tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post3235481166521111552..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Evidence Eliminator and DaubertSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-88074109952602153792010-03-06T19:17:02.468-05:002010-03-06T19:17:02.468-05:00Given that the identity of the minor children in t...Given that the identity of the minor children in this post is not something that is necessary for the support of your post, the fact that these children were horribly abused and humiliated by what happened to them, and that people tend to stigmatize victims of abuse, I am humbly asking that you remove the names of these children and their mothers from your post. I am well aware that this information is able to be tied to them, but the fewer places that they are tied to what happened to them the lower the chances of it finding its way back to be thrown in the face of these kids. It found its way to me quite easily.<br />Perhaps you could use their initials or just "juvenile male" and "juvenile female".<br />I know that I do not have the ability to force you to do this, but I would hope that you would feel a moral inclination to do what you can to help prevent any additional harm to these young victims that have been hurt quite enough by the criminal as well as what they all experienced at the hands of the criminal justice system.<br />Please.<br />Signed,<br />A Mother of a child victimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-54536958183958187732010-03-06T18:51:19.695-05:002010-03-06T18:51:19.695-05:00I don't know about the Daubert test and all of...I don't know about the Daubert test and all of that, but I do know about this particular case and the idea of the criminal knowing that he had done something wrong and his house of cards was collapsing around him is clear from other evidence that was given at the trial. For example, a few days AFTER his wife's death, this man decided to seek treatment for impotence and difficulty with marital relations that he had been experiencing for several years. the doctor discovered that he had some physical issues that would cause this. One of the arguments presented at trial were that the inability to perform sexually would cause him to be unable to abuse a child, and the physician was called as a witness, his horror upon discovering that his new patient had attempted to use him to establish an alibi is likely something that will stick with him for the rest of his life, I would imagine. <br />Running programs on computers to eliminate problematic evidence, attempting to establish a medical excuse, washing clothing to remove potential evidence, and stashing things in out of the way areas of one's house are all things that clearly show a consciousness of one's guilt. <br />It was not ONLY the running of this wiping program that was used to demonstrate the actions of this criminal and most definitely not the only thing that raised the presumption of guilt which led to the investigation, trial and eventual guilty verdict.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-80213942715254939612010-02-25T23:25:21.089-05:002010-02-25T23:25:21.089-05:00Interesting post. From the scant evidence given, ...Interesting post. From the scant evidence given, I understand the confusion. I believe it accurate to say that Evidence Eliminator removes data in such a manner that greatly reduces the chances of recovering by most (if not all) forensics "tools." Whether making that statement should subject me to a Daubert test is a wonderful question, but even if so, it's likely that Mr. Starner has sufficient knowledge to make that claim.<br /><br />As to explaining how the recovery tools work in the first place...that might require a greater depth of knowledge.<br /><br />I was involved in a case where we proved that Evidence Eliminator (or a similar tool) was installed on the day the court ordered the computer owner to submit his computer for forensic examination. We were unable to prove that anything damaging to his case was removed, but the mere fact that the installation occurred on that date threw the case in our favor.<br /><br />BTW, (referencing the other comment) there are good reasons for installing a wiping program, and using it regularly. The mere fact that one has installed such an application certainly should not raise a presumption of guilt.Roland Bernierhttp://postprocess.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-69259365552736656832010-02-23T02:57:35.710-05:002010-02-23T02:57:35.710-05:00I am a regular user of Evidence Eliminator and hav...I am a regular user of Evidence Eliminator and have been for the last 5 years. Everytime we discard an old computer (such as donate to Good Will), I always make sure the hard drive is 'cleaned'. <br /><br />I also recall a case from Minnesota a couple of years ago where a court made an adverse presumption or something against a defendant who had no porn, but was accused of having porn and did have an encryption program. http://news.cnet.com/Minnesota-court-takes-dim-view-of-encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html<br /><br />Maybe if the name of the program was changed to "Happy bunnies dancing in flowers" juries or courts would not be so turned off about it. But the stuff really does work - as your posting clearly shows!<br /><br />By the way - I really like the new way you have formatted your blog. A HUGE improvement and much easier read. Thanks for doing this and doing a good job!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com