Research Dissertation

п»їTable of Material


The objective of the essay is to find and present quality analysis with regards to the next trending concerns in the computer forensics world. Deductive, initiatory and abductive reasoning inside the context of cyber forensics analysis. Techniques that help in developing a case hypothesis and alternative speculation. Validation techniques that check and check the correctness of the digital evidence demonstrates and their human relationships with confirming evidence relied on in legal situations. Processes that will enhance the communication of and presentation of case evaluation to the legal practitioner and courts.

Deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning in the framework of internet forensics evaluation.

Deductive Thinking

Hurley stated (2000, g. 33), deductive reasoning is " a spat in which the areas are said to support the final outcome in such a way that it can be impossible intended for the building to be the case and the realization false”. This kind of equates to say that if all of the premises happen to be firm and accurate, the final outcome is most certainly firm and address (Walton, 2005). Conclusion sucked from deductive reasoning is derived from the given premises. The reasoning moves coming from general principles to a certain conclusion when utilized by the criminal rights profession (Turvey, 2001). One of the most well-known deductive reasoning may be the Locard exchange principle; Kirk (1953) described this rule as " Wherever this individual steps, whatever he variations, whatever this individual leaves, also unconsciously, will serve as a silent see against him. Not only his fingerprints or his foot prints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothing, the glass he destroys, the device mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or seminal fluid he deposits or collects. All of these and even more, bear silence witness against him. This is certainly evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement in the moment. It is not absent mainly because human witnesses are. It truly is factual data. Physical evidence cannot be incorrect, it simply cannot perjure on its own, it may not be wholly missing. Only human failure to look for it, examine and understand it, can easily diminish their value. " Deductive thinking is usually utilized when we have a hypothesis which we all assume to be true, and discover evidence that needs to be observable if this speculation is true to aid the hypothesis. In doing therefore , we can also determine that other speculation can be the case if this hypothesis holds true. This will allow all of us to probe deeper and identify fresh evidence. (Tecuci et 's, 2011) Deductive reasoning is usually used to identify suspects. For instance , if weakling footprints were found at the scene in the crime, and we can find anyone who owns the shoe that matches the blood on the crime landscape, we can place the person on the scene of the crime. (Rebecca, 2007) Deductions in summary, would be working coming from general hypotheses to the more specific. Trochim (2006) explained this kind of with the number below.

Initiatory Reasoning

Initiatory reasoning is usually an remark of habits based on a premise of broad generalizations and statistical analysis that leads to the progress a hypothesis (Turvey, 2001). An inductive argument can be which premises are claimed to support the conclusion in such a way that it is far from probable that the stated premises be true and the conclusion turn out to be fake. (Hurley, 2150, p. 33) The inferential link between your premises as well as the conclusion the following is not one of necessity but of likelihood. It is highly unlikely the fact that conclusion can be false, in case the premises are all true. (Walton, 2005). A definite difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning is usually that the truth from the premises in inductive reasoning does not warrants the truth from the conclusion (Saad, Traore, 2010). Inductive thinking is also utilized to narrow down the pool of suspects. For example , it is known that a shoe print of size 9 was found leaving the crime picture at the field of the crime, with inductive reasoning, we...

References: Craiger, P., Swauger, J., Marberry, C., & Hendricks, C. (2006). " Validation of Digital Forensics Tools” Recovered 15th September 2014 via

Transporter, B., & Spafford, At the

Carrier, M., & Spafford, E. (2004). " A great Event-Based Digital Forensic Exploration Framework” Recovered 11th September 2014 by

Castiglione, A., Cattaneo, G., Maio, G., & Santis, A

Ciardhuáin, Ó. (2004). " An Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigations” Retrieved eleventh July 2014 from

Dardick, G

Daubert versus. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Incorporation. (92-102), 509 U. H. 579 (1993). Retrieved 13th July 2014 from

Eoghan, C

Jindani, A., Poovathingal, A., & Rawat, A. (2011). ”Abductive Reasoning”. Retreieved 10th July 2014 from

Kerr, G., Gammack, J., & Bryant, K

Kirk, P. T. (1953). " Crime analysis: physical data and the law enforcement officials laboratory”. Interscience Publishers, Inc.

McKemmish, R

Nsw Consolidated Polices. (2005). " UNIFORM CITY PROCEDURE RULES 2005 -- SCHEDULE 7” Retrieved 13th July 2014 from

Peirce, Charles, S

Saad, S., & Traore, I actually. (2010, August). Method ontology for intelligent network forensics analysis. InВ Privacy Security and Trust (PST), 2010 8th Annual International Conference onВ (pp. 7-14). IEEE.

Sagepub. (n. d. ). ”Chapter almost 8: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing” Gathered 11th September 2014 coming from

Sherman, S. (2006)

Stephenson, P. (2000). " Investigating computer-related crime”. Abertura Raton, Sarasota: CRC Press

Thagard, P

Tecuci, G., Schum, G., Boicu, M., Marcu, M., & Russell, K. (2001). " Toward a Computational Theory of Evidence-based Reasoning”. Retrieved tenth July 2014 from

Trochim, W

Turvey, N. (2001). Legal profiling. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press

Walton, D

Willassen, S. (2008). " Hypothesis-based investigation of digital timestamps. ” Retrieved eleventh July 2014 from

Criminal Rules 2009 Examination Paper