JOIN USAre digital forensics solving crimes, or saving the guilty?
Our personal lives are now digitally intertwined with those of our co-workers, friends and family, while the lines between personal and professional behaviours are fading. Criminals are no exception and a variety of crimes have been connected to persons using digital devices.
As the use of these digital devices in crimes increases, digital forensic scientists are becoming experts in solving previously unsolvable crimes. An excellent example is the recent case of Michelle Hadley.
In June 2016, police arrested Michelle Hadley on 10 felony charges, including attempted rape, after her ex-fiance’s current wife, Angela Diaz, called 911 to report that a man had just tried to rape her in her garage. Police investigating the incident began following a digital trail of evidence that had begun with multiple threatening messages, supposedly from Michelle. Although they were under a pseudonym, the emails had threatened Angela’s life.
As police continued the investigation, they discovered someone posing as Angela (most likely Michelle) had also placed a Craigslist advertisement, inviting men to come to her condo to participate in a “rape fantasy.” Angela reported that two men had previously come to her door to participate in the fantasy, although she stated that she had never taken out the ad. After the reported attack by another man, police were convinced that all evidence led to Michelle.
As a result, Michelle was held on $1-million bail and spent 88 days in jail before finally being released in October 2016, as digital forensic evidence began indicating her innocence. A breakthrough in the case came when investigators uncovered the real IP addresses behind the Craigslist ads and the harassing emails Angela had received. In a bizarre twist, digital forensic scientists discovered the IP address of some of the emails had originated not on Michelle’s devices, but in Angela’s own home.
In January 2017, California’s Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas stated, “Ms Hadley is an innocent victim of a diabolical scheme.” All charges were dropped against her, and in her place Angela Diaz was arrested and accused of posing as a victim to frame Michelle Hadley.
Police now suspect that Angela was trying to eliminate Michelle’s claim to the condo-
minium which the latter and Angela’s husband had bought together before Angela and her husband began their relationship. Since her husband could not qualify for a mortgage to buy the condominium outright, it would have needed to be sold in order to settle the agreement with Michelle.
This entire case revolved around digital evidence from emails and an online advertisement in Craigslist. By thoroughly investigating digital files from both the accuser and the accused, authorities were able to discern the true victim in this case. However, there is a darker side to digital forensics and justice.
In today’s high-speed digital world, prejudicial pre-trial publicity can also occur at gigabit speed when videos of the event go viral, or posts on Facebook and Twitter heighten public condemnation of the accused, and taint potential jury pools. With more than 72% of adult Americans maintaining at least one social networking profile, Facebook claiming more than 1.23 billion active monthly user accounts worldwide, and Twitter processing more than 500 million tweets every day, police and prosecutors have a plethora of digital opportunities for solving crimes at their finger-
tips. Even the US President can’t put down his Twitter account, which polarises the US people on important issues everyday!
Ethical breaches
Prosecutorial misconduct has also been on the rise due to digital media. Prosecutors and judges have texted each other during trials, blogged about pending cases, posted inflammatory Facebook updates on both their personal and professional pages, and have sometimes created false online personas in an attempt to influence alibi witnesses. Misuse of this digital technology poses particular concerns as the speed of modern technology increases along with access to a multitude of digital devices, both in and out of the workplace.
Legal professionals are now facing a variety of never before envisioned ethical breaches from the exchange of texts hidden from defence attorneys, or prosecutors who take it upon themselves to create false Facebook profiles in order to tamper with witnesses.
A recent case in Broward County, Florida, highlights potential pitfalls of the use of
digital media by judges and prosecutors. In 2007, Omar Loureiro was convicted of first-degree murder. Broward Circuit Judge Ana Gardiner subsequently imposed death penalty. Case closed, or so it seemed.
It was later discovered that Judge Gardiner and the prosecutor for the case had been secretly chatting and texting hundreds of times while the case against Loureiro was underway. During the course of 151 days, the prosecutor and the judge had exchanged more than 471 text messages, and had 949 cellular phone calls, resulting in an average of more than 10 communications per day. And while both denied having any romantic relationship, the communications between the two had been personal, concerning family situations which they were both undergoing. In a disciplinary proceeding, authorities determined that while the communications were of a personal nature and did not pertain specifically to the Loureiro case, they did create an appearance of impropriety and damage the perception of judicial impartiality. The case was ultimately retried.
The Florida Supreme Court believed the damage by these two in the administration of justice was so severe that the court doubled the recommended penalty put forth by a referee, and suspended the former prosecutors’ Florida law licence for two years. In addition, since the inappropriate communications had occurred in a capital murder case where the judge had to rule on both motions made by and against the prosecution and where the judge could ultimately impose a sentence of death, the judge was suspended for two years and ultimately retired.
With the explosion of digital communication devices, the scales of justice for the accused, the ethics of judicial administrators, and ultimately the outcome of life and death cases will rest in the hands of the digital forensics experts. Let the user beware.
(Iyengar is a distinguished Ryder Professor and Director, School of Computing and Information Sciences, Miami; Miller has been with US Air Force for over two decades and is Coordinator, Discovery Lab, Florida International University)