The workshop was an excellent overview of the various methods used in image authentication and an introduction to some of the tools that can be used for this application. Dr. Girgoras provided dozens of test images for us to run through the various tools, and provided time to discuss each case.

For anyone working in the field of image authentication, this is a worthwhile course to take. It will provide a better understanding of the tools and processes available to determine whether an image is what it purports to be.

To do the best enhancement, analysis, or authentication possible, originals are needed. Exact, logical copies of digital evidence is fine if the originals are digital.

With photographs, the original is the digital file as it came from the camera, or the negative from a film camera. If it’s a PDF, it is not the original.

With security digital video recorders, the original is an exact copy of the original data recorded by the DVR. If the file plays on a standard DVD player – it probably isn’t the original.

Determining if the still photos or video files are originals does involve more than simply determining whether the video plays on a standard DVD player, or if the still image file is in a JPEG file format – but those are good starts.

Whether you are using an expert or not – start demanding exact copies of the original visual evidence in your cases – it will make a significant difference in what that evidence can tell you.

I mention it here because this is a tool that I use frequently, that I usually include in my workshops, and that I think this update will be valuable to many forensics users.

Here’s a link to John Nack’s post about it, along with the place to download the new Image Processor Pro.

In this case, the opposing “expert” photographed the wrong area and used the wrong equipment. In his deposition, he was asked about the lighting, and his response included, “Again, this is out of my kind of area. I’m there to push the button.”

He was asked later in the deposition about his role as a forensic photographer, to which he stated, “… I think of it as kind of a movie set. Okay. We have a producer … director … and a cameraman, me.” This photographer obviously doesn’t think of himself as an expert, but as just the person to, “… push the button.”

When I visited the same scene, I checked the weather conditions, moon phase and position, and lighting conditions. I referred to photographs taken the night of the accident and the following day for orientation. And, I read depositions of witnesses. I used the proper equipment, took light readings, and made thorough notes about my observations. When I made prints, I used a calibrated monitor and printer, and valid methods for reproducing the proper tonal values in the prints. I was able to explain when I was deposed how I knew what to photograph, when to photograph the area, what equipment was proper to use, and how I know that my prints represented the scene as it was the night I took the photographs.

Next time you need a forensic photographer, be sure to get an expert, rather than the “cameraman” who is just there to “push the button.”

Casework: I had some very interesting cases in 2010, which included forensic photography, photography analysis, video analysis and image authentication. This included one case where I testified in a Seattle courtroom where the witness has nothing in front of them (no table, no podium, no barrier) and is close enough to juror number 1, that we shared the same water pitcher. It included the first case where I used colorization to show the movements of two individuals in a case, which turned out to be a method that I now use frequently. There were no objections to this method by opposing counsel, and it’s very effective at showing individual movement in a complex video scene. I authenticated two photographs for the prosecution in the Anna Nicole Smith prescription drug case. Unfortunately, the defense attorneys stipulated to my report so I didn’t get to testify in that interesting case.

Workshops: In 2010, I presented workshops in a variety of locations, including Dallas, TX, Fairfax, VA, Indianapolis, IN, Kansas City, MO, Denver, CO, and Seattle, WA. Most of these were either sponsored by Resolution Video or LEVA. I had the pleasure of co-presenting a forensic video analysis with Grant Fredericks at the 2010 LEVA conference in November.

In-House Training: The San Francisco Police Department and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department  each had me up to their agencies to provide forensic photography training during 2010, and I also provided forensic image analysis training to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the year.

Organizations: I continue to be on the forensic photography certification board for the International Association for Identification (IAI), and remain on the editorial board for their journal – the “Journal of Forensic Identification.” Early in the year, I met with a group of forensic video analysts to update the LEVA “Best Practices for the Acquisition of Digital Multimedia Evidence” guideline.

Training: I managed to get in a little training during the year also. In May I took Dr. John Russ‘ Forensic Image Processing and Analysis class at North Carolina State University, and in August I managed to attend part of the DSI – Las Vegas conference (including an excellent presentation by John Penn II from Adobe).

It’s been a full, busy, and fulfilling year with interesting cases, the opportunity to present training to a lot of excellent forensic personnel throughout the US, and to get some training as well. In my next post I will discuss some of what’s in store for 2011 – it should be another exciting year.

Well, time passed and I didn’t do much except think about it. Then I received an e-mail one day from Mark Maio. He independently had the same idea, and formed The Digital Imaging Institute. He’s gathered a group of experts in a variety of technical disciplines to begin this organization. They have published issues of the excellent Digital Insight Magazine. They have formed DII Groups in specific disciplines as well as in specific technologies.

The organization is still new, but I anticipate that it will be the place where those of us who work in technical and scientific fields of imaging can share information with each other, learn from each other, and benefit from those in different disciplines who face similar challenges in finding the best imaging solutions.

I am a forensic image analyst and was initially pleased when I saw the article on surveillance / security video in the March 2010 article of Advanced Imaging magazine. But then I read the quote by Mr. Damhaut that, “In surveillance, you can compress it without [worrying about] distortion of the image. … If there’s a bit of distortion in the image, it’s not a problem.”

Well, if the video is of a homicide suspect and it’s important to make an identification based on facial features, tattoos, clothing, height, etc. to either identify the murderer, or exonerate an innocent individual, then that ‘bit of distortion’ may be essential! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve worked on cases where surveillance / security video systems have had just a bit too little resolution or just a bit too much compression to see the detail needed.

The problem is with manufacturers, installers and consumers. The manufacturers think that this application isn’t critical; the installer places the cameras in bad locations, doesn’t install lighting, bases his determination of the resolution on a live feed rather than the recorded and compressed video, etc.; and the consumer is looking for low cost, large capacity systems with an emphasis on catching employee theft. No one in this mix considers the potential of the video from these systems in serious crimes – or, at least, they don’t investigate the requirements of the forensic video/image analyst.

I am writing to call your attention to the misconception that the image requirements in these systems is somehow less important than in other applications. The truth is that these videos may help an innocent person prove their innocence, or help put a murderer behind bars.

Regards,

George Reis
–
Imaging Forensics
Forensic image analysis, digital imaging & photography.
Consulting, training & litigation support.

There is also a benefit to watching someone else provide testimony. I’ve participated in a couple of cases where I was able to watch the opposing expert witness testify. But, recently, Grant Fredericks was giving testimony in my area and he invited me to watch his testimony. I was able to see how he explains what observations he made when analyzing video evidence, how he presents that evidence, and how he answers the questions put forth to him, etc. Grant does an excellent job at explaining his opinions and the video evidence – I was able to take away some ideas to use in future cases. All expert witnesses should take the opportunity to watch other experts testify.

If you are an expert presenting evidence and opinions in court, watching others testify and getting feedback from others on your testimony are very valuable.