IHJ-1057 Giev.5-8-10)
(Overall Document Classification Required)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Electronic Communication
Title: LAB RE: 07/06/05 Date: 09/10/2018

Drafted By: Missing

Case ID (U) ENTERPRISE BAN b6

  
    

 

   

  

 

 
 

Details: September 14, 2005 SAC, Columbia._ ?ident Agency 
050708255 HD Communication date?I E1y 6, 20051 I b6
ENTERPRISE BANK, 125 FESTIVAL SALLEY, 

        
 
  
  
  

9/2001 BR NC
(A) July 8, 2005 Specimens: Q2 JVC 
part, "In 12/17/01" (1B6, Barcode E038 
"original" (containing images depictingi
EO3803353) K4 K20 Seventeen (17) 1
(1139, Barcode MEMORE unmarked
(containing images depicting] Barcode EO3803407)
MEMOREX marked "origin"" ?a derived from Q2
video) (part of 1B10, :Thirteen (13)
art of 1B10,
Video and Image
:1 4- Specimens Q2,
80) prints produced during
der separate cover. Two (2)
iations are being retained
[September 14,
Hysi'sif?fil 

PQ2 video was reviewed to

 

   

     
  
   
   
   
 
    

 

 

Barcode E03803391
Analysis Unit ex?
and 

     
   
 
 
 
 

 

   

 

 

  
  
  

mhe processing included de?
:contraSt adjustments, unsharp masking, and
onducted between the questioned individual
I who is depicted in

   
  

resizing. A com 
depicted in the" i

 

 

  
 

through K20 photograp 11o determine if they are the same individual.
Multiple inconsistenCies were noted in class characteristics between
and the questioned individual. These inconsistencies
include differences in the overall shape of the face, shape of the
profile, to include the nose and lips, presence/absence of a crease on
the left side of the face, and differences in the ears. Based on these

inconsistencies, it was concluded that not the

 

(Overall Document Classification Required)

(Overall Document Classification Required)

Title: LAB RE: 07/06/05
Re: 91A-CO-NEW, 09/10/2018

questioned individual depicted in the Q2 video. A comparison was
conducted between the questioned individual depicted in the Q2 images
who is depicted in digital image files contained on
the K21 compact disc, to determine if they are the -"me individual.
and the questioned individual depict? the Q2 images
share multiple class characteristics, includin rall shape of the
face, nose, mouth, chin, and ears. Due to a 1 detail in the
questioned and known images, it was not poss 
identifying characteristics that would p? 
as the questioned individual to
individuals. However, no inconsistend
the questio 

   
  
  
    
 
 
  
   

 

 

  

:nindividual.

 

 

90

(Overall Document Classification Required)

2

b6
b7C

September 14, 2005

SAC, Columbia
Aiken Resident Agency

91A-CO-2729O
050708255 HD

Communication dated July 6, 2005

 


ENTERPRISE BANK,
125 FESTIVAL TRAIL,
SALLEY, 

12/ 19/2001

BR (A)

July 8,2005

Specimens:

b6
b7C

Q2 JVC T-120 Video cassette marked, in part, "In 12/17/01" (1B6, Barcode

E03 803403)

 

K3 MEMOREX CD-R marked "original" (containing images depicting: b6

 

 

 

K4 - K20 Seventeen (17) photographs depicting

E03 803404)

K21

 

 

 

 

(1B7, Barcode E03 803353)

 

 

 

 

b7C

(1B9, Barcode

 

MEMOREX CD-R, unmarked (containing images depicting

 

 

 

(1B11, Barcode E03 803407)

 MEMOREX CD-R marked ?original" (containing images derived from Q2
video) (part of lBlO, Barcode E03 803391)

NE2 - NE14 Thirteen (13) prints on KODAK Inkjet paper (derived from Q2 video) (part of
1B 10, Barcode E03 803391)

The results of the Forensic Audio, Video and Image Analysis Unit
examinations are included in this report.

Specimens Q2, and as well as thirty (3 O) prints produced
during these examinations, are being returned under separate cover. Two (2) compact discs
produced during these examinations are being retained with the laboratory notes.

 

 

 

September 14 2005

orens1c Audlo, V1deo Image Analysis 

050708255 HD

 

Results of Examinations:

The Q2 video was reviewed to locate the segment depicting the questioned
individual. This segment was digitized. Individual still images were extracted from this
digitized segment and processed. The processing included de-interlacing, brightness and
contrast adjustments, unsharp masking, and resizing.

A comparison was conducted between the questioned individual depicted in
the Q2 images andI Iwho is depicted in digital image ?les contained on
the K3 compact disc and in the K4 through K20 photographs, to determine if they are the
same individual.

 

Multi le inconsistencies were noted in class characteristics between
Ijand the questioned individual. These inconsistencies include differences in the
overall shape of the face, shape of the pro?le, to include the nose and lips, presence/absence
of a crease on the left side of the face, and differences in the ears. Based on these
inconsistencies, it was concluded thatI Iis not the questioned individual
depicted in the Q2 video.

 

A comparison was conducted between the questioned individual depicted in
the Q2 images and who is depicted in digital image ?les contained on the
K21 compact disc, to determlne 1t they are the same individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the questioned individual depicted in the Q2 images
share mult1ple class characteristics, including overall shape of the face, nose, mouth, chin,
and ears. Due to a lack of detail in the questioned and known images, it was not ossible to
observe individual identifying characteristics that would permit one to identifylil

as the questioned individual to the exclusion of all other individuals. However,
no 1ncons1stencies were observed that would eliminatel las the questioned
individualb7C