Part 1: Disclosure of Evidence in Prosecution Briefs - Cellebrite
NOW AVAILABLE: Cellebrite Premium packaged to fit varying agency needs. Learn more
Webinar  |  On Demand
A Cellebrite Investigator Series (EMEA)

Part 1: Disclosure of Evidence in Prosecution Briefs

Ask the Expert - UFED Physical Analyzer
Thank you for submitting the form.
Your webinar is now available.

Aired: 22 September, 2021

(Session presented in English)

Part 1: Disclosure of Evidence in Prosecution Briefs

Find out about the current trends in investigative analytics and how agencies are handling disclosure of digital evidence within prosecution briefs when disclosure is limited. We’ll also explore why this happens and review some cases related to disclosure issues at the appellate courts.

Duration: 1 Hour

These days digital data is a critical focal point in almost every investigation, but without access to the right end-to-end Digital Intelligence Platform and Services, it can be difficult to sift through and review mountains of digital evidence to solve your investigations quickly and efficiently.

Join us for Part 1 of a four-part Cellebrite Investigator Series where we’ll explore the latest trends and findings in investigative analytics and demonstrate how important it is to unify your investigative lifecycle and efficiently manage digital intelligence related to a crime. This series will be hosted by Adam Riley, Investigations Advisor and Technical Account Manager, who brings decades of experience working in law enforcement as a former detective sergeant.

During these episodes, you’ll find out how to:

    1. Disclose digital evidence (Part 1)
    2. Recognize and use telecommunications data as evidence (Part 2)
    3. Access cloud data (Part 3)
    4. Manage digital evidence (Part 4)
  • Adam Riley Investigations Advisor, Technical Account Manager, ANZ, Cellebrite

    Over seventeen years law enforcement experience with his last assignment as lead investigator for the Homicide Digital and Telecommunications Investigation Unit. Heavily focused on examination of the digital footprint of offender’s and comparison of these versions and several different datasets provided by witnesses/suspects to validate or refute them.