Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
But he is an expert at identifying tampering on a computer. He's not an expert at doing a forensic analysis...but that doesn't mean he knows nothing about computers or files. He knows what files should look like and what it looks like when things aren't right. That is the crazy part of Gessner's ruling. I agree that his MFT version shouldn't have been introduced. But he was simply using what was introduced by the prosecution and saying what was wrong. That wasn't the forensic analysis part...the report that was introduced was the forensic analysis part. And that "expert" said he didn't know why or how the files were modified.
And because that is his focus I have no doubt that he could find tampering on the computer. He said as much. I'm sure he could find questionable invalid timestamps on my computer but I don't believe anyone has planted any files in order to implicate me or anyone else in a crime. He is not experienced in the area of forensic analysis so any results he could present may not be entirely unbiased. I hope the next expert they have is truly an expert. MOO