Collecting evidence faster than an alibi
Authored by Karl Stonebarger
Originally published in the September 2026 issue of Magnet Unlocked. Want to be the first to see new content? Sign up for our monthly newsletter, Magnet Unlocked.
When hearing discussion around speed, it’s easy to assume it’s about efficiency: shorter processing times, faster software, smaller backlogs. Those things matter, but they’re not what I think about.
What I think about is a specific window that exists in nearly every active investigation. It’s the time between when investigators gain access to digital evidence and when a suspect has had enough time to build a story around it.
Over more than a decade working in digital forensics and ICAC investigations, I came to see that window as one of the most important, least-discussed realities of the job. Evidence doesn’t lose value because it takes longer to process. A phone extracted today holds the same artifacts tomorrow. What gets lost is the opportunity to use those artifacts while the investigation is still unfolding, while leads are still developing, while people are still reacting in real time.
What kept me in this field longer than I planned was realizing that digital evidence wasn’t just helping us prove cases after the fact. It was helping us shape investigations while they happened. The faster we identified meaningful evidence, the faster we could direct resources, locate victims, corroborate information, and confront suspects with facts they couldn’t easily explain away.
From proving cases to driving investigations
I expected to spend a few years in the Computer Crime Unit before returning to narcotics. Instead, I landed in an environment that never stopped evolving.
Devices changed. Platforms changed. Techniques changed.
Phones went from communication tools to repositories of nearly every aspect of a person’s life. Digital evidence stopped being a supporting element of investigations and became one of the primary ways we understood what had happened.
As that shift unfolded, our team noticed something. Our most impactful discoveries often weren’t happening weeks after a search warrant. They were happening on scene, within hours of obtaining a device.
One of the earliest cases that showed us this was almost accidental. We were executing a search warrant unrelated to anything digital and came across a stack of unmarked CDs. Rather than bag them and wait, we started reviewing them on a computer right there. What we found was recorded evidence of a child being abused. We brought that straight to the suspect while the search was still underway, and he admitted to it on the spot. There was no time for him to construct an explanation, because there was no gap between discovery and confrontation. That case pushed our unit toward building evidence review into the search itself rather than treating it as something that happened later, back at the lab.
That wasn’t because we were running full forensic exams in the field. We were identifying just enough to move the investigation forward: an account identifier that supported further legal process, an early sign of attribution, a detail connecting a device to a location, a subject, or a victim.
The value came from having that information while it could still shape decisions. Investigations don’t pause for forensic processing. Investigators keep chasing leads, witnesses keep talking, victims keep waiting, and suspects keep thinking about what investigators might already know. That’s what made “time to first evidence” such a critical concept for us, long before the phrase became industry shorthand. The first meaningful artifact matters because it lets investigators stop guessing and start acting.
Why evidence changes an interview
One of the clearest lessons we learned was about interviews. We partnered with local investigators who brought deep experience in interrogation strategy. We brought technical context: devices, apps, cloud services, acquisition methods, and the artifacts those produced. The two skill sets complemented each other well.
Confronting someone with evidence is fundamentally different from confronting them with suspicion. People can argue with assumptions and deny accusations, but it’s much harder to explain away a set of digital artifacts that independently point to the same conclusion. Once a device is tied to a subject, the conversation shifts. It’s no longer about whether the evidence belongs to them, but why it exists.
Timing changes everything here. Given enough time, people rehearse answers, anticipate questions, and build a narrative to explain what investigators might find. When evidence arrives early, they haven’t finished that process yet. They’re reacting to facts instead of defending a story they’ve had time to refine. That doesn’t guarantee an admission or replace good investigative work, but it opens a window to engage someone before they’ve settled on an explanation. That window can be invaluable.
The first artifact may matter more than the final report
A common misconception is that investigators need the complete picture before taking action. In a lab, that’s true; thoroughness and defensibility are non-negotiable. In an active investigation, the first useful artifact can change the entire direction of a case.
A recent message might surface a lead worth pursuing immediately. A location might redirect resources. A username might generate new legal process. A photo, timestamp, or account record might give investigators exactly the context they need while events are still unfolding.
That’s why the industry has invested so heavily in faster access to evidence. The specific tools matter less than the trend they represent, recognizing that evidence has the greatest impact when decision-makers can access and act on it quickly. What once required multiple systems, manual transfers, and long delays now increasingly happens in near real time, letting investigators understand what they’ve collected while the operational window is still open.
What faster really means today
Tools like Magnet Graykey, Magnet Review, and Magnet One Case Stream are narrowing the gap between collection and understanding. Instead of waiting for a full forensic workflow to finish, investigators can review communications, flag key artifacts, and share findings with stakeholders while examinations continue in parallel.
In a child exploitation case, that might mean identifying a victim sooner. In a trafficking case, it might mean acting while resources are still deployed. The benefit isn’t just that evidence arrives faster. It’s that investigators can act while it still has maximum operational value.
One case from later in my career still stands out. What started as a routine review of a device turned up an image that we believed showed a live victim. From there, a partnership with federal investigators let us move through legal process faster than we normally could on our own, and an open-source search pointed us toward a specific person in another state. Within about a week we were on a plane, and by early the next morning we were executing a search warrant at his house. When we walked in, small details we’d seen in the images, things in the background that had nothing to do with the crime itself, told us almost immediately that we had the right place. The suspect gave up others he’d been trading with. He was eventually sentenced to life in prison.
None of that happens on that timeline without the ability to move fast between finding something on a device and acting on it. The gap between “we think we found something” and “we’re on the ground confirming it” was measured in days, not months, and that gap is exactly what determines whether a case like that stays open or gets solved while it still matters.
When facts outrun explanations
Looking back, I don’t think first about final reports or courtroom testimony. I think about the moments evidence created momentum.
Digital forensics will always demand rigor, validation, and defensible methodology. That’s not going away, and it shouldn’t. But every investigation also contains a shrinking window in which facts can still outrun explanations. Some of the most important breakthroughs happen when investigators can put reliable evidence in front of decision-makers before an alibi has had time to take shape. That, in my experience, is where digital forensics has its greatest impact.