Blindspot: An Introduction to Forensic Science and Expert Witness Testimony: Recent Episodes
Ed Primeau
My forensic philosophy is that authentication and clarification of audio/video media combines art as well as science. The methods that I use require attention to detail and scientific principles, complemented by an appreciation for clarity and aesthetics. My techniques are derived from both a formal education and the application of skills gained by working in many forensics situations.
Suppose you use the same discovery method to authenticate digital video evidence stored in the cloud as you would with video stored on a device. In that case, you may incorrectly target the machine that produced the video, spend the client’s money on unnecessary device acquisition methodology, and waste the court’s time on evidentiary issues rather than legal ones. Many video camera providers, such as Ring, don’t store files on the device but stream and encode them to the cloud, providing additional data on the device through user access. This is where experts can assist with authenticate ring video evidence in court.
Authenticate Ring Video in CourtA client may bring several versions of recorded evidence in varying formats from a Ring security camera to proffer evidence in a court proceeding. These recordings may have been trimmed or converted in order to maximize compatibility and relevance to the case. In this instance, you can expect the opposing counsel and their expert witness to object to the recordings, claiming they lack the necessary foundation to authenticate and admit them into evidence, most commonly reliant on metadata analysis alone.
Ring customers use a device to record videos and a Ring Protect plan to store them in the cloud. Under the plan, the camera detects movement and streams the video to Ring’s cloud storage, where the customer can access or share it for up to 180 days. The Ring device can also record video segments viewed in real-time (e.g., livestream) once a viewer gains access to the stream from the camera. In addition to the video, Ring logs data on what the camera did when it took the video and the interactions with the user account associated with the stored video.
Image by Freepik
Ring has law enforcement guidelines for search warrants and procedures to respond to government requests, court subpoenas, and preservation orders. Ring also supplies tools for customers to export their data from their services, allowing customers to access their accounts, download videos, and extract logs. Pay attention to the self-service tools. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) recommends using such tools, which will likely provide examiners with the highest quality video and additional data (SWGDE Best Practices for Digital & Multimedia Evidence Video Acquisition from Cloud Storage).
Whether your client brings the entire video to you or creates video clips from the downloaded videos stored in a non-native container (e.g., formatting), opposing counsel may object to introducing the video or the clips into evidence, arguing that your client tampered with the videos. This is common in a situation where the opposing expert is unaware of advanced methodology to authenticate the digital video file, such as a structural analysis in a non-native container, which requires examination of a known structural sample for device identification. The opposition may even seek a spoliation sanction with additional discovery requests targeting your client’s smartphone, which can further complicate the video authentication issues. Authenticate ring video in court makes this a simpler process.
Many judges will not want to delay proceedings with additional discovery. The parties should agree on the information necessary for video authentication. Yet, opposing counsel’s expert witness may want to interrogate your client’s smartphone to find the truth or to perform what is commonly referred to as a “fishing expedition”. In that case, you have an expert-on-expert impasse, which rests on the fate of an argument of what is the most accurate, widely acceptable scientific methodology.
Dueling Expert WitnessesImage by pressfoto on Freepik
Digital video authentication is a complex process to establish the provenance of a questioned recording to assess whether it is consistent with or altered from an original recording. Your opposing counsel and their expert witness may believe they need your client’s smartphone. But Ring live-streams video to cloud storage, where customers access it on demand. Opposing counsel may ask your client, “How do we know what you’re telling us is true?” Instead, they should ask, “What’s relevant and admissible?”
If an opposing expert knows the scientific methodology to compare the video clips to the original, containerized video file, there would be no authentication issue. When an expert focuses on a specific smartphone, hoping it will lead to additional information about the circumstances under which the video was created, who created it, and more, it goes against the scientific community’s best practices and standards regarding video authentication—focusing on context authentication. Although this type of investigation has a place in the courtroom, the inquiry should square off on whether the non-trimmed video files are consistent or altered from the original recording. Turn your attention to how Ring creates video.
Source Identification ProcessFirst, look at a recording to know its provenance: where it has been and what it represents. One question to keep in mind: Was the recording made by someone else watching the video?
Compare how Ring produced the video and how your client created the proffered evidence. One of the most effective ways to authenticate a digital video file in forensic video analysis is to perform a structural analysis of the native container with which the device was created by examining an exemplar recording (e.g., a known sample). Test the same make/model Ring device as your client used and create several exemplar recordings. Compare metadata attributes and the native Ring container’s digital structure using a tool like Medex (see image below). The analysis can reveal a match with the signature of a known, unaltered Ring recording, alleviating any concerns for the reliability of the submitted supplemental evidence recordings.
Furthermore, examine the video stream/frame hash from the Ring server via a desktop browser and compare it with a video downloaded using the Ring App on a smartphone. The analysis may demonstrate that the acquisition process doesn’t affect the visual or digital integrity of the video images. Finally, the video log file can authenticate the date/time within the video file metadata and correlate with the log file acquired from the client’s Ring user account.
Change the Frame of Inquiry With Cloud-Based VideoWhen a video is live-streamed to cloud storage, scientific methods exist to authenticate the evidence rather than time-consuming alternatives by acquiring a smartphone. Ignore them at the cost of your client and the court’s time.
Cloud-sourced video evidence has officially hit critical mass, which testifies as a silent witness in a court of law. Suppose you have a recording generated by a Ring camera or other cloud-sourced video camera and need to understand the circumstances under which the recordings were created. In that case, forensic video analysis methodology can be helpful. More specifically, video authentication methodology can simplify over-complicated situations in litigation and save your clients time and money.
If you would like to speak to an expert about how video authentication works, you can request a consultation HERE
Use Site Inspections and Testing to Challenge Video Expert OpinionAttorneys frequently offer audio, video, and digital images as evidence in civil and criminal litigation, where the interpretation of the evidence becomes a matter of expert opinion. Is the expert qualified to interpret the video evidence and make determinations, and are their statements based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation? This is where a rebuttal video expert witness becomes very important in a case.
Attorneys frequently offer audio, video, and digital images as evidence in civil and criminal litigation, where the interpretation of the evidence becomes a matter of expert opinion. Is the expert qualified to interpret the video evidence and make determinations, and are their statements based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation?
In a previous post, I discussed whether an expert is qualified to interpret video recording evidence. This post discusses whether an expert’s opinion of video recording evidence lacks rigor and a scientific foundation.
When litigation relies on observing and interpreting a digital video recording or its absence, the attorneys on either side of a case can be incorrect—even misleading. Without understanding how the video recording equipment works, definitive opinions on a recording are premature and subjective. In most cases, a site inspection allows a video expert to investigate the video equipment that captured the recording and reach a more definitive, objective position on the evidence based on a scientific foundation.
An Expert Walks into the CourtroomSuppose an expert walks into the courtroom and renders an opinion with 100 percent certainty that a video recording system did not capture images to support or oppose a litigation strategy. Yet, the expert did not test the recording system. The opposing party should retain an audio-visual expert to rebut the expert’s methodology or offer a more accurate method.
Attorneys use a rebuttal video expert to refute subjective opinions based on observation and conjecture, not quantitative analysis, which can mislead a judge or jury. A rebuttal video expert witness can examine the video system properties and configuration to support their methodology and offer an alternative explanation of an opposing party’s expert view of the facts.
A rebuttal video expert should generate sample recordings using the same or similar equipment and apply various scenarios with which the evidence would have been captured and acquired. The investigation should include comparing device-specific metadata, stream characteristics, and proprietary encoding structures. This objective approach ensures the examiner or expert reaches the most accurate, peer-reviewable opinions.
Some experts provide opinions without understanding the limits of their methods or their offered opinions. In short, they don’t know what they don’t know. They step outside of their lane of expertise and provide testimony without fully understanding the discipline’s methodology. That is where a rebuttal expert witness, properly trained in a particular domain like audio-video forensics, can assist counsel.
A rebuttal video expert steeped in video forensics knows the limits that apply to video analysis, video authentication, video enhancement, reverse projection, and videogrammetry. These limits should set expectations and parameters and keep experts in their swim lanes. Exceeding them can render their opinions misleading and inaccurate.
Rebuttal Video Experts in ActionWhen experts inspect on-site video recording systems, they can generate information to rebut expert witness testimony. The rebuttal video expert can identify and test known system variables to support their opinions and oppose other expert opinions. Using peer-reviewable methods and on-site testing, video experts can determine boundaries within which an expert can testify about a specific methodology, provide questions and answers to discredit an expert’s testimony, and identify short-sightedness in their views.
On-PremisesA large corporation retained Primeau Forensics to investigate the validity of an opinion offered by a federal investigator on the authenticity of video surveillance recordings captured at the corporation’s location. Our client was accused of malicious tampering with the recorded evidence where there were abrupt changes in the personnel captured in the video recordings.
We conducted an on-site investigation to determine how our client’s video management system (VMS) detected motion and whether it accurately captured it on video. Through exemplar testing, we walked within the zones where movement should trigger video capture.
The VMS was more sophisticated than the average CCTV surveillance system. The VMS included threshold parameters for motion detection requiring sensitivity calibration. However, we found the system was not calibrated properly to detect the motion in question and thus did not engage the video recorder. We reported the testing results, confirming that the motion sensitivity threshold was insufficient to detect all movement from personnel in the monitored zones.
Off-PremisesA city attorney retained Primeau Forensics to defend an officer-involved shooting (OIS). The plaintiff’s expert opined on the lack of audio evidence, claiming the officer intentionally deactivated his body-worn wireless lapel microphone. We investigated as a rebuttal witness to determine if the plaintiff expert’s opinion was scientifically valid.
Through rigorous microphone testing, we identified and recorded several audio signals that indicated how the microphone behaved. The microphone emitted different sound profiles in a recording when we manually deactivated it and when the battery died. We recorded both exemplar signals using an in-car camera system like the vehicle used in the OIS case. We compared the test results with the microphone’s audio signals captured by the in-car camera system, indicating that the officer did not deactivate the microphone—the battery died.
The Last WordsTesting video camera systems on and off-site with objective, widely acceptable methodology prevails over subjective observations of video evidence and faulty methodology. Having a rebuttal video expert on your team can provide a scientific foundation for why an opposing expert is incorrect, especially when making conclusions about what the human eye saw versus what a camera recorded. Those are the last words you will need to dispute the account of an expert witness.
If you need a video expert’s methodology or opinions evaluated, contact us and speak directly to an expert for a no-cost consultation. A site inspection may be just what your case needs.
Evidence in civil and criminal trials includes audio, video, and digital images, where the interpretation of the evidence often becomes a matter of expert opinion. When opposing counsel discloses or otherwise presents expert testimony or reports on video evidence, inquire into the expert’s qualifications and get the help of a video forensic expert to determine if their statements are based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation.
In this post, I discuss whether an expert is qualified to interpret video recording evidence. In another post, I examine whether an expert’s opinion of video recording evidence lacks rigor and a scientific foundation.
Video experts often generate non-scientific opinions based on observation and subjective methodology. First, ask whether the expert’s education and training enable them to make certain determinations. Then look at the expert’s experience in applying what they know.
Video Forensic Expert Education To scrutinize a video forensic expert’s education, look to industry standards for educating and training video and image analysts. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) provides training guidelines and recommendations to assist organizations in designing educational training programs for forensic video and image analysts. The SWGDE training guidelines ensure that analysts are competent in completing forensic tasks and analyses. If an expert’s education and training incorporate SWGDE topics, they have a basic knowledge of audio-visual forensics to assist a judge or jury in interpreting and understanding video evidence.
At base, a video expert witness must aid the judge or jury understand video or image evidence and help them make factual determinations and conclusions. While experts can offer their opinion based on their experience or expertise, they cannot draw legal conclusions.
A video expert must have a baseline education and possess a diploma, degree, or certificate from a secondary educational institution or technical school related to forensic video and image collection, preservation, recovery, examination, and analysis. Although education in a discipline related to forensic video and image analysis is necessary, it is not sufficient without adequate training.
Training Days A video forensic expert’s training should include only validated technologies and methods. It should provide a general knowledge of the major elements of video and image evidence, including the capabilities and limits of methods, hardware, and software. The training should include the skills to use specific tools and procedures competently.
An expert should have an understanding of video and image evidence procedures and the ability to apply that understanding in various scenarios to present clear and unbiased video and image evidence-based testimony in court. The expert should also be able to prepare accurate, clear, concise documentation of results or opinions with visual aids.
In forensic video analysis, several best practices exist to enhance and recover video recordings from the systems that created them. If an expert uses an improper approach or methodology, it can destroy the integrity of the digital evidence, rendering it inadmissible. Advanced methods include video authentication, video file repair, reverse projection, and videogrammetry, where the expert must set limits and expectations from the beginning and maintain them throughout the process.
Video experts specializing in one scientific discipline may attempt to offer opinions about a secondary domain without the necessary training and experience. They may also provide views without understanding the limitations of their methodology, stepping outside of their expertise. That is where a rebuttal audio-video expert, properly trained in a particular discipline like audio-video forensics, can assist. A rebuttal video expert on your team will help you keep an opposing expert’s opinion confined to their knowledge and experience.
Case in Point Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Primeau Forensics to provide expert opinions on a video exhibit generated by an IT staff person employed by the counsel’s law firm. The exhibit sought to determine whether a vehicle was in motion before a collision captured by a surveillance camera from a neighboring business across the street. We advised counsel that we needed to complete a reverse projection or videogrammetry investigation, allowing us to extract measurements from digital recordings from overlays of 3D point clouds from a laser scanning device. Plaintiff’s counsel did not retain our services.
Defendant’s counsel contacted us to act as a rebuttal expert witness to counter the IT person’s testimony. Through a site inspection, we determined that the video captured had a low frame rate and a limited spatial resolution (quality), making it impossible to conclude the speed and position of the parties involved in the collision. As a rebuttal expert, we analyzed the collision video exhibit and discovered that the IT person’s methodology in generating the presentation was inaccurate and, in our opinion, objectionable. After deposing the IT person, the defendant’s counsel discovered that the IT person’s training in video forensics mostly consisted of YouTube videos.
Having a rebuttal expert witness on your team that can call out an opposing expert’s inadequate knowledge and training to assist a judge or jury can be crucial to your case. And if a rebuttal expert can offer credible opinions on video evidence based on a scientific foundation—outstanding. Don’t take our word for it. Watch that critical scene from My Cousin Vinny when the automotive defense expert provided factual proof that the prosecutor’s expert was incorrect.
If you have a case where you need an expert’s methodology or opinions evaluated, contact us for a free consultation with a video forensic expert.
IntroductionVideo surveillance systems are a critical element for business and residential customers. They secure specific areas and help deter crime simply by their presence. Surveillance systems commonly record crimes such as fighting, shooting, fire, theft, and vandalism. Forensic video recovery services in commercial litigation casework can assist with the acquisition of video evidence in order to preserve the digital integrity of the evidence and provide playable versions to the court for discovery purposes, in many cases, in large sums of data.
Casinos, County Jails, or consumers’ homes rely upon active surveillance. VMS (video management system) or a mobile phone app allows for review of active surveillance. Businesses like convenience stores, vehicle repair shops, or law firms rely upon passive surveillance methodology. A recorded and saved video allows for evaluation or analysis as needed. An appropriately trained and experienced individual should be handling digital evidence. Digital evidence, by nature, is fragile. If not handled by following best practices, the video can lose its digital integrity, reduce the accuracy of the chain of custody, introduce artifacts, and reduce the overall quality. We have investigated cases where a client mishandled the evidence before our involvement. This caused them to pay out higher settlements.
So why hire a professional like a video forensic expert to assist with collecting surveillance video recordings in civil litigation? The purpose of this post is to inform attorneys, investigators, and litigators about the benefits of engaging a video forensic expert to recover video recordings after an incident.
Forensic Video Recovery InvestigationAs a Forensic Video Analyst, I recently aided a client-attorney representing the defense in a commercial litigation case, specifically real estate development litigation. Our client was accused of blocking an easement area of the shared property or violating an easement agreement. This case involved collecting and reviewing hundreds of hours of surveillance video recordings.
RequestThe client’s property has a 32-channel HIK-Vision NVR system which housed critical recorded video evidence relative to the case. The client-attorney requested that our team assist with culling through 8 weeks of high-quality 4k video evidence from a single camera. The still frame extraction and export process occurred whenever our team noticed an instance of easement obstruction. The compiling of these still video frames created an exhibit. They represent instances of importance that the Judge and Jury would need to review about the breach of the easement contract.
Preserving the integrity of the video recording as evidence prompts a consideration for the Best Practices for Data Acquisition from Digital Video Recorders from SWGDE. Best practices recommend removing the original evidence hard drive and imaging (cloning). This is crucial for investigations requiring the contents of an entire drive. Thus, the team at Primeau Forensics performed the extraction, imaging, and review of the 10 TB of video recording on the HIK-Vision hard drive. The defense agreed that the preservation of the integrity of the evidence was critical.
The HIK Vision NVR system had 32 channels of cameras installed at the location. This is also the collection location of the evidence video recordings. Although these systems record reliable, high-quality video evidence, they do not always capture original video and may require forensic video authentication testing.
Video Analysis ProcessOur team began the investigation by proposing an investigation plan to the defense team. To meet the trial deadline, the investigation plan of reviewing video evidence is crucial. This particular case had a 10-day turnaround. Using industry-standard tools such as DVR Examiner and Amped Five, our team of 4 technicians reviewed the video recordings and extracted hundreds of still image exhibits for trial use.
DVR Examiner is the most effective tool for extraction from the proprietary NVR video system. Using a write blocker enabled our team to forensically clone and connect the 10 TB drive to DVR Examiner. Multiple working drives allowed for the storage of the total export. One working drive for our team, another for the Plaintiff, and the third for the defense (attorney-client). Our goal was to preserve all exhibits’ recording authenticity and digital integrity.
Our team created a copy of the extracted video evidence on our forensic server. Once complete, we began assessing the video analysis project. Amped Five was critical and gave our team the ability to watch the video recordings efficiently and effectively. Features like stepping through 30-second periods, bookmarking the video frames of interest, and bulk exporting these frames while retaining the frame number for reference to the video evidence were most important to the case. Amped Five also retained the integrity of the video recordings in preparation for any authenticity challenges from Plaintiff.
Pre-Trial AssistanceEven the most experienced and talented attorney is only as successful when preparing for a trial as their litigation team. While at trial, I was able to provide further information on newly discovered evidence that Plaintiff brought in while putting on their case. We also assisted with providing digital and printed binders full of all image exhibits regarding the dispute.
I prepared a mobile NVR system, which stored the eight weeks of video evidence, which is sometimes necessary to review video recordings in a multicamera view within their native container, for months of data at a time. This was necessary also to ensure that the judge and jury understood the timecode issue. This evidence played the video with an accurate timecode through the NVR system. The video evidence was initially recorded with a timecode jumping issue. This assistance before testimony was critical in preparing to answer questions on the stand as a fact witness.
Trial AssistanceI traveled out of state for an appearance at trial as a fact witness. Some might ask, “why is a video expert being admitted as a fact witness?”. The short of the long is that the judge assigned to the preliminary hearings needed to fully understand how this investigative process would require an expert to complete. He believed the video playback and identification did not require an expert. However, in the forensic community, a qualified technician or analyst would be responsible for acquiring, handling, and extracting video evidence for courtroom use. Despite not being admitted as an expert, the forensic video analysis commercial litigation strategy was admitted nonetheless.
The direct examination began with explaining to the court precisely what our team did to generate the image and video exhibits. These exhibits were extracted based on a conservative review of the evidence. This was recommended to ensure all instances, good, bad, and ugly to the case, were communicated correctly to the court—this conservative approach to forensic video analysis as an expert witness.
“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million.” Plaintiff began cross-examination by showing me images that witnesses captured in person using mobile devices. However, surveillance videos that the defense furnished to the court displayed more information from a more accurate camera perspective because the video, in this case, was of higher probative value.
This cross-examination was complex for a fact witness, primarily experienced in testifying as an expert. He had to think on his feet and answer questions about the video recordings created over eight weeks. The witnesses’ ability to maintain a calm demeanor and answer complicated questions without the support of forensic methodology can be frustrating. I kept calm and responded to questions to ensure the jury understood the responses.
ConclusionAlthough I couldn’t testify as an expert witness, I testified as a fact witness. Plaintiff challenged the integrity of the eight weeks of video as inadmissible. They argued that the discovery deadline date had passed. As a result, the jury should not review the submitted evidence. However, had the Primeau Forensics team not been involved in reviewing eight weeks’ worth of video evidence, the Plaintiff’s arguments may have been weighed more heavily by the jury.
The civil defense won the case. The trial judge ruled that the videos were relevant and that the images provided factual information. The judge found that my testimony would also be necessary to understand accurately how this investigation was completed.
A brand new episode of HISTORY Channel’s television series, The Proof is Out There: Ancient Sounds and Moon Mounds is now available to stream on the platform’s website. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including UFOs, apocalyptic sounds, enigmatic creatures, conspiracies, and more. Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, helps analyze these incredible recordings throughout the series’ first season.
Ancient Sounds and Moon Mounds
Skunk Ape
A bigfoot with bad body odor? That is how the legendary Florida creature known as the skunk ape has been described. In July 2020, a strange footprint is found by a couple in Panama City Beach, Florida. It appears to have long, greasy claws and emits a foul smell. Is this proof that the skunk ape truly exists? Biologists study the footprint and lend their opinions.
Ancient Egyptian Sounds
Archeologists and treasure-hunters have been digging in the Egyptian desert for over 100 years. But in the next video, one group found more than they were bargaining for during their search for lost pyramids. Working with an amateur satellite archeologist, they are directed to a specific set of coordinates that show a very large triangular mound. All of a sudden, video footage then captures a mysterious whisper.
Using spectrogram analysis, forensic video analyst Michael Primeau weighs in on whether the whisper is an authentic recording of an ancient Egyptian curse or simply a hoax.
Moon Mounds
NASA recently announced that found water on the sunlit side of the moon. But some believe that they’ve kept other discoveries secret. Ken Johnston, former NASA Director of Data and Photo Control Department at the Johnson Space Flight Center, says that astronauts came back with intriguing photos from one of the moon missions. Craters appear to show dome-shaped objects.
But when Johnston brought the photos to his supervisor’s attention, he was told to get rid of them. So do these images suggest that another civilization landed on the moon hundreds of years ago? An astrophotographer examines the imagery.
Extraterrestrial Flashes of Light
In March 2017, a woman notices a bright flash of blue light in her Houston, Texas home. What makes this occurrence unusual? Later that evening, she experiences difficulty sleeping and recalls strange dreams of pink and purple galaxies. Could the blue flash have been an extraterrestrial force? An astrophotography expert and forensic investigator run several tests to determine if natural causes are the answer.
Tune in Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Ancient Sounds and Moon Moundson HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
New episodes of The Proof is Out There air Tuesdays and Fridays at 10/9C. And subscribe to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates below.
A brand new episode of HISTORY Channel’s television series, The Proof is Out There: Ancient Sounds and Moon Mounds is now available to stream on the platform’s website. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. […]
Primeau Forensics’ 2020 Year in Review In this special episode of Blindspot, we sit down with Ed Primeau and Michael Primeau. The father and son team have been working side-by-side since 2009 and are the owners and forensic experts behind Primeau Forensics. With 2020 in the rearview mirror, Ed and Michael give us a look […]
Primeau Forensics' 2020 Year in Review
In this special episode of Blindspot, we sit down with Ed Primeau and Michael Primeau. The father and son team have been working side-by-side since 2009 and are the owners and forensic experts behind Primeau Forensics. With 2020 in the rearview mirror, Ed and Michael give us a look inside the trials and triumphs that the COVID-19 pandemic brought to their small business and look ahead to what 2021 has in store.
A Look Back at 2020
The COVID-19 global pandemic ravaged our country’s small businesses in 2020. Hundreds of thousands were forced to reimagine how they do business, or, sadly, shut their doors. And although surviving organizations are starting to recover from their COVID-19 hit, a new era of change has commenced. From accelerated digitization to permanent shifts in management styles, Ed and Michael discuss their takeaways from the year.
The Impact of COVID-19 on the Legal Industry
Next, the justice system faced a myriad of challenges following the onslaught of COVID-19. An industry that is known for being slow to embrace technology, social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home orders forced rapid evolution from court systems and the legal profession. This evolution includes tele-working, live-streaming, and shifting operations to the cloud. Ed and Michael discuss the impact COVID-19 has had on the legal industry, as well as their roles as forensic experts and expert witnesses.
Looking Ahead to 2021
All eyes are looking ahead to the future. What will 2021 bring? From new service offerings to exciting media features, we take a moment to touch on what listeners can expect to see from Primeau Forensics in the coming year.
Subscribe to Blindspot Podcast
Listen now to this special episode of Blindspot. Subscribe to the Blindspot podcast and you will automatically receive the latest episodes downloaded to your computer or portable device. Select the subscription method in the column to the right that best fits your lifestyle.
Primeau Forensics’ team is dedicated to supporting our clients and providing forensic litigation and consulting services that will assist their investigations. Contact us today or call us at (800) 647-4281 to learn more about our forensic services.
The latest episode of HISTORY Channel’s newest television series, The Proof is Out There: Mystery Hum and Mayans on Mars, aired earlier this week. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading […]
The latest episode of HISTORY Channel’s newest television series, The Proof is Out There: Mystery Hum and Mayans on Mars, aired earlier this week. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including UFOs, government conspiracies, and more. Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, helps analyze these incredible recordings throughout the series’ first season.
Episode 7 Recap: Mystery Hum and Mayans on Mars
The Simulation Theory
Have you ever seen something that your mind rejects as impossible? There are some that believe we live in an elaborate computer simulation and that everything around us, including our homes, friends, and even nature, aren’t real. And the following videos may be proof.
In November 2015, video footage is captured of rush hour traffic in the Chinese city of Xingtai. Then, out of nowhere, two vans appear to defy gravity and jump in the air. Is this a glitch in the Matrix or is there a scientific explanation? A science writer and forensic video analyst dig deeper into the footage to lend their verdict.
Next, a photo surfaces on the internet showing an equally incredible occurrence. A photo captures two young girls and their reflections in a mirror. However, one of the girls’ reflection doesn’t match her facial expression. Forensic video analyst, Michael Primeau, begins his investigation by examining the photo’s metadata information. Michael notes no inconsistencies in the digital information. So if the photo is an original, could the girl’s face have been digitally manipulated after it was taken?
Mayans on Mars
NASA has been sending satellites to Mars for nearly 50 years to photograph its surface. While dozens of strange images have been captured during this time, the next photo may be the strangest. In the spring of 2020, an amateur astronomer claims the cameras on the Mars reconnaissance orbiter photographed a group of pyramids. And these pyramids eerily resemble the Mayan structures in Mexico. Is this evidence of a lost civilization on the Red Planet?
Mysterious Hum
The next story is an ongoing worldwide phenomenon. Entire communities say they are being tormented by a strange, incessant, highly-disturbing humming sound. But this mystery is complicated because the hum is not always the same and not everyone hears it. While there are many conspiracy theories as to the sound’s origins, a forensic audiologist conducts further testing and proposes his verdict.
Hybrid Bats
Finally, what would it look like to cross a human and a bat? Many people think that strange experiments overseas are already creating hybrids we have never seen before. In Buenos Aires, Argentina, local media reports strange sightings in April 2020 of bats that can swim and run on land. And in China, disturbing video footage showcases what appears to be an incredibly large, mutant bat running on the ground. Are these videos the result of genetic experimentation? A marine biologist and wildlife biologist analyze the footage and discuss whether such cross-breeding is possible.
Tune In Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Alien Orbs and Lightning Balls on HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
New episodes of The Proof is Out There air Tuesdays and Fridays at 10/9C. And subscribe with your email address in the right-hand column to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates.
Depositions by Video Due to COVID-19
With health and safety precautions in place due to COVID-19, courts across the country have started to resume business face-to-face. Cases are starting to go to trial as huge sheets of plastic separate jury boxes, lawyer tables, judges, and stenographers. Testimony in deposition form, however, continues to be scheduled remotely via video conferencing.
What are the Drawbacks to Video Conference Depositions?
As expert witnesses, we have grown familiar with video conference depositions. Platforms such as Zoom and Cisco’s WebEx make virtual participation simple and easy. Yet many client attorneys have expressed concern about remote depositions, noting that this method inhibits them from seeing the witness in 3D. You only see what the camera sees.
Deposition by video also makes it more difficult to interpret body language and other nonverbal cues. And even though the witness is sworn in, Primeau Forensics has run across instances where we were able to scientifically prove that the witness lied under oath when the attorney’s had a limited line of sight.
A webcam’s field of view varies depending on the model. Most commonly, a webcam viewing angle lies between 50 and 90 degrees. These cameras have virtually no depth of field and certainly do not have peripheral vision like a human.
In a video conference deposition, attorneys are unable to see what lies next to or behind the computer screen. Items normally prohibited in a court of law may be present without the deposing attorney’s knowledge.
A few years ago, I had a case where a client-attorney whispered to their client throughout a remote deposition. We forensically enhanced the telephonic recording and could clearly hear the attorney whispering answers to the witness.
Case Study: Forensic Enhancement Disqualifies Witness in Video Conference Deposition
More recently, Primeau Forensics encountered a case in which we were able to prove the witness lied under oath. A law firm called to ask if we could forensically enhance a video deposition recording to see the reflections in the witness’s eyeglasses. When asked by the deposing attorney, the witness said they were not looking at anything, notes or otherwise. But in our forensically enhanced video work product, we were able to see the reflection of another computer screen that was changing as the deposition progressed.
We could see white pages with black text, some of those pages had color on them, others did not. The witness was advancing some type of document throughout the deposition. Once again, our client-attorney asked if the witness was looking at anything other than the camera. And for the second time, the witness tilted their head up and said they were not looking at anything, notes or otherwise. When their head returned to the resting position, we saw a desktop image reflected in their glasses. They had minimized their program to return to their home screen.
The court disqualified the witness in this case study. Not only did forensic video enhancement help our client-attorney uncover the truth, which is the goal behind each forensic investigation at Primeau Forensics, but it helped raise awareness for what drawbacks video conference depositions hold.
Navigate Remote Depositions with Primeau Forensics
Primeau Forensics offers forensic and litigation consulting services that can help you safely and correctly navigate your video conference depositions. With nearly four decades in business, our team has experience testifying in court and working with high-profile clients.
Contact us or call us at (800) 647-4281 to learn more about our expert support services.
Depositions by Video Due to COVID-19 With health and safety precautions in place due to COVID-19, courts across the country have started to resume business face-to-face. Cases are starting to go to trial as huge sheets of plastic separate jury boxes, lawyer tables, judges, and stenographers. Testimony in deposition form, however, continues to be scheduled […]
Two new episodes of HISTORY Channel’s television series, The Proof is Out There: Deep Sea Sounds and Phantom Ships and Weeping Mary and the Montana Alien aired earlier this week. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including apocalyptic sounds, enigmatic creatures, conspiracies, and more. Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, helps analyze these incredible recordings throughout the series’ first season.
Episode 5 Recap: Deep Sea Sounds and Phantom Ships
Puerto Rico UFO
There have been countless UFO sightings in Puerto Rico over the years. Yet many experts consider this piece of footage the gold standard. What sets this one apart? Video footage captured by the crew of a United States and Border Patrol plane appears credible. And with the most likely earthly explanations eliminated, this may be proof of an alien encounter.
Mysteries of the Ocean
Less than 5% of our oceans have been explored, making the following audio clip a true mystery. A deep water hydrophone in the Pacific Ocean detects an unknown sound emanating from 5,000 miles away. Could this be another clue that the prehistoric Megaladon still exists? A marine biologist and soundscape ecologist examine the acoustic profile and weigh in.
Phantom Ships
Lake Superior is notorious for its treacherous waters, having wrecked over 500 ships since the 1800s. Then, in October 2018, witnesses spot what can only be described as a ghost ship floating off the coast of Marquette, Michigan. Is there a scientific explanation behind this phantom ship?
The Loch Ness Legend
Located in the Scottish highlands, Loch Ness is an iconic lake best known for its namesake mystical monster. Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster date back hundreds of years, but two recent eyewitness accounts have us doubting whether this is truly a myth or if it’s reality.
After a marine biologist notes several irregularities and potential red flags, images are sent to Michael Primeau for forensic video analysis. By creating a smart report of the digital images provided, including the image to the left, Michael is able to determine their authenticity.
Episode 6 Recap: Weeping Mary and the Montana Alien
California UFO
In the past five years, millions of acres in California have been consumed by wildfires. The massive Woolsey fire in November 2018 destroyed much of northern Los Angeles County. And footage captured by news helicopters shows what appears to be a UFO floating out of the billowing smoke clouds. Using satellite images of the fire, a forensic video analyst maps out potential red flags.
Weeping Mary
The Catholic Church is full of miraculous tales, yet this next account may be too incredible to believe. Parishioners attending mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe in Hobbs, New Mexico notice that a statue of Mother Mary appears to be crying actual tears. And video footage might prove this is a real supernatural event. A trained engineer and Catholic miracle researcher weigh theories as to whether this could simply be caused by a leaky pipe or condensation.
Montana Alien
In October 2018, a ranch in Deer Lodge, Montana captures a trespasser on one of its motion-controlled trail cameras. Perplexed by the figure, a ranch worker decides to conduct a photo experiment. The side by side comparison is unexplainable and concerning.
Michael Primeau sets out to answer the first and foremost question. Is the image that captured the mysterious trespasser doctored? Using image authentication software, Michael looks for inconsistencies and what he would expect to see from a fake. And second, an anthropologist inspects the figure to answer whether the silhouette could be inhuman.
Mind Control App
Could there be a link between our minds and the material world around us? Does focusing on something long enough make it come true? When a family dog goes missing, two women download an app on their phones that claims to do just that. After concentrating on finding the dog, the app provides GPS coordinates near their home. Does this app truly fulfill users’ wishes?
Tune In Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Deep Sea Sounds and Phantom Ships and Weeping Mary and the Montana Alien on HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
Tune in Tuesday, January 26 at 10P EST for the next episode of The Proof is Out There. And subscribe with your email address in the right-hand column to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates.
Two new episodes of HISTORY Channel’s television series, The Proof is Out There: Deep Sea Sounds and Phantom Ships and Weeping Mary and the Montana Alien aired earlier this week. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and […]
The second episode of HISTORY Channel’s newest television series, The Proof is Out There: Alien Orbs and Lightning Balls, aired earlier this week. In case you missed last week’s introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including UFOs, government conspiracies, and more. Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, helps analyze these incredible recordings throughout the series’ first season.
Episode 2 Recap: Alien Orbs and Lightning Balls
Wisconsin Alien Orbs
The Proof is Out There: Alien Orbs and Lightning Bolts premiered Tuesday, January 12. In the second episode of the HISTORY series, Tony Harris first introduces viewers to an unidentified flying object captured by a drone over Plymouth, Wisconsin. Is this truly an alien encounter or could the object possibly be a secret military micro-drone?
Michael Primeau, video forensic expert at Primeau Forensics, applied motion vector analysis to determine whether the video was a fake. “The motion blurring and the way that the object is traveling, the scale of the object, all looks consistent to me,” notes Primeau. “It looks like there was actually something there.” An aviation expert and forensic investigator also weigh in on the footage, which draws conflicting conclusions.
Apocalyptic Audio in North Carolina Backyard
Next, a piercingly loud noise is caught on video in a North Carolina backyard. An eyewitness couldn’t identify the sound’s source, but online viewers had plenty of theories, including apocalyptic signs, secret government experiments, and mechanical machinery. Using a spectrogram to analyze the ominous audio, a soundscape ecologist provides his thoughts on whether this video has a scientific explanation.
Planes Defying Gravity
Planes flying above Oklahoma City and Atlantic City seem to defy the laws of physics in the episode’s following video footage, appearing motionless in the sky. Michael Primeau uses software to determine whether the Atlantic City video footage is real or simply an elaborate visual effect. And a physicist concludes with his theory of the phenomena caught on film.
Balls of Lightning
Finally, extraordinary footage in Belarus and Russia captures a rare phenomenon known as ball lightning. Reported by eyewitnesses since the 1600s, ball lightning is best described as strange luminescent balls in the air. Some scientists argue this phenomenon doesn’t exist, but this video might prove otherwise. First, Michael Primeau breaks down the Belarus footage and its corresponding audio, lending his opinion as to whether this viral clip could be doctored. And second, an atmospheric scientist traces the weather at the time of the sighting to determine whether this is a natural weather event.
Tune In Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Alien Orbs and Lightning Balls on HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
Tune in Tuesday, January 19 at 10P EST for the next episode of The Proof is Out There. And subscribe with your email address in the right-hand column to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates.
The second episode of HISTORY Channel’s newest television series, The Proof is Out There: Alien Orbs and Lightning Balls, aired earlier this week. In case you missed last week’s introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading […]
Earlier this week, the HISTORY Channel debuted a new television series, The Proof is Out There. This new series, which airs every Tuesday at 10P EST, investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode, including this week’s Escape from Monkey Island, employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly […]
Earlier this week, the HISTORY Channel debuted a new television series, The Proof is Out There. This new series, which airs every Tuesday at 10P EST, investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode, including this week’s Escape from Monkey Island, employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including UFOs, apocalyptic sounds, enigmatic creatures, conspiracies, and more.
A+E and HISTORY’s network executives approached Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, late last year. Asked to lend his training and expertise, Michael analyzed these unexplained recordings from an unbiased, scientific perspective. Viewers can catch Michael throughout the first season of The Proof is Out There.
Episode 1 Recap: Escape from Monkey Island
Mutant Monkey Remains
The Proof is Out There: Escape from Monkey Island aired Tuesday, January 5. In this first episode of the HISTORY series, host and veteran journalist Tony Harris introduces viewers to a case in which grizzly remains were found on a South Carolina beach. Theorized to be a mutant monkey escaped from a nearby government laboratory, two biologists analyze the strange skeleton and provide their verdict.
UFO Sightings
Next, the audience is shown a jaw-dropping clip of what appears to be UFOs flying over Miami. Forensic video expert, Michael Primeau, analyzes this incredible footage. Discussing the potential red flags and unexplainable characteristics of the mysterious objects, Michael and other video experts draw a conclusion.
Another possible UFO sighting comes from video footage recorded over Mexico by a cargo plane pilot. Eluding radar detection and eliciting peculiar behavior, image and military experts deduce whether the object was a UFO or if there is a natural explanation.
Demonic Cloud Formations
Finally, the episode features a clip of the August 2020 Beirut, Lebanon explosion. In the devasting aftermath, a photographer captures a picture of the scene’s smoke cloud and what numerous people witnessed as a demonic face within it. But is there a scientific explanation? A renowned theoretical physicist and atmospheric scientist get to the bottom of the viral footage.
Tune In Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Escape from Monkey Island on HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
Tune in Tuesday, January 12 at 10P EST for the next episode of The Proof is Out There. And subscribe with your email address in the right-hand column to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates.
How Do We See Video Evidence as a Weapon? Video evidence is a digital representation of encoded light signals captured by a video camera. Captured and stored data is video evidence later presented in the courtroom. On the other hand, humans process video evidence quite differently. We gather light data without encoding it. We choose […]
How Do We See Video Evidence as a Weapon?
Video evidence is a digital representation of encoded light signals captured by a video camera. Captured and stored data is video evidence later presented in the courtroom. On the other hand, humans process video evidence quite differently. We gather light data without encoding it. We choose our focus based on the circumstances around us.
While the authorities have the legal right to acquire video evidence, concerned citizens may provide it voluntarily. Citizens even have the ability to post video evidence and stream it live to social networks. This includes Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. As a result of the amount of evidence flooding our feeds, it is impossible to ignore.
Combined with the biased intentions I outline further below, the ability to capture and publish video evidence frequently finds these videos being used as a weapon inside and outside of the courtroom. Follow along to explore two ways in which we now see video evidence as a weapon.
Video Evidence as a Weapon #1: Bias
Bias Awareness as a Lay Person
Opposing counsel and the general public frequently take the position of “the video speaks for itself” or “you can clearly see what the officer did here.” However, as video recording technology advances and emotions continue in a heightened state, bias develops and subject reasoning controls an investigation.
This is why an investigator must receive proper training to review video recordings. A forensic video analyst has the training and tools to dig deeper into a video recording’s data in order to answer the complicated questions accurately. On the other hand, a lay person will interpret the video for face value; watching and listening to the audio and video signals.
Bias Awareness as a Forensic Analyst
As a forensic video technician and expert witness, I review video recordings every day. These include recordings for the defense and law enforcement in criminal cases, as well as for the plaintiff and defense in civil litigation. The most important part of my job as an investigator is to stay objective as I review recordings that could potentially influence my emotions and, ultimately, my opinions.
The Oxford Dictionary defines bias awareness as; “inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.” Bias awareness is the most important part of the investigation process in forensic video analysis.
I am not saying investigators cannot become biased. However, a properly trained investigator has the necessary training and tools which effectively minimize the possibility of bias. One of the best methods to verify an investigator’s analysis and opinions is to submit the report for peer review by a colleague or an outside expert. Peer reviews verify the scientific method used. Below are a few of the major types of bias a forensic analyst can experience without proper training.
3 Types of Bias
Cognitive Bias
“A consequence of cognitive biases is that science is misused, and sometimes even abused, in court.” Biases in Forensic Experts, Science Magazine
According to the Oxford Dictionary, cognitive bias is “the way a particular person understands events, facts, and other people, which is based on their own particular set of beliefs and experiences and may not be reasonable or accurate.” Cognitive bias is frequently unconscious or unintended; based on processing information through personal likes, dislikes, and experiences on a pre-programmed level. In reality, cognitive bias is a distortion in how we perceive facts. Based on subjective reasoning, it threatens objectivity.
Dr. Itiel Dror is an expert in the field of cognitive bias and a senior cognitive neuroscience researcher at University College London. His work focuses on the dangers to bias in forensic sciences, namely cognitive biasing. Cognitive biasing can take on many forms as a forensic technician, analyst, or expert. One such form is contextual bias. Background information experienced prior to an investigation shapes contextual bias. A second type of cognitive biasing is motivational bias, which I’ll explore more below.
We frequently see a type of bias known as anchoring or focalism. This is the tendency to rely too heavily on one piece of information when making decisions or generating opinions. Often in an authentication investigation, a digital signature may indicate that a third party software program interacted with the video file. However, that doesn’t provide sufficient support that the digital video file has been edited. In fact, it’s possible that a third party software programmed opened the digital video file. This results in mishandling of evidence, not editing. Thus, the first piece of information in an authentication investigation is unreliable in arriving at a conclusion. The investigation requires further testing. Therefore, that information affects subsequent observations (LEVA Level 4 Training 2019).
Motivational Bias
“We define motivational biases as those in which judgments are influenced by the desirability or undesirability of events, consequences, outcomes, or choices.” Bias in Decision and Risk Analysis
Motivational bias is mostly conscious decision making. Our subjective reasoning convinces our mind to think and react based on our own agenda. This also includes desiring or expecting a certain outcome in litigation. One of the most common motivational biases in experts is desiring or expecting a certain outcome of the forensic investigation in order to please one side of the litigation process or the client. This could even include a reward based on the work provided.
Inattentional Bias
When their attention is otherwise engaged, people sometimes fail to notice a salient and fully visible but unexpected object or event. This is a phenomenon known as inattentional blindness. Inattentional blindness is a byproduct of attentional selection. Our ability to focus attention enables us to ignore irrelevant or distracting information. But it occasionally leads us to miss items that we might have wanted to experience. Below is an example of inattentional blindness in an investigative application.
Video Evidence as a Weapon #2: Criminal Investigation vs. Systematic Injustice
I recently participated in training provided by one of the leading companies in video analysis software for law enforcement, InputAce. Throughout the week, we studied various video recordings involving excessive use of force that have surfaced on social media and made national news. Although event circumstances varied, the contention stayed the same. This leads into the second way in which citizens have the ability to use video evidence as a weapon.
Lack of training, bias, and subjective reasoning frequently transform cases from a criminal investigation into systematic injustice. Examples of such cases include George Floyd, Laquan McDonald, and Trayvon Martin. In other words, the general public and the media became investigators without the necessary training experience or qualifications.
More than 800,000 law enforcement officers were on duty in 2019. And an estimated 10 African American deaths were a reported result of excessive use of force. Although there is evidence of systematic injustice in our judicial system as a whole, this leaves little room for objective reasoning in a criminal investigation when isolated and magnified by the media. This is easily discernible when we examine the video evidence from the George Floyd case in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The following information provided by Primeau Forensics is not an expert opinion or a complete forensic analysis. The following information provided is a preliminary analysis based on the video evidence obtained from the internet to display the differences between an objective and subjective analysis of video evidence. This is a current example of how citizens used video evidence as a weapon.
Preliminary Forensic Video Analysis of the George Floyd Evidence
The focal point of the public’s investigation was a 0:10 minute clip that surfaced immediately after the incident. Next, a second 7:53 minute video surfaced. This second video included a look into the arresting officer’s use of force on Mr. Floyd’s neck. At this point, we do not see the additional events produced from the CCTV video surveillance system recorded at the intersection of the traffic stop and arrest. Video events captured by the various CCTV surveillance systems have since been released as a video of a video. In other words, we lack the original video evidence to interpret crucial facts. Such facts include the speed of the officers while using force, clarity of the events for enhancement, or the authentication of date and time.
When assembled in a linear fashion, we see there were video events missing between Mr. Floyd’s emergence from the police car and when a concerned citizen began recording on a mobile device. This time gap is significant in understanding what took place throughout the course of the criminal investigation. A subsequent subjective statement is that the video events clearly indicate that the force applied to Mr. Floyd’s neck was the cause of death. And therefore, this is evidence of murder. However, it is impossible to interpret the amount of force used or the position of the officers through the video evidence. The force applied to Mr. Floyd’s neck has no numerical value of intensity.
A quote provide provided by a judge sums up another important point. A law enforcement officer has seconds to make a decision in a life-threatening situation. Whereas investigators can have days, weeks, and potentially months to review video events. A judge summarizes this notion in the quote from Horton v Pbjecky below:
Although there are additional areas of the investigation that require our attention, we simply do not have the resources to explore them all. However, the conclusion remains. The video evidence available from George Floyd’s investigation is insufficient to form opinions on. There is more information than meets the eye throughout the evidence.
In a recent interview with The Associated Press, I discussed how body camera footage from George Floyd’s arresting officers could shape the future of the investigation. Read the article in its entirety by following this link.
Explore Educational Resources
In order to combat the creation and use of an inaccurate video witness in the courtroom, Primeau Forensics and Chalogianis Consulting LLC have created two educational blog posts. These posts equip concerned citizens with the most effective methodology for recording law enforcement. Visit videoforensicexpert.com to explore “Your Legal Right to Video Record Police” and “5 Techniques for Video Recording Police“.
For more information on video evidence as a weapon or how to safely and legally video record police, contact the experts at Primeau Forensics.
A Closer Look at the Relationship between Hollywood and Forensic Science
I sit down with Barry Levy in this podcast episode of Blindspot. Barry is a screenwriter and producer known for his work in popular films, such as Vantage Point, Paranoia, and Wolves of Wall Street. You can explore his filmography further by following this link.
During this interview, Barry and I will dive into the relationship between Hollywood and forensic science. Modern movies and television shows frequently portray a fictional concept of science for the sake of entertainment. As a result, the general public is misled as to the capabilities of forensic experts.
With this in mind, Barry addresses how he learned to work and write in the world of Hollywood. And, how viewers of these movies and television shows should approach forensic science and the experts working in the field. Listen to the podcast now and subscribe to receive the latest episodes downloaded to your computer or portable device.
A Note to Our Audience
As millions of businesses are disrupted and people settle into their homes amid the COVID-19 global pandemic, it is our pledge to continue supporting our clients and provide them with litigation support services that will assist their investigations. The Primeau Forensics team will continue to offer forensic expertise, our experiences from the field, and an extensive list of services from the safety of our homes.
A Closer Look at the Relationship between Hollywood and Forensic Science I sit down with Barry Levy in this podcast episode of Blindspot. Barry is a screenwriter and producer known for his work in popular films, such as Vantage Point, Paranoia, and Wolves of Wall Street. You can explore his filmography further by following this […]
In today’s culture, reducing the spread of COVID-19 has become a priority in both public and professional spaces. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the general population wear face masks while outside of their homes. This precautionary step mitigates the risk of viral spread between people. The requirement of a face […]
In today’s culture, reducing the spread of COVID-19 has become a priority in both public and professional spaces. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the general population wear face masks while outside of their homes. This precautionary step mitigates the risk of viral spread between people. The requirement of a face mask, however, makes the identification of subjects through surveillance very difficult. And a person’s face is critical for identification in a majority of current surveillance techniques. Most video and image surveillance algorithms were not designed with face masks in mind since they were developed well before the coronavirus outbreak. Face masks also hinder interpersonal communication and limit our ability to read others’ intentions. As a result, surveillance technology upgrades have become necessary.
We previously discussed home video surveillance recommendations for doorstep theft during COVID-19. In this blog post, we will dive further into discussing effective COVID-19 surveillance and subject identification solutions specifically for those wearing face masks. Improved active and passive surveillance, clear masks, gait analysis, and exposure notifications are a few of the emerging solutions.
How Do Masks Affect Facial Recognition?
Most facial recognition algorithms created before the COVID-19 pandemic fare poorly when subjects wear masks. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tested 89 commercial facial recognition algorithms. They found an error rate between 5% and 50% when matching photos of someone with or without a digital facemask. This one-to-one matching compares different photos of the same person, rather than one photo to a database, known as one-to-many matching. The study tested masks of various shapes, colors, and coverage and found a correlation between increased coverage and decreased matching accuracy. In addition, the mask’s color may play a role. Surgical blue masks caused less error than black masks. As NIST noted, none of the algorithms were created to accommodate masks, which is evident in the findings.
Do Masks Fool Facial Recognition?
The NIST study found an increase in false negatives but not false positives. In the case of a false negative, the algorithm cannot match two pictures of the same person, while a false positive matches photos of two different individuals. Masks mean these algorithms cannot reliably match different photos of the same person, but they do not falsely match two different people. These algorithms rely on all identifying features, including the eyes, nose, mouth, and facial bone structure, making facial recognition through a mask challenging. In some cases, algorithms could not process a masked face at all, resulting in failure to enroll (FTE) or template. FTE means the algorithm could not detect enough facial measurements from masked photos to begin making a comparison.
Coronavirus Security
Security during the pandemic has been a source of concern. The high margin of facial recognition error may cause traditional algorithms failure to hold up in court. As a result, improving facial recognition during the coronavirus pandemic is important. As long as the general population continues wearing facemasks, security must adapt. Learn about possible solutions to COVID-19 facial recognition issues.
Solutions to COVID-19 Surveillance and Subject Identification
Video Surveillance Upgrades
What if a closed-circuit television (CCTV) video surveillance system could identify a crime suspect without having to capture footage of their face? While these systems are widely utilized, many require a bump in quality in order to provide sufficient footage of a crime. Improvement in video recording quality is the key to keeping these CCTV video surveillance systems relevant, especially during COVID19 and the widespread use of face masks. Here are a few options for improving the quality of video recordings in both active and passive surveillance.
- Active Surveillance
Advancements in technology coupled with rising crime rates have pushed businesses and law enforcement agencies to incorporate artificial intelligence within their video surveillance systems. These artificial intelligence solutions provide an additional set of eyes to help identify subjects, vehicles, and other details. Artificial intelligence combined with forward-looking infrared (FLIR) heat-sensitive cameras is extremely effective in the event of a crime or if a disguised subject exhibits symptoms of COVID-19, such as a fever. Infrared technology has been used for mass fever screening since the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. Fevers indicate many infectious diseases — the presence of a fever is a common factor to consider in healthcare screenings. Certain circumstances, including subjects’ biological sex, drug use, and the surrounding room temperature, can affect these screenings’ accuracy. Setting the right temperature cutoff is the most important element for avoiding false negatives without draining resources. Whether used for fever screening or facial recognition, FLIR cameras have proven useful.
FLIR cameras differ from thermal imaging in that they use short wavelength infrared light rather than mid-length or long wavelengths. They detect heat and turn it into an image. FLIR imaging is especially useful in low-light situations. To combat covert nighttime operations, United States Army researchers have implemented FLIR technology for better automatic and manual facial recognition. FLIR imaging is a possible solution for COVID-19 surveillance issues, as well as mass fever screening. In either case, this technology contributes to public safety efforts. Check out the video below, provided by Hikvision, to see how this technology works. Hikvision is a leading manufacturer of CCTV video surveillance technology.
- Passive Surveillance
High-quality DVR systems, high-resolution cameras, and specialty cameras are just a few ways with which to improve the accuracy of passive surveillance systems. The highest resolution available at the consumer level is 4K. It provides the best possible picture for identification purposes in the investigation phase. License plate cameras and 360 cameras are two of the most common camera upgrades that are available for IP-based systems.
360 Cameras
One of the most popular CCTV surveillance system upgrades is a 360 camera. The addition of a 360 camera allows for a larger focal viewing of a tight space. A 360 camera uses dual cameras to capture two images or videos, each with a 180-degree field of vision.
The camera stitches the images together right away, or it comes with a companion software in which the user can stitch the images together after their capture. With a 360 camera, the odds of detecting a subject without a mask are higher. More complete footage lends itself to higher security. Check out a popular 360 camera here.
Clear Masks
Clear masks address several issues regarding both security and interpersonal communication. Did you know that 55% of communication is visual? Traditional face masks, as we often see in the medical profession and in the recent months surrounding COVID-19, prevent our ability to see facial expressions and negatively affect our communication with others.
It can be difficult to read a person’s emotions when masks cover their nose and mouth. Humans prefer to look at faces as a whole when reading emotions rather than individual features. Traditional masks limit our ability to read middle and lower facial cues, which can be essential for expressing different emotions. For instance, a jaw-drop signals surprise, while a nose-wrinkle signals disgust. When people wear masks, they have to focus more on the eyes to read emotional signals, but prolonged eye-contact can seem aggressive and make the observed uncomfortable.
What’s more, masks also muffle sound and limit lip-reading capabilities. This is especially challenging for those who rely heavily on visual communication, such as the deaf and hard of hearing, children, and older adults. Popularizing clear face masks would eliminate these concerns while preserving public health.
In addition to the solutions to COVID-19 surveillance and subject identification we’ve discussed, ClearMask™ provides natural communication and eliminates barriers caused by traditional masks. Its transparency and comfort have been put to great use within the medical field, improving relationships between patients and staff.
Gait Analysis
Gait analysis is one possible solution to the coronavirus facial recognition issue. It’s a form of biometrics, which “is a technology that makes use of physiological or behavioral characteristics to authenticate or identify people [1]. The most commonly used biometric applications are fingerprint and iris-based identification.”
Although facial recognition using biometrics can be helpful in identifying suspects, it can be fooled. Disguised faces are common, especially now during COVID-19 and the requirement of facial masks. Learn more in the video below.
Gait analysis, on the other hand, is a form of biometrics that’s quite different from the rest. It is the measurement and interpretation of human movement patterns and kinetics. For example, surveillance footage could identify a subject by observing the way they walk or run. Gait recognition technology is still being developed, though a growing number of scientific journals explain the process. Below is an expert from one such journal:
“Human gait identification aims to identify people by a sequence of walking images. Comparing with fingerprint or iris-based identification, the most important advantage of gait identification is that it can be done at a distance. In this paper, silhouette correlation analysis based human identification approach is proposed. By background subtracting algorithm, the moving silhouette figure can be extracted from the walking images sequence.
Every pixel in the silhouette has three dimensions: horizontal axis (x), vertical axis (y), and temporal axis (t). By moving every pixel in the silhouette image along these three dimensions, we can get a new silhouette. The correlation result between the original silhouette and the new one can be used as the raw feature of human gait. Discrete Fourier transform is used to extract features from this correlation result. Then, these features are normalized to minimize the affection of noise. Primary component analysis method reduces the features’ dimensions. Experiment based on CASIA database shows that this method has an encouraging recognition performance.”
Gait analysis technology is still in its early stages. Some of its current limitations include varying conditions. Under controlled circumstances, recognition fares well, but variables such as changes in the walking surfaces or the subject’s clothing can negatively influence the algorithm’s accuracy. These factors affect the way a person walks or runs. Walking uphill on a grassy surface is bound to look different from walking across flat pavement. Moving in heavy winter clothes may differ from moving in light summer clothes. Scientists are addressing such variables as they improve gait recognition programs.
The video below is an example of gait analysis.
Google and Apple's New Exposure Notification Technology
Google and Apple have joined forces to develop a technological solution for the mitigation of COVID-19 spread. The solution will improve the detection of COVID-19 outbreak hotspots and deter a subject from those areas, all on their handheld smartphone. Check out what NPR published on the topic below.
“The technology would rely on the Bluetooth signals that smartphones can both send out and receive. If a person tests positive for COVID-19, they could notify public health authorities through an app. Those public health apps would then alert anyone whose smartphones had come near the infected person’s phone in the prior 14 days. The technology would be available on both Google Android phones and Apple iPhones.
The companies insist that they will preserve smartphone users’ privacy. Smartphone users must opt-in to use it. The software will not collect data on users’ physical locations or their personally identifiable information. People who test positive would remain anonymous, both to the people who came in contact with them and to Apple and Google.”
The effectiveness of this technology depends on several factors. It will only help limit the spread of the virus if people are able and willing to participate. Everyone, or almost everyone, must have access to both a smartphone and quick-response COVID-19 testing. They must have opted into the exposure notification settings and be willing to notify others of a positive test result. Not everyone has access to a smartphone, and not everyone has access to reliable, quick-response COVID-19 testing. Many feel wary of location-tracking on their smartphones and turn off these features when not in use. These individuals may prioritize their privacy and choose not to share positive results, despite the companies’ promises not to collect identifiable information. Even if all the above criteria are met, a notification does not guarantee action. Knowledge of exposure might not keep someone from entering the public and infecting others.
Professionals in surveillance and cybersecurity point out these concerns. Jennifer Granick, ACLU surveillance and cybersecurity counsel, responded, “No contact tracing app can be fully effective until there is widespread, free, and quick testing and equitable access to healthcare. These systems also can’t be effective if people don’t trust them.“
Although this “Exposure Notification” may be useful in the future, it also may be useful in the world of video surveillance. However, several larger steps must come first.
- The public must learn to trust the technology.
- The technology must pass all civil liberties questions in order to minimize invasions of privacy, abuse, and stigmatization.
- The technology must integrate into surveillance technology, such as CCTV video surveillance systems.
To learn more about the “Exposure Notification” technology, follow this link. Despite the current pitfalls, exposure notifications may become more helpful if they meet privacy standards and increase in popularity. It’s only logical to apply advanced modern technology in the fight against COVID-19.
Contact an Expert
For more information on the solutions to COVID-19 surveillance and subject identification discussed here, call or email us today. We’re experts in audio, video, and image forensic services. We help decipher surveillance content, providing understandable, court-friendly reports. We also aid in forensic services and evidence acquisition, can serve as an expert witness, and more.
This article was last updated on February 22, 2021.