Forensic Photoshop hands-on

We're in the final stages of setting up a series of Forensic Photoshop classes in Pasadena, Ca. The first offering, tentatively scheduled during the second week of July, will be a 2 day Intermediate class. This class will be open to all (not just current LE employees), but limited to 25 students.

If you want to get the first shot at the class seats when they open up, send me a note. Make sure to put "Forensic Photoshop Class" in the subject line so as to get by the spam filter. We'll be doing an e-mail blast in a few weeks once the details are set.

Enjoy.

OKC tour stop

Here's just a quick note to say that the Forensic Photoshop tour bus is stopping in OKC next week. I'll be in OKC, Edmond, and Guthrie, Oklahoma, spreading the Photoshop gospel. If you're in the area, shoot me a note.

Police solving fewer burglaries?

This just in from the Austin Statesman: "John Abraham waited three hours for a police officer to show up after someone broke into his East Austin home in 2009.

He'd been gone about 10 minutes and came home to find his back doors kicked open and his laptop and other items gone.

Abraham waited hours for an officer to respond, filled out a report and then never heard back from police. His property was never recovered.

"I just didn't feel like I was a priority," Abraham said. "I can understand because we don't live in a violent crime city, but it's not cool to feel like police don't even care."

Each year there are thousands of burglaries reported in Austin — last year there were more than 8,000 — and typically only 5 percent of them will end in arrest, with the victim's items being returned. The national average is 10 percent.

Critics say there's more that could be done by the department to track down or follow up with burglaries, but police say a lack of staffing is keeping them from solving more.

With 14 crime scene technicians on staff, police can only respond to about 45 percent of reported burglaries, said Bill Gibbens , manager of forensic science services for Austin police.

Officers are trained to collect some evidence, however it's common for the more experienced crime scene technician to be called out, said Tim O'Brien, a property crime technician for the police department. He said he works on three to four burglaries a day.

"Sometimes you can spend eight hours processing one crime scene," O'Brien said ..."

Click here to continue reading this story.

It's mildly interesting to read that staffing issues are to blame. I wonder why news agencies continually refuse to dig deeper to find out why - what's changed - and report that as well. I have a friend who lives in a nice neighbourhood in suburban Los Angeles. He was a victim of a burglary. When he called it in, he was told to just come to the station and file a report - that nobody would be dispatched and no investigation would take place. All he got was a police report to turn in to his insurance company.

He asked me if he should buy a CCTV system. My response - if there's to be no investigation, what's the point of spending more money? This is the part of the story that the news media is missing - people's expectations for service not being met. If we're not solving crimes of this nature anymore, why not. Did we ever solve these types of crimes? How much would it cost if we wanted a "full service" police agency?

Interesting food for thought.

Enjoy.

On the defense: Criminal science

This just in from Philly.com: "For decades, prosecutors have relied on crime-solving techniques such as fingerprints, ballistics analysis, and eyewitness accounts to put people behind bars, even on death row. Now, in the aftermath of the stunning impact of DNA testing, many of those time-tested methods are under legal attack.

In Philadelphia, Kenneth Mapp, 35, is fighting a robbery charge filed after police concluded that a partial print lifted from a pizza-restaurant heist came from his right pinkie. His lawyer will dispute the scientific validity of fingerprint analysis at his forthcoming trial.

From Pennsylvania's death row, convicted murderer Daniel Dougherty, 51, is hoping to be freed based on his contention that "junk science" led a jury to convict him of setting a fire that killed his two sons.

And with mounting proof that eyewitness accounts are often wrong, New Jersey is examining how such evidence should be used, while a Pennsylvania committee is expected next month to make recommendations aimed at preventing wrongful convictions.

Fingerprint and firearm analyses, arson investigations, and forensic conclusions about bite marks, footprints, and hair and fiber comparisons have, in varying degrees, all been called into question. There are even growing concerns about what was once considered unassailable evidence of guilt - a confession.

"People in the criminal justice system, including judges, have a lot more skepticism than they once had," said Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Benjamin Lerner, who has presided over criminal cases for more than 20 years.

The legal challenges around the country are an outgrowth of the revolutionary impact of DNA testing, which has freed 267 prisoners nationwide, including 10 in Pennsylvania and five in New Jersey, and caused four states, including New Jersey, to end the death penalty.

Eyewitness testimony was a factor in the convictions of 75 percent of those exonerated through DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project. Faulty forensic evidence contributed to 50 percent of the convictions. The project said that 25 percent of the defendants later found innocent had confessed or pleaded guilty, and that jailhouse informants were a factor in 15 percent of the overturned cases.

Despite the popularity of TV's CSI shows, many of the forensic methods used in modern crime-solving also took a hit when a National Academy of Sciences report said that all too often, forensic evidence was presented in court "without any meaningful scientific validation."

The need for improvement was "tremendous," said the 2009 report, which called for uniform standards, certification, and peer-reviewed research to ensure greater reliability. It said that in fires, for example, "rules of thumb" pointing to an accelerant being used "have been shown not to be true," and limitations of fingerprint identification may also have led to wrongful convictions.

Forensics
The idea of bad forensics is nothing new to James McCloskey, the founder of Centurion Ministries in Princeton, which has won the release of 40 prisoners since 1983. "Forensic evidence is like gold" in courtrooms, he said, and it can be extremely difficult, even impossible, to successfully challenge faulty scientific conclusions after a jury's verdict. Pennsylvania, he said, is one of the toughest states for a defendant to challenge a conviction based on new evidence.

David L. Faigman, a professor at the University of California Hastings School of the Law, said one day people would look back with dismay on all the defendants convicted of crimes based on "pseudoscience" and old-fashioned techniques.

"Our children's children . . . will say the legal system was profoundly ignorant about science," said Faigman. "We're turning a corner, but like a luxury liner, it takes a long time to change direction. And there are a lot of hurdles."

He said few states are "forward thinking," though New Jersey's decision to review eyewitness identification makes it a standout.

Law enforcement officials defend the integrity of many long-used investigative techniques. If anything, "the technology has been enhanced by advancements in science," said Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood, a former homicide detective in Philadelphia.

Dauphin County District Attorney Edward Marsico, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said he didn't buy all the National Academy of Science findings and still had faith in evidence like fingerprint and ballistic analyses.

"Are there false confessions? Sure. Are there bad eyewitness IDs? Absolutely. What's the best way to combat that? We're not sure," Marsico said.

That is precisely the dilemma facing courts ..."

Click here to continue reading this story. Enjoy.

Adobe’s hiring in mobile digital imaging

This just in: Adobe folks are working on a number of interesting mobile applications (most unannounced to date) and is staffing up. Here are six current job listings I’ve seen:

There are a pair of openings for Computer Scientist, Quality Engineering – Mobile Photography Products, both in Seattle.
There’s another pair for Computer Scientist, Adobe Ideas (Tablet, Android, iOS), both in San Jose/Bay Area.
Photoshop Camera Raw Quality Engineer. This position is open to new college grads–those who’ve graduated within the last 12 months, or who will graduate in 2011. Same goes for Member of Technical Staff, Adobe Ideas (Tablet, Android, iOS).

IAI Forensic Video Certification Announcement

This just in from the IAI: "The International Association for Identification (IAI) Video Certification Study Committee is announcing a certification in Forensic Video.

IAI certifications conform with Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board, Inc. (FSAB) requirements for certification programs. The IAI certification guidelines require an initial certification test to seat the first Forensic Video Certification board, which will consist of participants selected by the IAI President who have passed this initial test. In addition to the board, those that are not selected to sit on the certification board will be certified for a term of five years.

This initial test will consist of a written examination only. The practical portion will be prepared by the first board. All participants who take this initial test will be required to take and pass the subsequent practical within two years of receiving certification or the certification will be voided and revoked.

Once a video certification board is seated, subsequent tests will consist of both a written test and a practical. The goal is to have the next test (including the practical portion produced by the certification board) at the IAI conference on August 7-13, 2011 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. IAI membership is not required for certification, but is necessary for participation on the Forensic Video Certification board. As the overall goal of this first test is to seat a video certification board, please strongly consider offering to be selected to sit on the board ..."

Confused? It sounds like the first test is being given to create a panel that will create the actual test. So, if you want certification from the IAI, but you don't want to sit on the creation panel ... chances are the IAI won't choose you for one of the limited spots at the testing centers next month.

Next month? Yes, next month. The tests are just a month away. If you want to get involved, you have one month to find the recommended texts, prepare, book flights/rooms, etc - and get your application package together and approved by the IAI. So, if you really want to sit on this panel, you best get your application in today (if you aren't an IAI member and you want to be on the panel - what are the chances of getting your membership approved in time? - but I digress). There's no indication as to when interested parties will be notified that they've been accepted. Given the current state of fuel prices, airline fares are through the roof. This factor alone may limit representation to those within driving distance to Las Vegas and the DC Metro area. Coincidence?

I'll leave the fact that the first recommended book's been out of print for over 10 years and copies of the recommended edition are a rare find on the internet. There's no indication if earlier editions are acceptable - given that the questions will likely come word for word out of the books. I'm guessing that the feeling of the IAI is that anyone interested in creating the certification tests should already have these "holy" books. If you don't, and you want to join the process - you'll have to fight it out at Amazon and Abe for the few copies there are out there.

What concerns me most about the process is the lack of "community involvement." By that, I mean there are many who are involved in the discipline at a "high level" who could be called upon to help craft this certification. People with a wealth of experience in not only the fundamentals of CCTV and video (the recommended reading focusses almost entirely on video/CCTV theory - along with the flip book) but also with the LAW. Assuming that a IAI certified forensic video analyst will eventually end up in court with his/her work product, I'd feel more comfortable with a test that covers the breadth of our experience.

Better still, think of the way the SWGs and the IACP, and other groups work. They go out and find the stakeholders, policy makers, movers, shakers, etc ... and put them in a room together. Some big agency funds the meetings so that smaller agencies aren't excluded from providing valuable input. (will the IAI pay for the panel's continuing participation? there's no indication - and that funding commitment is critical for many agencies) They go forward and produce valuable products. Think the flip book, the SWGs, and the standards that IACP/NIJ/NIST help put out. Here, if you want in ... you or your agency has to pony up the funds for the trip and the test. I'm a big fan of inclusive policies - and this isn't inclusive.

The other issue that begs asking is this - does the industry necessarily need another certification? The LEVA CFVA program has been around for a while now and they've added the technician level certification. Is competition for our scarce resources a good thing or a bad thing at this point? Is the IAI necessarily saying that there's something wrong with the LEVA program by introducing their own? As small a community as we are, are we better divided or united in pursuing standards and certification? Do I really need to pay dues to another group?

And speaking of dues ... out here the IAI's image related educational offerings are limited to a latent print imaging specialist showing folks how to use Photoshop to develop latent prints - and use his plug-ins. Certification needs a supporting cast of continuing education. Will the IAI expand their educational offering? I was a member for years, but cancelled recently - frustrated over the lack of video/DME related educational programs. IAI is known for LP, Crime Scenes, and Photos. Is their bench deep enough to pull off Video/DME?

Since the announcement on the list last week, I've received not a few queries about this new certification - the bulk of which are encapsulated in this post. I'd be interested to know if you are planning on attending - how easy the process is/was for you. If you aren't attending and you are qualified - why not.

Enjoy.

Adobe’s Mercury Playback Engine & Apple’s new MacBook Pro 17″ w/ThunderBolt

This just in from Adobe's Dave Helmly: "Recently I’ve been getting a lot of performance questions from Mac users about using Premiere Pro editing systems with ATI/AMD graphics cards. No question this has been “sparked” by Apple’s recent series of MacBook Pro Laptops featuring Thunderbolt and a 1GB AMD Radeon 6750 graphics card. Below is a link (Click picture) to show the Mercury Playback Engine running on the new Apple MacBook Pro 17” Thunderbolt laptop in 64 bit CPU mode or what’s also known as Mercury Software mode. In software mode, Premiere Pro will use its 64 bit playback engine along with OpenGL to give you a great playback & rendering experience. Apple is now finally shipping a fast processor with 8GB of system RAM and 1GB of GPU RAM on a laptop.

As you’ll see in the 9 minute video, for many workflows with 2 or 3 layers of video , Mercury Software playback will fit their needs perfectly. With newer Intel processers and fast hard drives, Mercury software playback can render Titles, transitions, PSDs, and effects like Ultra Keying, and Color correction (Fast Color Corrector) in real-time. As you’ll see in the video, playback is very smooth ..."

Continue reading by clicking here. Enjoy.

Cracking Watergate's Infamous 18 1/2 Minute Gap

Watergate, the greatest political scandal of the 20th century, remains shrouded in mystery, in part, due to an 18½-minute gap in the tape recording of a Watergate discussion between President Richard Nixon and his chief of staff Bob Haldeman. Despite many attempts to recover its contents, unlocking the secrets of the gap has, until now, remained beyond the realm of possibility. This article documents forensic breakthroughs in understanding the “18½-minute gap.”

The Court Courts Confusion in Confrontation?

From Marquette's Daniel Blinka: "In some ways I should be grateful for doctrinal train wrecks. Messy case law provides endless excuses for writing articles and blog posts as well as delivering lectures that purport to see “the way” through the swamp. Like a child’s kaleidoscope, such cases offer something different for everyone to see, and no one is clearly wrong. Yet Supreme Court opinions are not solely intended for the entertainment of academics or the bewilderment of law students and lawyers.

Of the three metaphors I used in the preceding paragraph, a “train wreck” is the most apt way to describe Michigan v. Bryant, the Supreme Court’s latest attempt to illuminate the interrelationship between the hearsay rules of evidence and the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation right. “Swamp” and “kaleidoscope” are apt, but “train wreck” best captures the real cost of confusion. Bryant not only failed to illuminate a much-rumored “dying declaration” exception to the confrontation right, it also raises considerable confusion about what constitutes the “testimonial hearsay” that is protected by the confrontation right in the first place. For the defense lawyers and prosecutors who must eat this mush (fourth metaphor) every day, you have my best wishes and these words of solace.

A jury convicted Bryant of murdering Covington. Police testified that they received a dispatch that a man had been shot. They found Covington bleeding from a fatal stomach wound at a gas station. When officers insightfully asked “What happened?”, Covington replied that Bryant had shot him through the door of a house some blocks away from the gas station. He repeatedly identified Bryant as the shooter before medical help arrived; Covington died a short time later at a hospital. The key issue at trial was the identity of the shooter. The trial judge admitted Covington’s statements to police implicating Bryant as the shooter behind the door.

What’s confusing you ask? Well, Bryant’s trial occurred under the aegis of Ohio v. Roberts, a 1980 case which held that only “reliable” hearsay could be used against an accused at trial. Under Roberts, Bryant’s conviction comported with his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. In 2004 the Supreme Court overruled Roberts and most (not all) of its progeny because Roberts rested on an erroneous, or so we’re told, understanding of the confrontation right. That 2004 case, Crawford v. Washington, held that the confrontation right applied only to “testimonial” hearsay, a term it declined to define. Testimonial hearsay could be used against the accused only if he had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the hearsay declarant and that declarant was unavailable to testify. Nontestimonial hearsay is largely left to the rules of evidence.

Bryant appealed his conviction on grounds that Covington’s hearsay statements to police violated the Crawford rule. Since it was undisputed the Bryant had never cross-examined Covington before his death (duh), Michigan’s supreme court reversed the murder conviction because it found the hearsay “testimonial.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

To many observers, Bryant promised to illuminate a possible dying declaration exception to the Crawford rule that had cropped up in earlier dicta, much as the Court had fleshed out an exception for “forfeiture by wrongdoing” several years ago in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008). Instead, the Court sidestepped the dying declaration exception on grounds that Michigan had abandoned it, ruling instead that Covington’s dying responses to police questioning about his killer’s identity were not “testimonial” in the first place. In sum, the Michigan court erred because Bryant’s confrontation right did not attach to Covington’s hearsay.

The rambling majority opinion by Justice Sotomayor heroically attempts to guide us to an understanding of what constitutes testimonial hearsay, at least in the context of “a nondomestic dispute, involving a victim found in a public location, suffering from a fatal gunshot wound, and a perpretrator whose location was unknown at the time the police located the victim.” Whew. Space limits preclude any full elaboration, yet three points stand out. First, testimonial hearsay’s essence turns on whether the declarant’s “primary purpose” was to provide “evidence” (my word) for a criminal investigation or prosecution. Second, the primary purpose is determined objectively; the declarant’s subjective (“actual”) motives are not controlling. Third, this objective approach is based on the totality of the circumstances, which means that we must look at literally everything. And the combination of these three elements – “primary purpose,” objective assessment, totality of the circumstances – spells only one thing: the standard for testimonial hearsay is manifestly uncertain, offering little, if any, predictive value. If Crawford offered hope for criminal defendants that there was some rigor in the confrontation right, Bryant invites prosecutors to litigate the threshold issue of whether the hearsay is testimonial in a breathtakingly wide array of cases. In other settings the Court has decried “litigation lotteries” advocated by the defense (e.g., the “no knock” cases), but Bryant provides little incentive for prosecutors not to litigate this issue.

In separate dissents, Justices Scalia and Ginsburg both conclude that Covington’s statements were clearly testimonial hearsay and that Bryant effectively creates a gaping, unworkable exception for “violent crimes.” I agree. Who knows where the next iteration of confrontation case law will take us. This week the Supreme Court is hearing yet another case involving a crime lab report’s admissibility under the confrontation right, fittingly entitled Bullcoming v. New Mexico (argued March 2, 2011). Tellingly perhaps, the Bryant majority left the backdoor wide open for a retreat when it observed that the Bryant record, which predated Crawford, “was not developed to ascertain the ‘primary purpose of the interrogation.’” Stay tuned, there’s always (more) “Bullcoming.”

Click here to read the article and access the linked cases.

Enjoy.

Adobe Audition on Facebook and Twitter

To keep up with the latest Audition developments, follow the Adobe Audition Facebook page, Twitter feed, and Inside Sound blog. Enjoy.

Premiere Pro team on Twitter and Facebook

If you're not on FB, here's a reason to join the discussion: "The Premiere Pro team is using Twitter and Facebook to give and receive information about Premiere Pro.

The team Premiere Pro Twitter account goes by the name adobepremiere. Follow us.

Our Adobe Premiere Pro Facebook page has been active for a while now. Become a fan. Or friend. Or like us. Or whatever that’s called ..."

Continue reading this by clicking here.

Enjoy.

SSD firmware destroys digital evidence, researchers find

This in from Macworld.com: "A technology built into many new solid state drives (SSDs) to improve their storage efficiency could inadvertently be making forensic analysis at a later date by police forces and intelligence agencies almost impossible to carry out to legally safe standards, researchers have discovered.

The detailed findings contained in Solid State Drives: The Beginning of the End for Current Practice in Digital Forensic Discovery? by Graeme B. Bell and Richard Boddington of Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, will make unsettling reading for professionals in the digital forensics field and beyond.

After conducting a series of experiments comparing a sample Corsair 64GB SSD with a conventional Hitachi 80GB magnetic hard drive (HDD), the team found a layer cake of data recovery problems caused by the 'garbage collection' or purging algorithms used in SSDs to keep them at peak performance.

After examining an SSD for traces of data after it had been quick formatted, the team expected the purging routines to kick in around 30 to 60 minutes later, a process that must happen on SSDs before new data can be written to those blocks. To their surprise, this happened in only 3 minutes, after which only 1,064 out of 316,666 evidence files were recoverable from the drive.

Going a stage further, they removed the drive from the PC and connected a 'write blocker', a piece of hardware designed to isolate the drive and stop any purging of its contents. Incredibly, after leaving this attached for only 20 minutes, almost 19 percent of its files had been wiped for good, a process the researchers put down the ability of SSDs to initiate certain routines independent of a computer.

For comparison, on the equivalent hard drive all data was recoverable, regardless of the time elapsed, as a forensic examiner would expect.

"Even in the absence of computer instructions, a modern solid-state storage device can permanently destroy evidence to a quite remarkable degree, during a short space of time, in a manner that a magnetic hard drive would not," the team concludes.

The results are concerning on a number of levels, forensic, legal and technical.

Current digital forensic practice rests on assumptions about the ability of experts to isolate and snapshot drives accurately in order to back up possible criminal investigations. This is now looking to be far more difficult for SSDs than it has been for HDDs using current technologies.

Even more startling is that basic drive isolation 'write blockers' are not guaranteed to perform to high standards against SSDs, the first time this technology has ever been experimentally undermined. The firmware built into many and possibly all of these drives allows them to destroy data simply by being powered on, even when not connected to a PC or under the apparent control of an operating system.

"If the drive is purging data far faster than the analyst can extract it, and the process of purging can begin and continue while the analyst is extracting the data, how can the analyst hope to capture a complete, frozen image of the disk that is representative of the disk state at capture time?," the researchers write.

"A few people in the forensics community had some awareness that something funny was going on with some SSDs, but everyone we've shown this to has been shocked at the extent of the findings," said co-author Graeme Bell by e-mail to Techworld.

As far as SSDs are concerned, the state of the drive cannot be taken to indicate that its owner did or did not interact with it in ways that allow prosecutors to infer guilt or innocence.

"The fact that data has been purged does not mean a human knowingly did it (e.g. accidental guilt). [But] data purging may make a guilty person look innocent (e.g. accidental innocence)," says Bell.

The team warns that as USB sticks grow in capacity, manufacturers could start integrating similar purging technologies into them, duplicating the same problem for a second set of storage media. Bell and Boddington also believe that 'garbage collection' routines will become more aggressive over time as manufacturers start using more powerful firmware, chipsets and larger-capacity drives ..."

Click here to continue reading.

Enjoy.

Learn The Basics of Compositing in Photoshop CS5

While certainly not a "forensic" process - I've seen some pretty bad composites submitted for retirement flyers and whatnot. Here's a good video on the basics of composting in PS CS5.

Enjoy.

Learn The Basics Of Photoshop In Under 25 Minutes

Check out this interesting video series from LifeHacker's Adam Dachis.

Enjoy.

Validation of Forensic Tools and Software: A Quick Guide for the Digital Forensic Examiner

This just in from DFI News: " ... Real world laboratory use, controlled internal tests utilizing scientific principles, and peer review should all be leveraged in a validation test plan. Sharing unique results with the digital forensics community at-large helps investigators, examiners, and even software and tool vendors ensure that current best practices are followed. As the field of digital forensics continues to grow and evolve as a science the importance of proper scientific validation will be more important than ever."

Click here to read the whole article.

Enjoy.

Behind the Splash Screen

This just in from Adobe's Photoshop FB page: "Photoshop CS5 almost didn’t happen. Check out this video for an inside look at the months leading up to the launch and how the team rallied to hit our ship date."

Enjoy.

Crime Scene Investigation: Using the right metadata to catch criminals

From the British Journal of Photography: "Police forces risk letting the guilty go free if they don't address their procedures for using digital images as evidence in court. Mark Wood explains why a raw workflow is good for us all.

For some, debates about the veracity of photographic images rage, others have simply moved on from hackneyed arguments about truth and testimony. However, in police work and forensics, questions about digital photography have not been fully addressed. In the UK, there is no common practice on the capture and storage of digital photographs. The guidelines, such as they are, are open to interpretation by each of the UKʼs police forces, and a key issue centres on whether to shoot raw or JPEG.

It is essential that evidence is permissible in court, so the challenge is to foresee problems with a form of evidence such as digital image data. In time, a form of evidence may be found to be unreliable, and therefore discredited. Science drove the use of DNA profiling and, though science is a broad term, similar rigour has to be applied to the use of digital imaging in police work. There is still the notion that anyone who picks up a DSLR is a photography expert, or that being able to tick a box on a staff development form is a panacea for the complexities of image processing.

The leviathan of the legal system moves at a different pace from the fast-changing landscape of digital imaging; official guidelines can be out of step with operational needs. So the diverse and ambiguous implementation of the ACPO (Association Of Chief Police Officers) digital imaging handling guidelines in 2002 could well lead to convictions being quashed on the technicalities of photographic veracity. Though having some flexibility when interpreting the guidelines can make workflows fit for purpose, each force still has its own Standard Operating Procedures and, as long as those protocols are followed, then all is deemed to be in order. There is a disturbing reliance on JPEG files in several forces, for example, and no matter how secure a system might be, it is extremely difficult to prove that JPEG evidence has not been tampered with. In court, an imaging officer might have to testify that a photograph is a true representation of the captured data and has not been manipulated, yet the court must take their word for it. Immutable evidence is required.

Continue reading this article by clicking here.

Enjoy.

Forensics-reform legislation introduced to Congress

On January 25, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) introduced to the Senate the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act. The bill aims to strengthen the criminal-justice system by promoting “standards and best practices and ensuring consistency, scientific validity, and accuracy” in forensic testing, analysis, identification, and comparisons.

The bill was designed to address the concerns regarding the field of forensic science that were raised in the February 2009 report released by the National Academy of Sciences.

“Everyone recognizes the need for forensic evidence that is accurate and reliable,” said Leahy in a January 25 press release. “With a new structure in place that draws on both criminal-justice expertise and scientific independence, I believe we will further ensure that only the most reliable forensic evidence is used in our criminal courts. We must provide law enforcement with reliable forensics capabilities, and we cannot allow innocent people to be wrongfully convicted based on faulty forensic evidence.”

The bill that was introduced had few changes from the draft legislation that was initially released on December 22, 2010.

Some of the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act’s goals include:
• Establish an Office of Forensic Science within the Department of Justice that would oversee the standards and structure of the forensic-science system as established by the Act;
• Establish a Forensic Science Board that would consist of scientists, practitioners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other stakeholders to make recommendations in research priorities, standards, and best practices.
• Establish committees of scientists to be overseen by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that will examine each individual forensic science discipline to determine research needs and help set uniform standards;
• Require that all forensic science laboratories receiving federal funding be accredited according to rigorous standards set by the Forensic Science Board and the Office of Forensic Science, and that forensic scientists meet basic proficiency, education, and training requirements for certification;
• Promote foundational and innovative peer-reviewed scientific research that will strengthen the forensic sciences.

“The bill aims to carefully balance the competing considerations that are so important to getting a review of forensics right,” said Leahy in an official statement. “It also capitalizes on existing expertise and structures, rather than calling for the creation of a costly new agency. It seeks to proceed modestly and cost effectively, with ample oversight, checks, and controls.”

You can download a PDF copy of the legislation here.

Ethics in forensics

From the editor at Forensic Magazine: "In the past year, we have had an increased interest from our readers in the question of ethics in forensics. Especially in light of the frequent news reports of questionable laboratory practices, corrupt analysts, and cover-ups.

The question I would raise in answer to this growing concern for the quality of forensic work is: has there been a fundamental change in the way that forensic laboratories are functioning to which we can attribute a decrease in quality? Or, is it in fact a greater awareness of quality that is making it easier to highlight the troubled labs? In other words, are we really seeing a drop in the quality of forensic labs around the country, or are we just more aware of quality concerns due to a focus on forensic techniques in part prompted by the NAS report and other essays on the topic?

Is it possible that the current CSI fad in popular culture—as witnessed by the many primetime TV shows, novels, and magazine articles on the topic—has made the media more aware of forensic work and therefore more likely to investigate laboratory practices, especially if there is even a rumor of malpractice or corruption?

If this is the case, the answer is not to blame TV, the media, or the “uninformed masses” for meddling in what is rightfully within our purview, but rather to raise the quality, accountability, and transparency of our work processes to combat the CSI effect. We must operate knowing that juries are filled with forensic aficionados, our success rates and backlogs are being audited by politicians and citizens alike, and our every misstep will be documented by every paper, radio station, and TV network.

Perhaps this is a tall order given tight budgets, increased caseloads, and greater pressure from local, state, and national governments; however, only success will ease these pressures. By demonstrating greater efficiency and improved results, we will shift the spotlight away from our work and back to the miscarriages of justice we strive to correct ..."

Enjoy.

Premiere Pro: Red, yellow, and green render bars and what they mean

Each Premiere Pro class that teach find me answering the question about the "render bars" and what they mean. Here's a good answer direct from Adobe: "If you’ve worked with Adobe Premiere Pro even a little bit, you’ve noticed that colored bars—red, yellow, and green—appear at the bottom of the time ruler at the top of the Timeline panel, above clips in a sequence. These colored bars are often referred to as render bars. But what do they mean, and what does this mean to your work?

First, we need to understand what it means to render a preview.

In the context of computer graphics, rendering is the creation of an image from a set of inputs. For Premiere Pro, this essentially refers to the creation of the frames in a sequence from the decoded source media for the clips, any transformations or interpretations done to fit the source media into a sequence, and the effects applied to the clips.

For clips based on simple source media that match the sequence settings and have only simple effects applied, Premiere Pro can render the frames that make up the sequence in real time. In this case, each frame is rendered for display just before the CTI (current time indicator) reaches it. Premiere Pro caches these results so that it doesn’t unnecessarily redo work when you revisit a frame.

For more complex sets of effects and more difficult source media, Premiere Pro can’t always render the frames of the sequence as fast as needed to play them back in real time. To play these frames in real time, they need to be processed and saved ahead of time, so that they can be read back and played instead of being recalculated on the fly. The creation of these frames to be saved for rapid playback is what is meant by rendering a preview.

By the way, it’s common but confusing and misleading jargon to refer to rendering of previews as rendering all by itself. Rendering for display, rendering for final output, rendering for previews—these are all valid uses of the word rendering. Don’t fall into the trap of using this general term to refer only to the specific case of rendering for the purpose of creating preview files for real-time playback.

Note: Rendering of previews is only for preview purposes. Preview files will not be used for final output unless you have Use Previews option checked on output—which you should not use except in the case of rough previews. Using preview files for final output will in almost all cases cause a decrease in quality. It can speed things up in some cases, so it may be useful for creating a rough preview in less time.

With that preparatory definition out of the way, what do the colored bars mean?

Green: This segment of the sequence has a rendered preview file associated with it. Playback will play using the rendered preview file. Playback at full quality is certain to be in real time.
Yellow: This segment of the sequence does not have a rendered preview file associated with it. Playback will play by rendering each frame just before the CTI reaches it. Playback at full quality will probably be in real time (but it might not be).
Red: This segment of the sequence does not have a rendered preview file associated with it. Playback will play by rendering each frame just before the CTI reaches it. Playback at full quality will probably not be in real time (but it might be).
None: This segment of the sequence does not have a rendered preview file associated with it, but the codec of the source media is simple enough that it can essentially be treated as its own preview file. Playback will play directly from the original source media file. Playback at full quality is certain to be in real time. This only occurs for a few codecs (including DV and DVCPRO).

Note the uses of the word probably above. The colors aren’t a promise. They’re a guess based on some rather simple criteria. If you have a fast computer, than a lot of things marked with red may play back in real time; if you have a slow computer, then some things marked with yellow may need to be rendered to preview files before the segment can be played in real time ..."

Click here to continue reading - and find out what causes a segment to get render bars of a certain color as well as how the Mercury Playback Engine changes things.

Enjoy.

Forensic Photoshop tour stop in D.C.

Sitting here in the airport, heading into the queue for boarding ...

I'll be the guest of the IACP as part of their working group on interview room recording system technology. The guest list is pretty impressive, so I'm confident that productive work will take place. This kind of thinking helps me over my dread of cramming my large body into a small plane for hours on end.

See you in D.C.

Enjoy.

You can't get there from here

For those moving from older CS versions to the most current, you may have noticed an issue with Version Cue and Adobe Drive. Adobe's James Lockman explains, "To migrate, you’ll need to go from VC CS2 to VC CS3 and finally to VC CS4. There isn’t a direct migration path from CS2 to CS4. You can migrate from CS2 to CS3 from the server administration panel’s Advanced section, and this is best done on the machine where the new server is running."

Click here to find out how to work around this issue.

Enjoy.

Caught on Camera

Caught on Camera: the clear capture of officer murders is a grim reality of this powerful technology - from Evidence Technology Magazine.

"The ubiquity of mobile video recording systems in police vehicles illustrates a grim statistic: on-duty deaths were up last year by a staggering 26 percent, highlighted by an equal rise in the number of officers murdered by gunfire: 49 in 2009 and 61 in 2010. Early 2011 statistics are even more frightening, with 11 officers shot in a single 24-hour period in January. The same number of officers were killed by gunfire last month alone, doubling the national trend of each of the previous years of the last decade…and an increasing number of officer deaths have been caught on dashboard cameras.

Videos depicting the last moments of an officer’s life are always shocking, explicit, and immensely disturbing, yet they are often the only voices that officers have when they can no longer speak for themselves. Partially for that reason, mobile video recording is a “technology that is here to stay,” according to 94 percent of law-enforcement professionals who responded to a recent national survey on in-car video systems.

Underscoring the value of in-car video technology, Georgia State Patrol (GSP) Major Mark McDonough announced at a press conference that “…a picture is worth a thousand words,” referring to images that he believed irrefutably identified the man who shot and killed GSP Corporal Chad LeCroy on December 27. The images were recorded to LeCroy’s mobile video recorder and included pictures of the killer actually leaving the scene in the officer’s car.

The significance of mobile video as evidence during police murder investigations played out tragically multiple times across the United States in 2010. In Tampa, Florida, Officers David Curtis and Jeffery Kocab were murdered by a man during a traffic stop on June 29. Kocab’s video system recorded the events leading up to the killings, which included audio of the killer, and of a woman in his company, providing identification information during the stop. The video proved to be the key to the suspects’ later arrest. In another double homicide of police last year, West Memphis (Arkansas) Police Department Sergeant Brandon Paudert and Officer Bill Evan were shot and killed on May 20. Evan’s in-car video showed a 16 year old exiting the passenger side of a vehicle while shooting at the officers with an AK-47. “Since the officers are no longer available, I have to let the dash-cam video speak for itself,” stated Prosecutor Mike Walden.

Despite the growing volume of in-car video images produced during police homicide cases, the images themselves might not always be good enough to act as the “silent witness”, a description often used to suggest that the video quality is adequate for identification and reliability.

“Too often, we’re receiving video evidence in these kinds of cases where the quality of the video is so poor that identification is impossible. Then, who speaks for the officer?” asked Alan Salmon of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation’s Forensic Video Unit. Salmon is also the President of the Law Enforcement & Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA), a professional organization that trains police video analysts from around the country. He said his organization’s members are frustrated with the quality of much of the in-car video they are asked to process, analyze, and eventually take to court ..."

Click here to continue reading this story.

Enjoy.

Forevid - a new tool for video review that's free

I received the following announcement: "I would like to introduce to you a new open-source software for the analysis of surveillance videos, called Forevid. Forevid was developed here at the forensic laboratory of the National Bureau of Investigation, Finland by me and a former intern of mine (Sami Hautamäki). Our goal was to develop a free and easy-to-use tool for the law enforcement and forensic community, containing similar features as the corresponding commercial software.

You can find more information about the software and the download link at http://www.forevid.org/. Please give it a try, and tell me your opinion!"

Needless to say, it grabbed my attention. So, like anyone who is engaged in the work, I went and downloaded the program and gave it a spin. Here's what I think ...

Pros:
It's free
It's really simple and easy to use
It combines some of the more popular features of other programs in one program
Deinterlace features
It features case management functions

Cons:
It's free
It's open source
It's feature set is limited
It's Windows only
It only handles "standard windows type videos"

Why would being free be listed in both areas? Freeware is great in a time of tight budgets. For agencies struggling with getting gear, freeware is both a blessing and a curse. My fear is always that the agency won't get the appropriate tool once the budget mess turns around ... since they have the free (albeit limited) tool.

Open source programs can be problematic. The same problem that I have with this tool, I also have with GIMP. Open source means that I can change the program to suit my needs. I don't necessarily have to share the new code with anyone, though I should. There are plenty of so-called experts out there marketing their FVA services with proprietary processes. Repeatability is sacrificed when I can't duplicate their work, leaving the trier of fact to make sense of this battle of the experts. Open source also means that there is a potential that no improvements will ever be made to the program. Agencies that adopt open source programs risk their future for the sake of saving a few dollars.

The limited feature set seems to be an attempt to say, "here's what most people use, and nothing else." Which is fine, until you need the other stuff.

It's windows only. At this point, I'm sure that you're thinking ... here he goes on his Mac rant again. Hold on a minute ... My point here, just like my take on Ocean Systems' dCoder-to-go product (code name Omnivore), is that it runs on/in Windows. More DVRs are being built around Linux today, and the percentage is growing. What we need is something that can decode proprietary Linux video. I'd like to see more time being spent on that particular elephant in our room - that's all I'm saying here. The company that solves that particular problem isn't going to have issues with profitability.

Like the issue above, if you don't have the codec issue sorted out on your system, this won't help you with the video. It has to be DirectShow, Video for Windows, FFmpeg, or AVIsynth script compatible content. You need to already have the codec installed in order to make the video work in Forevid. Sure it comes with some codecs - but most of us have the included codecs already, so there's no big bonus here. If you don't have it, chances are that you'll find it on Larry Compton's Media-Geek. Here's what they say about the issue, "if for some reason, Forevid is not able to import the given video, an error dialog is displayed. By selecting Media info from the dialog, detailed information of the video file can be explored, and e.g. the fourcc code of the required codec can be identified ..." just like GSpot.

All in all, it's a handy little program that some will find useful. Validate it for yourself and you'll see what I mean. As for me, I'll be sticking with what I already have for now.

Enjoy.

Facial Comparisons and identification

I get numerous requests to make "identifications" of individuals depicted in CCTV footage. In terms of managing expectations, I try to explain just what it takes to "identify" someone - getting into the difference between "recognize" and "identify."

I've got an excellent reference source on my shelf to help with explanations and I thought that I'd pass it along. Here's a quote from the introduction:

"... law enforcement and intelligence agencies have many more opportunities to acquire and analyze images that depict persons of interest, whether they may be suspects of a crime, witnesses, or victims. In most cases, such images are used for investigative or recognition purposes, wherein an investigator or witness will look at a photograph and because of a prior association or familiarity with the subject , "recognize" the individual and thus be able to "identify" them. In some cases, however, the identity of the individual depicted in an image is subjected to debate. In these cases, analysis by an expert may be necessary to either confirm or exclude a specific individual as being the subject depicted in an image."

What does this mean? If you are capturing images, cleaning them up, putting them on a BOLO poster, then printing/distributing them ... you aren't involved in forming an opinion as to who's in the picture. The investigators take the product of your work and use it to work towards identification of the person in question by others. In this case, your testimony wouldn't include opinions as to the identity of the person in question - just about your process with the footage and subsequent images.

Facial Comparison is quite a different matter all together. If you are interested in getting to the world of opinion based work, I would suggest the book quoted above, Computer-Aided Forensic Facial Comparison, Editors: Martin Paul Evison from the University of Toronto, and Richard W. Vorder Bruegge from the FBI. I would also recommend getting in touch with the SWG that covers this area, FISWG.

With more people looking to get into this line of work, it's important to realize that a large part of what we do is not done with an Adobe product. Just because one is a photographer or an artist does not automatically make one capable of forming and supporting an opinion on facial identification. FISWG saw this recently and said the following in a letter to the IAI, "It is an unfortunate fact that some individuals who testify as experts may occasionally cite a given certification as proof of their expertise in a different, but associated, discipline. The IAI Forensic Art and Forensic Photography certifications relate to disciplines that are associated with, but differ from, the discipline of Facial Comparison. FISWG is concerned that the potential exists for the courts to incorrectly interpret a certification in one of these disciplines to confer certification in the discipline of Facial Comparison. To offer oneself as certified in the discipline of Facial Comparison based upon any current IAI certification would be a misrepresentation."

In the same way, having a certification from a group like ASIS as security professional or an alarm installer doesn't qualify one to work in this area. Having training and experience in this area qualifies one to work in this area. Most professional organizations warn against the ethical violation of working outside of one's expertise.

So ... if you want to get into facial comparison work, or you just want to help your ability to explain your work during testimony, Computer-Aided Forensic Facial Comparison is well worth the price.

Enjoy.

Baby monitors transmit video of unknowing families

From KOMONews.com: "The saying goes, "never wake a sleeping baby." But what if that baby is broadcast for all the neighbors to see?

From Ballard to Queen Anne and Greenlake to Phinney Ridge, KOMO News found unsuspecting families transmitting what's inside their homes without even knowing it.

And they're broadcasting through video baby monitors -- devices designed to give parents peace of mind. But a Problem Solvers investigation found these security devices can be anything but secure.

Monitors can be as cheap as $99. We purchased a model that retails for about $140, and transmits in the 900MHZ band. This frequency is left open by the Federal Communications Commission for all sorts of household uses, including radios, telephones and video cameras.

"It's interesting," said Seattle-based security consultant Eric Rachner. "Baby monitors, for the most part, don't really have security. Technologically, they're just little television stations. There's nothing to prevent you from being able to tune these devices to the channels they're transmitting on."

Rachner, who works for a South Lake Union security firm, is hired by companies to dig out holes in their software and respond when someone breaks into their computer systems. He says intercepting the signal on a baby monitor is simpler than you think.

"How easy is it to intercept? As easy as it is to just go and purchase the receiver for one of these baby monitors," he said. "I would say, it's not just easy; it's trivial."

The Problem Solvers decided to put it to the test. We connected our monitor, which acts as a receiver, in our car, and then drove around the city. Within moments, we started seeing nurseries, bedrooms, and hearing people's conversations. One baby's image we picked up from almost half a mile away.

Using the monitor in West Seattle, we spotted a baby boy sleeping quietly in his crib. Turns out he belongs to Dino Annest, who invested in two baby monitors, one for each of his kids.

"The main thing we were looking for is you want to keep an eye on your kid," Annest said. "I hate the fact that somebody could drive by and watch our baby on their monitor."

Click here to continue reading this story.

Enjoy.

Adobe FormsCentral

A few readers have asked about Adobe's new service, FormsCentral. With FormsCentral, you can create forms, surveys, plan events, and etc. Questions have focussed on if FormsCentral would be a good fit for evidence processing forms and the like. On the surface, FormsCentral looks great. You can create a form for just about anything that we do in LE. That form can be used on a wide variety of devices. The problem comes when you look at the Terms and Conditions - where no one likes to look. So, I've looked for you ...

"2. b. Unless expressly agreed to by Adobe in writing elsewhere, Adobe has no obligation to store any Materials that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available through your use of the Services (“Your Content”)."

"6. a. You agree that you, not Adobe, are entirely responsible for all of Your Content that you distribute, perform, display, upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available on or through the Services (“Make Available”), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted. You assume all risks associated with use of Your Content, including any reliance on its accuracy, completeness or usefulness."

"7. a. Adobe, in its sole discretion, may (but has no obligation to) monitor or review the Services and Materials at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, Adobe shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to remove any of Your Content for any reason (or no reason), including if it violates the Terms or any Law."

... and so on ...

So, as you can see, Adobe FormsCentral is probably not the best service for your sensitive LE data needs.

Enjoy.

Reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle's "black box"

This just in: Search of a vehicle’s “black box” for data a year after an accident was without a warrant and without probable cause. The motorist retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data in the recorder even after a year. People v. Xinos, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 153 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. February 8, 2011):

In California v. Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565 [111 S.Ct. 1982], the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the warrant requirement for searching a closed container located in a vehicle where probable cause supports a search of the container but not a search of the entire vehicle. (Id. at pp. 573, 576, 579.) But the court emphasized that its holding did not expand the scope of searches permissible under the automobile exception. (Id. at p. 580.) Thus, in Acevedo, “the police had probable cause to believe that the paper bag in the automobile’s trunk contained marijuana,” which justified a warrantless search of the paper bag. (Ibid.) But “the police did not have probable cause to believe that contraband was hidden in any other part of the automobile and a search of the entire vehicle would have been without probable cause and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” (Ibid.) Thus, a warrantless search of a vehicle, or the containers within it, under the automobile exception continues to be circumscribed by probable cause. (Ibid.) Its holding indirectly confirms that vehicles continue to be protected by the Fourth Amendment.

We do not accept the Attorney General’s argument that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the data contained in his vehicle’s SDM. The precision data recorded by the SDM was generated by his own vehicle for its systems operations. While a person’s driving on public roads is observable, that highly precise, digital data is not being exposed to public view or being conveyed to anyone else. But we do not agree with defendant that a manufacturer-installed SDM is a “closed container” separate from the vehicle itself. It is clearly an internal component of the vehicle itself, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that a motorist’s subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her or his own vehicle encompasses the digital data held in the vehicle’s SDM.

. . .

The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the vehicle was still being held as evidence of a crime on May 11, 2007 but there had already been a disposition of the case based on “all of the [accident] reconstruction and eyewitness testimony.” The investigating officers had not accessed the data recorder prior to May 11, 2007 because they did not believe it held any relevant data since the airbags had not deployed during the collision. Officer Checke explained, “Prior to going in [on May 11, 2007], we did not believe there would be anything based on the fact that there were no air bags deployed.” Nevertheless, on May 11, 2007, more than a year after the fatal collision, they downloaded the data from the SDM at the request of the District Attorney’s Office. It was only some months later that Officer Checke learned that “a non-deployment event” may register even if air bags do not deploy.

As stated, the scope of a legitimate warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception “is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (U.S. v. Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at p. 824; cf. Michigan v. Clifford (1984) 464 U.S. 287, 294 [104 S.Ct. 641] [“If the primary object of the search is to gather evidence of criminal activity, a criminal search warrant may be obtained only on a showing of probable cause to believe that relevant evidence will be found in the place to be searched”]; Steagald v. U.S. (1981) 451 U.S. 204, 213 [101 S.Ct. 1642] [“A search warrant ... is issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place”].) The scope of a warrantless search authorized by the automobile exception is “no broader and no narrower than a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant.” (U.S. v. Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at p. 825.) Moreover, probable cause to conduct a warrantless search must exist at the time the warrantless search is executed. (See Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co. (1968) 391 U.S. 216, 221 [88 S.Ct. 1472] [officers conducting warrantless search of automobile must have “‘reasonable or probable cause’ to believe that they will find the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime before they begin their warrantless search”]; cf. Sgro v. U.S. (1932) 287 U.S. 206, 210 [53 S.Ct. 138] [Proof of probable cause to support issuance of a warrant “must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time”].)

In cases of fatal collisions between a vehicle and a pedestrian, the particular facts and circumstances may give rise to probable cause to believe the SDM contains evidence of a crime. But in this case, the prosecution failed to show that the objective facts known to the police officers at the time of the download constituted probable cause to search the SDM for evidence of crime. The download occurred long after the collision and criminal investigation. The officers who conducted the download were merely complying with an unexplained request of the D.A.’s Office and believed no relevant data would be found. The download of the data was not supported by probable cause."

Enjoy.

Forensic Photoshop turns 3 this month

It's with surprise and gratitude that I say ... Forensic Photoshop turns 3 this month. On behalf of my publisher and myself, thanks for your continued support.

Changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence – Rule 26

This handy bit of info comes from Fred Cohen & Associates: "As of December 1, 2010, the rules have changed. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) provide the basis for expert testimony and the requirements for expert reports and qualifications for all Federal cases, and is reflected in many State and local jurisdictions, typically with some delay. After an extensive processes, supported by the legislative and judicial branches of government, including the Supreme Court, the rules have changed. While these changes may seem relatively simple, for the digital forensic evidence examiner and other expert witnesses, there is quite a substantial difference that will reduce costs, ease burdens, and allow examiners and lawyers to focus more clearly on the things they should be doing with regard to legal matters.

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) includes, in pertinent parts:
an expert witness must provide an expert report and “...The report must contain: (I) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; ...”

This rule properly puts the burden for providing the basis for opinions from the side challenging the witness to the side putting forth the witness, in that under the old rules, it was up to the other side to ask for the basis and the facts, and given the time frames for different phases of discovery, this was often problematic.

Perhaps more importantly, this puts the scientific burden for experts where it belongs - on the experts. The courts have long insisted that expert testimony be the result of reliable methods reliably applied, but most expert reports I have reviewed in digital forensics to date failed to provide the vast majority of the key information required in order to evaluate the opinions stated. For example, and without limit, I have seen digital forensics reports stating things like “[strings were] randomly generated” and “[there is] no such person”, but the authors provided no basis at all for these rather startling conclusions ..."

Check out the entire report by clicking here.

Enjoy.

A first: biometrics used to sentence criminal

This just in from the Homeland Security Newswire: "A judge ruled that biometric facial recognition could be submitted as evidence marking the first time such evidence has been used in a criminal trial; this move surprised many legal and scientific experts as facial recognition technology does not follow basic legal standards required for evidence; the decision may or not become a legal precedent as it was not made by a California appellate or supreme court.

In early January, convicted murder Charles Heard received twenty-five years to life in a California prison for murder.

The case was unique because it was the first time that biometric facial recognition technology had been permitted to be used as evidence in the court room.

In the years following 9/11, DHS and cities around the world began experimenting with closed circuit security cameras and facial recognition software.

After spending billions of dollars into research and development, the results were disappointing.

According to SF Weekly, police departments in Florida, Virginia, and even Germany abandoned the use of such technology as it did not lead to any arrests while it was deployed.

In Germany officials found that the technology only had a 60 percent success rate in identifying people during the day, while at night it dropped to as low as 10 percent due to poor lighting conditions that made accurate identification difficult.

Given this track record, legal and scientific experts were surprised by a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s decision last July to allow biometric facial identification technology to be submitted as evidence to help exonerate a suspected murderer.

Surveillance cameras from a nearby business caught footage of man believed to have shot and killed another in an armed robbery.

The suspect’s defense team submitted still frames from the video footage along with testimony from a biometrics expert who argued that comparisons between current photos and the still frame clearly demonstrate that Charles Heard, the suspect, was not the shooter.

According to David Faigman, an expert on scientific evidence at Hastings College of Law, the judge’s decision came as a bit of a surprise because the technology does not meet a few basic legal standards as it applies to other forms of scientific evidence like DNA or fingerprint analysis.

“I think it is precedent-setting,” he said, “But I also think that the appellate courts might take a dim view of the admission of this evidence…Without the systematic and rigorous evaluation of the evidence, it’s hard to know how much weight to give it ...”

Click here to continue reading this story. Do you think the unnamed author got it right or wrong? Post your comments below.

Enjoy.

Statewide forensic oversight body proposed in California?

This just in from Forensic Magazine: "Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced his intention to introduce two bills to improve the reliability and function of California’s criminal justice system. The first bill would create a statewide forensic oversight body that would craft uniform procedures and standards for crime labs throughout the state. The companion bill would develop guidelines for policies and procedures for the collection and handling of eyewitness evidence in criminal investigations by all law enforcement agencies operating in California. He believes both of these measures would increase public trust and the reliability of these two key components of that make up the backbone of our criminal justice system.

“The problems with San Francisco’s crime lab are just the tip of the iceberg both here and across the state. Without effective oversight to guarantee the integrity of evidence and standard procedures for eyewitness identification, we put both victims and the accused at risk. Our criminal justice system must reflect our society’s values and ensure that the end result is real justice for all involved,” said Ammiano."

Obviously, I'll be watching this development closely.

Enjoy.

District court's finding of fact contradicted by videotape

This just in: "The Eighth Circuit finds the District Court's finding of reasonable suspicion for a traffic violation to be clearly erroneous and contradicted by the videotape of the stop. The defendants' car exited a Nebraska freeway to avoid a ruse checkpoint. United States v. Prokupek, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1392 (8th Cir. January 24, 2011).

Click here for more information.

Enjoy.

Even bad video can help tell your story

From People v Flores (B220564) - Unpublished
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five
Filed January 26, 2011

"The gas station's video footage of the crime was admitted into evidence. The quality of the video was not such that the individuals could be identified. The video did, however, indicate that shortly before the first shot was fired, one of the African-American onlookers lifted his arm and pointed at something. The victim's friend, Burnett, identified himself as "the pointer" in the video, and testified that he was pointing at appellant in response to seeing appellant's gun. The defense sought to establish that the shooter fired the gun in response to being threatened; that is to say, appellant wished to argue (without admitting that he was present at the crime scene) that he and his two companions were greatly outnumbered by the dozen or so youths who were following the group to the back of the gas station; that he assumed that his adversaries were gang members, and that gang members typically carry weapons; so that when he saw one of his adversaries lift his arm and point at him, he believed that his life was in danger. Appellant sought, but was refused, instructions on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense and a sudden quarrel or heat of passion."

There is some rather interesting arguments being made for the retention of the hate crime enhancement for this brown on black gang crime. This case is a useful read if only for the citations used in support of the gang and hate crime enhancements.

Read the entire opinion here.

Enjoy.

Asset seizure funds used to buy FVA equipment

This just in from the Kane County Chronicle: "The St. Charles Police Department’s new video evidence processing system has, in its first six months of use, helped police solve a burglary and armed robbery by enhancing surveillance video.

But the department would not have been able to afford the equipment if it hadn’t been for a 2009 traffic stop leading to arrests that, through a drug asset seizure of confiscated funds, eventually netted the department more than $20,000, Deputy Chief Dave Kintz said.

“Without having access to a seizure like that, I can guarantee you we would not be able to make that purchase for several years,” he said.

Officials of other law enforcement agencies in the Tri-Cities agree that asset forfeitures can help maximize their departments’ limited budgets since, officials said, the money can be spent on drug enforcement, overtime, training and other public safety items.

“It puts us in a position where we don’t have to put those things in our budget,” Kane County Sheriff Pat Perez said.

Geneva Police Cmdr. Julie Nash said, however, that asset forfeitures is not an area her department depends on.

“It is very unpredictable,” she said in an e-mail. “Therefore, it would not be fiscally responsible to count on something that cannot be guaranteed.”

Indeed. Kintz said the $20,000 seizure was unusual for St. Charles. Credit goes to the officer who stopped the vehicle for not having a valid registration, he said.

“That was a tremendous job on the officer’s part to notice that,” Kintz said.

Perez and other officials said law enforcement agencies are limited to seizing money from drug arrests until a Cook County court case that challenges the legality of vehicle seizures is finalized.

Before that case, Perez said, the sheriff’s department also would generate money by selling seized cars and would add such vehicles to its undercover fleet ..."

Continue reading the story by clicking here.

Enjoy.

Getting Text Out of a PDF file: Copy vs Export

This just in from Adobe's Joel Geraci: "Basically, “Copy with Formatting” and “Export Selection” won’t give you the same results; they were not designed to. “Copy with Formatting” formats the text as a continuous stream; text in multiple columns will not be preserved as columns for example. This was by design and the intention is to help paste content into an existing file that may formatted somewhat differently. Export a selection will attempt to preserve the content as it appears in the PDF file, including content position.

Here are a few tips to help you decide which method to use when reusing content from a PDF file.

Use “Copy with Formatting” when copying small amounts of text or simple content (text and a few images). This allows you to paste content inline to existing content. It allows you to “match destination formatting” when pasting into Word, for example.

Use “Export Selection” for complex content containing inline images and vector art or when you explicitly want to preserve the relative positioning of all content.

Finally, “Copy with Formatting” may be slightly slower since it needs to put multiple formats onto the clipboard."

Enjoy.

Generic Guideline for Disk Setup

Many PC users like to build their own machines, maximizing purchasing power and performance. I get the occasional question on the amount of hard drives and the location of various files for max performance with Photoshop and other Adobe products.

I've found that this thread, over at the Adobe Forums, offers a good starting point and clear summary on this issue.

Enjoy.

Cell phone may be searched incident to arrest

This just in: "California holds that a cell phone text message folder can be seized incident to arrest, 90 minutes into the arrest finding “binding Supreme Court authority,” albeit cases from the '70's before cell phones were even imagined. The police arrested the defendant after listening to an ecstacy sale on a wire. The cell phone was removed from his person. At the police station, the officer manipulated the phone to find the text message folder which had incriminating messages. People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84 (January 3, 2011).

Click here for more information.

Enjoy.

Cuts could cost county lab its accreditation

Be careful when making blanket cuts to personnel and services, as this story from the Buffalo News illustrates: "The Erie County Medical Examiner’s Office is in danger of losing state and national accreditations unless lawmakers restore jobs cut from this year’s budget.

The jobs, part of the county’s Toxicology Laboratory, were eliminated as part of the 2011 budget proposed by County Executive Chris Collins and approved by the Legislature.

County officials have since learned that the budget cuts could result in the American Board of Forensic Toxicology and the State Commission on Forensic Science pulling its accreditations, an action that could diminish the laboratory’s credibility in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

“It needs to be corrected and should never have happened in the first place,” said Legislator Lynn M. Marinelli, D-Town of Tonawanda.

Marinelli said she warned the Collins administration and fellow lawmakers during budget deliberations that, while the Medical Examiner’s Office is not a high-profile department, it does provide important community services.

The Collins administration, which has taken steps to restore the two jobs, as well as two others in the county Health Department, said the potential loss of accreditation was never raised when it first proposed the budget.

The administration also anticipated grant money to help fund one of the two toxicology jobs, something that never materialized.

“When you eliminate 410 positions to right-size county government and protect taxpayers, it is both reasonable and expected that minor adjustments will have to made once you are operating under the new budget,” said Collins spokesman Grant Loomis.

Loomis also noted that the restoration of the four jobs is being accomplished within the Health Department’s existing budget."

Enjoy.

5 Free PDF Readers Compared

I get notes from folks asking about the difference between Adobe's PDF products and the free PDF creators and readers out there. By way of answering, here's a review of 5 free PDF readers from Appligent's Duff Johnson.

Enjoy.

Which graphics card to use for Premiere Pro CS5 on Mac Pro?

With the release of Premiere Pro CS5 and the news of the Mercury Playback Engine, Mac Pro users have been scrambling to find a compatible GPU to take advantage of this revolutionary new technology.

Adobe's Terry White gives us the tip of the year, you'll want to pick up the Nvidia Quadro 4000.

Check out his review here.

Here's what the Videoguys had to say about it whilst giving it the number 4 spot in their Top Ten products of 2010: "When Adobe worked with NVIDIA to create the CS5 Mercury Playback Engine, they made it more important than ever to choose the best graphics board for your NLE workstation. In the past, when manufacturers required special graphics cards, they were often extremely expensive. Now, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 by PNY is an incredibly powerful board for under $1,000 and it's available for either PC or Mac! While the Quadro4000 Mac costs a little more than it's PC brother, it is substantially less expensive than any other Quadro board ever offered for Mac.

The Quadro 4000 is based on NVIDIA's Fermi technology, which is the next generation of their CUDA technology. This is an understatement, it's more like CUDA on steroids. The Fermi/CUDA power allows software vendors to tap directly into the GPUs many processing cores. The Quadro 4000 has a whopping 256 CUDA Parallel Processing Cores to go along with it's 2GB of GDDR5 memory. Think about that, it's like having a dedicated graphics workstation on a card. The folks at Adobe jumped on this and other software manufacturers in the content creation and encoding business are following along. When you put a Quadro 4000 in your PC or Mac workstation, you're making sure that you'll have the GPU CUDA performance to take full advantage of these new performance enhancements as they become available in more and more applications."

Enjoy.

Nurses bring a touch of CSI to ER

From the Times Colonist: "Beaten and emotionally traumatized, victims of assault, particularly sexual assault, can present a difficult challenge for medical practitioners and police investigators.

While nurses and doctors work to begin the healing of physical and psychological injuries, police and the legal establishment want evidence to be properly collected and preserved.

But in Victoria, about 15 nurses have signed up to work as forensic nurses, helping to meet both sets of challenges.

The nurses are specially trained to deal with a victim's medical trauma, but, at the same time, can gather key evidence that can put the assailant in prison.

Originally they were known strictly as sexual assault nurse examiners. Now they favour the broader term of forensic nurse because they can also collect evidence in cases such as child abuse.

"I'm the CSI [crime scene investigator] in the ER," jokes forensic nurse Janet Kalnan, co-ordinator of the program in Victoria.

The program started in 1996, following others launched on the Lower Mainland. The nurses, trained in forensics, perform regular work in various departments, such as emergency or recovery room, but are on call to report within 30 minutes to Victoria General Hospital to assist the victim of a sexual assault. The first priority given to the victim is always medical care. It is provided on a one-to-one basis and can last for several hours.

"It's our patient, and it's the only patient we look after at that particular time," Kalnan said.

The forensic work involves preparing a "traumagram." Checking from head to toe, injuries such as scrapes or bruises are noted, described and documented on a "map" of the patient's body. Observations of mood and demeanour are also recorded.

Samples, like swabs from various parts of the body, are taken. Any substance or smear that might provide a DNA match to a suspect is collected. The victim's blood and urine is collected to be tested for drugs and alcohol. Foreign material, such as twigs in the hair, are collected and packaged.

Samples are marked, recorded and preserved in a cooler. But to be valid legal evidence, the movements and whereabouts of samples must be tracked and recorded. It must be noted who collected a sample and when, who received it next, who transported it and when it arrived in the secure area where it was set in a cooler.

Records of the handling of evidence is crucial to any court case so nobody can argue that it has been tampered with.

"This is how you maintain a chain of custody," Kalnan said. "You can't just throw it in a box and put it in the back cupboard and walk way from it."

The forensic nurse can restore a sense of autonomy and control to a victim by offering options to evidence collection and police involvement. The victim can elect to have no police involvement and no forensic examination. Or he or she can involve police immediately in the forensic examination, and officers will document the crime.

If it seems too intimidating to make statements to police and begin the legal process, a victim can put the decision off for days or weeks, even months.

The forensic nurse will store evidence for up to a year. Victims may prefer to make up their own minds whether to talk to police once they are more emotionally stable.

Providing such options, particularly for a victim of sexual assault, goes a huge distance in helping rebuild a traumatized individual, said Tracy Lubick, resource development manager for the Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Centre ..."

Click here to continue reading the story.

Enjoy.

Forensic Magazine highlights Digital Lab design

The latest issue of Forensic Magazine has hit the streets. In this issue, Digital Forensics lab design takes centre stage.

"...Video Examination, with the increasing ease in digitally manipulating photo images, there is a significant need for mathematical and computational algorithms to aid forensic examiners to detect tampering in digital media. Video itself has always been a ground- breaking weapon against crime, but now even poor-quality videos can be enhanced to provide even more valuable data through an extremely powerful, yet cost-effective, toolset for forensic video enhancement.

Lighting control is the primary requirement for the design of a video examination space, which should include dimmable lighting and variable light quality sources. In order to enhance the concentration ability of the examiner, the space should be acoustically controlled, yet not to the extent required for digital audio analysis ..."

"... The examination of digital audio media necessitates an acoustically isolated space to allow the examiner to concentrate on the evidence without any interference from outside noise ..."

Read the entire article by clicking here.

Enjoy.

Where's the Typewriter Tool in Acrobat X?

Many folks have upgraded to Acrobat X. A recent bunch of comments surrounds the missing Typewriter Tool. Adobe's Rick Borstein helps solve the mystery of the missing tool. Click here to find out where it went.

Enjoy.

UK Government Cuts Forensic Service

From Nature.com: "Forensic research faces a grim future in England and Wales, warn UK forensic scientists. Their gloomy prediction followed hot on the heels of the UK government's decision to wind down the Forensic Science Service (FSS).

The FSS is a government-owned company headquartered in Birmingham that sells its services to customers including police forces in England and Wales. The government has now promised to sell off as much of its operations as possible to the private sector. Although it had previously been suggested that the company would be privatized, it is currently losing £2 million (US$3 million) a month, and a recent National Audit Office report put its value at "a nominal figure of £1,000" in 2008–09 — down from £67 million in 2007–08.

Forensic researchers and practitioners are already expressing concerns about the demise of the FSS. "There is a real dearth of finance available for forensic research in the UK anyway," says Sue Black, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Dundee. Black notes that academics were able to team up with the FSS when applying for research grants. This week's announcement "leaves us with research partners thin on the ground", she says ..."

To continue reading this article, click here.

Enjoy.

Free Adobe Captivate Training Sessions

From Adobe.com: "For some time now, we’ve been getting requests for training on Captivate- ‘delivered by Adobe’. Starting February, we are rolling out a Captivate training program. This will consist of in-depth 90 minute sessions, conducted via the Adobe Connect virtual classroom. These sessions have been put together by our in house trainers. Each session will be facilitated by two Adobe trainers (to ensure that you get more one-on-one attention).

This training program is targeted towards the relative new comers to Captivate. It will cover the core eLearning authoring workflows for which you use Captivate- including application capture, transforming Powerpoints into interactive eLearning, Quizzing, Publishing to your LMS, and adding Audio narration.

The best part- this training program is absolutely free. But we do have a limit on the number of people that can attend a session, hence please ensure that you register at the earliest.

The plan is to have one session every month. We might increase the frequency, or have repeat sessions, depending on the demand. The first session scheduled for February 24th , 9AM US Pacific Time, is on Application Capture. More details on the session, and the link for registration can be found here."

As an interesting aside, the training videos that I made for the Book were done in Captivate.

Melendez-Diaz hits traffic court

From theNewspaper.com: "California courts continue to find the evidence provided by photo enforcement citations to be lacking. In both Orange, and San Mateo Counties, appellate division judges found the images presented in court by private vendors to be inadmissible hearsay. Late last month, Kern County joined the growing number of jurisdictions troubled by the quality of traffic camera evidence packages.

On January 19, 2010, Judge Charles R. Brehmer found a motorist guilty after reviewing the material provided by Redflex Traffic Systems, the for-profit company in charge of automated ticketing in America. The evidence consisted of a video, photographs and a declaration from Redflex regarding the manner in which the material was collected. The appellate judge was not impressed by its trustworthiness as the exception to the hearsay rule only applies to government employees.

"The custodian of records works for a private company, which installs and services red light cameras," Judge Colette Humphrey wrote in a December 23 ruling. "The witness who testified at trial was unable to establish the method and time of preparation of the evidence offered so as to indicate its trustworthiness. Therefore, the people failed to establish the foundation necessary for the admission of the video and photographs."

Because the lower court improperly admitted the evidence, Judge Humphrey overturned the decision and barred the state from attempting to refile charges on the grounds that there had been "significant prejudice to the appellant." Similarly, a three-judge panel of the appellate division of the Orange County Superior Court strengthened its decision on December 27. The court considered a case where a police officer offered expert testimony more comprehensive than previously attempted.

Nonetheless, citing the Melendez-Diaz case from the US Supreme Court, the Orange County judges found that motorists had not relinquished their right to confront their accuser. The actual accuser, a Redflex employee, did not appear in court, "Section 1553 sets forth a presumption that a printed representation of a digitally stored image is an accurate representation of the image it purports to represent, but that presumption is rebutted in this case as to exhibit 1 by the people's own evidence that the photos in that exhibit were 'derived from' (i.e., were enhanced/altered/modified from) the photos contained in Exhibit 3," Presiding Judge Gregory H. Lewis wrote ..."

To continue reading this story, click here.

Enjoy.

Mercury, CUDA, and what it all means

This just in from Adobe Forums: 'Mercury Playback Engine' is a name for a large number of performance improvements in Premiere Pro CS5. Those improvements include the following:

- 64-bit application
- multithreaded application
- processing of some things using CUDA

Everyone who has Premiere Pro CS5 has the first two of these. Only the third one depends on having a specific graphics card.

Confusingly---because of one of our own early videos that was just plain unclear---a lot of people think that 'Mercury' just refers to CUDA processing. This is wrong. To see that this was not the original intent, you need look no further than the project settings UI strings 'Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration' and 'Mercury Playback Engine Software Only', which would make no sense if 'Mercury' meant "hardware" (i.e., CUDA) ..."

Click here for more information.

Enjoy.

Making Actions Happen with the Script Events Manager

A few folks asked the same question recently. How do I get actions to launch when I perform certain actions? The answer is simple, you need the Scripts Event Manager.

I have one action that duplicates the background layer of a document when it opens. This is run from the Scripts Event Manager. There are other things you could script depending on the work flow.

Check out this YouTube video which will show you all that you need to know about this handy tool.

Enjoy.