Are there video or audio recordings of the exchange and where can they be verified?

1. What the question really asks: existence versus verification

The user’s two-layer question asks first whether recordings of a specific exchange exist and second where such recordings — if they exist — can be checked and authenticated; the provided documents supply detailed procedures and institutions for authentication but do not supply any actual recording or link to one, so the sources answer the “how to verify” half, not the “is there a file” half ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What the reporting shows about availability of recordings

None of the supplied sources publishes or references an audio or video file of the exchange in question; each source is a procedural or commercial discussion of forensic authentication, regulatory recording rules, or file‑verification services rather than a repository of primary evidentiary recordings ^{[1] [6] [2] [7]}.

3. How audio/video authenticity is determined — the technical checklist

Forensic practitioners examine embedded digital metadata, EXIF and hex data, waveform anomalies, background noise and continuity, and device-specific signatures to determine if a file is consistent with claimed origin and unedited, with specialized tools able to surface splices, glitches or re-recording artifacts ^{[1] [4] [3]}. Experts also perform voice‑print or speaker‑comparison analysis when identity questions arise and can enhance intelligibility with filters while documenting findings for legal use ^{[5] [3]}.

4. Chain of custody, legal rules and why verification matters

Authentication is not only a technical exercise; courts require appropriate preservation and a recorded chain of custody — for example, California judicial guidance emphasizes creating an appropriate record for any electronic sound or sound‑and‑video recording presented at trial — and improperly obtained or poorly preserved files can be excluded or deemed unreliable ^{[8] [9]}. Forensic reports are often peer‑reviewed or accompanied by lab protocols to withstand legal challenge ^[2].

5. Where recordings are verified in practice — labs, vendors, and courts

Verification typically occurs at licensed forensic labs or through recognized commercial vendors that offer audio authentication services and produce courtroom‑grade reports (Primeau Forensics, Audio Forensic Expert, Media Medic and similar services referenced in the reporting) ^{[2] [1] [4]}. File‑verification firms can also inspect embedded metadata and ISRC-like identifiers for media files to show provenance or to demonstrate manipulation or “stripping” of metadata ^[7].

6. Practical steps to verify a claimed recording and limits of the reporting

If a recording is produced, investigators first preserve the original file, document chain of custody, then submit it to a forensic analyst who will run metadata analysis, waveform inspection, and speaker comparisons and issue a report suitable for legal proceedings — a process described across the sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The supplied reporting, however, contains no primary recording or link to a public archive to independently verify a specific exchange, so it is not possible from these documents alone to confirm that a recording of the exchange exists or to point to a verified copy ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Bottom line

The provided reporting does not contain or point to any video or audio recording of the exchange; it does, however, lay out the accepted forensic methods and institutional venues (forensic labs, authenticated vendor services, and court procedures) that would be used to verify such a recording if an original file and chain of custody were made available ^{[1] [2] [8] [3]}.