Full Cached Version of Picture Recovered?

Before linking this, I have to note that I have never heard of this guy before 72 hours ago.

As usual, that doesn't mean I don't believe him. But it does mean I have no history with him by which to judge credibility.

He says he's got the Exif metadata from the cached picture. The results are slightly, slightly bad for Weiner: the pic was taken by a Blackberry, which his other Yfrog pictures were also taken with.

But the data fails to note Blackberry model or time-stamp (not even sure why the time-stamp matters; anyone could have had this photo from months ago).

So it's not dispositive -- even the model of the Blackberry, I think a 9650 in Weiner's case, would not have really proved things beyond doubt because it's a popular cellphone/camera -- but it is yet another case where the evidence could turn towards the exculpatory side but fails to do so.

And this is all assuming this is the actual data recovered as it was originally presented, and that this analysis is accurate.

I do not know this type of stuff. I did my very first photoshop yesterday and I continue to be unable to even keep my phone in a charged state.

Doubts? Lee Stranahan, that liberal who usually says honest stuff about his own side, has been covering this case for Big Breitbart, and has tended to be pretty firmly on the "Wasn't a Hack" side of things.

But he says he doubts the picture would contain Exif information. I'm trying to find out why he doubts that now, and if he doubts it, if he believes it's faked.

Here are his problems: 1, that the information in question indicates the photo was taken hours later than it assumedly was. Corrected: He's saying the "last modified" stuff for the Exif is later than the picture was snapped. But see below.

2, that the phone's model number was present in Weiner's other photos but is now absent in this one.

3, Wrong resolution? He says other pictures were in a different resolution.

Let me say the obvious: If Stranahan has evidence of fakery, that is very, very good for Anthony Weiner. On the other hand, if this can be explained, it's not really good for him, but only slightly bad. Basing a case on the fact that a picture taken by a Blackberry is like a basing it on the suspect escaping in a Ford.

Eh: FilmLadd says the "modified" information on my avatar, for instance, shows today's date. When someone else opens the Exif of the photo, they get today's date. So Stranahan's point that the Exif shows a later date is irrelevant -- anytime you look at this stuff it gives you a "last modified" date of right now.

posted by Ace at 12:56 PM

| Access Comments