cameras/security

I would install low light cameras instead of IR. You can spot IR rather easily.

Jim Rojas

Could you recommend some brands/models? Thanks.

Infrared is not what it is cracked up to be unless you spend some extra bucks. Most "best value" cameras with built in IR will only be good for about 30-35 feet. Be very selective with low light level cameras. Some look very good in low light conditions as long as everything is still. Once there is movement, the object leaves long trails causing the object's movement to blur out. Secondly, a court is more than likely going to want video that is watermarked if it is going to be used as evidence. Think about that before selecting recording equipment.

Bob, have you ever personally known of a case where video was denied admissibility or it's authenticity was in question because of a lack of a watermark?

The only one I know of off the top of my head was the federal murder case right here in Florida. Sarasota I believe. It was when a young girl was abducted at a car wash and murdered. It was the watermarking on the video that squashed that part of the defense's case. If the video would not have been watermarked who knows how the court would have looked at it and that video was a huge part of the prosecutor's case. It was a great picture of the guy grabbing the girl and carrying her away. I know this was a little off point but I will look and see if there is something to answer your question about being denied into evidence.

I think the distinction would be chain of custody of evidence and reasonable possibility of deliberate tampering or fabrication. Given my ability to come up with creative solutions I would have hard time making a prosecutor happy with my testimony. LOL.

Is it possible to have been tampered with or farbicated?

Yes.

Even with a watermark?

Yes.

Is it possible this video was tampered with?

Not directly, but it could have been setup prior if this was a premeditated situation, and they had all the equipment available that I have on the shelves in my warehouse.

Do you think its likely?

There's the rub. Depends who is involved, what they know, and what they have at their disposal...

Per Bob Worthy:

I think I get the basic idea: superimpose a logo or something on the video.

What I'm missing is why that makes the video more believable.

Sounds like something else is being done too.... but what?

The watermarks are invisible on the screen. It is digital metadata that is encrypted with the video that makes it tamper resistant.

But was there even a question if it was authentic? I mean, let's get real for a second. Someone would have to go through a lot of trouble to actually "fake" a surveillance video. On the other hand, I can see where it would help investigators and prosecutors to know definitively if the time/date stamp was

Bob didn't say a thing about it being admissible or not. A watermark (visible or otherwise) certainly helps if there's a challenge of the video's authenticity, but I hardly think any court would rule it inadmissible simply on the lack of a watermark.

That is not the same as saying that without the watermark the evidence would have been thrown out or even that it would not have been given such probative value. The perpetrator, Joseph Smith, was identified by numerous people who knew him after they saw the video on the news. Police found DNA evidence on Carlie's body and in Smith's car which would were more important at trial than the video. The video was more important in getting help from the public identifying the suspect than as courtroom evidence. That is not to say that the video was not important -- only that it was but one piece of a raft of damning evidence.

That never came into play, though the defense brought up the fact that the video image was less than perfectly clear.

Sorry, but no. This is ASA.

In this case the time stamp was inconsequential since there never was a question that the video showed Carlie being abducted. The defense tried to question whether the perp was Smith or someone else, but not the authenticity of the recording itself.

What was the outcome of the case? I hope they fried the bastard.

For the kidnapping he received a life sentence with no parole. For sexual battery on a child under 12 he received another life sentence with no parole. For first degree murder he received the death sentence. I don't recall if he is filing appeals though at least one appeal is automatically filed for the death sentence.