edit for clarity: So it is abundantly clear, at least one of the following two conditions must apply:

• no case was pursued for at least a week due to law enforcement having been provided false AI-generated video evidence

• false AI-generated video evidence successfully results in acquittal or other determination of innocence of a party that is later (or separately) determined to have been guilty

My subjective credence of guilt should be at least 90%, and at least 90% that the relevant falsified video evidence is AI-generated. If a case is sufficiently borderline I will use a poll to elicit probabilities from others.

Original question description:

If it is determined by law enforcement, a judiciary, credible journalist reports, or similarly trustworthy entities that both: sufficient evidence exists to determine a felony was committed which dominantly contributed to a loss of life, and that either no case was pursued for at least a week or those responsible were acquitted of the relevant crimes, on the basis of having provided falsified AI-generated video evidence to law enforcement (edit for clarity: if no case is pursued for at least a week, the false evidence must be the most plausible reason for the delay) or as evidence at a trial. It also counts if the false evidence is used to significantly shift blame to a party besides the most legally culpable one.

If the crime (associated to the loss of life, not falsifying evidence) would constitute a felony in the US but happened elsewhere, it still counts.

In the event of unclear conditions or other issues, I will defer to the intended spirit of the market. I will not bet in this market.