Over time, I’ve seen a drift in digital forensics training from 'putting cases together' to 'how to use forensic software.'
We’ve become masters at finding artifacts, but not always at explaining what they mean in human terms and how it proves your case.
I’ve been focusing on this issue through scenario-based work and built a one-day live course called PSBK CASEWORK. It walks a full case from first lead to courtroom, emphasizing reasoning, attribution, and defensible documentation of forensic artifacts and physical evidence, not just tool operation.
And it includes a complimentary, limited-print, hardcover pre-release copy of an upcoming book, Placing the Suspect Behind the Keyboard: DF/IR Investigative Strategies.
Details: https://www.suspectbehindthekeyboard.com/psbk-casework
I’m curious how others here are approaching this challenge.
Are you seeing the same trend in training or mentoring newer examiners? How do you balance technical mastery with investigative logic?
Thanks for sharing Brett, great topic. Plenty of tool operators out there. But when you take away all these fancy commercial tools, what are we left with? The process is simple - acquiry, processing, analysis, reporting. In most cases you don't need a $10k tool to do it, you just need expertise.
Tools will always evolve. Logic, attribution, and defensible reporting never go out of date.