By Nicholas Patrick-Gleed, Cell Site Analyst
This month’s cell site blog takes on a slightly different style. The team here at CCL-Forensics has been discussing the most common potential pitfalls encountered in the world of cell site evidence, and thought it would be a useful exercise to commit some of them to the blogosphere. So, rather than focusing on a particular topic, we’ll look at the top five (as we see them) issues which need to be at the forefront when planning and, more importantly, carrying out a cell site investigation.
We’ve touched on some of these in previous blogs, but they form a concise summary of some of the ‘issues’ we have seen experts (almost) experience.
This Month’s Topic: Five things to be wary of in cell site analysis
1. Exhibits without interpretation
When working for the defence, we regularly see prosecution evidence which can best be described as “exhibits without interpretation”. A good example of this is a series of maps plotted by an intelligence analyst, who has carried out a series of instructions based on some call data records, but presented them without any explanation of what they mean. This not only causes confusion and delay within the criminal justice system (the defence will, no doubt, ask for the explanation at some point – so it may as well be provided at the outset) but also means that an opportunity could be missed as part of the investigation stage. Simply ‘blindly’ plotting information on a map is hardly investigative – but we have seen it more than once. What is the point of an exhibit without context?
From the prosecution’s perspective this is an obvious potential pitfall – as it means that the evidence does not include something which could enhance the prosecution’s case.
There have also been occasions where the defence leaves it until the 11th hour before ‘complaining’ that the person who has produced the exhibit is not an expert – and the judge could rule that the prosecution needs to carry out more expert analysis.
It’s simply not worth chancing these situations. Moral of the story: produce exhibits which mean something; it makes for a smoother investigation.
2. Who’s who on the call data records?
Cell site is full of idiosyncrasies. It’s what keeps us experts on our toes. But there are small variations between networks and circumstances can lead to major confusion. The best example of this is when you are analysing a call data record, and the person is in contact with someone on the same network. There are occasions when both parties cell IDs appear on the same CDR – which can immediately confuse things. Furthermore, and lets use the ‘3’ network as an example here, if an incoming call to the subject phone is unsuccessful, then the cell ID for the person making the call still appears on the CDR. This is particularly a problem, as the CRD doesn’t differentiate between the A and B phone (in columns) and so this needs to be taken into account. It’s pretty easy to spot if there’s a day’s worth of cell IDs in London, and one in Edinburgh – but when both parties are geographically close, then vigilance is the watchword.
This is especially the case if the person plotting the calls is not trained in these nuances – as they may easily go unnoticed.
Moral of the story: be thorough.
3. Timely surveys
Networks change and evolve. Nothing new there, but the sooner the survey is carried out after the incident in question, the better. It means the results will be more accurate and better reflect what happened.
We previously touched on our use of historic data, which may help to counteract this problem – and this is a benefit of the robust methodology which CCL uses. But, timeliness is still a big potential pitfall for a number of reasons.
One of the biggest is the evolution of “Everything Everywhere” – or the merger of
T-Mobile and Orange as most people still know it. This means that “Everything Everywhere” now has many more channels available than each of their competitors – and consolidating cells seems like a sensible thing to do. If there are two cells covering the same approximate area, it seems only prudent to use just one of them and either deactivate the other, or reallocate it to, say, the new 4G networks, which have been in the news recently. This clearly impacts on the survey, especially if the cell in question is no longer transmitting.
Moral of the story: Consider the impact of the T-Mobile and Orange merger before surveying. What are you expecting to see – and what are you expecting NOT to see?
4. Getting the whole picture – not just a small slice
Cell site is all about focusing on a phone’s movements around the time of a crime, right? Wrong. Yes, this is often the best place to start, but it can also be vitally important to look at the patterns of usage within the data as a whole, rather than just isolating and concentrating on a small piece of evidence.
There may be no evidence of a phone being in an area of interest at a particular time, but the best advice here it to stop, look around and think.
There may be behaviour patterns, where the time in question shows some deviation from the norm. There may be evidence elsewhere of the use of ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ phones. There may be evidence someone ‘casing the joint’ before the crime, which goes against the usual pattern of usage.
One just doesn’t see these when points are blindly plotted on a map. The solution is to have as much data available as possible at the outset of a cell site assignment (or as much as can be reasonably requested under RIPA).
At the end of the day, it depends on what question you are trying to answer, but the moral of this story is: Don’t just rely on data from the time of the incident. More complex investigations need more data.
5. Surveying techniques
Quite honestly, this is something of a bugbear of ours, and a topic which we have covered numerous times. With that in mind, I won’t go into any major detail, but just summarise something which we think all cell site experts should adopt. (And we’ve had this published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it’s more than just a passing fad!)
Movement is key to getting an accurate overall picture of how a phone interacts with cells. The concept of ‘dragging’ a cell can be key to determining if a cell provides coverage at a location. Driving to a location from a number of directions can result in a different cell providing coverage, depending on which direction you arrive from. This is because the phone has a tendency to “hold onto” a cell, rather than chopping and changing – (to reduce the risk of a dropped call). Spot samples (i.e. turning up at a location, surveying without moving, and then leaving, is hardly comprehensive). This is about so much more than simply dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.
While we’re on the subject, it’s worth touching on tracking frequencies. Network Operators, typically use two or three 3G frequencies at their cell sites. When moving geographically, a phone may use a new cell which uses a different frequency than the original one. This created a potential pitfall when surveying, as the expert needs to be mindful of how many frequencies are available, and ensure the most appropriate survey is therefore carried out. The moral of this part of the story: remember there is more than one available frequency – and be as thorough as the investigation requires.
I hope you’ve enjoyed our whistle-stop tour through the potential pitfalls of cell site analysis – and as, ever, we’re always keen to hear your thoughts on the matter. If you would like to discuss any aspect of cell site analysis, please don’t hesitate to drop us a line at firstname.lastname@example.org
Next month, Dr Iain Brodie analyses comments made by a judge during a recent case, and highlights what the criminal justice system REALLY wants from cell site experts.