The investigation into the publication of intimate videos involving composer Adrian Hila is expanding in the number of people questioned, but not necessarily in results. As more footage continues to circulate on pornographic websites, investigative institutions still have not provided a clear answer as to who leaked the material recorded by security cameras.
Three more questioned by Cyber Crime
According to the official version, this Tuesday the Cyber Crime Sector of the Tirana Police questioned three more women involved in the videos with intimate content.
The move shows that the investigation is continuing, but so far no perpetrator has been publicly identified for leaking and distributing the footage, despite the material having circulated online for some time.
Statements shift responsibility to those distributing the videos
According to testimony given so far, the women have maintained the same position as the people questioned earlier regarding their relationship with the composer.
According to them, responsibility is not linked to Adrian Hila, but they raise suspicions about the people who distributed or commented on the videos. This shifts the focus of the investigation to the chain of publication and circulation of the material, not only to the people who appear in the footage.
Footage continues to be published, without an answer from institutions
Meanwhile, other videos with intimate content continue to be uploaded to various pornographic websites, increasing questions over the security of the material and the effectiveness of the institutional response.
The Tirana Police and Prosecution Office, at least up to this stage, have not provided a convincing explanation of how this footage captured by security cameras got out and who is behind its publication.
Four criminal offenses referred to the Prosecution Office
In this case, police have referred the materials to the Prosecution Office for four criminal offenses.
They are “Illegal interception of computer data,” “Interference with computer data,” as well as “Misuse of devices” and “Unjust interference in private life.” The criminal classifications show that on paper the case is being treated as a serious violation of privacy and data, although no specific person has been publicly identified as responsible.
In essence, the case file remains at an unclear point: the number of people questioned is increasing, while the main question remains unanswered.
Who extracted the videos from the security cameras and how they ended up in public circulation remains the element that institutions have yet to clarify.