Cell site analysis paper published in Science & Justice

The peer-reviewed academic paper examines the roles of practitioners working within cell site analysis, with a particular focus on assessing where opinion lies in the process.

As the prime author, Matthew has worked with Forensic Interpretation experts Dr Sue Pope and David Baldwin from Principal Forensic Services and Coventry University Senior Lecturer Robert Bird.

Says Matthew: “One of the difficulties that arises particularly in cell site analysis is in the word ‘interpretation’. It’s incredibly important that the judiciary, forensic providers and practitioners themselves understand the difference between the presentation, explanation and forensic evaluation of data, which are widely differing activities, yet all can be confusingly described as interpretation.”

This is a subject that has come into sharp focus recently in a ruling for R v Calland, in which an analysis was provided as fact evidence but was viewed by the court as containing opinion and therefore expert evidence. It was excluded from the trial as a result.

Matthew adds: “This paper explores those occasions where practitioners are asked, expected or indeed offer opinions potentially on areas outside their expertise, in particular when opinion evidence may be mistakenly presented as fact.”

Cell site analysis: Roles and interpretation follows Matthew’s previous paper, Historic cell site analysis: Overview of principles and survey methodologies, with a third paper concerning the models for forensic inference to follow in the coming months.

For more information on CCL’s digital forensic services, click here.