Our methodology is built around three goals: that evidence is preserved and traceable, that findings are tied to documented artifacts, and that the work can withstand scrutiny by a qualified peer.

Standards and framework

Our practice is informed by published forensic standards, including guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE), and the principles articulated in the ACPO Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence. Tools and procedures are validated against known data sets before being relied on in casework.

 

Phase 1 - Intake and scoping

Every engagement begins with a confidential intake call to identify the issues in dispute, the evidence available, and the deliverables required. Scope is documented in writing before work begins, including:

  • The questions to be answered
  • The evidence to be examined
  • The timeline and milestones
  • Expected deliverables (written report, declaration, demonstrative exhibits, testimony)
  • Conflict-of-interest review

Phase 2 - Evidence preservation

Original evidence is preserved before any analytical work begins.

  • Devices are received and logged with photographs, serial numbers, and condition notes
  • Forensic images are captured using hardware write-blockers or vendor-validated acquisition tools (Cellebrite, FTK Imager, and others appropriate to the device)
  • Each image is verified by cryptographic hash (MD5 and SHA-1 or SHA-256), with hash values recorded
  • Original media is returned to secure storage; analysis is performed against the verified copy

Phase 3 - Examination and analysis

Analysis is shaped by the scope established at intake.

  • Industry-standard tools are used, including Cellebrite Inspector / UFED, FTK, Magnet Axiom, Autopsy, X-Ways, and others as appropriate to the device and the question
  • Tool output is interpreted, not relied on at face value; significant artifacts are verified manually or against a second tool where the issue warrants
  • Where data is ambiguous, alternative explanations are identified and tested
  • Working notes are maintained throughout

Phase 4 - Reporting

Written reports are organized around the questions counsel needs answered and are prepared with the expectation that they may be challenged. A typical report includes:

  • Qualifications of the examiner
  • Statement of assignment and scope
  • Evidence received and chain of custody
  • Tools and methodology used, including version numbers
  • Findings, with each conclusion tied to the supporting artifacts
  • Limitations and caveats where applicable
  • Appendices and source citations

Phase 5 - Testimony and post-report support

When testimony is required, the examiner is prepared to:

  • Explain methodology and findings in language that judges and juries can follow
  • Respond to Daubert and methodology challenges
  • Address opposing-expert reports
  • Provide demonstrative exhibits

 

Chain of custody

Chain of custody is documented from the moment evidence is received through return or disposition. Custody records identify each transfer, each examiner who handled the evidence, the dates and purpose of access, and the storage location between accesses. Custody records are produced as part of the final deliverable.

Tools (representative, not exhaustive)

  • Cellebrite Inspector / UFED - mobile and computer forensic acquisition and analysis
  • FTK Imager - forensic imaging and triage
  • Magnet Axiom, Autopsy, X-Ways - examination and artifact analysis
  • Hardware write-blockers and Tableau acquisition hardware
  • Proprietary techniques developed in-house - for complex recoveries that off-the-shelf tools cannot complete

Tool selection is driven by the case. No examination is “Cellebrite said so” - tool output is one input, methodology is another, and the examiner’s interpretation is what is offered to the court.

Consultation & intake

Start with a confidential call to define scope, timelines, and evidence sources.

Request a Consultation Call (123) 456-7890