Weintraub also stated during the press conference that investigators determined that the vaping video had been manipulated after analyzing its “metadata,” a ter

Weintraub also stated during the press conference that investigators determined that the vaping video had been manipulated after analyzing its “metadata,” a term which refers to embedded information in digital media that can reveal how and when it was last edited. But after contacting Reiss, the officer who investigated Spone, the Daily Dot learned that police never actually obtained the original vaping video. Instead, like what was seen on NBC News, police only had access to a cellphone recording taken by Spone of the vaping video being played on a separate device. Any metadata analysis would therefore fail to include information on the source video. In response to questions on how it could have been determined that the vaping footage was manipulated without access to the original video, Reiss argued that he could see with his “naked eye” elements that “don’t make sense.” ----- So... They can tell by the metadata on a copy of the file plus a naked eye analysis of the video that this is a deep fake? That's much worse evidence for the deep fake case than I assumed there would be. This does make me wonder though: Should we default to believing video or doubting it? Does the victim here need to prove it is a deep fake or the perpetrator prove it's not?