Examiner focused only on part of digital data

in evidence.

Attorney Norman Godfrey asked the witness if his name would be on the report if an extraction and analysis of the digital devices seized had been done by a member of his team.

He said no.

The question came amid concerns that the name of an investigator was present on a report of information regarding the extractions that would have initially been done by the witness.

The witness also confirmed that though he recognised the reference number, he did not recognise the document in its entirety as he was no longer with the police force and had not prepared the copy of the report.

He said that the document presented to the court was generated in September of this year from the original he did in 2016 and bore the name of the individual who completed it last month, following the court’s request.

The witness added that the name on the document did not mean that the person completed the examination but simply that he generated the document from the original extraction and affixed his signature as a point of reference for further details.

When questioned about the information found on the device, the witness said that he only focused on a particular conversation between two parties as he had been instructed.

The device referred to is a Samsung Note 4 mobile phone taken from accused former deputy superintendent of roads and works at the corporation, Sanja Elliott.

He said the information on the device was presented to the defence in a binary and readable format.

Godfrey pressed even harder, continuously asking the witness if he had come across any other information concerning his client, Elliott.

The witness responded that the investigation was only in relation to the conversations of interest.

The matter continues next Monday in the Manchester Parish Court.