Re: cameras/security

["Bite Me" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ok73m.62400$b9.57860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "G. Morgan" <usenet_abuse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3e873842d5f75f26483e7a6c94977502np@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Bob Worthy wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, a court is more than likely going to want video that is
>>>watermarked if it is going to be used as evidence. Think about that
>>>before
>>>selecting recording equipment.
>>
>>
>> Bob, have you ever personally known of a case where video was denied
>> admissibility or it's authenticity was in question because of a lack of a
>> watermark?
>
> The only one I know of off the top of my head was the federal murder case
> right here in Florida. Sarasota I believe. It was when a young girl was
> abducted at a car wash and murdered. It was the watermarking on the video
> that squashed that part of the defense's case. If the video would not have
> been watermarked who knows how the court would have looked at it and that
> video was a huge part of the prosecutor's case. It was a great picture of
> the guy grabbing the girl and carrying her away. I know this was a little
> off point but I will look and see if there is something to answer your
> question about being denied into evidence.

I think the distinction would be chain of custody of evidence and reasonable
possibility of deliberate tampering or fabrication.  Given my ability to
come up with creative solutions I would have hard time making a prosecutor
happy with my testimony.  LOL.

Is it possible to have been tampered with or farbicated?

Yes.

Even with a watermark?

Yes.

Is it possible this video was tampered with?

Not directly, but it could have been setup prior if this was a premeditated
situation, and they had all the equipment available that I have on the
shelves in my warehouse.

Do you think its likely?

There's the rub.  Depends who is involved, what they know, and what they
have at their disposal...