Further to the introduction to CSI in Part 1 which can be accessed here:
http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2011/12/mini-course-in-cell-site-identification.html
The mini course continues, Part 2, with consideration about further observations as to the information gathering process and evidence issues associated with cell site identification (CSI) and further points about masts (a.k.a whether they be BTS, Node B, eNode B and so on).
The concept of cell site identification (CSI) as a procedure within cell site analysis (CSA) should never be under-estimated by adopting a belief e.g. because the operator takes care of the radio network side the radio coverage can assumed. The operator has never claimed to have designed and rolled out a mobile radio network that ticks all the boxes for forensics and/or evidential requirements. The whole point of CSI/CSA is for the examiner, investigator or expert to identify the operating component factors or integers that corroborates identifiers and other evidence of the locale in which the target MS (mobile station) is said to have been used.
Whilst CSI may parallel the work, in part, at least, of an RF test engineer, the outcomes sought for CSA are very different to that of the network operator's test engineer. It may be helpful to summarise that difference by referring to the fact the person conducting CSI, for instance, conducts a technical fact-finding investigation to establish a "chain of causation" linking the activing of a target MS in a radio coverage area, a particular terrain and/or property where a crime is alleged to have been committed.
To illustrate some points for cell site identification that may be of interest to the reader, there are six images below. The images displayed below also contain a short narrative explaining operating component factors or integers to consider about the coverage itself. Of course those images omit narrative which the viewer needs to comprehend for CSI for him/herself, so some additional observations have been added.
There are many examples that could be given but I wanted to select a few examples to challenge concepts. Concepts such as merely going to site and taking a photo of a mast, whilst helpful, does not communicate other important factors; particularly where those other factors are not communicated anywhere else.