DOCSLIB.ORG

Digital Witness: Safeguarding Digital Evidence by Using Secure Architectures in Personal Devices”, IEEE Network, Pp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Digital Witness: Safeguarding Digital Evidence by Using Secure Architectures in Personal Devices”, IEEE Network, Pp A. Nieto, R. Roman, and J. Lopez, \Digital Witness: Safeguarding Digital Evidence by using Secure Architectures in Personal Devices", IEEE Network, pp. 12-19, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2016.1600087NM NICS Lab. Publications: https://www.nics.uma.es/publications 1 Digital Witness: Safeguarding Digital Evidence by using Secure Architectures in Personal Devices Ana Nieto, Rodrigo Roman, and Javier Lopez Abstract—Personal devices contain electronic evi- the majority of the cases require the involvement dence associated with the behaviour of their owners of humans during the seizure of evidence and the and other devices in their environment, which can help subsequent management process. clarify the facts of a cyber-crime scene. These devices are usually analysed as containers of proof. However, Traditional mechanisms for handling evidence it is possible to harness the boom of personal devices to are very robust but insufficient considering the new define the concept of digital witnesses, where personal challenges that paradigms such as the Internet of devices are able to actively acquire, store, and transmit Things (IoT) pose [1]. Until now, personal devices digital evidence to an authorised entity, reliably and have been seen as containers of electronic evidence, securely. This article introduces this novel concept, providing a preliminary analysis on the management in the same way as a corpse is analysed to find of digital evidence and the technologies that can be proofs to clarify the facts. However, how these de- used to implement it with security guarantees in IoT vices can testify against malicious cyber-behaviours environments. Moreover, the basic building blocks of or cyber-offenses directed to harm their owners, or a digital witness are defined. other individuals in a city, is not considered at all. Index Terms—Digital Evidence, IoT-Forensics, Se- Indeed, this will open the door to actively acquiring cure Element, Identity Delegation. electronic evidence from the environment of a user (with his consent) that nowadays is inevitably lost. I. INTRODUCTION These new sources of evidence which have not been Mobile user devices are deeply rooted at the heart considered until now could be key in demonstrating of our society. Indeed, social networks and educa- unproved or hidden cyber-attacks and demotivate tion in new technologies have greatly boosted the new ones. acceptance of personal devices as part of our daily The need to prepare our personal devices to lives. They are, from a functional point of view, an cope with these open issues is the reason why the extension of our human abilities. Therefore, it is concept of digital witness is being defined here. The well known that our devices are a valuable source following objetives are addressed in this article: of electronic evidence (e.g. network events, user- • Formal definition of the requirements for a generated events, user data) that can shed light on a digital witness. particular case. At present, collecting and handling • Discussion about the feasibility of this new such electronic evidence is a very delicate process, concept in personal devices. in which different stakeholders can be involved. • Definition of basic components to implement This is an almost artisan process; in order to avoid this concept in future works. any doubt about the integrity of the digital evidence This article is written as follows. First, a brief background to the latest trends in electronic evi- A. Nieto, R. Roman and J. Lopez were with the Department of Computer Science, University of Malaga, Spain, e-mail: dence management and other concepts related to our {nieto,roman,jlm}@lcc.uma.es. approach are discussed. Then we define the concept 2 Security requirements Social & normative requirements New concepts defined for Digital Witness Available to be used by Digital Witness, Binding Delegation if new functional components are implemented Embedded Security Architecture Binding Secure Storage Trusted Execution Secure communication Policies / User Agreements Witnessing Roles Credentials Preservation / Integrity Traceability Liability Privacy Authorisation Non-Repudiation Figure 1. Requirements of a Digital Witness and definitions. of digital witness and its requirements. After this Given the variety of scenarios where personal definition, the feasibility of this new concept in devices with limited resources (e.g. mobile user personal devices given current technological trends devices) are involved, including the IoT, it is nec- is analysed. Finally, the relationships for the compo- essary to explore new solutions that could include nents of a digital witness are defined. Conclusions personal devices as collaborators in a DCoC. Such and future work are discussed at the end of the solutions must consider the basic requirements for article. digital evidence management shown in Figure 1, which are derived from the standards UNE 71505, ISO/IEC 27037 and ISO/IEC 27042. There are II. BACKGROUND also standards related to digital forensics (UNE 71506, ISO/IEC 30121) that include the definition Traditionally, digital evidence is identified, col- of formats and procedures during the analysis. One lected, stored and analysed within a Chain of potential solution that we discuss in this article is to Custody to ensure the integrity, provenance and use the security architectures embedded in personal traceability of the proofs (cf. UNE 71505:2013, devices to define the concept of digital witness. ISO/IEC 27042:2015). Due to the immaterial and volatile nature of digital evidence, there are exten- sive procedures whose aim is to ensure that this III. DIGITAL WITNESS:CONCEPT OVERVIEW evidence is not repudiated in a court of law [2]. Furthermore, it is crucial to guarantee access to As an evolution of existing DCoC approaches, it authorised entities and also identify the people who seems reasonable to define cases in which multiple are responsible for the evidence. devices behave as human witnesses. Therefore, we Various researchers have proposed the concept define a Digital Witness as a device which is able of a Digital Chain of Custody (DCoC) [3], where to collaborate in the management of electronic certain evidence can be routed towards its desti- evidence from both technological and legal stand- nation through intermediary devices. While DCoC points. In order to realise this vision, a digital wit- adds flexibility to the traditional approach, it has ness defines critical components to implement the some drawbacks. For example, the type of evidence security and legal requirements shown in Figure 1, handled is very limited (e.g., pictures with geolocal- and expands over various concepts and topics which isation), and they tend to be managed by powerful are summarized in Table I. The link between the intermediary platforms (e.g., the cloud). Besides, all requirements and the principles behind the concept existing DCoC approaches require the intervention of digital witness will be detailed in the following of their human owners at all times [4], [5]. paragraphs. 3 Table I DIGITAL WITNESS -TECHNOLOGICAL LEAP. Concept / Topic New concept Breakdown Identity Binding Credentials (BC) • Binds all elements (User-Device-Evidence) • Binding Delegation – delegate evidence between witnesses Privacy IoT-based legal granu- larity • Privacy and security policies must be accepted by the user. • The information depends on the granularity / options selected by the user. Embedded Improve the use of exist- Security ing architectures in per- • Solutions to store electronic evidence preserving its integrity Architecture sonal devices • Electronic evidence management in compliance with standards and legal principles IoT-Forensics Enable heterogeneous devices to handle • Taxonomy of evidence for IoT electronic evidence • Homogenisation of cooperative mechanisms • Objects: ranging from wearables to vehicles and buildings Digital Chain of DCoC for IoT devices The devices are collaborators, not only containers: Custody (DCoC) (DCoC-IoT) • Format of documents for DCoC • Adapt security mechanisms for compliance with the standards and resources without compromising security • Hardiness of DCoC-IoT based on the user’s profile Role-based Digital evidence man- Acquisition of digital evidence based on the user’s profile: agement based in inher- • Digital Witness: basic digital witness to be used with the user’s consent. ited roles • Digital Custodian: digital witness handled by a user with privileges (e.g., police officer authorised with a search warrant). Digital witnesses are defined considering embed- ing Credentials help solve this issue and also add ded security architectures to make use of a core traceability to the evidence during the delegation of trust to i) implement trusted execution environ- procedure. Furthermore, the user’s privacy will be ments and ii) store and protect, with anti-tampering ensured according the policies accepted or not by hardware-based solutions, the proof of integrity of the user. For example, certain policies can define the digital evidence. Note that the heterogeneity of the granularity of user’s data based on the type of solutions to do this in IoT devices requires new object and the context (e.g., a camera that reveals solutions for acquiring evidence (e.g., in propietary the number of individuals in the building but not sensors) following IoT-forensics requirements [1], who they are). Notice that the use of mobile devices and also to homogeneise the access to security in this approach is considered as a responsibility;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P
    University of North Carolina School of Law Carolina Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2006 Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P. Mosteller University of North Carolina School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Publication: Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evidence History, the New Trace Evidence, and Rumblings in the Future of Proof Robert P. Mosteller* I. INTRODUCTION This paper is in two parts. The first part is about developments in the rules of evidence and particularly about developments in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which have had a major impact on evidence rules in many states. This part turns out to be largely about the past because my sense is that the impact of changes in the formal rules of evidence, which were substantial, are largely historic. In one area, however, significant future changes in the formal rules seem possible: those that may be made as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington,1 which dramatically changed confrontation and may unleash hearsay reformulation. The second part deals with my sense that technological and scientific advances may have a dramatic impact in altering the way cases, particularly criminal cases, are proved and evaluated in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Proving the Integrity of Digital Evidence with Time Chet Hosmer, President & CEO Wetstone Technologies, Inc
    International Journal of Digital Evidence Spring 2002 Volume 1, Issue 1 Proving the Integrity of Digital Evidence with Time Chet Hosmer, President & CEO WetStone Technologies, Inc. Background During the latter half of the 20th century, a dramatic move from paper to bits occurred. Our use of digital communication methods such as the world-wide-web and e-mail have dramatically increased the amount of information that is routinely stored in only a digital form. On October 1, 2000 the Electronic Signatures in National and Global Commerce Act was enacted, allowing transactions signed electronically to be enforceable in a court of law. (Longley) The dramatic move from paper to bits combined with the ability and necessity to bring digital data to court, however, creates a critical question. How do we prove the integrity of this new form of information known as “digital evidence”? Digital evidence originates from a multitude of sources including seized computer hard-drives and backup media, real-time e-mail messages, chat-room logs, ISP records, web-pages, digital network traffic, local and virtual databases, digital directories, wireless devices, memory cards, and digital cameras. The trust worthiness of this digital data is a critical question that digital forensic examiners must consider. Many vendors provide technology solutions to extract this digital data from these devices and networks. Once the extraction of the digital evidence has been accomplished, protecting the digital integrity becomes of paramount concern for investigators, prosecutors and those accused. The ease with which digital evidence can be altered, destroyed, or manufactured in a convincing way – by even novice computer users – is alarming.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Title – Department Senior Consultant Forensics and Technology
    Job title here Job title – Department Senior Consultant Forensics and Technology Control Risks is a specialist risk consultancy that helps to create secure, compliant and resilient organisations in an age of ever-changing risk. Working across disciplines, technologies and geographies, everything we do is based on our belief that taking risks is essential to our clients’ success. We provide our clients with the insight to focus resources and ensure they are prepared to resolve the issues and crises that occur in any ambitious global organisation. We go beyond problem-solving and give our clients the insight and intelligence they need to realise opportunities and grow. From the boardroom to the remotest location, we have developed an unparalleled ability to bring order to chaos and reassurance to anxiety. Our people Working with our clients our people are given direct responsibility, career development and the opportunity to work collaboratively on fascinating projects in a rewarding and inclusive global environment. Location Shanghai Engagement Full-time Department Regional Technology (F&T) Manager Principal, Regional Technology To drive & manage the continued development of our digital forensic technology Job purpose capabilities in China Tasks Project Work and responsibilities Lead in the development and management of the team’s forensic technologies service offerings and capabilities. Play a supporting role in the management of complex fraud and corruption investigations, particularly those involving the use of forensic technologies. Consult and understand the requirements of clients in relation to computer forensics. Perform computer forensics activities including digital evidence preservation, analysis, data recovery, tape recovery, electronic mail extraction, and database examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Best Practices for Authenticating Digital Evidence
    BEST PRACTICES FOR AUTHENTICATING DIGITAL EVIDENCE HON. PAUL W. GRIMM United States District Judge for the District of Maryland former member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules GREGORY P. JOSEPH, ESQ. Partner, Joseph Hage Aaronson, New York City former member of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules DANIEL J. CAPRA Reed Professor of Law, Fordham Law School Reporter to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional. © 2016 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic 444 Cedar Street, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101 1-877-888-1330 Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-68328-471-0 [No claim of copyright is made for official U.S. government statutes, rules or regulations.] TABLE OF CONTENTS Best Practices for Authenticating Digital Evidence ..................... 1 I. Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 II. An Introduction to the Principles of Authentication for Electronic Evidence: The Relationship Between Rule 104(a) and 104(b) ........ 2 III. Relevant Factors for Authenticating Digital Evidence ................... 6 A. Emails ......................................................................................... 7 B. Text Messages .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Collaborating with a Digital Forensics Expert: Ultimate Tag-Team Or Disastrous Duo? Sean L
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 1 Article 8 2011 Collaborating with a Digital Forensics Expert: Ultimate Tag-Team or Disastrous Duo? Sean L. Harrington Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Harrington, Sean L. (2011) "Collaborating with a Digital Forensics Expert: Ultimate Tag-Team or Disastrous Duo?," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 38: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol38/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Harrington: Collaborating with a Digital Forensics Expert: Ultimate Tag-Team COLLABORATING WITH A DIGITAL FORENSICS EXPERT: ULTIMATE TAG-TEAM OR DISASTROUS DUO? † Sean L. Harrington I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 354 II. ETHICS IN DIGITAL FORENSICS INVESTIGATIONS ................... 357 A. Ethical Rules Governing Digital Forensics Investigations ..... 357 B. The Lawyer’s Ethical Obligations While Working with Digital Forensics Examiners ............................................... 359 C. The Digital Forensics Examiner’s Obligations in a Litigation Support Role ..................................................... 367 1. Work Product Doctrine
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Perspective of Digital Evidence: a Forensic Scientist's View
    International Journal of Digital Evidence Spring 2002 Volume 1, Issue 1 An Historical Perspective of Digital Evidence: A Forensic Scientist’s View Carrie Morgan Whitcomb, Director, National Center for Forensic Science Author’s Comments During my tenure as director of the Postal Inspection Headquarters Laboratory (1988-1992), a Postal Inspector submitted a computer to examine for the presence of specific evidence he had enumerated in the letter of request. The evidence technician logged in the computer, assigned it a case number, and brought the request to me, inquiring “What should we do with this?” That was the beginning of an odyssey that I still pursue. The Inspection Service Laboratory had a Questioned Document Section. Since a computer seemed to be an obvious evolution of paper documents, I called the manager of that section, Drew Somerford, and asked him to take the case. He was reluctant to sign for the evidence. Even though there might have been “documents” on the hard drive, it was outside his expertise. How do you secure and preserve the evidence? How do you collect it without changing it? What are the accepted practices related to computer evidence that would stand the scrutiny of court? What are the examination protocols? It was technology that we did not know how to handle in the crime laboratory. We submitted the computer evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI Laboratory had a unit for computer evidence, and they worked the case. The Postal Inspection Service had a team of inspectors who were trained to work computer crime cases, but the laboratory was not equipped to assist them in processing evidence at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Authentication of Digital Evidence Jeff Welty UNC School of Government
    Authentication of Digital Evidence Jeff Welty UNC School of Government Analytic Framework for Digital Evidence Original Authentication Writing/ Best Hearsay Evidence Authentication: The Principal Issue “[T]he novel question regarding the admissibility of web‐ based evidence . is going to be authentication. [M]ost of the rest of the evidentiary problems are the common problems lawyers face all the time.” • G. Michael Fenner, The Admissibility of Web‐Based Evidence, 47 Creighton L. Rev. 63 (2013) 1 Authentication: Split of Authority “The . authentication rule[s] . require a demonstration that a piece of evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. But the generality of this rule has sent courts off in different directions, with some courts more skeptical of the origins of digital communications in light of the ease with which people can create accounts.” • Hugh Kaplan, Two State Courts Provide Guidance on Authenticating Texts, Facebook Messages, Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Reporter, April 24, 2015 Authentication Basics • Authentication is identification • N.C. R. Evid. 901(a) (“The requirement of authentication or identification . is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”) • Authentication is “a special aspect of relevancy” • Adv. Comm. Note, N.C. R. Evid. 901(a) • Authentication is a low hurdle Methods of Authentication • Rule 901(b) gives examples: (1) Testimony of a witness with knowledge. –Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. (4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. – Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. (7) Public records or reports.
    [Show full text]
  • For Response to Adult Sexual Assault Cases
    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION ON DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A MODEL PROTOCOL FOR RESPONSE TO ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES http://doj.nh.gov/criminal/victim-assistance/documents/sexual- assault-protocol.pdf 2018 Edition It is New Hampshire’s expectation that all disciplines involved in the response to adult sexual assaults will work collaboratively using a victim-centered approach. “This project was supported by subgrant no. 2014WEAX0036 awarded by the state administering office for the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Program. The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the state or the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.” Adult Sexual Assault Investigation Checklists These checklists are meant to bring attention to several priority responsibilities for various individuals involved in the response to an adult sexual assault report. They are not intended to exclude any responsibilities that may be identified due to unique circumstances presented during a specific report. These checklists are to be utilized as best practice guidelines. Emergency Communications/Dispatcher have touched, etc. while waiting for an □ Determine nature and location of the officer to arrive incident; identify caller, victim and suspect; any potential risk of injury to □ If a SART trained officer is on duty, the responding officers SART trained officer will be dispatched to the scene. If a SART trained officer □ Confirm victim’s safety and medical is not on duty, a uniform officer will be needs; activate Emergency Medical dispatched to the scene.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essentials of Digital Forensics by Sharon Nelson, Esq., John W
    The Essentials of Digital Forensics By Sharon Nelson, Esq., John W. Simek, Michael C. Maschke and Brandon Barnes © 2021 Sensei Enterprises, Inc. The popularity of electronic devices is greater than ever, focusing more attention on the valuable data these devices hold. In legal matters, electronically stored information (ESI) is involved in nearly every matter, requiring ESI to be collected, searched, and interpreted. To ensure proper procedures are followed and the most up-to-date techniques are utilized, a digital forensics expert is often required. The expertise needed to accurately collect, examine, and report on digital evidence requires a skill level above and beyond the capabilities of most end-users or information technology personnel. The term digital forensics originated from the term computer forensics and has been upgraded to include various devices that hold ESI other than computer systems. Digital forensics experts are now preserving and analyzing more mobile devices than computer systems. Some examples of data found on both computers and mobile devices include electronic communications such as email messages, instant messages (IMs), chats and text messages, databases, web-browser history, multimedia such as pictures, audio and video, configuration and activity logs, and third-party application data. Some frequent sources of ESI include: • Mobile phones • USB flash drives and external hard drives • Laptops, desktops, tablets (Surface Pro devices) • Social media accounts • Backups • Cloud storage • Web-based or locally stored Email sources • Email accounts (Microsoft 365) There are many steps involved in digital forensic analysis. Depending on case specifics, an examination can include planning, collection, and preservation of data, evidence processing, analysis, data production, and expert testimony.
    [Show full text]
  • California State Rules of Evidence
    Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courtsi Introducing Documentary and Electronic Evidence In order to introduce documentary and electronic evidence obtained in compliance with California Electronic Communication Privacy Act (Penal Code §§ 1546.1 and 1546. 2) in court, it must have four components: 1) it must be relevant. 2) it must be authenticated. 3) its contents must not be inadmissible hearsay; and 4) it must withstand a "best evidence" objection. If the digital evidence contains “metadata” (data about the data such as when the document was created or last accessed, or when and where a photo was taken) proponents will to need to address the metadata separately, and prepare an additional foundation for it. I. Relevance Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid. Code, § 350.) To be "relevant," evidence must have a tendency to prove or disprove any disputed fact, including credibility. (Evid. Code, § 210.) All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by statute. (Evid. Code, § 351.) For digital evidence to be relevant, the defendant typically must be tied to the evidence, usually as the sender or receiver. With a text message, for example, the proponent must tie the defendant to either the phone number that sent, or the phone number that received, the text. If the defendant did not send or receive/read the text, the text-as-evidence might lack relevance. In addition; evidence that the defendant is tied to the number can be circumstantial. And evidence that the defendant received and read a text also can be circumstantial. Theories of admissibility include: Direct evidence of a crime Credibility of witnesses Circumstantial evidence of a Impeachment crime Negates or forecloses a defense Identity of perpetrator Basis of expert opinion Intent of perpetrator Lack of mistake Motive II.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality Daniel B
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 12 | Issue 2 Article 5 Spring 2014 Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality Daniel B. Garrie Law and Forensics.com J. David Morrissy Zeichner Ellman and Krause LLP Recommended Citation Daniel B. Garrie and J. David Morrissy, Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality, 12 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 121 (2014). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol12/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality Daniel B. Garrie & J. David Morrissy April 2014 VOL. 12, NO. 2 © 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 12, Number 2 (April 2014) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality By Daniel B. Garrie & J. David Morrissy* I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF DIGITAL FORENSICS ................................................... 122 II. THE DAUBERT STANDARD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXPERT- REPORT DRAFTER ...................................................................................................... 123 III. FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING A FORENSIC REPORT ............................ 125 A. Examine the Mechanism Used to Collect the Digital Evidence. ........................ 125 B. Forensic Report Should Provide Sufficient Details to Replicate Findings ......... 126 C. Structure of a Digital Forensic Report ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CSC CAP Handout 2-23-18
    Anatomy of a Criminal Sexual Conduct Case CAP February 23, 2018 Lisa B. Kirsch Satawa ASSIGNMENT COMPETENCE Why CSC is different? Vocabulary: It’s all in what you call it Coochie Potty Dick Nuts Peenee Cookie Private Parts Ding a ling Peter Crotch Privacy Johnson Balls Snake Down there Cat Meat Pee Pee Stuff Pussy Cat V word rhymes with China The V Thing C word rhymes with Porous Bunny Vulva Schwanz Wang Twig Berries Sucker Spots Box Woody Bid Daddy Tower Monkey Ta Ta Gina P word rhymes with Venus Dingy Coo Coo Boobies Va-Jay Jay Think Tail Thing Thingy China Wee Wee Wee Wee Titties Pickle Weiner Meatloaf Willie Pocket Rocket Worm Turtle Stiffy Lizard Bunny Pocket Book Spots MoMa This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA Dolls, Dogs and other Two Legged Beings • Dolls • Dogs • Support People • Victim Advocates Evidence Collection and Preservation Context Time Lines This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND Evidence Rules Rape Shield 404b 768.27 702 703 6.201 803a 403(3) Stories He said/ She said Misinterpreted Consent Misbelieved Incapacitated Liar DNA not mine False Allegation DNA mine No explanation but not from sex I am guilty Collateral Consequences • IMMIGRATION: CSC = DEPORTATION • MDOC program disqualification This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA • The sentencing range minimum is not realistically the minimum. • SORA MCL 28.721 • Photo, Employment, School Activities, School Zones, Experts: What kind? What purpose? This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY It’s a Jury State of Mind: Me Too • Dinner table justification; • Dealing with beyond a reasonable doubt; • Of course I am telling the truth, why else would I put myself through this.
    [Show full text]