Extraction and Supervision of Data of Chain of Custody in Computer Forensics

In case handling, electronic evidence becomes more and more popular. In order to reduce the burden of judges＇ task to determine the integrity of chain of custody, even no technique experts on the spot, this paper suggests a solution to solve this kind of problem.

Recommendations for procedures related to the evidence chain of custody in forensic anthropology in Brazil

Forensic anthropologists perform specialised analysis,mainly involving skeletonised human remains,cadavers in advanced stages of decomposition,disassociated elements from the human body,and human remains in extreme carbonisation.The main objectives of the forensic anthropology expertise are human identification and assisting in determining the cause and manner of death.Estimating the time since death is also a priority for some cases,especially ones involving missing persons.This science works on individual cases,violent deaths,missing persons,mass disasters,suspected violations of human rights,and crimes against humanity.Forensic anthropological evidence is,in general,very sensitive.Thus,it is important to detail aspects relevant to the maintenance of the chain of custody at all phases of the investigation,as well as standardise the actions of the individuals involved.This aims to preserve the evidence integrity and sameness(Sameness:free translation of the Portuguese word“mesmidade”,derived from a Spanish word that does not possess a translation to Portuguese.Sameness of evidence is understood as the guarantee that the evidence under valuation(or under analysis of its probative value)is exactly and integrally the same one which was collected,corresponding,therefore,to“the same”(and not“part of”,“derived from”),safeguarding its value.Brazil Law No.13.964 of 14 December 2019 establishes and lists 10 phases related to the evidence chain of custody that must be followed.These newly introduced requirements resulted in the need for adaptation of the forensic,investigative,and legal actors involved in an investigation,and in the detailed description of the procedures for the different areas related to criminalistics,including forensic anthropology.The information provided in this article should be interpreted as recommendations,even though their non-compliance may weaken the investigative and forensic analysis processes in whole or in part.

Modeling Digital Evidence Management and Dynamics Using Petri Nets

In all phases of forensic investigation, digital evidence is exposed to external influences and coming into contact with many factors. Legal admissibility of digital evidence is the ability of that evidence being accepted as evidence in a court of law. Life cycle of digital evidence is very complex. In each stage there is more impact that can violate a chain of custody and its integrity. Contact with different variables occurs through a life cycle of digital evidence and can disrupt its integrity. In order for the evidence to be accepted by the court as valid, chain of custody for digital evidence must be kept, or it must be known who exactly came into contact with evidence in each stage of the investigation. This paper presents a dynamics and life cycle of digital evidence. The Petri nets will be proposed and used for modeling and simulation of this process.

Exploring technologies to better link physical evidence and digital information for disaster victim identification

Disaster victim identification(DVI)entails a protracted process of evidence collection and data matching to reconcile physical remains with victim identity.Technology is critical to DVI by enabling the linkage of physical evidence to information.However,labelling physical remains and collecting data at the scene are dominated by low-technology paper-based practices.We ask,how can technology help us tag and track the victims of disaster?Our response to this question has two parts.First,we conducted a human–computer interaction led investigation into the systematic factors impacting DVI tagging and tracking processes.Through interviews with Australian DVI practitioners,we explored how technologies to improve linkage might fit with prevailing work practices and preferences;practical and social considerations;and existing systems and processes.We focused on tagging and tracking activities throughout the DVI process.Using insights from these interviews and relevant literature,we identified four critical themes:protocols and training;stress and stressors;the plurality of information capture and management systems;and practicalities and constraints.Second,these findings were iteratively discussed by the authors,who have combined expertise across electronics,data science,cybersecurity,human–computer interaction and forensic pathology.We applied the themes identified in the first part of the investigation to critically review technologies that could support DVI practitioners by enhancing DVI processes that link physical evidence to information.This resulted in an overview of candidate technologies matched with consideration of their key attributes.This study recognises the importance of considering human factors that can affect technology adoption into existing practices.Consequently,we provide a searchable table(as Supplementary information)that relates technologies to the key considerations and attributes relevant to DVI practice,for readers to apply to their own context.While this research directly contributes to DVI,it also has applications to other domains in which a physical/digital linkage is required,and particularly within high stress environments with little room for error.