By Alice Hernandez
Recently, the Emet’s Crossing Police Department has been dealing with a series of cases in which the suspect(s) have attempted to claim innocence based on their belief that the evidence against them was faked. This line of defense, I fear, will continue to grow more and more prominent over time, and so I believe it to be in the best interests of the community to share my findings re: “fake” evidence.
It is a known fact that the presence of “deepfakes”—images or videos that have been altered but appear to be straight from real life—has been growing. While deepfakes are a very real concern, especially when it comes to the world of criminal justice, I have found only a handful of high-profile cases that have, so far, been found to have utilized this technology. Deepfakes are not something just anyone can make and, with the average response time of the police being relatively fast, there is little time to tamper with digital evidence before it is found and recorded by law enforcement. Think of the average crime—you may have security footage, bank logs, and a few photos or witness testimonies at most. With all of the information being collected as fast a possible, not to mention being gathered from different sources, it is highly improbable that deepfakes are involved in any cases in Emet’s Crossing, let alone most towns and cities across the country.
At the end of the day, when all the evidence lines up, the chances of all those disparate pieces being faked or altered in the exact same way are slim to none. Just because many officers are older and not as familiar with technology does not mean that they can be so easily fooled. If every piece of evidence points to the same person and the person in question is the only one disputing it, it’s far more likely that the person is just lying to get out of trouble than telling the truth about all the evidence being faked.
