Target’s internal crime lab is overrun with requests from law enforcement agencies for its forensic video expertise. [Forbes]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. stpauliegirl says:

    I was a jury member in one of the first cases where Target’s expertise was used to analyze video in Hennepin County (Minneapolis), MN. It’s extremely impressive. The Target technician was able to use a grainy video of a car taken through a convenience store window to figure out the make and model of the car, which tied the suspect to it through rental car records. We indicted him based in part on that evidence, and a jury trial sealed the deal and put him in prison.

  2. stpauliegirl says:

    @stpauliegirl: Here’s an article about the case I referenced: [www.kare11.com]

  3. mikelotus says:

    @stpauliegirl:
    how do you know they did not modify the video with computer graphics and you got the wrong guy?

  4. stpauliegirl says:

    @mikelotus: The video was confiscated by the police, and I don’t believe that the police are involved in a conspiracy to frame crackheads on murder charges.

    By your logic, why should we have trusted any of the evidence that we were presented with?

  5. Kenneth says:

    @mikelotus: how do you know anything is real? Man, this is getting deep?!? Seriously?

  6. r4__ says:

    @stpauliegirl: What he was saying was this: The “improved” images the Target lab generates are not some automatic process, but rather technicians going over the pictures by hand and making modifications to remove noise, etc.
    Things that may slightly suggest the rental car could be retouched to be more prominent and blatantly suggest the rental car.
    And juries tend to believe visual evidence, even if it has been doctored, because people in general trust their eyes.

  7. SuperJdynamite says:

    @r4__: “Things that may slightly suggest the rental car could be retouched to be more prominent and blatantly suggest the rental car.”

    If you RTFA, you’ll note that the enhanced video wasn’t used as a smoking gun; it narrowed the search for the car and helped establish its presence at the crime scene. It was also corroborated by eyewitness testimony.

    It’s not as if the prosecutor simply held up the photo in court and said “See? See?” and then the jury convicted.