To Daphne: Yes, they could have as it’s very easy and you do not have to do any scanning or photographing. You can print direct from Outlook to PDF with the date/time header formatted in Maltese as the Windows regional settings will have been localized to Maltese. If you like, I can send you examples as a PDF and I’ll try and backdate then to 2004 in Maltese date format.

Daphne, they’re right. It does not hold water.

Even it what you say is true, it only means that the email could have been saved after 2006 on a machine with Maltese locale settings. Nothing more than that.
Besides the email could have been accessed directly from an Outlook “.pst” file, in which case the date would adapt to the current local settings. And in order to do this you would only need the password if the pst file is in encrypted format.

That article assumes, as everyone has so far, that Saviour Balzan had access to an original email. He didn’t.

An orignal email, transferred electronically, would appear perfectly flat. Malta Today’s image doesn’t.

Why would you bother printing out something and taking a photo of it if you received it in electronic format? It is far easier, and more accurate, to transfer it electronically straight onto the page, even if that means an intervening step like taking a screen shot.

The same can be said of the photo in The Times. Why print out a reproduced email, take a photo of it, download the photo, and then process it when you can do all of that on the same laptop in seconds? The photos (there were two versions) they published are, well, photos of a print out.

The difference is quite simple. Austin Gatt is not guilty.

You’re assuming that the published images were delivered to Malta Today in email format.

The bit about the date could have been shot down right away if Saviour said that the Malta Today IT system is set to print dates in Maltese. He didn’t.

Why would you bother printing out something and taking a photo of it if you received it in electronic format? It is far easier, and more accurate, to transfer it electronically straight onto the page, even if that means an intervening step like taking a screen shot.

An original email, transferred electronically, would appear perfectly flat. Malta Today’s doesn’t.

The same can be said of the photo in the Times. Why print out a reproduced email, take a photo of it, download the photo, and then process it when you can do all of that on the same laptop in seconds? The photos (there were two versions) they published are, well, photos of a print out.

Going over the digital version of the email is the whole point of filing a police report.

We don’t know if Malta Today had the electronic version of the email.

U minn fejn tridni nghabbi? Minn fuq maltasingles.com?

Been out for a bit my friend. (Sky diving, found some white dust (really good shit) in the St. Paul’s Bay Labour club)

Agree that things could get a bit closer than projected.

One more Labour fuck up should do it.

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-02-17/news/austin-gatts-smoking-gun-email-evidence-a-dud-895778818/

Suffice is to note that there were at least two persons at that press conference representing directly or indirectly the MLP.

[Daphne – Not really. He could have been watching it live on his laptop or television, and probably was.]