Christian Horner under Investigation

[TFSA]

Most of them are, but not all of them. Just went through them and found at least half a dozen that were screenshotted at a different timestamp than the texts (I didn't go through all of them so probably more can be found). Also: Most (if not all, I just didn't look that thoroughly) of the ones where the timestamp of the screenshot matches the timestamp of the text are instances where Horner allegedly texted something transgressive. To me, it looks like someone documenting behavior that they think is inappropriate.

from the screenshots i've been able to find images 6,10,17,35,& 72 have drastically different message times compared to the phone time!

You guys are missing my point.
My point was that they were all screenshotted on the same date (with the exception of a few pictures, where there's an overlap between the day before a midnight), and that there's only timestamps - but no date stamps what-so-ever. There's no dates, or even day-mentions like "Wednesday 09:12".

This is an indication of a Fake Chat App which is either unable, or wasn't instructed, to generate messages that go back several days. It can only generate conversations which has a time stamp, but not a date stamp. That's the point.

[mendis]

All of the files lack EXIF-metadata. I was unable to confirm whether this is normal for iPhone screenshots, as I'm not an Apple-user and Google didn't give me anything.

If memory serves drive strips out stuff like that to save disk space.

It's also so easy to remove it yourself... You don't think whoever leaked this would be smart enough to remove meta data?

Not smart enough to understand that it makes those chats looks fake and leave it to people's imagination.

[stonehenge]

Most of them are, but not all of them. Just went through them and found at least half a dozen that were screenshotted at a different timestamp than the texts (I didn't go through all of them so probably more can be found). Also: Most (if not all, I just didn't look that thoroughly) of the ones where the timestamp of the screenshot matches the timestamp of the text are instances where Horner allegedly texted something transgressive. To me, it looks like someone documenting behavior that they think is inappropriate.

from the screenshots i've been able to find images 6,10,17,35,& 72 have drastically different message times compared to the phone time!

You guys are missing my point.
My point was that they were all screenshotted on the same date (with the exception of a few pictures, where there's an overlap between the day before a midnight), and that there's only timestamps - but no date stamps what-so-ever. There's no dates, or even day-mentions like "Wednesday 09:12".

This is an indication of a Fake Chat App which is either unable, or wasn't instructed, to generate messages that go back several days. It can only generate messages which has a timestamp, but not a datestamp. That's the point.

Thank you for clarifying. I wrote my post referring to this line in your post:

All of the WhatsApp screenshots - and i mean every single one - are taken at the very same time they were sent.

I think you can see that I didn't misinterpret your words purposely, but rather took them at face value.

Now, on your clarified point of dates: I just checked my own WhatsApp and what I found is that the date indication appears in the format "Monday, Oct 2," when you scroll back in time. However: it disappears after a second. The only date indication that is permanently in the chat only appears at the midnight timestamp. And in the screenshots, there is definitely an instance where this is applicable and it says "Today."

Bottom line: There is no instance where, in the leaked screenshots, there should appear a date indication but there isn't one.

[stonehenge]

If memory serves drive strips out stuff like that to save disk space.

It's also so easy to remove it yourself... You don't think whoever leaked this would be smart enough to remove meta data?

Not smart enough to understand that it makes those chats looks fake and leave it to people's imagination.

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

[MIKEY_!]

I agree. This is not the statement you would put out if these were just fake. Responding to them, especially without stating that they are not accurate, just gives them credibility. Would be very strange if they aren’t real.

There are plenty of legal reasons for horner not to say they're fake. Defamation law is complex and fickle and it's not always worth the risk. Especially if you've been cleared of wrongdoing.

Reverse image searching has already shown at least some of the explicit pictures to be of other people from previous scandals. Others appear to be AI generated images according to the naked eye on online analysis tools (not that either of those are perfect). At most this is a real story with major faked embellishments. Or it's entirely faked using some real (innocent) photos to add authenticity.

The main stream press are going big with it now in the uk. There are also, quite clearly, people briefing against Horner and standing up the leak. I predict by tomorrow we’ll have ‘sources close to geri Horner say she’s devastated’. The press are dumb, but they’re not that dumb. If these images are as easily proved as fake as you say, there is no way in hell theyd risk publishing this stuff. I could be completely wrong, maybe someone has taken everyone for fools, but this feels like an orchestrated campaign and I’d be really surprised if there was no truth in this. Let’s not forget, a real person came forward and made this complaint. It’s not been conjured out of thin air, we heard about these messages and now we’ve seen them. Sure, it could all be an entire fabrication but I would suggest that it’s more likely that red bull tried to cover up an incredibly embarrassing scandal to maintain stability, then all these different news outlets risk their reputation by printing easily refutable fakes. The first thing editors do when they get stuff like this is call their sources in the team and ask ‘is this real?’ They don’t publish blind

Journos and editors are supposed to do their due diligence but I think we've all seen enough scandals and seen enough fake news to know they frequently don't do that due diligence, especially with sensational stories like this.

[CHT]

Have they revealed the identity of the complainant?

[TFSA]

Now, on your clarified point of dates: I just checked my own WhatsApp and what I found is that the date indication appears in the format "Monday, Oct 2," when you scroll back in time. However: it disappears after a second. The only date indication that is permanently in the chat only appears at the midnight timestamp. And in the screenshots, there is definitely an instance where this is applicable and it says "Today."

Thanks for pointing that out. My own phone unfortunately died last friday, so i lost all my WhatsApp chats (and i don't use it regularly, so i don't have any new ones), so i was unable to ascertain that myself.

[stonehenge]

Now, on your clarified point of dates: I just checked my own WhatsApp and what I found is that the date indication appears in the format "Monday, Oct 2," when you scroll back in time. However: it disappears after a second. The only date indication that is permanently in the chat only appears at the midnight timestamp. And in the screenshots, there is definitely an instance where this is applicable and it says "Today."

Thanks for pointing that out. My own phone unfortunately died last friday, so i lost all my WhatsApp chats (and i don't use it regularly, so i don't have any new ones), so i was unable to ascertain that myself.

Also you still have a point! Which is that at least the vast majority of these screenshots were taken contemporaneously (so at the time the texts were being sent). The screenshots don't give the appearance that someone went through the chat history and picked out all important moments and took screenshots. In that case, the time of the screenshots would all be close to each other but the timestamps of the texts would vary. For example, if I went through my chat history and took a bunch of screenshots, all of them would be taken around 9:25 pm, no matter when the text was sent originally. Whether that makes them less or more believable is a different question, but I think that's what you were trying to get at.

[mendis]

It's also so easy to remove it yourself... You don't think whoever leaked this would be smart enough to remove meta data?

Not smart enough to understand that it makes those chats looks fake and leave it to people's imagination.

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

If you want to run around with evidence that doesn't have the authenticity, claiming it's authentic, then good luck. If it's not authentic, it's rubbish.

[Watto]

Not smart enough to understand that it makes those chats looks fake and leave it to people's imagination.

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

If you want to run around with evidence that doesn't have the authenticity, claiming it's authentic, then good luck. If it's not authentic, it's rubbish.

I can see both way as being resemble to why it may be missing want to keep yourself out of any kinda legal trouble for leaking you’d want to hide it. Likewise if someone did fake them it’s the first thing you’d do

[stonehenge]

Not smart enough to understand that it makes those chats looks fake and leave it to people's imagination.

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

If you want to run around with evidence that doesn't have the authenticity, claiming it's authentic, then good luck.

Literally, what are you even talking about? Again, if these are authentic, they would likely not have any metadata attached.

[stonehenge]

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

If you want to run around with evidence that doesn't have the authenticity, claiming it's authentic, then good luck. If it's not authentic, it's rubbish.

I can see both way as being resemble to why it may be missing want to keep yourself out of any kinda legal trouble for leaking you’d want to hide it. Likewise if someone did fake them it’s the first thing you’d do

Exactly, it has no relevance at all. Both a real leaker and a faker would remove the metadata. You can't infer anything from this.

[TFSA]

Exactly, it has no relevance at all. Both a real leaker and a faker would remove the metadata. You can't infer anything from this.

Actually, you can. If the data has been stripped, and you can conclude that it "should" be there (as in, the phone or service used doesn't strip it itself, and it's a conscious decision), then you can infer that the leaker has technical know-how.

This to me indicates that it's an experienced leaker (or experienced faker). I don't think the woman in question herself would have thought of that if she leaked it. The conversations doesn't strike me as someone who is technically adept.

[mendis]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/email-lea ... grand-prix

A personal statement from Horner has since been issued to media to address the circumstances.

“I won’t comment on anonymous speculation, but to reiterate, I have always denied the allegations,” he said.

“I respected the integrity of the independent investigation and fully cooperated with it every step of the way.

“It was a thorough and fair investigation conducted by an independent specialist barrister and it has concluded, dismissing the complaint made. I remain fully focused on the start of the season.”

[dans79]

Not smart enough to understand that it makes those chats looks fake and leave it to people's imagination.

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

If you want to run around with evidence that doesn't have the authenticity, claiming it's authentic, then good luck. If it's not authentic, it's rubbish.

There is nothing in standard image meta data that would let you validate the images authenticity.