investigator / computer forensic analyst

Without mentioning specific court cases, the risk you have is that you may be accussed of bias or of having no objectivity during examination/cross examination, particularly since you are the investigator.

That is one of the reasons the investigation, forensic analysis (computer, homicide, etc.), custody, etc. are segregated with various individuals in a unit/organization.

the risk you have is that you may be accussed of bias or of having no objectivity during examination/cross examination, particularly since you are the investigator

I would suggest that an investigator with no objectivity is a pretty poor investigator.

I don't see too much of a conflict here, the job of both is to search for the truth, surely.

In an adversarial system the other side can make as much mischief as they like by questioning the motives of any witnesses but in my experience when they do they are pretty much scraping the barrel and can fairly easily be rebutted (principally by sticking to the facts).

Paul

jpgauvin

I would guess your position is quite unique. It would be extremely rare in the UK for this to happen. It might happen in very specialist areas for example in computer misuse offences (e.g. hacking). Otherwise there would be far too many cases to investigate, we struggle to cope with just doing the computer forensics for all the cases that need it, if we had to do both the backlog would be many years.

I appreciate but don't subscribe to the point about impartiality. It is an investigators job to be impartial and explore all reasonable lines of enquiry, in fact it is a duty in the UK. A good investigator will challenge their own evidence to test it.

In cases which are denied building in a peer review is also worth considering.

H

Thank you all for your opinions )

I'm trying to be as impartial as I can be. But I have to say that sometime when it's one of my case, I tend to go further in the case compare to other investigators.

I'm trying slowly to separate my forensic work from my investigation

But since we have a small investigation section, it's pretty hard

Thanks again )

But I have to say that sometime when it's one of my case, I tend to go further in the case compare to other investigators.

I hope what you meant to say is that when you examine on cases which you are also investigating, your greater knowledge of the case better informs your search process enabling you to go further in the case compared to cases for other investigators.

Your comment was somewhat ambiguous and could be read as saying you don't try as hard when it's not your case, which I doubt is what you meant to say. I'd really hate for someone to read your comment out of context and imply a negative aspect which isn't there.

I hope what you meant to say is that when you examine on cases which you are also investigating, your greater knowledge of the case better informs your search process enabling you to go further in the case compared to cases for other investigators.

That's what I wanted to say

Sorry my English is not my primary language -)

I've taught forensics to people who are ESL (English as a second language) and your English is quite good, certainly a lot better than my French.

I agree generally with binarybod and Harry that investigators should be impartial and that therefore it should not affect the impartiality of your results, however the NAS here in the US seems to disagree and is calling for forensics to be kept separate from law enforcement agencies.

Of course it's always an easy throw away accusation that your results are potentially biased because you are an investigator, or because you are paid by the defense, or the plaintiff. What is most important is that you are able to show that your results are thorough, reproducible, and that you made a reasonable search for exculpatory evidence where applicable.

If you are accused of bias on the stand - and I think those of us who have spent any decent amount of time testifying have had this from a lawyer who had no valid points to raise on cross examination - then you respond by showing how thorough your examination was, and if applicable referring to exculpatory evidence which you unearthed, if not in the current case, then in former cases. I for example once testified in court that there was no inculpatory evidence of any kind on an exhibit. I'm not sure why I was called to testify, but I'm glad that I can point to that case and show that I wasn't biased when I worked for the police, so I'm not biased now.