Archive for May, 2011

DNA, Cell Tower Analysis and Computer Forensics all Instrumental in Coleman Murder Conviction

Last Updated on Monday, 23 May 2011 08:16 Written by kelly.solid Monday, 23 May 2011 08:08

Prosecutors are using numerous forensic techniques – physical and technology to convince jurors of Chris Coleman’s murder of his wife and 2 kids.  A recent article discusses the forensic evidence to refute Mr. Coleman’s testimony that he showed up after going to the gym and found his family dead.  As the article states “ Prosecuting attorneys are trying to prove that despite Chris Coleman’s claims, there is no physical evidence that anyone else was in the Coleman house the day his wife, Sheri and the couple’s two young sons, Garett and Gavin, were murdered.”  They are trying to show that no one else’s DNA was found in the house.

In addition, they have analyzed Mr. Coleman’s cell phone records and determined that one of his calls hit a certain cell tower on his way home from the gym the morning of the murders.  The article continues ” Coleman has contended he rushed home from the gym the morning of the murders because he tried calling, but couldn’t reach his family. Monday afternoon an AT&T Network Director testified about the calls made by Coleman that morning. James Kientzy said one of Coleman’s calls on his return home hit a cell tower North on I-255, which suggests he passed up Rt. 3 to give police extra time to get to the scene. It took him 15 minutes to get home after a call placed on the JB Bridge, a drive that should only take 5 minutes.” 

Finally, there are some damning computer forensics acquired from Mr. Coleman’s emails.  The defense is contending that someone else wrote these emails, but the forensic expert has stated that they originated form Mr. Coleman’s Dell laptop. Again the article states “The defense tried to argue that someone else could have logged on remotely and sent the emails. They provided no evidence and the technician said it was unlikely since no program can remotely power on a computer that requires a wireless card to connect to the internet.”

Interesting evidence.  Glad they got him!

Learn More
Posted under CDR Analysis, Cell Forensics, Computer Forensics, DNA Forensics  |  No Comments

Contraband Cell Phones in Prison – Problem or an Opportunity?

Last Updated on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 06:57 Written by kelly.solid Tuesday, 17 May 2011 06:57

 Contraband cell phones in correctional institutions are at an all time high.  A recent article in Business Week states  ”although there are no nationwide statistics, in California alone more than 10,000 contraband phones were confiscated from inmates in 2010, up from 1,400 in 2007. In Mississippi, authorities grabbed more than 4,000 handsets from prisoners last year, up 43 percent from 2009.”  The article goes on to state,  ”Illegal cell phones are probably the largest public-safety risk prisons are facing nationally,” says Terri McDonald, chief deputy secretary of California’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Dept.  The risks arise from the inmates using the phones to run outside criminal activity from prison, intimidate witnesses, coordinate escapes and order retaliation against other prisoners.

This problem has caused the correctional industry to look hard at cell jamming and finder techniques to limit the infiltration of the cell phone contraband.  Realizing that this is really a huge problem, it can be an opportunity as well.  An opportunity – you say – how does that make any sense? 

Trying to think outside of the box, lets look at some of the advantages of a cell phone in an inmate’s hand.  A contraband cell phone gives law enforcement something that they are not afforded (as readily) through the inmate use of a “secret” cell phone.  An inmate with a cell phone is  now “free” to make calls and speak freely.  They are more apt to contact individuals that would not normally contact to facilitate activities that they would not dare do on the recorded prison calls.  When a phone is then confiscated, and the cell forensics data is retrieved through the use of a Cellebrite UFED or SecureView device, we now have a full and open profile of the inmate.  We can not a only see who he talked to and text-messaged, we can bounce that against other inmates to look for collaborations on the outside and common contacts. 

Analysis of this type can be readily done using techniques in Excel – looking for correlations or other software products on the market such as THREADS - that specifically analyzes inmate phone CDRs (call detail records) and cell forensics to provide calls and callers of interest.

Learn More
Posted under CDR Analysis, Cell Forensics, Forensics News, Inmate Phone Analysis, Software Tools  |  No Comments
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Copyright © 2012 SolidForensics.com
Sponsored by Direct Hit Systems