tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post7171612768702488829..comments2024-03-27T21:09:44.320+00:00Comments on Pat'sBlog: Timid Testers and Magic LassosUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433841880619171855.post-11624941958482647272010-10-13T05:10:35.823+01:002010-10-13T05:10:35.823+01:00Pat,
I found this story today on CNN:
Murder c...Pat, <br />I found <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/12/indiana.illinois.shootings/?hpt=T2" rel="nofollow"> this story </a> today on CNN: <br />Murder charges were dropped after forensics analysis of the suspect's computer provided an alibi: <br /><br />"A forensic analysis of Dorian's home computer and its activity put Dorian at home at the time of the shootings, authorities said. The officer also told them he was watching sports programs and using e-mail."<br /><br />I am dimly aware that there are some pretty sophisticated techniques put into the forensics analysis of a computer, but they must have been pretty impressed to throw out whatever evidence was sufficient to charge a man with murder in the first place. <br /><br />It also seems to provide that one could write a program that creates alibis. This will be an issue. <br /><br />I know that my own reaction is a complaint of compromised rigor, but I would not prefer a legal system that demanded notarized documentation or photographic evidence (both of which could be fabricated) to honor an alibi. I might save this for my discussion of type I and type II errors.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447378242231039304noreply@blogger.com