Case Type: Criminal law – disputed digital evidence

Client: Criminal defense law firm

Parties Involved: Public Prosecutor vs. Defendant (criminal harassment,
breach of conditions)

Mandate Assigned to H2E Firm:

Conduct a counter-expert analysis of a phone extraction report produced by a police force

Duration of Mandate: 
20 business days

Context

The public prosecutor had submitted as evidence a technical report generated by a mobile extraction tool used by police.


This very brief report identified text messages deemed incriminating, allegedly sent to someone the accused was forbidden to contact.

The defense attorney questioned the completeness of the analysis: no full message history, no metadata, no mention of deleted messages.

He commissioned H2E Firm to conduct an independent
counter-expertise.

H2E Firm’s Intervention

Step 1

Critical Review of the Police Report

  • Verification of the tool used (MSAB XRY)
  • No session log or hash validation included
  • Inconsistencies in message timestamps
  • “Partial data” disclaimer ignored in the report’s conclusion
Step 2

Independent Full Extraction

  • Creation of a forensic image of the device in our possession
  • Extraction via Cellebrite UFED and reconstruction of SQLite databases
  • Identification of over 120 missing messages from the initial report, some showing that the complainant initiated contact
Step 3

Report and Testimony

  • Expert report written with a comparative section (initial report vs. H2E report)
  • Highlighting of methodological shortcomings in the initial report
  • Prepared testimony to neutrally explain why the evidence, as presented, was insufficient
Outcome

After reviewing H2E’s report, the judge ruled that the prosecution’s submitted evidence was incomplete and could not be accepted without reservation.


The charges for breach of conditions were withdrawn before trial.


Since then, the defense firm has referred several similar cases to H2E.

Key Takeaways
  • A technical report is not infallible just because it comes from a public authority
  • An independent counter-expertise can restore balance in court proceedings
  • The tools, methodology, and documentation are as important as the extracted results
Tools Used
  • Cellebrite UFED
  • SQLite Forensics Toolkit
  • Structured bilingual expert report (summary + methodology + technical annexes)

Do you have a case?

Submit it securely using our platform.

No emails. No delays. Use our dedicated submission system to get expert help fast.

Submit Your Case

Your information is kept confidential and reviewed by certified experts.