This is one of a series of articles I have prepared concerning expert evidence
"Outside Looking In" - This title relates to experts that have not gone the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) route to hunker-down and embrace the ISO17025 accreditation process. We are told the concept of aiming for quality and reliable evidence is at or should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when involved with forensics and evidence. I think we all agree with that one. It is just how to go about that? ISO17025 was selected to meet that task but came with an excessive limitation - it only works for you if there is a high-level of quantity of cash to pay for it.
This is where the "Outside Looking In" arises as many single-person enterprise (often referred to as sole trader) and even small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) find it difficult to join the ISO17025 approved list. Financially, both the above mentioned enterprises can face outgoing costs of estimated an £76,000.00 before handling any work under this new ISO17025 regime.
But I see another route through all of this for these enterprises and that is expert opinion on assessing the Reports/Logs/CDRs etc., introduced as [Evidence]; assessment of that evidence doesn't require creating more, new evidence by the assessing expert, merely an opinion on it [e.g. process]. By process I mean recognition of steps taken to bring about the evidence. To illustrate, a document in a murder case said to be the original had apparently been used in order to make copies of it. Mysteriously, the duplicated copies had come from the first photocopier in history to change the original wording from lower case lettering to exactly the same wording but now appearing in upper case lettering. Amazing!
Today, there is much concern over the loss of highly experienced experts in the above enterprises no longer assisting the Criminal Justice System. It is hard to believe no clear and precise path had been created for them. To understand this concern associated with long term knowledge, skills and experience I use an example of a presentation I created back in 2008 regarding mobile telephone evidence. This is to make the point that categories used in the presentation are just "labels" BUT under which vast and deep wells of knowledge skills and experience are needed by practitioners and had to be known back then; because they regularly cropped up in evidence. These weren't learnt overnight but over many, many years.
Those "Outside Looking In" are now asking themselves why is it someone else has decided my knowledge, skills and experience is no longer worthy?
TREWMTE-Starter-Kit-Part-TWO https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ec7issg2m2batw9p0okd3/TREWMTE-Starter-Kit-Part-TWO.pdf?
In "Outside Looking In" Part 2 I want to show acquisition of "Knowledge" and its relevance to expert opinion. I will be using Cell Site Analysis as the relevant science in relation to evidence.
