While some forensic work is well established, such as DNA evidence, the Read trial showed other technologies aren’t quite as grounded.
Inconsistencies in phone call records; a confusing time stamp on a Google search to learn how long it would take for a person to die in the cold; health data that showed a person descending a stairway — or maybe in a car.
While some forensic work is well established, such as DNA evidence, other technologies aren’t quite as grounded, as the Read trial showed. In particular, the field of digital forensics continues to evolve, shaped by court challenges and advancing technology. So, questions around the validity of that data have become the latest frontier in what legal observers call the “battle of experts”: dueling interpretations of an unsettled science.
And, with enough legal prowess — and financial resources — defendants can line up parades of experts to try to undermine a prosecution witness’s interpretation of forensic data, from the timing of a Google search to the movement of a human body.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
