code, fiscal folder and report number.” In that sense, he said that “this expertise has none of those three requirements.”
Santiváñez argued that “none of the tests has been compared to a mother sample, but that these are recordings extracted from interviews, these samples are not valid, because the real recording mother disc must always be made, which has not happened in this case.”
Finally, he points out that the expertise “has a series of inconsistencies because throughout the supposed analysis it is stated that the evidence provided is not indubitable.”
“However, high probability is alleged that does not mean certainty of the audios contributed by the Prosecutor’s Office, but the television program exposes them that way,” he said.
Receive your Peru21 by email or by WhatsApp. Subscribe to our enriched digital newspaper. Take advantage of discounts here.
Recommended video:
