There has been a lot of confusing stories out there regarding the recent exploitation of the Encrochat platform by the authorities and whether the data obtained in admissible as evidence or not. 
 
Without going into all the complexities of the argument, there remains the issues that if these devices cannot be attributed to an individual, then the content of the messages that have been recovered bares little significance in a case against a defendant. 
 
Whether the evidence is allowed or not, can it be stated categorically that the defendant is responsible for all, if any of the content recovered from the platform? 
 
Tower Forensics are Experts in Cell Site Analysis and the reviewing of call data records from network providers. Whilst the prosecution will have you believe an Encro device does not generate call data records and therefore this type of investigation is irrelevant, there is still the fact that an ENCRO device used the GPRS technology in order to communicate, and therefore, cell site mapping and attribution assessments are still a valid and important part of the investigation. 
What if the data suggests that more than one person was in possession of the device during the indictment period, what weight does the evidence now put on your client? 
 
For a free, no obligation discussion, have a chat with one of our Experts who will be happy to point out where Cell Site Analysis can assist your Encrochat case. 
 
Share this post:

Leave a comment: 

Our site uses cookies, including for advertising personalisation. For more information, see our cookie policy. Accept cookies and close
Reject cookies Manage settings