The digital forensics tightrope act

Originally published in the July 2025 issue of Magnet Unlocked. Want to be the first to see new content? Sign up for our monthly newsletter, Magnet Unlocked.

I’ve spent my career in digital forensics wrestling with two deceptively simple questions: Where do I start and where do I stop, in an investigation?

Both decisions feel like drawing lines on quicksand. You’re flooded with artifacts—timestamps, logs, messages—tempting you to search every byte. But legal deadlines and investigative demands force focus. The real skill isn’t just finding evidence but knowing when to stop.

Diminishing returns vary by case. Timelines build fast, but tagging artifacts can drag. If thousands of events yield nothing new and legal requirements are met, it’s time to stop—unless it’s an exploitation case, where missed data could leave a victim unseen.

Yet some cases demand that extra mile. In one child exploitation investigation, we faced 48 terabytes of newly produced images catalogued by a suspect. We couldn’t just grab a hundred incriminating files and walk away. We had to identify every victim before moving on. Balancing timeliness with thoroughness is critical, especially when someone’s freedom (or safety) is on the line. This is the tightrope we’re constantly walking as law enforcement.

Equally important is our responsibility to find exculpatory evidence. In one case, a healthcare agency fired an IT worker after illicit images were found on his laptop. A deeper analysis showed the files came from an old user profile, not the current one. Trusting my instincts to dig further helped clear an innocent person. Moments like that remind me; we’re not hunting suspects, we’re seeking the truth.

Avoiding tunnel vision means always asking, “How did this artifact land here?” In a separate fraud case, documents forged by photo editing software ended up sprinkled across shared drives and email attachments. Had I merely tagged every document on the boss’s machine, I’d have missed the fact that his son was the real perpetrator; he’d generated the fakes with specialized software before sending them through group channels.

This “fine balance” extends to our own mindset and workflow. Digital forensics requires us to remain detached and dispassionate, but never so isolated that we lose sight of the investigation’s needs. Our role straddles two worlds; we must be the objective witness in court and the collaborative partner in the forensics lab. Too close, and our bias clouds the analysis; too far, and we miss crucial investigative context.

And just when you think you’ve mastered every artifact, technology shifts beneath your feet. Prefetch files, LNK files, UserAssist, GPS logs…these “artifacts of execution” must be correlated for the strongest forensic support. The presence of an LNK file is not enough to attribute user execution. GPS points can be misattributed and overstated if you don’t understand collection methods and error margins. Staying expert means embracing continuous education, because our field evolves at the speed of human innovation.

Finally, don’t let the handoff from the lab to the investigator or prosecutor weaken your analysis. In one case, the prosecutor entered the days before trial believing the digital evidence was stronger than it was, based on the case agent’s review and interpretation. Fortunately, I was brought in to independently examine the evidence, and we were able to identify additional supporting artifacts that had not been tagged or documented by the case agent. Staying involved throughout the process helps avoid courtroom surprises and ensures that all relevant evidence is properly identified, ultimately strengthening the case.

Digital forensics is as much art as science. Learning to balance thoroughness, intuition, and objectivity takes time and experience. It means trusting your gut to dig deeper, even under pressure to finish—or knowing when to stop, even if others want more. It’s seeking both guilt and innocence, staying close to the case without losing your impartiality.

There’s no single rule for navigating these balancing acts. But connecting with other examiners, sharing lessons, staying hands-on, and learning from experienced peers is the best way to grow. That’s how you develop the art of forensics while staying sharp on the science.

A starting point for newer examiners:

1. Set clear start/stop criteria: Base them on case requirements, not just data volume. A backlog is not reason enough to rush the examination.
2. Talk to the prosecutors: What charges are going to be filed and what evidence is needed to support those charges. This analysis will help with scope.
3. Balance depth with timeliness: Victim-centric and detention cases often demand extra work, while others may not.
4. Seek exculpatory leads: Clearing the innocent is every bit as vital as proving the guilty.
5. Guard against tunnel vision: Always probe how artifacts got there, the always critical “artifacts of execution” and “artifacts of attribution”.
6. Cultivate dual perspectives: Maintain both independent rigor and open lines of communication with investigators and prosecutors.
7. Commit to lifelong learning: Artifact behaviors change; so too must your understanding.
8. Stay involved through handoffs: Ensure your technical insights shape the courtroom narrative, not just the investigation report.

Authored by one of our experts, Jeff Rutherford.
Get to know the rest of our experts!