Jonathan Tiongco

Hmmmm... sa dami ng mga audio experts sa bansa natin, bakit itong si Tiongco pa ang napili ni Mike Defensor? Kasi mukhang isang Ador Mawanay o Danny Devnani na naman ito eh.

Check out PCIJ's report on this guy.

UPDATE: don2x of Pinoyexchange sure does sound a lot like Jonathan Tiongco... Read don2x's posts below, then Tiongco's statement during Mike Defensor's Presscon and tell me what you think.

From the LAFI thread "Mainstream Media STILL won't play Gloriagate tapes"

Post 1:

what was the result of lacson authentication of the recordings? even the FBI signal analysis branch has admitted that it is difficult to detect some alterations when a recording is digitized into a computer system, physically or electronically edited. to authenticate, the original recording and the equipment/ components used to produce the recording must be provided. no wonder wycoco tried to cover the existence of gsm scanner during the hearings.

Post 2:

someone can digitally edit/ cut n paste voiceprints of gma and garci then re-record it to an analog tape recorder. it is very difficult to detect alteration on the re-recorded tape. it is like a xerox copy of an altered document. difficult to detect the alteration in the original. it would be credible if originality and content can be authenticated with forensic audio analysis. however the equipment/ components used in the recording must be present.

Post 3:

media and the opposition know that the cd/tape cannot be authenticated unless the one who made the original recording comes forward with all the gadgets used during the recording. best they could do is get expert's opinion which is not conclusive.

Post 4:

if they are not authenticated by credible forensic audio experts, then it is just like a xerox copy which is not conclusive. to authenticate, the equipment and components used in the recording must be present. i just assumed the recordings were just been given expert's opinion. perhaps they should release the audio analysis report.

And finally here's Mike defensor's expert, Jonathan Tiongco, during the press conference:

Take the report prepared by his "expert," Jonathan Tiongco. It sounds impressive enough with spectrographs and what not. But what does it say in the concluding paragraph, "Expert opinion/recommendation"?

"The recording are undeniably products of a series of wiretapped materials from most probably a landline or combination of landline and cellular. The authenticity of the alleged "Wiretapped Tapes" as material evidence may only be determined when; (1) the original tapes are examined; (2) matched to the recorder used; (3) the owner or operator of the tape recorder identified and (4) his/her "capacity to wiretap" verified. After submission of the alleged original tapes by Atty. Allan Paguia. which already contained labels indicating the time, date and other content details, it is therefore concluded that the tapes submitted, having been the product of review and overdubbed for labeling, are not the original first generation copies, if indeed there is any (underscoring in the original)."

Paguia has already told the House inquiry that his tape was a compilation of selected conversations from a much longer tape. What was the point of Defensor’s "expert" belaboring what is already on record?

What is more intriguing is that reference to the conditions (numbered 1 to 4) that must be fulfilled for the tapes to be considered material evidence.