Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation

Matthew Stephen Tart; Robert Bird; David  Baldwin; Sue  Pope

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005

Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation

Matthew Stephen Tart, Robert Bird, David Baldwin, Sue Pope

Research Centre for Computational Science and Mathematical Modelling

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

161 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper considers the confusion that exists between opinion and non-opinion evidence concerning telecommunication data – and thus the boundary between expert and technical evidence. The difference between presentation, explanation and interpretation (for Technical, Investigative or Evaluative purposes) of data is outlined. The authors consider how the term “interpretation” may be used differently in connection with expert witnesses, witnesses giving technical evidence, and by the judiciary, suggesting that this may give rise to unrealistic expectations of a practitioner’s ability to reliably answer questions. Recommendations for core competencies are made for those giving telecommunications evidence to recognise when they are presenting opinion evidence and therefore (potentially inadvertently) acting as expert witnesses.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	558-264
Number of pages	7
Journal	Science & Justice
Volume	59
Issue number	5
Early online date	6 Jun 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005
Publication status	Published - 28 Aug 2019

Bibliographical note

© 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.

Keywords

Cellsite analysis
Forensic interpretation
Digital forensics

Access to Document

10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005

Post-PrintAccepted author manuscript, 700 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{4e5661d2fcf34a589eba8c3aa8b3767d,

title = "Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation",

abstract = "This paper considers the confusion that exists between opinion and non-opinion evidence concerning telecommunication data – and thus the boundary between expert and technical evidence. The difference between presentation, explanation and interpretation (for Technical, Investigative or Evaluative purposes) of data is outlined. The authors consider how the term “interpretation” may be used differently in connection with expert witnesses, witnesses giving technical evidence, and by the judiciary, suggesting that this may give rise to unrealistic expectations of a practitioner{\textquoteright}s ability to reliably answer questions. Recommendations for core competencies are made for those giving telecommunications evidence to recognise when they are presenting opinion evidence and therefore (potentially inadvertently) acting as expert witnesses.",

keywords = "Cellsite analysis, Forensic interpretation, Digital forensics",

author = "Tart, {Matthew Stephen} and Robert Bird and David Baldwin and Sue Pope",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Copyright {\textcopyright} and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. This document is the author{\textquoteright}s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it. ",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

day = "28",

doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005",

language = "English",

volume = "59",

pages = "558--264",

journal = "Science & Justice",

issn = "1355-0306",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cell site analysis

T2 - Roles and interpretation

AU - Tart, Matthew Stephen

AU - Bird, Robert

AU - Baldwin, David

AU - Pope, Sue

N1 - © 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.

PY - 2019/8/28

Y1 - 2019/8/28

N2 - This paper considers the confusion that exists between opinion and non-opinion evidence concerning telecommunication data – and thus the boundary between expert and technical evidence. The difference between presentation, explanation and interpretation (for Technical, Investigative or Evaluative purposes) of data is outlined. The authors consider how the term “interpretation” may be used differently in connection with expert witnesses, witnesses giving technical evidence, and by the judiciary, suggesting that this may give rise to unrealistic expectations of a practitioner’s ability to reliably answer questions. Recommendations for core competencies are made for those giving telecommunications evidence to recognise when they are presenting opinion evidence and therefore (potentially inadvertently) acting as expert witnesses.

AB - This paper considers the confusion that exists between opinion and non-opinion evidence concerning telecommunication data – and thus the boundary between expert and technical evidence. The difference between presentation, explanation and interpretation (for Technical, Investigative or Evaluative purposes) of data is outlined. The authors consider how the term “interpretation” may be used differently in connection with expert witnesses, witnesses giving technical evidence, and by the judiciary, suggesting that this may give rise to unrealistic expectations of a practitioner’s ability to reliably answer questions. Recommendations for core competencies are made for those giving telecommunications evidence to recognise when they are presenting opinion evidence and therefore (potentially inadvertently) acting as expert witnesses.

KW - Cellsite analysis

KW - Forensic interpretation

KW - Digital forensics

U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005

DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.06.005

M3 - Article

SN - 1355-0306

VL - 59

SP - 558

EP - 264

JO - Science & Justice

JF - Science & Justice

IS - 5

ER -

Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this