A Five-Step Investigative Process
1. Evidence Capture
Full-page screenshots with visible URLs, timestamps, and page context, plus source HTML capture and, where appropriate, third-party archiving tools, performed as early in the engagement as possible to minimize the risk of content changing or disappearing.
2. Platform & Technical Analysis
Review of platform-level data — posting history, account creation signals, metadata, and cross-references to related accounts or content — documented in a form that can be independently verified.
3. Attribution Research
Where identification is in scope, correlating usernames, writing style, images, and cross-platform activity into a technical attribution analysis, clearly separating what the data establishes from what it merely suggests.
4. Impact & Damages Analysis
Analytics-based review of search visibility, traffic, and business impact tied to the timeline of the defamatory content, using tools such as Google Search Console, Google Analytics, and rank tracking data, with alternative explanations explicitly addressed.
5. Documentation & Reporting
A clear, well-organized expert report or declaration that lays out findings, methodology, and conclusions in language a judge and jury can follow, structured to anticipate cross-examination.
Why Methodology Is the Whole Case
An investigation is only as useful as its documentation, and in my experience reviewing other experts' work as a rebuttal witness, methodology gaps are where cases are won and lost long before trial. Screenshots without timestamps and source URLs, evidence captured after content has already changed, or attribution conclusions that aren't tied to specific, citable data points all create openings that a competent opposing expert will exploit — sometimes fatally to the underlying claim.
I document methodology explicitly for every engagement, from the first evidence capture through the final report, precisely so that findings can withstand scrutiny in deposition, at a Daubert or Frye hearing, and under cross-examination at trial. That includes maintaining a clear record of what was captured, when, by what method, and what specific technical basis supports each conclusion in my report.
I also draw a clear, explicit line between what the technical evidence establishes and what it merely suggests. Overstating a conclusion beyond what the data supports is one of the fastest ways to lose credibility with a court, and I structure every report to avoid that outcome.
What I Work With
Depending on the matter, that typically includes platform-native tools and reporting interfaces, third-party archiving and monitoring services, WHOIS and DNS history where domain-adjacent issues arise, Google Search Console and Analytics, backlink and rank-tracking tools, and, where retaining counsel has obtained it through discovery, subpoenaed platform data such as IP logs and account records. I work closely with counsel to determine what discovery requests are likely to actually produce useful technical data, based on how specific platforms structure and retain their records.