Testimony of  Mohammad Shahed Jobayer Lawrence.

I am Mohammad Shahed Jobayer Lawrence. 30 years old. My father’s name is XX. My mother’s name is XXX. My address is XXX District Tangail.

I am working as a Sub-Inspector (SI) at the Digital Forensic Lab of CID Dhaka.

Prosecutor: While on duty, what did you see or do and also mention the dates?

Witness: On 12/05/2025, after a CD and a DVD related to this case, supplied by Mr. Tanvir Hasan, the Prosecutor and Special Investigating Officer of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh, Dhaka, were received at the CID’s Digital Forensic Lab, I started working on this case and gave my opinion on 13/5/2025. The supplied CD contained the disputed conversation between former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Vice-Chancellor of Dhaka University, Maksud Kamal, and the DVD contained the sample voice or  authentic voice of both. Using the forensic tools in the lab, I separated the male and female voices through segmentation of the disputed conversation between the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the former Vice-Chancellor of DU. During a comparative examination with the sample voice of both individuals stored on the DVD, the male voice in the disputed conversation was found to match the sample voice of Vice-Chancellor Maksudul Rahman, and the disputed female voice was found to match the sample voice of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The main report is three pages. This is the main digital forensic report, and my signature on it is marked as Exhibit-21 and Exhibit 21A. My signature is on the six pages (page no. 380-385) provided as an attachment to this report. This is the six-page attachment, and my signature on each page is marked as Exhibit-22 series.

The evidence I examined is preserved in this tribunal as Material Exhibit-V.

The Investigating Officer has interrogated me. This is my Deposition.

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Sheikh Mustabhi (In favour of Present Accused no. 13-Rafiul Hasan Rasel) has been declined

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Md. Aminul Gani Titu (In favour of Present Accused no. 10-Md. Shoriful Islam) hasbeen declined

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Md. Salauddin (In favour of Present Accused no. 23 and 29) has been declined

Cross-Examination by the Defense Counsel Azizur Rahman (In favour of Present Accused no. 8-Amir Hossain, 9-Sujan Chandra Roy):

Defense: Before you received it, did you know about the source and preservation of this disputed conversation?

Prosecution Witness: The source and preservation of the disputed conversation were unknown to me before I received it.

Defense: Until these came to you, were you aware of the source and preservation of the sample voice recordings?

Prosecution Witness: No, the source and preservation were unknown to me.

Defense: During segmentation, was there any other computer operator under your command?

Prosecution Witness: No.

Defense: Who supervised your activities related to this case and gave the final approval?

Prosecution Witness: CID’s  Additional SP (Forensic), Special Police Super (Forensic), and DIG (Forensic).

Objection raised by the Prosecution: The prosecution lawyers raised an objection about using the phrase “in this case” by the defense.

Tribunal’s Response: The question should be framed not as “in this case,” but as… “Who supervised the activities related to the documents you have exhibited and gave the final approval?.”

Afterwards the framing of the original question was changed (Who supervised the related documents you have exhibited and gave the final approval?)

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Mamun-Ur-Rashid (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 16-Pomel Barua, 17-22, 24) has been declined

Cross-Examination by the State recruited Defense Counsel Barrister Israt Jahan Oni (In favour of the Absconding Accused no. 2-Md. Monir, 3-7) has been declined

Cross-Examination has been declined by the Defense Counsel Md. Shahidul Islam (In favour of Absconding Accused no. 15-Amin Hossain, 25, 26, 27 and 28)