What is "experienced" forensic investigator?

If you are going to use a quote from my website, then please attribute the source.

The questions that I usually get asked are

How many years of experience?

How many cases?

How many times have you appeared as a witness?

Hence I provide details of all 3 on my website so that those who find me through an internet search have those answers prior to contacting me. It saves a little on repetition, although I usually still answer the same questions when dealing with prospective clients via phone.

What would you consider an experience forensic investigator? Do you look at quantity of cases worked on?

Not particularly relevant. It is the nature of the cases upon which you have worked and the nature of the work performed on those cases. There have been a couple of posts from data recovery professionals asking about getting into forensics and the answers are pretty much the same, namely, get some forensics experience.

Length of experience?

Again, the issue is the types of experiences that the investigator has had. Was the evidence that you provided critical to the outcome of the case? Was it stipulated to by opposing counsel? What was involved in your obtaining the evidence and rendering an opinion based upon it?

Published papers?

Publications can be important but there are many excellent doctors out there who have never had a publication other than in the phone directory.

Anything else?

Clearly. There is professionalism, for one. Can you keep the client's information and your investigation confidential. One of the downsides to doing highly sensitive investigations, such as data theft, is that you often cannot tell anyone who was your client, what was it that you did and what was the outcome. The same may be true for intellectual property cases.

Another is your ability to withstand cross-examination and look credible on the stand.

Writing ability is extremely important. There is an old saying that you can only lose in deposition which is to say that if you get to the point where you are testifying, you have more to lose than to gain. Ideally, your report is so convincing the other side decides not to press their case and your client wins. Once you get into court, the outcome is often, if not always, out of your control.

Reputation is also important. Your testimony may be part of the public record and you don't want to be on record as saying something, as an advocate for your client, that is viewed as unreasonable or absurd by your colleagues. Sooner or later you might face one of them across the courtroom and this could come back to haunt you.

For example, there are "experts" who frequently testify in DUI cases. It goes like this Someone is stopped at a checkpoint or for erratic driving and refuses a breathalyzer so they are taken to a hospital or lab for testing. Commonly only one blood test is done and the blood alcohol level is above the legal limit. The common defense is to claim that the person had one drink before hitting the road and that they would have been home before they reached the legal limit if it hadn't been for the police stop. You can find medical professionals whose bread and butter is this defense.

So the questions that you mentioned are important as preliminary questions, but the answers don't tell the whole story.

Reputation is pretty important.

As important is not becoming a hired gun for either the police or defense.
I've seen cases where the line of questioning became rather uncomfortable for someone who offered big discounts to LE and they tried to justify that to an unimpressed jury.

Most people who are good at what they do, don't have to tout how good they are, their reputation is what gets the hiring party on the other line. Rarely is someone going to get hired because they were high in the google rankings.

Sean's point about relevant experience is a good one. It's good when dealing with a prospective client on a case where the evidence is for example email based to be able to provide an example of other cases where email evidence was pertinent, and explain to them how your assisted in the resolution of the case.

Just as experience with certain types of evidence is important, so too is having experience in certain types of offenses, or causes of action. There are for example many different types of frauds, and having prior experience with that particular type of fraud means the examiner has a clearer picture of what you are searching for, and how that relates to the facts or the theory of the case. The evidence you are searching for in a Ponzie scam is different from an employee billing fraud case, is different from an identity theft or a forge and utter case. A less experienced examiner can still work the case, but the client, be it an attorney, or an investigator is going to have to invest more time educating the examiner, or the examiner is going to have to spend more time researching to get up to speed. That's going to result in either a higher cost, or a slower response time or both.

If when dealing with a client, or a prospective employer, you can immediately provide them with an example of a similar case, and explain how you achieved a successful outcome, it will instill a higher level of confidence in your abilities.

Attorneys (my client base) are much the same in that many of them have experience in particular fields (criminal defense, corporate law, intellectual property, etc) and whilst you could get any lawyer to represent you in a court action, you are generally going to want to get one with experience relevant to your particular problem.

So, in essence there is little objective metrics we can use to evaluate all the forensic analysts/investigators.

Maybe successful case participation?

Is there a reasonably objective and quantifiable metric for forensic investigators?

Patrick4n6, I never been to your site. The clipped quote is from forensicakb's post in thread "MSc vs CCE vs CHFI", which I referenced in my post.

I would also state that an "experienced" and a good investigator are two different animals.

Google computer forensics and you will see people saying they are experienced experts and ready for action, doesn't mean they are good, just experienced.

You can also be experienced or good and never have your methods or abilities called into question by peers or by a knowledgeable Judge.