Recording every camera continuously at full quality consumes enormous storage — a single high-resolution camera with a frame rate of 20-30 FPS (frames per second) can generate tens of gigabytes per day, and a facility may run dozens of cameras. To manage this, most systems are configured for event-based recording; they record only when something they consider an “event” occurs. By far the most common trigger is motion detection.
This single design decision has a consequence that matters enormously in litigation: gaps in recorded footage are a normal, expected artifact of a motion-triggered system. Whether a particular gap reflects tampering or simply reflects how the system was configured is a technical question — one that can be answered by examining the digital video evidence or the original system through generating exemplar (sample) recordings. These exemplar recordings aid in establishing ground truth, an accurate known sample for analysis.
How Motion Detection Actually Works
A camera does not “see” motion the way a person does. Motion detection is a mathematical comparison: the system examines successive video frames and measures how much the image has changed from one frame to the next. For example, in the Milestone XProtect platform — the VMS at the center of the case study that follows — this analysis happens on the recording server, not in the camera.
The camera streams video continuously to the server; the server decodes that stream, compares frames, and decides whether “motion” has occurred. This is an important architectural point: the settings that determine whether an event gets recorded live are in the server’s configuration (the Management Client), and a misconfiguration there affects recording regardless of how well the camera performs.
When the server compares frames, the answer to these two questions determines whether it declares motion:
Question 1: Did a given pixel change?
Digital video is inherently noisy. Compression artifacts, sensor grain, and subtle lighting shifts cause pixel values to fluctuate constantly even in a completely static scene. The sensitivity setting defines how much an individual pixel's value must change before the system treats it as a genuinely changed pixel rather than noise. Milestone can manage sensitivity automatically or allow it to be set manually per camera.
Question 2: Did enough pixels change to count as motion?
Once the system knows which pixels changed, it counts them. The threshold setting defines how many changed pixels are required — in effect, how large a disturbance in the image must be — before the system declares a motion event and triggers recording. These are two separate controls, and conflating them is one of the most common mistakes in discussing these systems.
A camera can be perfectly sensitive at the pixel level and still fail to record a person walking through the scene — if the threshold demands that more of the frame change than that person’s movement actually produces. Picture a wide-angle camera covering a large parking lot: a person crossing at the far edge of the view may occupy well under one percent of the image. If the threshold is set above the amount of change that person generates, the system will conclude, mathematically and consistently, that nothing happened.
Other Settings That Shape What Gets Recorded
Pre-buffer and post-buffer. When motion triggers recording, the system can prepend a few seconds of video captured immediately before the trigger (temporarily held in memory) and continue recording for a set period after motion stops. These buffers are configurable. If the pre-buffer is short or disabled, recordings begin abruptly when the threshold is crossed — which, to a lay viewer, can look as though the footage was “cut” mid-action.
Example: What Miscalibration Looks Like in the Footage
Each configuration error leaves a characteristic signature:
-
Threshold set too high:
Small or distant subjects fail to trigger recording at all, or trigger it late — footage begins "mid-event," after the subject has moved close enough or fast enough to finally exceed the threshold finally. The lead-up is simply never recorded. -
Sensitivity set too low:
Similar symptoms, particularly in low-contrast conditions — a subject in dark clothing against a dark background may never produce enough per-pixel change to register. -
Sensitivity too high / threshold too low:
The opposite failure — constant false triggers from noise, shadows, and lighting changes. This rapidly fills storage, accelerating the system's overwrite cycle and causing -
Environmental interactions:
Llighting transitions compound all of the above. Cameras switching to infrared mode at dusk, headlight sweeps, cloud shadows, and increased sensor noise at night all change how much pixel-level activity a scene produces — meaning a threshold that performs correctly at noon can perform very differently at midnight.
Why Configuration Gaps Get Mistaken for Manipulation
To someone reviewing exported video, the symptoms of miscalibration and tampering can look identical: the recording jumps from one timestamp to another; an event everyone knows occurred appears nowhere in the footage; a clip begins jarringly in the middle of the action. Absent technical context, “someone edited this” is an understandable inference.
A forensic examination distinguishes the two by first asking a different question. Not who removed the footage? — but was the footage ever recorded?
Answering it means going to the system rather than the exported clips: reviewing the VMS configuration (the actual sensitivity, threshold, buffer, and rule settings in effect), examining the system’s logs, checking the stored video database for internal consistency, and — where possible — testing the system’s live behavior against its configured values to demonstrate exactly what level of activity it does and does not capture.
Often, in civil litigation, the absence of recorded evidence in specific regions of a video recording can lead to spoliation claims by either side. In the following case study, we will walk through a great example of how this type of argument can unfold and, ultimately, how it can be defeated using forensic video analysis.
Case Study: Authentication Request
The central dispute concerned the authenticity of two digital video recordings in a proprietary format. The claim in question was that these videos may have been manipulated or edited, potentially undermining their reliability as evidence in a regulatory or legal context. This challenge was advanced by external parties (a federal investigator), who questioned whether the recorded events accurately reflected what occurred in real time—specifically, whether the footage had been altered, tampered with, or artificially constructed.
Primeau Forensics received a request to evaluate several proprietary video recordings, including the proprietary player, to determine whether they could assist in evaluating this evidence. The focus of the request was to determine if opinions regarding tampering could be made solely from the analysis of the proprietary video recordings.
Opposing Theory
The opposing theory, as implied by the investigation’s objective, was that the video evidence may have been manipulated or edited, particularly due to observable anomalies such as sudden jumps or playback disruptions. The underlying concern was that these anomalies could indicate post-recording editing, selective recording, or system misconfiguration used to conceal or distort events. The theory was not based solely on visual artifacts but rested on the broader assumption that digital video evidence from the VMS (video management system) lacked verifiable integrity, given the absence of documented controls and the potential for human error in handling.
Forensic Methodology
In any investigation where questioned recordings are suspect to manipulation, examination of the evidence to determine if the methodology can be applied is the first step. From there, a testing plan to evaluate the validity of the opposing theory is established. This type of testing plan should apply a structured, standards-based forensic approach rooted in the SWGDE Best Practices for Digital Video Authentication 23-V-001 as follows:
Assess the Request
Once an examiner has evaluated the request, they should determine whether an authentication examination is suitable for answering the requestor’s questions. In some cases, multiple types of authentication examinations may be needed to address the request. If no suitable examination can address the request, inform the requestor of the findings. The requestor can then modify the request, or submit a request for a different examination.
Prepare for Testing
Once a determination of which questions regarding the video’s authenticity can be made, the examiner should develop a plan, obtain reference videos, and prepare the questioned video for analysis. Assess and document the technical attributes of the video. Follow your evidence-handling standard operating procedures if testing an evidence device is necessary.
NOTE: Some digital/network recording systems can export configuration parameters to retain the evidence device’s configuration state.
Develop a Plan
If device classification or identification is the primary objective, exemplar files may need to be generated for comparison. Video samples produced by the testing equipment may be exported and acquired using various methods. Evaluation of all possibilities, including double encoding, direct downloading, sharing, or other acquisition methods from these devices, will ensure the most accurate results.
Generate Exemplars
If device classification or identification is the primary objective, exemplar files may need to be generated for comparison. Video samples produced by the testing equipment may be exported and acquired using various methods. Evaluation of all possibilities, including double encoding, direct downloading, sharing, or other acquisition methods from these devices, will ensure the most accurate results.
Video Authentication Process
For this type of authentication request, the most accurate approach for an expert in a civil case is to test the theory and ultimately determine if it can be disproved. Creating sample recordings for comparison with the evidence is the most accurate approach.
A site inspection was recommended, and samples were generated. It is important to confirm with the IT team that the VMS and the IP Cameras had not been changed; thus, sample testing could proceed. The inspection utilized several areas of video forensic methodology.
Preliminary Digital Analysis
The initial assessment focused solely on digital characteristics within the video files, including metadata, file structure, and visual anomalies (e.g., “jumping” in playback). The jumping was consistent with motion-triggered recording behavior, in which the system engaged and disengaged based on motion detection, inconsistent with editing or tampering. This outcome was evaluated using the Milestone XProtect proprietary player and its manual—an example of motion detection within the Milestone XProtect Smart Client, shown in the image below.
Exemplar Testing
It was noted that there was evidence supporting pre- and post-event motion activation in the video evidence within the proprietary player. The motion detection threshold was tested by generating samples using the default sensitivity threshold of the IP cameras used to capture the evidence. Through testing minimal movements throughout the space, they were deemed insufficient to arm based on the default motion sensitivity thresholds. In other words, if the movement observed from the camera through the VMS software was not considered high enough, although to the human eye it may have seemed high enough, the threshold wasn’t satisfied. Thus, the encoder didn’t arm to record the events.
Comparative Analysis of Motion Data
The examiner on this investigation, Michael Primeau, compared the evidence recordings with control samples (pink pre- and post-motion data exemplars). The absence of pink data in the evidence recordings was evaluated for consistency with the exemplars. Thorough sampling from the surveillance system and IP camera was completed to assess whether technical configurations (e.g., motion recording, resolution, compression, FPS) could explain the anomalies without implying manipulation.
Results
Each element of the opposing theory was tested and evaluated against specific evidence:
Claim 1: "The video shows signs of editing or manipulation."
Disproved by an evaluation of the proprietary player, evidence of pre-buffer and post-buffer time periods (motion sensitivity thresholds). No evidence of 3rd-party editing software or tools commonly used to edit or manipulate evidence can be present within a Milestone proprietary video encoding format.
Claim 2: "The 'jumping' in the video is evidence of editing." → Contradicted by motion detection analysis.
The jumping behavior was found to be consistent with motion recording system behavior. It was explained as the result of motion-only recording programming, where the recorder activates only when motion is detected and deactivates when motion stops. This is a known, documented feature of many surveillance systems and does not indicate post-recording manipulation.
Conclusion
The investigative argument concludes that the video evidence extracted from the system is authentic and not manipulated or altered. The opposing theory, that the footage was edited or tampered with, was ultimately inaccurate. This was achievable through generating and comparing samples from the same camera and VMS system with the evidence, using forensic video analysis.
It was explained that the abruptness of movement of subjects within the FOV (Field of View) was due to a limitation of the motion detection sensitivity threshold within the VMS system, ultimately set in a default configuration. The default configuration limited the system’s ability to detect and record consistent human movement within the XML Sitemap.
The video evidence, when evaluated through a peer-reviewed, widely acceptable forensic process, supports the conclusion that the events were recorded as they occurred, with anomalies arising from system design rather than manipulation. This conclusion strengthens the evidentiary value of the recordings. It underscores the importance of adhering to SWGDE best practices, including proper documentation, training, and system audits, to prevent future challenges to digital evidence.
Defend Your Evidence with Scientific Rigor
Forensic analysis took center stage in the criminal and legal investigation into Alec Baldwin’s fatal shooting of a crew member on the set of Rust. Michael Primeau shed light on the complexities of interpreting video evidence and contributed to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer on the Rust film set, being found guilty in the related case against her. The case highlights how much like a scene from a movie with an actor on the stand, video evidence can be questioned, scrutinized, and misinterpreted.
Table of Contents
The Background
In October 2021, Baldwin was involved in a fatal shooting on the Rust set, resulting in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and the injury of director Joel Souza. The incident raised serious questions about on-set safety protocols and how live ammunition ended up in a prop gun. A key issue was understanding the difficulty of distinguishing dummy rounds—used to look real on camera—from the live rounds that caused the tragedy.
Forensic video analysis and forensic image analysis were crucial in reconstructing events, examining Baldwin’s handling of the firearm, and scrutinizing the type of ammunition used. This is where Michael Primeau’s expert video analysis became essential, as he worked to clarify video stills to provide insights into the ammunition’s characteristics.
The Trial of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer on the Rust set, was put on trial for her role in the incident. During the investigation, six live rounds were discovered, some in a box of supposed dummy ammunition Gutierrez-Reed had brought to the set. Live rounds were also found in the gun belt worn by actor Jensen Ackles and the bandolier worn by Alec Baldwin.
The Testimony and the Challenge
Primeau’s testimony was central to the trial, as he was tasked with enhancing video frames to identify the ammunition’s primer side. His analysis involved resizing, adjusting light levels, sharpening and pixel analysis to reveal a silver-colored piece of ammunition in multiple stills. This detailed forensic work helped distinguish between live rounds and dummy rounds, providing crucial evidence that impacted the case’s outcome.
One of the main challenges Primeau addressed was combating the “silent witness theory”—the assumption that video inherently represents the truth. His work highlighted how video evidence could be misleading if not properly analyzed, demonstrating that even seemingly clear footage requires expert interpretation to uncover critical details.
The Plot Twist: Validating Video Evidence
Primeau’s analysis provided much-needed clarity during Gutierrez-Reed’s trial. By examining pixel tonal values in footage of Baldwin from October 10, 2021, he identified characteristics similar to the live ammunition and the prop ammunition. This technical process required dissecting each video image (frame) and evaluating the accuracy of what the professional-grade cinematography and behind-the-scenes cameras encoded (captured) as evidence. This was then offered in a report as well as expert testimony to the court, aiding in the court’s understanding of the events.
As the trial progressed, Primeau’s findings helped shift the focus from merely examining the original video to understanding how expert enhancements could alter or clarify previous interpretations. His testimony underscored the importance of using scientifically validated methods to analyze video evidence, ensuring the court had reliable information to consider.
Behind the Camera: Cutting-Edge Video Technology
High-end recording technology, like the cameras used on the Rust set, captures scenes in intricate detail. Forensic analysts like Primeau translate this raw video data into terms that can be easily understood in court. His meticulous approach to validating the video evidence ensured it could withstand cross-examination, illustrating why technical expertise is essential in forensic analysis.
Why This Matters
Primeau’s involvement in the Gutierrez-Reed trial demonstrated that forensic video analysis isn’t just about pressing buttons—it’s about understanding recording devices, applying technical methods, and knowing the limitations of enhancement tools. His testimony provided the court with key evidence that ultimately played a part in the jury’s decision to convict Gutierrez-Reed.
Closing Credits: The Reality of Forensic Video Analysis
The Baldwin shooting and trial of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed serve as a reminder that video evidence requires the same scrutiny as human testimony. Whether it’s footage from a high-end Hollywood camera or everyday surveillance, forensic experts like Primeau ensure that video evidence is scientifically validated and accurately interpreted. This work is crucial in preventing misinterpretation and protecting the integrity of the justice process.
So, when video technology takes center stage in a courtroom, remember: the “silent witness” still needs a voice—yours, ours, and the courts’—to ensure it speaks the truth.
Suppose you use the same discovery method to authenticate digital video evidence stored in the cloud as you would with video stored on a device. In that case, you may incorrectly target the machine that produced the video, spend the client’s money on unnecessary device acquisition methodology, and waste the court’s time on evidentiary issues rather than legal ones. Many video camera providers, such as Ring, don’t store files on the device but stream and encode them to the cloud, providing additional data on the device through user access. This is where experts can assist with authenticate ring video evidence in court.
Authenticate Ring Video in Court
A client may bring several versions of recorded evidence in varying formats from a Ring security camera to proffer evidence in a court proceeding. These recordings may have been trimmed or converted in order to maximize compatibility and relevance to the case. In this instance, you can expect the opposing counsel and their expert witness to object to the recordings, claiming they lack the necessary foundation to authenticate and admit them into evidence, most commonly reliant on metadata analysis alone.
Ring customers use a device to record videos and a Ring Protect plan to store them in the cloud. Under the plan, the camera detects movement and streams the video to Ring’s cloud storage, where the customer can access or share it for up to 180 days. The Ring device can also record video segments viewed in real-time (e.g., livestream) once a viewer gains access to the stream from the camera. In addition to the video, Ring logs data on what the camera did when it took the video and the interactions with the user account associated with the stored video.
Image by Freepik
Ring has law enforcement guidelines for search warrants and procedures to respond to government requests, court subpoenas, and preservation orders. Ring also supplies tools for customers to export their data from their services, allowing customers to access their accounts, download videos, and extract logs. Pay attention to the self-service tools. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) recommends using such tools, which will likely provide examiners with the highest quality video and additional data (SWGDE Best Practices for Digital & Multimedia Evidence Video Acquisition from Cloud Storage).
Whether your client brings the entire video to you or creates video clips from the downloaded videos stored in a non-native container (e.g., formatting), opposing counsel may object to introducing the video or the clips into evidence, arguing that your client tampered with the videos. This is common in a situation where the opposing expert is unaware of advanced methodology to authenticate the digital video file, such as a structural analysis in a non-native container, which requires examination of a known structural sample for device identification. The opposition may even seek a spoliation sanction with additional discovery requests targeting your client’s smartphone, which can further complicate the video authentication issues. Authenticate ring video in court makes this a simpler process.
Many judges will not want to delay proceedings with additional discovery. The parties should agree on the information necessary for video authentication. Yet, opposing counsel’s expert witness may want to interrogate your client’s smartphone to find the truth or to perform what is commonly referred to as a “fishing expedition”. In that case, you have an expert-on-expert impasse, which rests on the fate of an argument of what is the most accurate, widely acceptable scientific methodology.
Dueling Expert Witnesses
Image by pressfoto on Freepik
Digital video authentication is a complex process to establish the provenance of a questioned recording to assess whether it is consistent with or altered from an original recording. Your opposing counsel and their expert witness may believe they need your client’s smartphone. But Ring live-streams video to cloud storage, where customers access it on demand. Opposing counsel may ask your client, “How do we know what you’re telling us is true?” Instead, they should ask, “What’s relevant and admissible?”
If an opposing expert knows the scientific methodology to compare the video clips to the original, containerized video file, there would be no authentication issue. When an expert focuses on a specific smartphone, hoping it will lead to additional information about the circumstances under which the video was created, who created it, and more, it goes against the scientific community’s best practices and standards regarding video authentication—focusing on context authentication. Although this type of investigation has a place in the courtroom, the inquiry should square off on whether the non-trimmed video files are consistent or altered from the original recording. Turn your attention to how Ring creates video.
Source Identification Process
First, look at a recording to know its provenance: where it has been and what it represents. One question to keep in mind: Was the recording made by someone else watching the video?
Compare how Ring produced the video and how your client created the proffered evidence. One of the most effective ways to authenticate a digital video file in forensic video analysis is to perform a structural analysis of the native container with which the device was created by examining an exemplar recording (e.g., a known sample). Test the same make/model Ring device as your client used and create several exemplar recordings. Compare metadata attributes and the native Ring container’s digital structure using a tool like Medex (see image below). The analysis can reveal a match with the signature of a known, unaltered Ring recording, alleviating any concerns for the reliability of the submitted supplemental evidence recordings.
Furthermore, examine the video stream/frame hash from the Ring server via a desktop browser and compare it with a video downloaded using the Ring App on a smartphone. The analysis may demonstrate that the acquisition process doesn’t affect the visual or digital integrity of the video images. Finally, the video log file can authenticate the date/time within the video file metadata and correlate with the log file acquired from the client’s Ring user account.
Change the Frame of Inquiry With Cloud-Based Video
When a video is live-streamed to cloud storage, scientific methods exist to authenticate the evidence rather than time-consuming alternatives by acquiring a smartphone. Ignore them at the cost of your client and the court’s time.
Cloud-sourced video evidence has officially hit critical mass, which testifies as a silent witness in a court of law. Suppose you have a recording generated by a Ring camera or other cloud-sourced video camera and need to understand the circumstances under which the recordings were created. In that case, forensic video analysis methodology can be helpful. More specifically, video authentication methodology can simplify over-complicated situations in litigation and save your clients time and money.
If you would like to speak to an expert about how video authentication works, you can request a consultation Talk To An Expert
]]>Use Site Inspections and Testing to Challenge Video Expert Opinion
Attorneys frequently offer audio, video, and digital images as evidence in civil and criminal litigation, where the interpretation of the evidence becomes a matter of expert opinion. Is the expert qualified to interpret the video evidence and make determinations, and are their statements based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation? This is where a rebuttal video expert witness becomes very important in a case.
Attorneys frequently offer audio, video, and digital images as evidence in civil and criminal litigation, where the interpretation of the evidence becomes a matter of expert opinion. Is the expert qualified to interpret the video evidence and make determinations, and are their statements based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation?
In a previous post, I discussed whether an expert is qualified to interpret video recording evidence. This post discusses whether an expert’s opinion of video recording evidence lacks rigor and a scientific foundation.
When litigation relies on observing and interpreting a digital video recording or its absence, the attorneys on either side of a case can be incorrect—even misleading. Without understanding how the video recording equipment works, definitive opinions on a recording are premature and subjective. In most cases, a site inspection allows a video expert to investigate the video equipment that captured the recording and reach a more definitive, objective position on the evidence based on a scientific foundation.
An Expert Walks into the Courtroom
Suppose an expert walks into the courtroom and renders an opinion with 100 percent certainty that a video recording system did not capture images to support or oppose a litigation strategy. Yet, the expert did not test the recording system. The opposing party should retain an audio-visual expert to rebut the expert’s methodology or offer a more accurate method.
Attorneys use a rebuttal video expert to refute subjective opinions based on observation and conjecture, not quantitative analysis, which can mislead a judge or jury. A rebuttal video expert witness can examine the video system properties and configuration to support their methodology and offer an alternative explanation of an opposing party’s expert view of the facts.
A rebuttal video expert should generate sample recordings using the same or similar equipment and apply various scenarios with which the evidence would have been captured and acquired. The investigation should include comparing device-specific metadata, stream characteristics, and proprietary encoding structures. This objective approach ensures the examiner or expert reaches the most accurate, peer-reviewable opinions.
Some experts provide opinions without understanding the limits of their methods or their offered opinions. In short, they don’t know what they don’t know. They step outside of their lane of expertise and provide testimony without fully understanding the discipline’s methodology. That is where a rebuttal expert witness, properly trained in a particular domain like audio-video forensics, can assist counsel.
A rebuttal video expert steeped in video forensics knows the limits that apply to video analysis, video authentication, video enhancement, reverse projection, and videogrammetry. These limits should set expectations and parameters and keep experts in their swim lanes. Exceeding them can render their opinions misleading and inaccurate.
Rebuttal Video Experts in Action
When experts inspect on-site video recording systems, they can generate information to rebut expert witness testimony. The rebuttal video expert can identify and test known system variables to support their opinions and oppose other expert opinions. Using peer-reviewable methods and on-site testing, video experts can determine boundaries within which an expert can testify about a specific methodology, provide questions and answers to discredit an expert’s testimony, and identify short-sightedness in their views.
On-Premises
A large corporation retained Primeau Forensics to investigate the validity of an opinion offered by a federal investigator on the authenticity of video surveillance recordings captured at the corporation’s location. Our client was accused of malicious tampering with the recorded evidence where there were abrupt changes in the personnel captured in the video recordings.
We conducted an on-site investigation to determine how our client’s video management system (VMS) detected motion and whether it accurately captured it on video. Through exemplar testing, we walked within the zones where movement should trigger video capture.
The VMS was more sophisticated than the average CCTV surveillance system. The VMS included threshold parameters for motion detection requiring sensitivity calibration. However, we found the system was not calibrated properly to detect the motion in question and thus did not engage the video recorder. We reported the testing results, confirming that the motion sensitivity threshold was insufficient to detect all movement from personnel in the monitored zones.
Off-Premises
A city attorney retained Primeau Forensics to defend an officer-involved shooting (OIS). The plaintiff’s expert opined on the lack of audio evidence, claiming the officer intentionally deactivated his body-worn wireless lapel microphone. We investigated as a rebuttal witness to determine if the plaintiff expert’s opinion was scientifically valid.
Through rigorous microphone testing, we identified and recorded several audio signals that indicated how the microphone behaved. The microphone emitted different sound profiles in a recording when we manually deactivated it and when the battery died. We recorded both exemplar signals using an in-car camera system like the vehicle used in the OIS case. We compared the test results with the microphone’s audio signals captured by the in-car camera system, indicating that the officer did not deactivate the microphone—the battery died.
The Last Words
Testing video camera systems on and off-site with objective, widely acceptable methodology prevails over subjective observations of video evidence and faulty methodology. Having a rebuttal video expert on your team can provide a scientific foundation for why an opposing expert is incorrect, especially when making conclusions about what the human eye saw versus what a camera recorded. Those are the last words you will need to dispute the account of an expert witness.
If you need a video expert’s methodology or opinions evaluated, contact us and speak directly to an expert for a no-cost consultation. A site inspection may be just what your case needs.
]]>
Evidence in civil and criminal trials includes audio, video, and digital images, where the interpretation of the evidence often becomes a matter of expert opinion. When opposing counsel discloses or otherwise presents expert testimony or reports on video evidence, inquire into the expert’s qualifications and get the help of a video forensic expert to determine if their statements are based on widely accepted methodology with a scientific foundation.
In this post, I discuss whether an expert is qualified to interpret video recording evidence. In another post, I examine whether an expert’s opinion of video recording evidence lacks rigor and a scientific foundation.
Video experts often generate non-scientific opinions based on observation and subjective methodology. First, ask whether the expert’s education and training enable them to make certain determinations. Then look at the expert’s experience in applying what they know.
Video Forensic Expert Education
To scrutinize a video forensic expert’s education, look to industry standards for educating and training video and image analysts. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) provides training guidelines and recommendations to assist organizations in designing educational training programs for forensic video and image analysts. The SWGDE training guidelines ensure that analysts are competent in completing forensic tasks and analyses. If an expert’s education and training incorporate SWGDE topics, they have a basic knowledge of audio-visual forensics to assist a judge or jury in interpreting and understanding video evidence.
At base, a video expert witness must aid the judge or jury understand video or image evidence and help them make factual determinations and conclusions. While experts can offer their opinion based on their experience or expertise, they cannot draw legal conclusions.
A video expert must have a baseline education and possess a diploma, degree, or certificate from a secondary educational institution or technical school related to forensic video and image collection, preservation, recovery, examination, and analysis. Although education in a discipline related to forensic video and image analysis is necessary, it is not sufficient without adequate training.
Training Days
A video forensic expert’s training should include only validated technologies and methods. It should provide a general knowledge of the major elements of video and image evidence, including the capabilities and limits of methods, hardware, and software. The training should include the skills to use specific tools and procedures competently.
An expert should have an understanding of video and image evidence procedures and the ability to apply that understanding in various scenarios to present clear and unbiased video and image evidence-based testimony in court. The expert should also be able to prepare accurate, clear, concise documentation of results or opinions with visual aids.
In forensic video analysis, several best practices exist to enhance and recover video recordings from the systems that created them. If an expert uses an improper approach or methodology, it can destroy the integrity of the digital evidence, rendering it inadmissible. Advanced methods include video authentication, video file repair, reverse projection, and videogrammetry, where the expert must set limits and expectations from the beginning and maintain them throughout the process.
Video experts specializing in one scientific discipline may attempt to offer opinions about a secondary domain without the necessary training and experience. They may also provide views without understanding the limitations of their methodology, stepping outside of their expertise. That is where a rebuttal audio-video expert, properly trained in a particular discipline like audio-video forensics, can assist. A rebuttal video expert on your team will help you keep an opposing expert’s opinion confined to their knowledge and experience.
Case in Point
Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Primeau Forensics to provide expert opinions on a video exhibit generated by an IT staff person employed by the counsel’s law firm. The exhibit sought to determine whether a vehicle was in motion before a collision captured by a surveillance camera from a neighboring business across the street. We advised counsel that we needed to complete a reverse projection or videogrammetry investigation, allowing us to extract measurements from digital recordings from overlays of 3D point clouds from a laser scanning device. Plaintiff’s counsel did not retain our services.
Defendant’s counsel contacted us to act as a rebuttal expert witness to counter the IT person’s testimony. Through a site inspection, we determined that the video captured had a low frame rate and a limited spatial resolution (quality), making it impossible to conclude the speed and position of the parties involved in the collision. As a rebuttal expert, we analyzed the collision video exhibit and discovered that the IT person’s methodology in generating the presentation was inaccurate and, in our opinion, objectionable. After deposing the IT person, the defendant’s counsel discovered that the IT person’s training in video forensics mostly consisted of YouTube videos.
Having a rebuttal expert witness on your team that can call out an opposing expert’s inadequate knowledge and training to assist a judge or jury can be crucial to your case. And if a rebuttal expert can offer credible opinions on video evidence based on a scientific foundation—outstanding. Don’t take our word for it. Watch that critical scene from My Cousin Vinny when the automotive defense expert provided factual proof that the prosecutor’s expert was incorrect.
If you have a case where you need an expert’s methodology or opinions evaluated, contact us for a free consultation with a video forensic expert.
]]>Introduction
Video surveillance systems are a critical element for business and residential customers. They secure specific areas and help deter crime simply by their presence. Surveillance systems commonly record crimes such as fighting, shooting, fire, theft, and vandalism. Forensic video recovery services in commercial litigation casework can assist with the acquisition of video evidence in order to preserve the digital integrity of the evidence and provide playable versions to the court for discovery purposes, in many cases, in large sums of data.
Casinos, County Jails, or consumers’ homes rely upon active surveillance. VMS (video management system) or a mobile phone app allows for review of active surveillance. Businesses like convenience stores, vehicle repair shops, or law firms rely upon passive surveillance methodology. A recorded and saved video allows for evaluation or analysis as needed. An appropriately trained and experienced individual should be handling digital evidence. Digital evidence, by nature, is fragile. If not handled by following best practices, the video can lose its digital integrity, reduce the accuracy of the chain of custody, introduce artifacts, and reduce the overall quality. We have investigated cases where a client mishandled the evidence before our involvement. This caused them to pay out higher settlements.
So why hire a professional like a video forensic expert to assist with collecting surveillance video recordings in civil litigation? The purpose of this post is to inform attorneys, investigators, and litigators about the benefits of engaging a video forensic expert to recover video recordings after an incident.
Forensic Video Recovery Investigation
As a Forensic Video Analyst, I recently aided a client-attorney representing the defense in a commercial litigation case, specifically real estate development litigation. Our client was accused of blocking an easement area of the shared property or violating an easement agreement. This case involved collecting and reviewing hundreds of hours of surveillance video recordings.
Request
The client’s property has a 32-channel HIK-Vision NVR system which housed critical recorded video evidence relative to the case. The client-attorney requested that our team assist with culling through 8 weeks of high-quality 4k video evidence from a single camera. The still frame extraction and export process occurred whenever our team noticed an instance of easement obstruction. The compiling of these still video frames created an exhibit. They represent instances of importance that the Judge and Jury would need to review about the breach of the easement contract.
Preserving the integrity of the video recording as evidence prompts a consideration for the Best Practices for Data Acquisition from Digital Video Recorders from SWGDE. Best practices recommend removing the original evidence hard drive and imaging (cloning). This is crucial for investigations requiring the contents of an entire drive. Thus, the team at Primeau Forensics performed the extraction, imaging, and review of the 10 TB of video recording on the HIK-Vision hard drive. The defense agreed that the preservation of the integrity of the evidence was critical.
The HIK Vision NVR system had 32 channels of cameras installed at the location. This is also the collection location of the evidence video recordings. Although these systems record reliable, high-quality video evidence, they do not always capture original video and may require forensic video authentication testing.
Video Analysis Process
Our team began the investigation by proposing an investigation plan to the defense team. To meet the trial deadline, the investigation plan of reviewing video evidence is crucial. This particular case had a 10-day turnaround. Using industry-standard tools such as DVR Examiner and Amped Five, our team of 4 technicians reviewed the video recordings and extracted hundreds of still image exhibits for trial use.
DVR Examiner is the most effective tool for extraction from the proprietary NVR video system. Using a write blocker enabled our team to forensically clone and connect the 10 TB drive to DVR Examiner. Multiple working drives allowed for the storage of the total export. One working drive for our team, another for the Plaintiff, and the third for the defense (attorney-client). Our goal was to preserve all exhibits’ recording authenticity and digital integrity.
Our team created a copy of the extracted video evidence on our forensic server. Once complete, we began assessing the video analysis project. Amped Five was critical and gave our team the ability to watch the video recordings efficiently and effectively. Features like stepping through 30-second periods, bookmarking the video frames of interest, and bulk exporting these frames while retaining the frame number for reference to the video evidence were most important to the case. Amped Five also retained the integrity of the video recordings in preparation for any authenticity challenges from Plaintiff.
Pre-Trial Assistance
Even the most experienced and talented attorney is only as successful when preparing for a trial as their litigation team. While at trial, I was able to provide further information on newly discovered evidence that Plaintiff brought in while putting on their case. We also assisted with providing digital and printed binders full of all image exhibits regarding the dispute.
I prepared a mobile NVR system, which stored the eight weeks of video evidence, which is sometimes necessary to review video recordings in a multicamera view within their native container, for months of data at a time. This was necessary also to ensure that the judge and jury understood the timecode issue. This evidence played the video with an accurate timecode through the NVR system. The video evidence was initially recorded with a timecode jumping issue. This assistance before testimony was critical in preparing to answer questions on the stand as a fact witness.
Trial Assistance
I traveled out of state for an appearance at trial as a fact witness. Some might ask, “why is a video expert being admitted as a fact witness?”. The short of the long is that the judge assigned to the preliminary hearings needed to fully understand how this investigative process would require an expert to complete. He believed the video playback and identification did not require an expert. However, in the forensic community, a qualified technician or analyst would be responsible for acquiring, handling, and extracting video evidence for courtroom use. Despite not being admitted as an expert, the forensic video analysis commercial litigation strategy was admitted nonetheless.
The direct examination began with explaining to the court precisely what our team did to generate the image and video exhibits. These exhibits were extracted based on a conservative review of the evidence. This was recommended to ensure all instances, good, bad, and ugly to the case, were communicated correctly to the court—this conservative approach to forensic video analysis as an expert witness.
“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth a million.” Plaintiff began cross-examination by showing me images that witnesses captured in person using mobile devices. However, surveillance videos that the defense furnished to the court displayed more information from a more accurate camera perspective because the video, in this case, was of higher probative value.
This cross-examination was complex for a fact witness, primarily experienced in testifying as an expert. He had to think on his feet and answer questions about the video recordings created over eight weeks. The witnesses’ ability to maintain a calm demeanor and answer complicated questions without the support of forensic methodology can be frustrating. I kept calm and responded to questions to ensure the jury understood the responses.
Conclusion
Although I couldn’t testify as an expert witness, I testified as a fact witness. Plaintiff challenged the integrity of the eight weeks of video as inadmissible. They argued that the discovery deadline date had passed. As a result, the jury should not review the submitted evidence. However, had the Primeau Forensics team not been involved in reviewing eight weeks’ worth of video evidence, the Plaintiff’s arguments may have been weighed more heavily by the jury.
The civil defense won the case. The trial judge ruled that the videos were relevant and that the images provided factual information. The judge found that my testimony would also be necessary to understand accurately how this investigation was completed.
]]>A brand new episode of HISTORY Channel’s television series, The Proof is Out There: Ancient Sounds and Moon Mounds is now available to stream on the platform’s website. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including UFOs, apocalyptic sounds, enigmatic creatures, conspiracies, and more. Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, helps analyze these incredible recordings throughout the series’ first season.
Ancient Sounds and Moon Mounds
Skunk Ape
A bigfoot with bad body odor? That is how the legendary Florida creature known as the skunk ape has been described. In July 2020, a strange footprint is found by a couple in Panama City Beach, Florida. It appears to have long, greasy claws and emits a foul smell. Is this proof that the skunk ape truly exists? Biologists study the footprint and lend their opinions.
Ancient Egyptian Sounds
Archeologists and treasure-hunters have been digging in the Egyptian desert for over 100 years. But in the next video, one group found more than they were bargaining for during their search for lost pyramids. Working with an amateur satellite archeologist, they are directed to a specific set of coordinates that show a very large triangular mound. All of a sudden, video footage then captures a mysterious whisper.
Using spectrogram analysis, forensic video analyst Michael Primeau weighs in on whether the whisper is an authentic recording of an ancient Egyptian curse or simply a hoax.
Moon Mounds
NASA recently announced that found water on the sunlit side of the moon. But some believe that they’ve kept other discoveries secret. Ken Johnston, former NASA Director of Data and Photo Control Department at the Johnson Space Flight Center, says that astronauts came back with intriguing photos from one of the moon missions. Craters appear to show dome-shaped objects.
But when Johnston brought the photos to his supervisor’s attention, he was told to get rid of them. So do these images suggest that another civilization landed on the moon hundreds of years ago? An astrophotographer examines the imagery.
Extraterrestrial Flashes of Light
In March 2017, a woman notices a bright flash of blue light in her Houston, Texas home. What makes this occurrence unusual? Later that evening, she experiences difficulty sleeping and recalls strange dreams of pink and purple galaxies. Could the blue flash have been an extraterrestrial force? An astrophotography expert and forensic investigator run several tests to determine if natural causes are the answer.
Tune in Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Ancient Sounds and Moon Mounds on HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
New episodes of The Proof is Out There air Tuesdays and Fridays at 10/9C. And subscribe to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates below.
Primeau Forensics’ 2020 Year in Review
In this special episode of Blindspot, we sit down with Ed Primeau and Michael Primeau. The father and son team have been working side-by-side since 2009 and are the owners and forensic experts behind Primeau Forensics. With 2020 in the rearview mirror, Ed and Michael give us a look inside the trials and triumphs that the COVID-19 pandemic brought to their small business and look ahead to what 2021 has in store.
A Look Back at 2020
The COVID-19 global pandemic ravaged our country’s small businesses in 2020. Hundreds of thousands were forced to reimagine how they do business, or, sadly, shut their doors. And although surviving organizations are starting to recover from their COVID-19 hit, a new era of change has commenced. From accelerated digitization to permanent shifts in management styles, Ed and Michael discuss their takeaways from the year.
The Impact of COVID-19 on the Legal Industry
Next, the justice system faced a myriad of challenges following the onslaught of COVID-19. An industry that is known for being slow to embrace technology, social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home orders forced rapid evolution from court systems and the legal profession. This evolution includes tele-working, live-streaming, and shifting operations to the cloud. Ed and Michael discuss the impact COVID-19 has had on the legal industry, as well as their roles as forensic experts and expert witnesses.
Looking Ahead to 2021
All eyes are looking ahead to the future. What will 2021 bring? From new service offerings to exciting media features, we take a moment to touch on what listeners can expect to see from Primeau Forensics in the coming year.
Subscribe to Blindspot Podcast
Listen now to this special episode of Blindspot. Subscribe to the Blindspot podcast to automatically receive the latest episodes downloaded to your computer or portable device. Select the subscription method in the column to the right that best fits your lifestyle.
Primeau Forensics’ team is dedicated to supporting our clients and providing forensic litigation and consulting services that will assist their investigations. Contact us today or call us at (800) 647-4281 to learn more about our forensic services.
]]>The latest episode of HISTORY Channel’s newest television series, The Proof is Out There: Mystery Hum and Mayans on Mars, aired earlier this week. In case you missed our introduction to the series, HISTORY’s The Proof is Out There investigates some of the world’s most mysterious videos, photos, and audio recordings. Each episode employs leading experts and technology to analyze seemingly impossible phenomena “caught on film,” including UFOs, government conspiracies, and more. Michael Primeau, Primeau Forensics’ leading forensic video expert, helps analyze these incredible recordings throughout the series’ first season.
Episode 7 Recap: Mystery Hum and Mayans on Mars
The Simulation Theory
Have you ever seen something that your mind rejects as impossible? There are some that believe we live in an elaborate computer simulation and that everything around us, including our homes, friends, and even nature, aren’t real. And the following videos may be proof.
In November 2015, video footage is captured of rush hour traffic in the Chinese city of Xingtai. Then, out of nowhere, two vans appear to defy gravity and jump in the air. Is this a glitch in the Matrix or is there a scientific explanation? A science writer and forensic video analyst dig deeper into the footage to lend their verdict.
Next, a photo surfaces on the internet showing an equally incredible occurrence. A photo captures two young girls and their reflections in a mirror. However, one of the girls’ reflection doesn’t match her facial expression. Forensic video analyst, Michael Primeau, begins his investigation by examining the photo’s metadata information. Michael notes no inconsistencies in the digital information. So if the photo is an original, could the girl’s face have been digitally manipulated after it was taken?
Mayans on Mars
NASA has been sending satellites to Mars for nearly 50 years to photograph its surface. While dozens of strange images have been captured during this time, the next photo may be the strangest. In the spring of 2020, an amateur astronomer claims the cameras on the Mars reconnaissance orbiter photographed a group of pyramids. And these pyramids eerily resemble the Mayan structures in Mexico. Is this evidence of a lost civilization on the Red Planet?
Mysterious Hum
The next story is an ongoing worldwide phenomenon. Entire communities say they are being tormented by a strange, incessant, highly-disturbing humming sound. But this mystery is complicated because the hum is not always the same and not everyone hears it. While there are many conspiracy theories as to the sound’s origins, a forensic audiologist conducts further testing and proposes his verdict.
Hybrid Bats
Finally, what would it look like to cross a human and a bat? Many people think that strange experiments overseas are already creating hybrids we have never seen before. In Buenos Aires, Argentina, local media reports strange sightings in April 2020 of bats that can swim and run on land. And in China, disturbing video footage showcases what appears to be an incredibly large, mutant bat running on the ground. Are these videos the result of genetic experimentation? A marine biologist and wildlife biologist analyze the footage and discuss whether such cross-breeding is possible.
Tune In Next Week and Subscribe
You can now stream The Proof is Out There: Alien Orbs and Lightning Balls on HISTORY’s website. Episodes are also available through the HISTORY Channel app for your iOS or Android device.
New episodes of The Proof is Out There air Tuesdays and Fridays at 10/9C. And subscribe with your email address in the right-hand column to receive additional Primeau Forensics’ blog, podcast, and news updates.
Depositions by Video Due to COVID-19
With health and safety precautions in place due to COVID-19, courts across the country have started to resume business face-to-face. Cases are starting to go to trial as huge sheets of plastic separate jury boxes, lawyer tables, judges, and stenographers. Testimony in deposition form, however, continues to be scheduled remotely via video conferencing.
What are the Drawbacks to Video Conference Depositions?
As expert witnesses, we have grown familiar with video conference depositions. Platforms such as Zoom and Cisco’s WebEx make virtual participation simple and easy. Yet many client attorneys have expressed concern about remote depositions, noting that this method inhibits them from seeing the witness in 3D. You only see what the camera sees.
Deposition by video also makes it more difficult to interpret body language and other nonverbal cues. And even though the witness is sworn in, Primeau Forensics has run across instances where we were able to scientifically prove that the witness lied under oath when the attorney’s had a limited line of sight.
A webcam’s field of view varies depending on the model. Most commonly, a webcam viewing angle lies between 50 and 90 degrees. These cameras have virtually no depth of field and certainly do not have peripheral vision like a human.
In a video conference deposition, attorneys are unable to see what lies next to or behind the computer screen. Items normally prohibited in a court of law may be present without the deposing attorney’s knowledge.
A few years ago, I had a case where a client-attorney whispered to their client throughout a remote deposition. We forensically enhanced the telephonic recording and could clearly hear the attorney whispering answers to the witness.
Case Study: Forensic Enhancement Disqualifies Witness in Video Conference Deposition
More recently, Primeau Forensics encountered a case in which we were able to prove the witness lied under oath. A law firm called to ask if we could forensically enhance a video deposition recording to see the reflections in the witness’s eyeglasses. When asked by the deposing attorney, the witness said they were not looking at anything, notes or otherwise. But in our forensically enhanced video work product, we were able to see the reflection of another computer screen that was changing as the deposition progressed.
We could see white pages with black text, some of those pages had color on them, others did not. The witness was advancing some type of document throughout the deposition. Once again, our client-attorney asked if the witness was looking at anything other than the camera. And for the second time, the witness tilted their head up and said they were not looking at anything, notes or otherwise. When their head returned to the resting position, we saw a desktop image reflected in their glasses. They had minimized their program to return to their home screen.
The court disqualified the witness in this case study. Not only did forensic video enhancement help our client-attorney uncover the truth, which is the goal behind each forensic investigation at Primeau Forensics, but it helped raise awareness for what drawbacks video conference depositions hold.
Navigate Remote Depositions with Primeau Forensics
Primeau Forensics offers forensic and litigation consulting services that can help you safely and correctly navigate your video conference depositions. With nearly four decades in business, our team has experience testifying in court and working with high-profile clients.
Contact us or call us at (800) 647-4281 to learn more about our expert support services.