This is the source of the quote in the article. So if you’ve already read the linked article there isn’t anything new to read here.
On the other hand the linked article doesn’t really add any new information on top of that quote.
Maybe the best part of the linked article is the discussion at the bottom where people are accusing Eurovision of fraud an speculating on where the votes would have gone.
Neither article lets you know how a national jury can give tampered results. I thought the jury was chosen by the nation so if the nation has an agenda (like say, voting for Russia friendly countries or for Ukraine) I would expect a jury to be assembled in that way
I hesitated about what to do, but HN prefers to link to the source, and use the original title. In this case,I think the original title was bad for this audience (who knows what the EBU is? Why do they use the vague term ‘shows’?), so I chose to submit an article with a better title, and thought it good to link to the EBU statement, to prove that this is an official statement.
That page also hints at how the collusion was detected: by looking at the degree of similarity between the votes of each country’s individual jury members.
I think the weirder implication here is that if a jury changes its mind, it will be interpreted as tampering, their votes will be discarded, and their new 'votes' will be approximated by whatever distribution they think their votes should have come from originally.
