Judicial Errors: Fake Imaging and the Modern Law of Evidence

The evidence was conclusive: The owner of a gallery held
photographs of the stolen bronze statue; the digital records of the
alarm system showed that the system had been disconnected at
03:16; a moment later, the digital video showed a masked figure
quickly traverse the corridor into the exhibition hall – and the
bludgeoned guard filled in the missing details. The court held no
doubt. It ordered the insurance company to pay the insurance
proceeds to the gallery owner. There was only one flaw in the
outcome of the proceeding, one that escaped everyone’s notice:
There was no bronze statue. It had never existed. In fact, no
robbery had occurred. All of the electronic evidence was forged, but
it was flawless. No one would have guessed that the image was
computer-generated; that the system records had been carefully
doctored; and that the video had been edited using a sophisticated
algorithm. The guard, who had been bribed to lie, lent an air of
authenticity to the evidence. The trial could have gone no other
way.