The Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (ADFSL)
Visualisation is becoming increasingly important for understanding information, such as investigative data (for example: computing, medical and crime scene evidence) and analysis (for example, network capability assessment, data file reconstruction and planning scenarios). Investigative data visualisation is used to reconstruct a scene or item and is used to assist the viewer (who may well be a member of the general public with little or no understanding of the subject matter) to understand what is being presented. Analysis visualisations, on the other hand, are usually developed to review data, information and assess competing scenario hypotheses for those who usually have an understanding of the subject matter. Courtroom environments are morphing into cinematic display environments, the media consumed by an audience who are increasingly visually literate and media savvy (Heintz, 2002). There are a number of fundamental implications inherent in the shift from oral to visual mediation and a number of facets of this modern evidence presentation technology needs to be investigated and analysed. One of the primary issues of visualisation is that no matter how coherent the data, there will always be conjecture and debate as to how the information is/has-been visualised and, is it presented in an acceptable and meaningful way. This paper presents a range of examples of where forensic data has been visualised using various techniques and technology, the paper then examines aspects of the visual courtroom evidence presented and discusses some of the benefits and potential problems of implementing this technology. This paper is part two of a two-part series that aims to describe the use of, and provide guidelines for, the use of graphical displays in courtrooms.
Bailenson, J. N., Blaschovich, J., Beall, A. C., and Noveck, B. (2006). Courtroom applications of virtual environments, immersive virtual environments and collaborative virtual environments. Law and Policy, 28(2): 249-270.
BBC News (2002, November 13). Driver bragged about killing policeman. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2460325.stm on 10 December 2012.
BBC News (2005, March 21). Four jailed for New Year’s killing. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/4366177 on 10 December 2012.
Bente, G., Krämer, N. C., Petersen, A. and de Ruiter, J. P. (2001). Computer animated movement and person perception: Methodological advances in nonverbal behavior research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(3): 151-166.
Britten, N. (2003). We know who killed the New Year's day party girls. The UK Daily Telegraph, 26 October 2003.
Brooks, F. P. (1999). What’s real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(6): 16–27.
Bryce, J., and Rutter, J. (2002). Spectacle of the deathmatch: Character and narrative in first-person shooters. In G. King, and T. Krzywinska (eds), ScreenPlay: cinema/videogames/interfaces. London, England: Wallflower.
Burton, A., Schofield, D., and Goodwin, L. M. (2005). Gates of global perception: Forensic graphics for evidence presentation. Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 22 July 2005, Singapore.
Craven, M., Taylor, I., Drozd, A., Purbrick, I., Greenhalgh, C., and Benford, S. (2001). Exploiting interactivity, influence, space and time to explore non-linear drama in virtual worlds. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-5 April 2001, Seattle, USA.
Fielder, B. (2003). Are your eyes deceiving you? The evidential crisis regarding the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. New York Law School Law Review, 48 (1&2): 295–321.
Fowle, K., Steele, K., Annear, M., and Schofield, D. (2001). Recreating reality–Using computer generated forensic animations to reconstruct accident scenarios. Law Society of WA–Courting by Computer–Advocacy by Electronics in the IT Age, 28 March 2001, Perth, Western Australia.
Galves, F. (2000). Where the not so wild things are: Computers in the courtroom, the federal rules of evidence, and the need for institutional reform and more judicial acceptance. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 13(2): 161-302.
Girvan, R. (2001). An overview of the use of computer-generated displays in the courtroom. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 7(1).
Heintz, M. E. (2002). The digital divide and courtroom technology: Can David keep up with Goliath? Federal Communications Law Journal, 54: 567-589.
Henrix, C., Barfield, W., and Nystrom, K. (1999). A Conceptual Model of the Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments, Presence, Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(2).
Kanade, T., Rander, P. J., and Narayanan, P. J. (1997). Virtualized reality: Constructing virtual worlds from scenes. IEEE Multimedia, 4(1): 34-47.
Lowman, S. (2010). Web History Visualisation for Forensic Investigations. MSc Forensic Informatics Dissertation, Department of Computer and Information Sciences. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde.
MacDorman, K. F. (2006). Subjective ratings of robot video clips for human likeness, familiarity, and eeriness: An exploration of the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long Symposium: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, July 26th 2006, Vancouver, Canada.
March, J., Schofield, D., Evison, M., and Woodford, N. (2004). ThreeDimensional Computer Visualisation of Forensic Pathology Data. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 25(1): 60-70.
Marcotte, P. (1989). Animated evidence: Delta 191 crash re-created through computer simulations at trial. Journal of the American Bar Association, 75: 52- 57.
Noond, J., Schofield, D., March, J., and Evison, M. (2002). Visualising the scene: Computer graphics and evidence presentation, science and justice. Journal of the UK Forensic Science Society, 42(2): 89-96.
O’Flaherty, D. (1996). Computer-generated displays in the courtroom: For better or worse? Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 2(4).
Ravet, S., and Layte, M. (1997). Technology-Based Training. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Rogowitz, B., and Treinish, L. (1996). How Not to Lie with Vizualization. Computers in Physics, 10: 268-274. Schnabel, M. A., and Kvan, T. (2003). Spatial Understanding in Immersive Environments. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1(4): 435- 448.
Schödl, A., and Essa, I. (2002). Controlled animation of video sprites. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, 21-22 July 2002, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Schofield, D. (2006). The Future of evidence: New applications of digital technologies, forensic science: Classroom to courtroom. Proceedings of 18th International Symposium of the Forensic Sciences, 2-8 April 2006, Fremantle, Western Australia, 2006.
Schofield, D. (2007). Animating and interacting with graphical evidence: Bringing courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualisation, 14-16 August 2007, Bangkok, Thailand.
Schofield, D. (2009). Animating evidence: Computer game technology in the courtroom. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 1. Retrieved from http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2009_1/schofield on 20 March 2012.
Schofield, D. (2011). Playing with evidence: Using video games in the courtroom. Journal of Entertainment Computing (Special Issue: Video Games as Research Instruments), 2(1): 47-58.
Schofield, D., and Mason, S. (2012). Using Graphical technology to present evidence. In S. Mason (Ed), Electronic evidence, 2nd ed. London, England: Lexis-Nexis.
Schweitzer, N., and Saks, M., (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics, Spring 2007: 357–64.
Sherwin, R.K. (2002). When Law goes pop: The vanishing line between law and popular Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Spiesel, C. (2006). Reflections on reading: Words and pictures and law. International Journal of Law in Context, 2(3): 305-320.
Speisel, C. O., and Feigenson, N. (2009). Law on display: The digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgement. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Tait, D. (2007). Rethinking the role of the image in justice: Visual evidence and science in the trial process. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4): 311-318.
Tait, D., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Schofield, D., and Jones, D. (2008). Evidence on the Holodeck: Jury responses to computer simulations. Proceedings of the Law and Technology Conference, Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 25-27 June 2008, Sydney, Australia.
Tromp, J., and Schofield, D. (2004). Practical experiences of building virtual reality systems. Proceedings of Designing and Evaluating Virtual Reality Systems Symposium, 18 June 2004, Nottingham, UK.
Walter, B., Alppay, G., Lafortune, E. P., Fernandez, S., and Greenberg, D. P. (1997). Fitting virtual lights for non-diffuse walkthroughs. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 3- 8 August 1997, Los Angeles, USA.
Ware, C., and Osborne, S. (1990). Exploration and virtual camera control in virtual three dimensional environments. Proceedings of the 1990 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, SIGGRAPH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Utah, USA.
West Midlands CPS (2003). Murder of a police officer: R v Nicolas Waters, Annual Report 2002–2003, Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands), 9.
Wilson, J. R., Eastgate, R. M., and D’Cruz, M. (2002). Structured Development of virtual environments. Stanney, KM (ed), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 353-378, 2002.
Schofield, Damian and Fowle, Ken
"Technology Corner: Visualising Forensic Data: Evidence Guidelines (Part 2),"
Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 8
, Article 4.
Available at: https://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol8/iss2/4