Assignment: Digital Forensic Cases

You have been asked to conduct research on a past forensic case to analyze how digital data was used to solve the case. Choose one of the following digital forensic cases:

S. v. Doe (1983), Doe U.S. (1988), People Sanchez (1994), Michelle Theer (2000), Scott Tyree (2002), Dennis Rader (2005), Corey Beantee Melton (2005), James Kent (2007), Brad Cooper (2008)

Using the Internet, search for the case notes and reports for the case and answer the following:

• Summarize the case, the pertinent actors, evidence, and facts.
• Outline the specific digital evidence that was used in the case.
• Describe how the investigators found and documented the evidence, if any.
• Describe the procedures and tool(s) used for acquiring potential evidence.
• Describe the obstacles faced in the investigation.
• Outline the most significant improvement to digital forensic investigations/tools that assisted with efficiency and reliability.
• Provide the links to two modern tools that could have assisted with the collection of evidence.
• Use at least five (5) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources.
• Erro Present

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date.

Note: Use quality resources and assignment will be check for plagiarism.

• Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.

Formatting–

• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 10.35 (6.9%)
• Did not submit or incompletely summarized the case, the pertinent actors, the evidence, and the facts.
• Competent 10.5 (7%) – 11.85 (7.9%)
• Partially summarized the case, the pertinent actors, the evidence, and the facts.
• Proficient 12 (8%) – 13.35 (8.9%)
• Satisfactorily summarized the case, the pertinent actors, the evidence, and the facts.
• New Column4 13.5 (9%) – 15 (10%)
• Thoroughly summarized the case, the pertinent actors, the evidence, and the facts.
• 2. Outline the specific digital evidence that was used in the case.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 10.35 (6.9%)
• Did not submit or incompletely outlined the specific digital evidence that was used in the case.
• Competent 10.5 (7%) – 11.85 (7.9%)
• Partially outlined the specific digital evidence that was used in the case.
• Proficient 12 (8%) – 13.35 (8.9%)
• Satisfactorily outlined the specific digital evidence that was used in the case.
• New Column4 13.5 (9%) – 15 (10%)
• Thoroughly outlined the specific digital evidence that was used in the case.
• 3. Describe how the investigators found and documented the evidence, if any.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 10.35 (6.9%)
• Did not submit or incompletely described how the investigators found and documented the evidence, if any.
• Competent 10.5 (7%) – 11.85 (7.9%)
• Partially described how the investigators found and documented the evidence, if any.
• Proficient 12 (8%) – 13.35 (8.9%)
• Satisfactorily described how the investigators found and documented the evidence, if any.
• New Column4 13.5 (9%) – 15 (10%)
• Thoroughly described how the investigators found and documented the evidence, if any.
• 4. Describe the procedure and tool(s) used for acquiring potential evidence.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 15.52 (10.35%)
• Did not submit or incompletely described the procedure and tool(s) used for acquiring potential evidence.
• Competent 15.75 (10.5%) – 17.78 (11.85%)
• Partially described the procedure and tool(s) used for acquiring potential evidence.
• Proficient 18 (12%) – 20.02 (13.35%)
• Satisfactorily described the procedure and tool(s) used for acquiring potential evidence.
• New Column4 20.25 (13.5%) – 22.5 (15%)
• Thoroughly described the procedure and tool(s) used for acquiring potential evidence.
• 5. Describe the obstacles that were faced in the investigation.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 15.52 (10.35%)
• Did not submit or incompletely described the obstacles that were faced in the investigation.
• Competent 15.75 (10.5%) – 17.78 (11.85%)
• Partially described the obstacles that were faced in the investigation.
• Proficient 18 (12%) – 20.02 (13.35%)
• Satisfactorily described the obstacles that were faced in the investigation.
• New Column4 20.25 (13.5%) – 22.5 (15%)
• Thoroughly described the obstacles that were faced in the investigation.
• 6. Outline the most significant improvement to digital forensic investigations/tools that assisted with efficiency and reliability.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 15.52 (10.35%)
• Did not submit or incompletely outlined the most significant improvement to digital forensic investigations/tools that assisted with efficiency and reliability.
• Competent 15.75 (10.5%) – 17.78 (11.85%)
• Partially outlined the most significant improvement to digital forensic investigations/tools that assisted with efficiency and reliability.
• Proficient 18 (12%) – 20.02 (13.35%)
• Satisfactorily outlined the most significant improvement to digital forensic investigations/tools that assisted with efficiency and reliability.
• New Column4 20.25 (13.5%) – 22.5 (15%)
• Thoroughly outlined the most significant improvement to digital forensic investigations/tools that assisted with efficiency and reliability.
• 7. Provide the links to two modern tools that could have assisted with the collection of evidence.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 10.35 (6.9%)
• Did not submit or incompletely provided the links to two modern tools that could have assisted with the collection of evidence.
• Competent 10.5 (7%) – 11.85 (7.9%)
• Partially provided the links to two modern tools that could have assisted with the collection of evidence.
• Proficient 12 (8%) – 13.35 (8.9%)
• Satisfactorily provided the links to two modern tools that could have assisted with the collection of evidence.
• New Column4 13.5 (9%) – 15 (10%)
• Thoroughly provided the links to two modern tools that could have assisted with the collection of evidence.
• 8.Cite 5 references.–
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 5.18 (3.45%)
• No references provided.
• Competent 5.25 (3.5%) – 5.92 (3.95%)
• Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor- quality choices.
• Proficient 6 (4%) – 6.68 (4.45%)
• Meets required number of references; all references high- quality choices.
• New Column4 6.75 (4.5%) – 7.5 (5%)
• Exceeds required number of references; all references high- quality choices.
• Levels of Achievement:
• Novice 0 (0%) – 10.35 (6.9%)
• More than 6 errors present.
• Competent 10.5 (7%) – 11.85 (7.9%)
• 5-6 errors present.
• Proficient 12 (8%) – 13.35 (8.9%)
• 3-4 errors present.
• New Column4 13.5 (9%) – 15 (10%)
• 0-2 errors present.