Certified Computer Forensic Opinion

I need a credentialed computer-forensics professional to issue a short, technically sound opinion that speaks directly to the authenticity of digital evidence already collected in an ongoing matter.

Project Overview

I am seeking an independent digital forensics professional to provide a short written technical opinion concerning the forensic and evidential limitations of a USB data set disclosed in ongoing UK regulatory / tribunal proceedings.

This is not a criminal case, no criminal charges have ever been brought, and I am not seeking legal advice or advocacy. I require a neutral technical assessment of what conclusions can and cannot properly be drawn from the disclosed digital material.

Background

The proceedings concern alleged online behaviour associated with a single laptop. The laptop was seized in 2023 during an internal safeguarding / disciplinary investigation.

The relevant chronology is approximately as follows:

Automated monitoring software identified a number of alleged pornographic URLs including one that was allegedly CSAM.

The laptop was seized by the referring body.

No contemporaneous forensic image was created at the point of seizure.

No acquisition hash value was recorded in my presence or disclosed as having been created at the time of seizure.

A later forensic acquisition was reportedly created approximately ten days after seizure, after the device had been outside my control for that period and during which there is documented evidence of access.

I have subsequently been informed that I may request a USB containing the “complete and raw data” from the final forensic analysis, but the precise nature of that material has not yet been clarified (for example, whether it is a full forensic image or merely extracted artefacts).

The key issue is that multiple inconsistent evidential accounts appear to have been generated from examinations of the same laptop.

Monitoring and Forensic Discrepancies

The investigation was allegedly triggered by automated monitoring software alerts that reportedly indicated pornographic and CSAM-related website activity.

However:

A subsequent human examination of the laptop did not identify corresponding CSAM or pornographic material leading to a further allegation that these had been deleted, wiped or accessed using an Incognito browser. It also identified additional searches and material of concern.

The later forensic examination reportedly did not recover corresponding illegal artefacts associated with those alerts. It also negated other "searches of concern" that were raised by the initial human examination.

The automated monitoring software alerts appear to resolve to empty, inactive, parked, placeholder, or otherwise contentless websites.

An additional issue is that the explanation advanced for the alleged concealment behaviour appears to have changed over time. The initial examiner allegedly suggested that activity had been concealed through the use of Incognito / private browsing. After the later forensic examination, the explanation allegedly changed to deletion of browser history and "wiping".

The regulatory allegations were subsequently reformulated to reflect the later forensic examiner’s findings rather than the original alert and human based account, by which time the laptop was no longer available for independent scrutiny as it was wiped / repurposed. The USB contains files extracted by the later forensic analyst.

What I Need

I am not providing the USB itself at this stage. I am seeking a written opinion that will hopefully confirm my submissions that:

The later USB data set can’t independently verify that it originated from the specific laptop that was originally seized.

The later USB data set can’t establish the state of the laptop at the time of seizure where the forensic acquisition was created approximately ten days later and no contemporaneous acquisition hash or continuity material is available.

The later USB data set can’t determine why the original monitoring software generated the alleged CSAM / pornography alerts or whether those alerts were accurate.

The later USB can show what was present in the forensic image when it was created, but it can’t show what may have been present on the original laptop before that image was taken.

Without the original laptop, an examiner can’t conclusively resolve the discrepancies between the monitoring alerts, the contemporaneous human examination, the later forensic findings, and the subsequent allegation of browser-history deletion or wiping.

Please include in your proposal:

Relevant forensic qualifications or certifications

Experience with evidence-preservation / chain-of-custody issues;

Whether you have previously prepared expert or advisory reports for legal, employment, or regulatory proceedings;

Your fixed price and estimated turnaround time.