[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]
"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "G. Morgan" <usenet_abuse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> 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
>>>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
> 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?
Even with a watermark?
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...
alt.security.alarms Main Index |
alt.security.alarms Thread Index |
alt.security.alarms Home |