日志

ROBERT GEZELTER 报告

已有 6221 次阅读2019-8-10 18:57 |个人分类:案件本身|系统分类:赵维武案| expert, witness

Computer Litigation Services

A Division of Gezelter Consultants, Inc.

35 - 20 167th Street, Suite G Flushing, New York 11358-1731 USA

September 12, 2016

via E-Mail

Kevin Santos, Esq. Santos Law Group, PC 137 North 5th Street Allentown, Pennsylvania

18102

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Zhao

(Case 665-2016)

Dear Mr. Santos,

This letter summarizes the results of my preliminary review of the discovery material in the Weiwu Zhao matter. I received the package provided to your offices by the District Attorney's office. The cover letter (over the signature of Assistant District Attorney Anthony Casola) listed seven discrete documents, totaling 48 pages. However, as shown in the following table, the documents supplied did not match the transmittal letter manifest.

per

as transmittal delivered

ܠܛ

ܗ ܢ ܗ

Incident Report Forensic Analysis Criminal Complaint Search Warrant RCN Order and Information Complaint filed by Ms. Zhao

Criminal History Report I was also provided with a copy of the transcript from the February 18, 2016 Preliminary Hearing in this matter.

ܗ ܢ

Kevin Santos, Esq. Re: Commonwealth v Weiwu Zhao September 12, 2016

Computer Litigation Services

The "Forensic Analysis" can furthermore be described as:

• a one page form header ("Pennsylvania State Police General

Investigative Report";

• a one paragraph summary finding (on the second page);

• a completed "Forensic Analysis Worksheet" form (containing the

case number, the date, Requesting Trooper/Agency); and subject system model and serial number. Even the BIOS Date/Time field on the form is blank; and

• a single page containing a photograph of the subject system.

A review of the Preliminary Hearing reveals references to documents not included in the discovery package. As an example, when Trooper Ford is questioned by Ms. Marr (page 22, et seq.), Trooper Ford answers multiple questions as to when various files were downloaded, as well as the checksums associated with the files. Clearly, he is referring to one or more documents, but the referenced material does not seem to exist within the discovery package. Similarly, there are references to files other than child pornography, as well as unanswered questions concerning the installation and configuration of both the emule file sharing software and the Microsoft Windows operating system. Without this omitted material, which Preliminary Hearing testimony clearly makes reference to, it is infeasible to come to any conclusions. A full forensic examination of Mr. Zhao's hard drive on our part would be a significant expense, in excess of $ 10,000 were the needed efforts conducted in our facility. However, in this case that estimate is very much a floor estimate. My understanding is that law enforcement is not permitted to provide defense counsel and its expert with a full copy of the drive, as it contains alleged child pornography. Thus, all defense forensic work must be undertaken in law enforcement facilities. Doing such an examination in the field, on a law enforcement determined schedule in law enforcement-provided facilities would multiply the cost several times, due to travel expenses, and disruptions caused by the availability of the material and facilities.