COMPUTER FORENSICS can create mountains of data, complicating and confusing the simplest of cases. When the number of exhibits containing electronic evidence multiplies, the challenge is analogous to finding a needle in a haystack.
Reports from forensic investigators can become over-burdened with data, often with very little real ‘information’ to substantiate the case arguments and determine when events occurred.
Bulldog by Stephen M Grant (UPSO). WHAT would you do if the justice system failed you?
That is the question posed in Stephen Grant’s breathtaking thriller about a woman (Alex Stephenson) who loses her family to a drunk driver, and then begins a life as a vigilante when he is acquitted of their deaths. The question is one which becomes increasingly difficult to answer as you find yourself rooting for what effectively is a mass murderer.
FOR THOSE of you who are involved in personal injury cases, you will no doubt have at some time seen a remark or recommendation that a client requires an orthotic opinion or orthotic report.
The first things, in my experience, that will cross a solicitor’s mind when coming across the word ‘orthotics’ for the first time are most probably listed below and in a similar order
THE NATURAL and logical starting point in the investigation of a crime is at the scene where it all happened.
The scene might not necessarily be a single location, however; a body killed in one place and dumped in another immediately provides two loci, and the route between them and mode of conveyance yet two more at least.
ELECTRONIC Discovery (or E Discovery) refers, simply, to the examination of electronically-held information. It may include computer-held databases, email stores or mobile phone text messages.
It was not too long ago that when authorities raided a company’s premises, vans had to be hired to remove dozens of filing cabinets. The investigating organisation, meanwhile, had to make space in their premises for a huge volume of paper-based records.
