RE: Tools accepted by the courts

["Evidence Technology" <le () evidencetechnology net>]

Jason, the summary of your position seems to be that every CF witness for
the prosecution should basically testify that, "yes, that image is there but
since it came from the Internet, it's impossible to tell whether it got
there intentionally or not." That's flat wrong. Sometimes you can't tell.
Many times you can indeed. It's done in forensic exams on a routine basis.

As for the "absurdity" of my prediction about more evidence being booted in
the future due to poor forensic technique, I guess we'll see, won't we?

In any event, I'm not sure what all your hostility is about. You seem to
think you have everything figured out, while essentially the entire CF
industry has it all wrong? You continue to talk about some mythical pursuit
of truth as if no one but you has any interest in it, as if the rest of us
are in it for a buck and don't give a rat's boohonkus if poor innocent
people get locked away as long as the check clears. THAT is absurdity on
parade.

--------------------------

Craig, thanks for the comments. I concur.


Jerry Hatchett, CCE

Evidence Technology, LLC
Computer Forensics, Forensic Video/Audio, Data Recovery
www.evidencetechnology.net 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.9/39 - Release Date: 7/4/2005
 

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/