Case type: Criminal law – Defense

Client: Criminal defense lawyer

Parties involved: Crown v. Accused (possession of illicit material)

Mandate given to Firme H2E:

Counter-expertise of forensic analysis report produced by police services

Duration: 20 business days

Context

A 34-year-old man faced serious charges related to possession of illicit material discovered on his mobile phone during a search. The police report concluded that several compromising files had been voluntarily downloaded by the accused.

Defense counsel had doubts about the methodology employed. The police report contained no information about the source of the files, the applications involved, or the possibility that content had been passively received through messaging groups.

Firme H2E was retained to perform an independent counter-analysis of the seized phone and police report.

Firme H2E Intervention

Step 1

Police Report Review

  • Critical analysis of methodology described (or not described) in the report
  • Identification of gaps: no documentation of tool version used, partial extraction, missing metadata
  • Verification of documented chain of custody
Step 2

Independent Extraction

  • Requested access to seized device through counsel and the court
  • Performed new complete extraction with Cellebrite UFED (documented version)
  • In-depth analysis of SQLite databases from the messaging application involved
  • Recovered metadata ignored by police extraction
Step 3

Comparative Analysis and Report

  • Discovered that 87% of contested files originated from discussion groups where the accused was only a passive member
  • Demonstrated that files had been automatically downloaded by the application (default setting)
  • Identified inconsistencies in police report timestamps (uncorrected timezone offset)
  • Produced detailed report with recommendations for cross-examination
Result

Firme H2E’s counter-expertise report raised reasonable doubt about the intentional element of the offense.

H2E’s expert was called to testify and demonstrated to the court the methodological flaws in the police report.

The judge found that the evidence presented by the Crown was insufficient. The accused was acquitted of the main charges.

Key Takeaways
  • A police report is not infallible: methodology must be verifiable and challengeable
  • Messaging applications often download content automatically, complicating the notion of intent
  • An independent counter-analysis can reveal crucial gaps in evidence
Tools Used
  • Cellebrite UFED (complete extraction)
  • Cellebrite Physical Analyzer (in-depth analysis)
  • SQLite Browser (application database analysis)
  • EXIF metadata and timestamp analysis
  • Comparative documentation (H2E vs. police report)

Have a case?

Submit it securely through our platform.

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

Submit Your Case

Your information stays confidential and is reviewed by certified experts.