At the request of attorney Ms. Rosa Riera Barceló, my participation as a computer expert was requested to certify the originality and non-manipulation of a series of videos, in the context of the response to the claim within a civil proceeding.
The original videos subject to my expert report had been recorded by a private detective who had been conducting different surveillance sessions on the person who filed the claim. This private detective had prepared a report in which he had attached as evidence the video fragments that supported certain behaviors of the person under surveillance. This private investigator’s report had been countered by a computer forensic expert report that maintained that the video fragments provided, annexed to the detective’s report, were not only not original but had been manipulated with malicious intent. Said computer forensic expert report had been signed by a Computer Engineer, registered with CPIICyL and with a professional office in Madrid.
After meeting with the private investigator and the attorney, we agreed to prepare an expert report in order to demonstrate to the court the originality and non-manipulation of the original videos, that is, those used by the private investigator to extract the fragments he had annexed to his report. Accordingly, I requested from the private investigator the recording devices used, for the purpose of analyzing them and recording control videos that would also allow me to demonstrate, in my expert report, the recording devices used to capture the original recordings.
In addition to the aforementioned expert report, I proceeded with a meticulous study of the computer forensic expert report submitted by the opposing party. The analysis thereof revealed the existence of different errors and inconsistencies. The analyzed report not only presented a large number of argumentative deficiencies, but there was sufficient evidence to file a complaint for violation of the Code of Ethics, as images and graphics were provided that bore no relation to the videos analyzed, misleading the reader.
The degree of foolishness presented by the opposing party’s computer forensic expert report was such that I was able to demonstrate and reflect in my counter-report the existence of an expert report signed by the same expert, which incorporated exactly the same misleading images and graphics. Said report was located thanks to the collaboration of Ms. Rosario Tíscar Mata, registered expert with CPITIA and CEO of Ciberforensic.com.
For his part, the opposing expert prepared a counter-expert report to my first expert report. As expected, in his more than 50 pages of counter-report, the arguments provided were full of vagueness and no relevant knowledge, results, or expert techniques were provided regarding the subject of study.
Therefore, and in summary, the computer experts from both parties submitted two reports each, one of them being a counter-report to the opposing expert. Once all these expert reports were submitted and incorporated into the judicial proceeding, the court set a date for the courtroom hearing, at which it requested the in-person ratification of both computer experts. In addition to the computer experts cited, two medical experts (one for each party) and the aforementioned private investigator also ratified their reports.
During my ratification, I had to address mainly questions from the legal representation of the opposing party. Said legal representation intended with their questions, not without insistence, that I comment on technical matters that had no other objective than to muddy the debate. According to comments by attorney Ms. Riera Barceló, during the ratification of the opposing computer expert, the judge posed a simple question to the expert, whose answer demonstrated the originality and non-manipulation of both the original videos and those presented in the private investigator’s report.
