With regard to the personal blog that I write regarding digital forensics in my off time, it would be prudent to say that I am not a staunch supporter of law enforcement but rather a staunch believer in following the evidence trail and going where it leads. Therefore, as any person who has taken time to read the blog would conclude almost unanimously, it is the evidence that is presented that leads the law enforcement to the culprits and has the potential of being used to mitigate against the risks of other dangers arising from the same perpetrator of the crime. However, to address the issue of bias and helping law enforcement by choosing to report that which would be beneficial, I would like us to follow the investigation carefully and the inferences drawn from the pieces of evidence gathered. This includes postulating the different scenarios and arguments that can be used in to poke holes in the process (Casey, 2009). Such an analysis, I am sure, would produce an impeccable investigation conducted in accordance to the books as well as the rules and regulations stipulated.
The investigation gave rise to certain issues that are of paramount importance in the case and they include correspondence between Mr Jackson and an unidentified individual whose email is recorded in the evidence presented and also the evidence of Mr Jackson containing the source code in his flash disk which is also known as the thumb drive. In this regard, it may be argued that the rights of Mr Jackson were violated through an unlawful seizure and search of personal property which is against the law. However, our company ensured that the procedure followed in gathering the evidence satisfies not only the prevailing laws as stipulated but also the care taken in providing the paper trail of the investigation aids the court in making its determination (John & Tierney, 2009). Authorization was provided prior to collecting and documenting the evidence found in the workplace of the accused and this included a signed permit by the company as well as procurement of a warrant through the law enforcement and ensuring supervision along the way (Goel, 2009).
The thumb drive was also found with the source code of the product and this may seem at first sight as a normal affair with regard to his work. However, further analysis shows that employees are not allowed to carry sensitive work material on such devices due to the susceptibility of infringement on intellectual property rights as well as the inherent risk of losing such material or it falling into the wrong hands (Nelson et al., 2014). As such, employees are encouraged to use the inbuilt storage and the cloud storage to access such sensitive material when away from the premises due to safety and privacy concerns. Therefore, having such material on his thumb drive shows intent to not only leave the premises with the property but also that of distribution.
This is further collaborated by the evidence given by Ms Suzanne Fleming, that show the intent to not only leave the premise with the source code but also the premeditation and use of covert methods to achieve his goal. Suzanne declares herself as the fiancé of Mr Jackson and proceeds to hand over a thumb drive that supposedly belongs to Mr Jackson who had given it to her earlier with specific instructions to get home with it after work as well as charging her with its safety. Video evidence from the surveillance cameras show Mr Jackson handing over a device that looks exactly like the thumb drive presented to the court as evidence and which we received from Ms Suzanne Fleming. Further evidence of the source code on the thumb drive also serve to give the impression that Mr Jackson was intent on getting the source code using all available means as presented in my analysis. Therefore, there are no reasons, whatsoever, to dispute where the facts have led and this has been done without bias.
With regard to giving information that only benefits my company’s bottom-line through supporting law enforcement, and in this regard being unfair to Mr Jackson, it would be imperative to say that this stance, were it true, would be detrimental to the company’s bottom-line. Having grown in reputation over the years through our undaunting search for truth through the use of facts and evidence, following wherever the facts may lead, we cannot compromise on such a reputation with one case. In as much as the company has to make profits, ours are made through conducting thorough investigations that would assist law enforcement in procuring justice and justice is attained when truth is revealed on an evidential basis.
Therefore, I am certain that our analysis of the evidence and the presentation of the analysis serves not to incriminate Mr Jackson at the expense of the truth but rather to give a clear understanding of the evidence gathered and the method of collection as well as the inferences that can be made. Consideration of my work should be made on evidentiary strength as well as the stipulations or parameters within which the investigation was conducted, and in this case, both arguments are laid out well.
The use of civil and criminal witness, the opinion of the witnesses are no admissible is not admissible. They are rather expected to stick to the facts. It is the responsibility of the judge or the jury to make inferences from the facts stated by the witness. This differs from expert witnesses who are considered using the exclusionary rule that makes their opinion be admissible in court but only if they are experts on the relevant matter (Frampton, 2008).
Casey, E. (2009). Handbook of digital forensics and investigation. Academic Press.
Frampton, C. (2008). How to be an Effective Expert Witness . Pharmorphix.
Top of Form
International Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime, Goel, S., & SpringerLink (Online service). (2010). Digital forensics and cyber crime: First International ICST Conference, ICDF2C 2009, Albany, NY, USA, September 30-October 2, 2009, Revised selected papers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Bottom of Form
John, T., & Tierney, J. (2009). Key perspectives in criminology. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Nelson, B., Phillips, A., & Steuart, C. (2014). Guide to computer forensics and investigations. Cengage Learning.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more