SteveD just as second thought have you considered what it is that is supposed to be worried/fearful/frightened about cross-examination?
I did the Bond Solon expert witness training (i think possibly with Rob Gray too - it was 5 years ago though so cant quite remember!) and think you might want to rethink your 'hurl right back at them' strategy 😉 . Certainly the advice we were being given in our session(s) was to do exactly the opposite. If you end up getting drawn into an arguement with an arguer-by-trade (barrister), you're very likely to come out of it for the worse.
Thanks armresl. I think you made some very good points. Appearing flustered could be perceived as not knowing your subject - and I guess it is how you manage that 'emotion', and the response.
There seems to be a number of alternative approaches quoted here when it comes to the actual response. I guess that is down to the individual expert witness in question, on how they see the fit the specific situation. There may also be trans-atlantic differences in courtroom protocol and behaviour? I feel the UK may be more reserved in entering any long debate with the defence. Or is that just watching too many court-room films in a former life? Possibly, similar to Rich2005's point - and also thanks for your examples?
patboddy - thanks for the feedback. I agree that this may well be the case, and in such circumstances - e.g. the analogy actually becomes more complex than the technical theory!!!
trewmte - thanks for your previous examples. Worried/fearful/frightened about cross-examination? That is a psychology question. As my background is a mix of IT/Psychology/Forensics - I could sit here writing all day on the subject. At a base level - probably, the fear of rejection by the 'pack'…The 'pack' being your peers/the DF industry/the legal system/and eventually shunned by society - either through ridicule e.g. fall-apart during cross examination, or having your integrity challenged. Basically, the same as wetting your underwear in public…!
Anyway, many thanks to all for your valuable time in responding. Much appreciated!
I suppose what would be ideal - is that all IT related technical theory has to be explained in a consistent way - following an agreed framework / guidelines - even down to how to explain an individual concept? The expert witness then is there to just confirm he/she undertook the investigation / and act as a 'speaker'. Then there would be less opportunity for a challenge on semantics, or spin by the defence.
Howver, I imagine it would be a lengthy process to establish, test across different demographics, and would also need continually updating with new technologies. Although, there must only be 20-30 main concepts which would need a set analogy…in real terms?
I did have another question…which can probably wait until the weekend - but it was to do whether DF examiners skills are becoming too thinly spread - and whether need to start following mainstream IT - and specialise even further, by having more than 1 DF Examiner carries out a case e.g. one email specialist, one peer-2-peer specialist, one O/S etc…
Regards
Steve
Hi
1. Are there examples of IT theory, which you have found particularly difficult to convey to a jury, in layman's terms? Basic examples being 'Slack Space', File attribute 'anomalies' e.g. created date later than modified date;2. Do you feel sometimes that your statement (as an expert witness) is often just accepted by a jury, even though the jury may not actually understand the information being presented?
3. Have you found any examples of 'analogies' - which have been particularly successful in putting across complex IT theory effectively? If so, why do you think this was?
1. I think that they all can be difficult. The most difficult part is not really knowing how savvy your audience is. I have never known who is computer literate and to what degree. Now if the audience is a judge, usually that individual will respond verbally which makes the discussion a little easier.
2. Yes, it does happen. It is more common when you have dueling experts. Might just come down to which expert is more believable.
3. The analogy of a library with a card catalog is one I often use in describing file systems and the effects of deleting files.