Police planting evidence.

[sooty]

Tiny memory sticks can contain illegal images of children and can be used by police officers to embed porn onto the hard drives of seized computers prior to the computer/s concerned being sent for forensic examination. This can then lead to the CPS being falsely supplied with ''evidence'' and a Crown Court Jury being completely unaware of what has happened a year or so before the start of a Trial. This all leaves a Defendant and his Defense team in a state of not being able to defend a case properly or to make an application of dismissal in the Magistrates Courts.

The cost to the public purse of illegal British police tactics must be huge.

[RFLH]

.... and you know this how?

[LS]

Sorry, just on my way out, but I have to butt in. I have no love for the police, but the chances of this happening are extremely remote, relating to adding anything to your pc.

Firstly, the pc would need to be switched on and running.
Police usually turn up between 4am-7am. So why is your pc switched on while you're asleep?

Second, it can only happen after you have been arrested and taken to a police station.
The image/item's EXIF-type data would show when it was created/moved/last accessed, and this will show a date and time that you have alibi proof for (arrest sheet) that shows you were in custody at that time and thus could not have placed it on your pc.

Third, pc's are bagged and sealed at seizure.
Every time thereafter the item is unsealed, a log has to be made of it and who by, and for what purpose.

The advice I would give to everyone is get used to switching your pc off after you finish using it. Never leave it switched on when you're not in front of it. That way, no one can add anything to it but you.

LS out.

[RFLH]

thank you LS. Much appreciated.

[sooty]

Police planting evidence.

Sorry, just on my way out, but I have to butt in. I have no love for the police, but the chances of this happening are extremely remote, relating to adding anything to your pc.

Firstly, the pc would need to be switched on and running.
Police usually turn up between 4am-7am. So why is your pc switched on while you're asleep?

Second, it can only happen after you have been arrested and taken to a police station.
The image/item's EXIF-type data would show when it was created/moved/last accessed, and this will show a date and time that you have alibi proof for (arrest sheet) that shows you were in custody at that time and thus could not have placed it on your pc.

Third, pc's are bagged and sealed at seizure.
Every time thereafter the item is unsealed, a log has to be made of it and who by, and for what purpose.

The advice I would give to everyone is get used to switching your pc off after you finish using it. Never leave it switched on when you're not in front of it. That way, no one can add anything to it but you.

LS out.

The information given above is very useful. However, it only applies where the police had complied with their own codes of conduct and the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act per se.
If seized property is not placed into a bag and sealed then the officers concerned must have been doing wrong.

[LS]

The information given above is very useful. However, it only applies where the police had complied with their own codes of conduct and the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act per se.
If seized property is not placed into a bag and sealed then the officers concerned must have been doing wrong.

BUT you will know (if you look at your watch) what time you were arrested and you will have solid proof, in the form of your arrest sheet, of the time you were at the police station (usually within an hour) and thus no longer in a position to add anything to your pc, so anything that appears conveniently after that time you can reasonably show is not yours.

Even if they did not adhere to PACE, a forensic examination of your pc will show up the exif-type info listed above and it will be recorded on the Evidence List that you would be given long before you went to court. If any of the images show up with an addendum showing they were created after you were arrested, then if you were convicted of it then one would say you probably had a dentist representing you.

In other words, there is no way they can place anything on your computer without it being glaringly obvious, and with proof that you didn't.

If you had seen the lengths that computer forensics go to in order to ascertain that an image found on your computer is genuine, and has been there a while, where it came from, its properties, and all of the proofs to certify such, then you would know that what you are suggesting is not just possible.

The one and only way that images found on your computer are not yours is if someone else (mates, family) had access to your pc and put them on. But you can rule out police. It's one thing to lie or withhold evidence, but quite another to actively pervert the course of justice in a manner that is 100% bound to be found out in court.

[tigertiger]

Great explanation from LS.

Sooty I wouldn’t deny that this never happens as sadly as is human nature there are good eggs and bad eggs. I would say being completeley framed / stitched up this way by the police is extremely rare however not impossible. But in the grand scheme of things I think the % of coming up against an officer who A would know how to do this and cover his tracks and B who is even going to attempt to do this is extremely small.

When you factor in all they really need to do is get some flimsy statement from a crazy person to drag you to court legally their life is already easy and risk free to secure a conviction against an innocent.

So I don’t rule out extreme police corruption, as highlighted by the Steven Lawrence case but thankfully this is the least of our worries.

Coincidentally, my phone during booking in at the station was placed into a bag and not sealed to allow me to obtain important phone numbers before I left the station by the OIC. When leaving the custody sergeant was quite alarmed it had not been sealed from the start and there was an awkward moment with her and the CS. At the back of my mind I did think hmmm what if they tampered with it but then I did think well actually time records from access would show otherwise anyway. Not to mention there was nothing at all on that phone anyway so any tampering will be harder to do. Im more concearned about the lies told by my accuser rather than the police messing with my phone to be honest.

[LS]

What you have to remember is that even a bad cop akin to Gene Hunt can not go around installing dodgy images, as he will be tripped up by the computer forensic examination.

The role of the computer forensic examination is just that - to forensically examine and certify the origins of the contents of your pc, document where the items came from, whether they are original or altered, when, how, by that computer or another.
But the main role of this examination is to make it absolutely certain that the images belong to that computer and, before the arrest time, you. This is why you will almost certainly be asked at some point if anyone else has had access to it.

However, the primary role of the exam is to make sure the contents are yours. It protects you, ironically, from exactly the scenario Sooty mentioned.

[tigertiger]

True, there would still exist a percentage of winning the lottery twice of being stitched up by an officer who is skilled enough to cover tracks to pass forensics. In the big money corporate hacking world for example literally anything is possible to hack/tamper to cover tracks in regards to technology. But Im going off on a tangent here talking in the realm of a handful of under ground highly skilled individuals not a bent copper down the local cop shop who would not possess skills like these.
But yeah in the real world and technically speaking its in-line with impossible they could get away with it.

[sooty]

Police planting evidence.

True, there would still exist a percentage of winning the lottery twice of being stitched up by an officer who is skilled enough to cover tracks to pass forensics. In the big money corporate hacking world for example literally anything is possible to hack/tamper to cover tracks in regards to technology. But Im going off on a tangent here talking in the realm of a handful of under ground highly skilled individuals not a bent copper down the local cop shop who would not possess skills like these.
But yeah in the real world and technically speaking its in-line with impossible they could get away with it.

Police officers appear to think they are superior to all members of the public. I recently said to one; ''You are not allowed to plant indecent images onto members of the public and nor are you allowed to pervert the course of Justice. Do you understand?" She then replied; No, I do not understand''. Another sent an e-mail to other officers asking for ''negative replies''.
I know that a computer had contained no indecent images and therefore find it extremely puzzling how a forensic examiner could possibly claim to have found more than 2000 such images. The computer in question had been protected by a log-in password. A police officer claimed to have viewed all the alleged indecent images. The hard drive inside the computer had been brand new and it had never at any time been connected to the Internet. I myself had no means of placing any indecent images onto the computer. I do not rest my case!

[LS]

True, there would still exist a percentage of winning the lottery twice of being stitched up by an officer who is skilled enough to cover tracks to pass forensics.

That's the rub. One person on his own cannot beat computer forensics. It's non-destructive (usually using EnCase software), but it's along the lines of reading a book. You can't add type or rearrange the paragraphs.
Gene could slip the forensic examiner a few fifties, but that a) leaves him open to a second person knowing he is out and out bent and b) the forensics are a case of reading the data, not altering it.
You would need a bent Gene and a bent examiner, but as the examiners are/were contracted out to often different areas of the country, Gene is unlikely to spend any time down the pub with said examiner to know him from Adam, so the rapport that bribery might grow from isn't going to be there in the first place.

[LS]

Police officers appear to think they are superior to all members of the public. I recently said to one; ''You are not allowed to plant indecent images onto members of the public and nor are you allowed to pervert the course of Justice. Do you understand?" She then replied; No, I do not understand''. Another sent an e-mail to other officers asking for ''negative replies''.
I know that a computer had contained no indecent images and therefore find it extremely puzzling how a forensic examiner could possibly claim to have found more than 2000 such images. The computer in question had been protected by a log-in password. A police officer claimed to have viewed all the alleged indecent images. The hard drive inside the computer had been brand new and it had never at any time been connected to the Internet. I myself had no means of placing any indecent images onto the computer. I do not rest my case!

Purchase proof of that hard drive is going to be interesting, particularly in relation to the dates of images found.
It not having access to the internet is not that strong - they could argue you could have had images downloaded to it from another hard drive, from a memory stick.

You also need to ascertain what these "indecent images" are. Child porn isn't just 6yr olds. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are also children, and it narks me that many download what they think are adult porn images but are actually in this age bracket and think their sh*t don't stink (not you btw, Daily Mail readers). I've lost count of Daily Mail readers who don't think 16-17yr olds are children, think that it's fine for a certain teacher to sleep with a certain 15-yr old because they were ""in love"" and a modern day Romeo and Juliet, and that downloading images of 16-17yr olds can't possibly be child porn. Because "that's only of 6 yr olds...."

[sooty]

Purchase proof of that hard drive is going to be interesting, particularly in relation to the dates of images found.
It not having access to the internet is not that strong - they could argue you could have had images downloaded to it from another hard drive, from a memory stick.

You also need to ascertain what these "indecent images" are. Child porn isn't just 6yr olds. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are also children, and it narks me that many download what they think are adult porn images but are actually in this age bracket and think their sh*t don't stink (not you btw, Daily Mail readers). I've lost count of Daily Mail readers who don't think 16-17yr olds are children, think that it's fine for a certain teacher to sleep with a certain 15-yr old because they were ""in love"" and a modern day Romeo and Juliet, and that downloading images of 16-17yr olds can't possibly be child porn. Because "that's only of 6 yr olds...."

There had been no argument as to purchase of the hard drive nor of any dates related to the alleged images.

Assuming the forensic examiner did find more than 2000 indecent images, then how could they have been there? Any suggestions?

[LS]

There had been no argument as to purchase of the hard drive

There should be, because if the images are dated prior to your purchase date then you have a case to argue.

nor of any dates related to the alleged images.

You're not challenging the dates? You should be, if the images are not yours.

Assuming the forensic examiner did find more than 2000 indecent images, then how could they have been there? Any suggestions?

Other than you putting them there, or one of your mates putting them on there without your knowledge, then no.

You don't say if the hard drive was brand new, or used and new to you. It's not unheard of for new items to come with iffy things on them, put on by disgruntled ex-employees. Think along the lines of talking toys that someone has programmed to say "F*** you" and a DVD player with built-in hard drive from Argos that came with a porn video on it. Rare, but does happen. More likely to be that somewhere your hard drive came from was tampered with.

[sooty]

There should be, because if the images are dated prior to your purchase date then you have a case to argue.



You're not challenging the dates? You should be, if the images are not yours.



Other than you putting them there, or one of your mates putting them on there without your knowledge, then no.

You don't say if the hard drive was brand new, or used and new to you. It's not unheard of for new items to come with iffy things on them, put on by disgruntled ex-employees. Think along the lines of talking toys that someone has programmed to say "F*** you" and a DVD player with built-in hard drive from Argos that came with a porn video on it. Rare, but does happen. More likely to be that somewhere your hard drive came from was tampered with.

Yes, the hard drive had been brand new and had never been connected to the Internet.

It would appear to me that the forensic examiner simply pretended to have found more than 2000 indecent images. The big question is why? He had no axe to grind with me. He made a signed statement to the effect that he had found more than 2000 indecent images on my PC. Surely he would have known that to give false evidence amounts to perjury?