BTW, you didn't read attentively the fake scenarios I posted, or you would have found a small paradox I included in scenario #1 wink .
jaclaz
Witnesses must have superman hearing…
Silencer = significant reduction in perceptible report further than 100 feet.
" However there are very clear cut cases in which historical chains of events identified by a forensic examiner can reasonably draw conclusions of intent. "
No, there aren't. That's the entire point. You are not there to draw intent for anything, period. If you are there to draw intent, then you have changed your job from impartial investigator who finds facts and lets others base intent, to fact finder, and prosecutor.
Do you work for LE or do private side defense work?
armresl - No I'm not saying that a physician would be used in every case. The identification of specific age is rarely of value to the case. But I am saying that as far as I was aware, in a case in which age was indeterminable, though specifically held value to a case for whatever reason, the lay person would not be the ones consulted to make a determination. The other example where this point is relevant is when/if a forensic examiner is asked to opine on the age of the subjects. That's not his/her place.
jaclaz - I can see your point but at the same time you have to admit those scenarios are far more convoluted than the execution example (as well as the digital forensics equivalent) I cited. My point was simply to define a scenario outside of the tech world in which analysts would be able to make an identification of intent, just as there are straight forward cases within the tech world in which the same can be performed. Not saying that is there job, nor should they approach their cases with the mindset that they will be providing such statements at the end. However there are very clear cut cases in which historical chains of events identified by a forensic examiner can reasonably draw conclusions of intent. It is no where near as impossible nor unreasonable as some make it sound. Going back to your example, in the event that there are other reasonable possibilities which cannot be accounted for by other artifacts, the examiner should yield their opinion on intent and strictly state the activities identified and let defense account for those activities.
Of course I should have qualified by saying "in WA"…interesting that the censor is used in QLD as I had always been under the impression that QLD was the most similar to WA in criminal law.
How does that work when you have hundreds of thousands of suspect CP images and videos? Do you send them all to him/her and then wait until they have viewed them all and commented one way or another?
Therein lay the problem with that system. I've been in the US for 5 years now, so my info is out of date, but I was aware of concerns with backlog. Of course, you can always charge on a representative sample which had been RC, so it's simple to have the censor refuse classification on a sample, show that to the defense counsel along with any other images he/she wanted to see and allow them to do their own validation if they wanted.
But as I said, it generally goes bad for the defence for the jury or judge to see the images because of the immediate negative reaction you get from people who don't work with the stuff all day, so it was common for the defense to accept the certificates.
armresl, you quoted me and left out my qualifying statement just before the quote you included; which coincidentally agrees with you to a point. "Not saying that is their job, nor should they approach their cases with the mindset that they will be providing such [intent] statements at the end."
That said, that doesn't make an experienced examiner blind. If the analyst is retained in a case to identify IP theft for example and the prosecution has reason to believe that the IP is now being stored solely on the user's home computer. If the examiner retrieves that drive to conduct this investigation, and then finds that each one of the documents the suspect was accused of stealing were placed in the recycle bin hours before surrendering his drive. These documents were deleted from the "stolen_docs" folder but not further removed because of lack of OS familiarity by the user.
With that example, as I stated before, identifying intent is not the reason the analyst was retained, nor should the analyst approach the case with that intent (as I've always stated). However I believe there are cases like this in which if needed, and intent could be pretty clearly demonstrated. Just my .02.
Not to raise a dead thread but I was reading through some of the course material I had last semester which made reference to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and thought of this thread. I thought it was interesting and relevant as it specifically makes reference to an opinion obtained based on the specialized training that investigators may have.
It reads
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
© the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
What are you trying to say, accomplish, or find out about FRE 702? Or were you just mentioning it. I'd be happy to enter the discussion.
Not everyone will have to go through that, especially if they are not on LE, or don't do Defense work in Federal Court (which most examiners don't do because of either being part of an organization which says that anyone who is arrested in a criminal case doesn't get an expert of "our" organization OR anyone who is arrested in a Federal system is automatically guilty)
Of course same type of thing for civil cases in the Federal system, which I'd imagine more people on here are accustom to.
Not to raise a dead thread but I was reading through some of the course material I had last semester which made reference to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and thought of this thread. I thought it was interesting and relevant as it specifically makes reference to an opinion obtained based on the specialized training that investigators may have.
It reads
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
© the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
I am not sure what you are saying here.
Are you saying that corporate forensicators do not need to abide by the FRE702 to be expert witnesses, or that they are rarely have to act as expert witnesses?
What are you trying to say, accomplish, or find out about FRE 702? Or were you just mentioning it. I'd be happy to enter the discussion.
Not everyone will have to go through that, especially if they are not on LE, or don't do Defense work in Federal Court (which most examiners don't do because of either being part of an organization which says that anyone who is arrested in a criminal case doesn't get an expert of "our" organization OR anyone who is arrested in a Federal system is automatically guilty)
Of course same type of thing for civil cases in the Federal system, which I'd imagine more people on here are accustom to.
Not to raise a dead thread but I was reading through some of the course material I had last semester which made reference to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and thought of this thread. I thought it was interesting and relevant as it specifically makes reference to an opinion obtained based on the specialized training that investigators may have.
It reads
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
© the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
That corporate people don't need to testify near as much as other groups of investigators. A large number of CF people don't ever testify.
I am not sure what you are saying here.
Are you saying that corporate forensicators do not need to abide by the FRE702 to be expert witnesses, or that they are rarely have to act as expert witnesses?
What are you trying to say, accomplish, or find out about FRE 702? Or were you just mentioning it. I'd be happy to enter the discussion.
Not everyone will have to go through that, especially if they are not on LE, or don't do Defense work in Federal Court (which most examiners don't do because of either being part of an organization which says that anyone who is arrested in a criminal case doesn't get an expert of "our" organization OR anyone who is arrested in a Federal system is automatically guilty)
Of course same type of thing for civil cases in the Federal system, which I'd imagine more people on here are accustom to.
Not to raise a dead thread but I was reading through some of the course material I had last semester which made reference to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and thought of this thread. I thought it was interesting and relevant as it specifically makes reference to an opinion obtained based on the specialized training that investigators may have.
It reads
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
© the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Agreed.
On the other hand, they are often involved in meet & confer.
That corporate people don't need to testify near as much as other groups of investigators. A large number of CF people don't ever testify.
I agree, but Where's the knee shaking and stuttering at a meet and confer. You have to be up on that stand, with a dry throat for the real fun to begin.
Agreed.
On the other hand, they are often involved in meet & confer.
That corporate people don't need to testify near as much as other groups of investigators. A large number of CF people don't ever testify.