The 37 Scientific Evidence of Digital Evidence Tampering on CCTV Footage at Olivier Café: The Jessica Kumala Wongso Case (2016), Carried Out by Muhammad Nuh Al-Azhar and Christopher Hariman Rianto, Who were Under the Leadership of the General Crime Director of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police, Krishna Murti, and the Chief of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police, Tito Karnavian.
EVIDENCE 16: CONTENTS OF FOLDERS CCTV 7 AND CCTV 9 ON THE FLASH DRIVE IN THE PROSECUTOR'S HANDS CHANGED AT DIFFERENT TIMES
The forensic impacts of the changes in the contents of folders CCTV 7 and CCTV 9 on the flash drive held by the prosecutor are significant and multifaceted. Initially, folder CCTV 7 contained four video clips when Agus Triono was presented as an eyewitness on July 20, 2016. However, by August 10, 2016, when Muhammad Nuh Al-Azhar was requested by lawyer Otto Hasibuan to play the CCTV 7 videos from the prosecutor's flash drive, it only contained two video clips. Similarly, folder CCTV 9 initially had three video clips on July 20, 2016, but only two video clips were present on August 10, 2016, under similar circumstances. These discrepancies have several serious forensic implications.
Firstly, the reduction in the number of video clips in folders CCTV 7 and 9 raises concerns about data integrity. The initial presence of four and three video clips, respectively, followed by a subsequent reduction to two clips each, indicates that some files were either removed or deleted. This alteration undermines the authenticity and reliability of the digital evidence. In forensic analysis, maintaining the integrity of the original data is paramount, and any changes can significantly impact the credibility of the evidence presented in court.
Secondly, the unexplained reduction in the number of video clips creates uncertainty regarding the completeness of the digital evidence. The inconsistency between the two dates suggests potential tampering or mishandling of the evidence. This uncertainty makes it challenging for forensic experts and the court to ascertain which version of the evidence is accurate. The presence of missing files casts doubt on the overall reliability of the digital evidence, complicating the judicial process and potentially leading to unfair or inaccurate judicial decisions.
Thirdly, the prosecutor’s failure to report or explain the changes in the video files' quantity raises issues of transparency and trust in the legal process. In forensic and legal practices, transparency in handling evidence is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. The lack of a clear explanation for the changes in the video files can be perceived as an attempt to manipulate the evidence, eroding public confidence in the fairness and reliability of the legal proceedings. This non-transparency can have long-term detrimental effects on the credibility of the judicial system.
Fourthly, the inconsistency in the number of video clips affects the forensic analysis
