Justice Matters War Stories of a Computer Forensics Expert

This presentation shows how the mishandling of a seized mobile device and non-forensic analysis of its contents can easily skew the evidence and lead to a miscarriage of justice. It shows the contamination of digital evidence through manual handled and applications on the handset and how it was possible to alert the Court to the unreliability of the investigators evidence.

This presentation outlines three different fatal vehicle collisions in which each tragic incident included the use of digital evidence extracted from the mobile phones of the drivers charged with dangerous driving leading to the fatalities. The handset evidence in each case was used to demonstrate that the drivers were distracted because of using their mobile phones just before the collisions occurred. If taken at face value and left unchallenged, this evidence would demonstrate significant recklessness by each of the drivers.       

A multiple murder resulted in the conviction of the accused but a review of the forensic evidence that included police crime scene video footage and blood smear analysis found on the purported murder weapon, resulted in independent reviews of this forensic evidence. These reviews questioned the validity of the prosecution's exhibits raising doubts much more serious than misinterpreting evidence but in misleading the Court.

This presentation highlights the how slack digital forensic analysis, a blatant disregard to test the validity of alibi witnesses and unsound suspect elimination all resulted in a spectacular outcome when challenged in court. Beware of the obvious and assume nothing, especially so when relying upon digital evidence.

All to frequently I am asked to verify a defendant's claim of innocence because of the unreliability of the digital evidence used to prosecute. Yet, whilst always striving to seek exculpatory and anomalous evidence held on a computer device to ensure that the Court is fully informed, I do receive requests where the defendant is clearly clutching at straws rather than searching for real evidence that would exonerate. This case showed how we did the footwork to show the feasibility of such a defence, yet other compelling evidence impressed the jury more.