Ran across this today
http//
Bradley Cooper, convicted of killing his wife in 2011, was granted a re-trial because an appeals court judge rulled the trial judge had improperly prevented two defense experts from testifying that the Google maps files had been planted on his computer.
This case is of particular interest to me because I use video of one of those experts being grilled about his lack of qualifications. I like to show people how badly it can go for an unprepared expert.
http//
Whether any evidence was planted, I have no idea, but I'll be watching the re-trial closely.
Whether any evidence was planted, I have no idea, but I'll be watching the re-trial closely.
Yes, very good find ) , judging from the Appeals Court ruling
http//
http//
Quite a few interesting topics have been (and will be) talked about/judged upon, particularly
- Push button forensics
- Limits and amplitude of qualifications and - conversely - of the computer forensics field
- Full disclosure of prosecution evidence and reports/tools limited by (or however linked to) National Security issues (real or presumed)
[/listo]
All very relevant points.
jaclaz
fascinating - thanks for sharing!
we've noticed an increase in examiners providing video recordings of evaluations - from exhibits being stripped, to camtasia screen captures of (typically) encase assessments. particularly where evidence relates to a sensitive or high profile matter, might be a worthwhile additional layer of assurance that evidence has been properly examined and integrity/provenance can be demonstrated.
i'm surprised that qualifications/competence weren't hammered out as an issue pre-trial - unless it was tactical by the lawyers - to haul the analyst over the coals in front of the jury and thus (attempt to) undermine his evidence in chief. good food for thought!
cheers, ross
I think this was definitely a tactic by the prosecutor in the case. Wait until the last second and get the defense expert thrown out. It's a fairly common tactic, but after reading yesterday's order, it looks like the appealate court took a dim view of that tactic, especially after the judge disallowed the testimony of a replacement expert.
