Patrick Siewert On Push-Button Forensics And Communicating Results To Non-Experts

Christa: The digital forensics community thrives when practitioners take the time to share their expertise. Today on the Forensic Focus podcast, we’re welcoming one of our co-contributors of original content. I’m your host, Christa Miller, and with us today is Patrick Siewert, principal  consultant of Pro Digital Forensic Consulting, which is based in Richmond, Virginia.

Patrick started his digital forensics career in law enforcement, where over 15 years, he investigated hundreds of high tech crimes — including some of the highest jury and plea bargain child exploitation investigations in Virginia court history. He continues to hone his digital forensic expertise in the private sector while growing his digital forensic consulting and investigation business marketed towards litigators, professional investigators and corporations — all while keeping in touch with the public safety community as a law enforcement instructor.

Patrick, welcome. It’s a pleasure to have you with us. 

Patrick: Thanks for having me. It’s  good to finally get sort of face to face, you know, as much as we do in the COVID times. 

Christa: Absolutely. Likewise. I also want to say happy birthday. I hope this podcast is a nice gift for you. 

Patrick: Yeah, well, so far it’s been an interesting day. I’ve been pretty busy. I had a friend text me and say, “Are you taking the day off?” I said, “Are you kidding me? You’re not even close.”

Christa: I know, every year I say I’m going to take the entire week off for my birthday. And it just never quite turns out that way. 

Patrick: Well, you know, every once in a while you gotta give yourself a gift, but usually mine’s on two wheels and, you know, I buy myself a motorcycle at least once a year, apparently, maybe twice.

Christa: Oh, nice, nice. I have to connect you with my son. He would like to hear more about that. 

Patrick: Yeah. 

Christa: So what are you working on these days? 

Patrick: It’s been a pretty up and down year. I mean, case production this year has been pretty steady, but in October it’s like somebody pushed a button and it went skyrocketing through the stratosphere. We’ve got mainly civil litigation cases, a lot of divorce cases. 

You know, I’m based in Virginia. So, depending on your locality, whether or not there’s some marital infidelity going on has bearing or not. In Virginia, it can be sort of a deal, but in other states it can be a bigger deal. And so I’ve got cases coming in from out of state that deal with that. A couple of corporate cases right now. Just wrapped up an analysis in Baltimore last week for an independent analysis in a criminal matter. 

So, that kind of runs the gamut. I would say our case production generally on the private side is about 75% civil litigation and corporate. So it keeps us pretty busy. 

Christa: Yeah, I imagine. One of the articles that you wrote recently for Forensic Focus [is] about managing mountains of digital evidence. And it sounds like you’re kind of in that mode now where you’ve got mountains of digital evidence that you’re managing. Besides data volumes and obviously encryption, which I think is the other big challenge, what are some of the biggest technical challenges that you’re encountering on these cases, whether they’re corporate or criminal?

Patrick: Every case takes on something different, which is why I really enjoy the field of digital forensics. And so for instance, I’ve got one case right now where, essentially what I was provided is data on a thumb drive and it all deals with one document created in the Pages app on Mac OS. So drilling down on that particular file type and the metadata that goes along with it present new challenges in every case. 

In general, I would say — and everybody says it’s kind of a cliche answer — but hardware and software across the mobile spectrum runs the gamut. What I tell my clients and prospective clients to call me is, you know, if we’re dealing with an iPhone, then we’re dealing with this type of issue. If we’re dealing with an Android, it could be any litany of issues, depending on the make, model, manufacturer, software version, all that stuff. 

And so that, from our perspective as a private practitioner, is an educational thing. A lot of people call up and say, “Hey, I want text messages and web history off my deceased nephew’s phone,” or whatever. And we say, “Okay.” And we ask a litany of questions. They think it’s very simple. We just push a button and get that data. In some cases it is. And in many cases it’s not.

And part of our challenge in educating, especially litigators, is that litigators are not necessarily the most technical people in the industry. So it’s our job to educate them. So the educational piece can also be a challenge, but on the technical side, I would say, it’s just the variables that are thrown at us day in and day out.

As another example, I’ve got another civil litigation case where — you know, civil litigation cases can go on for years — and I got the original phone and computer early last year in March of 2019. Well, they’ve called me. They’ve done their discovery on the phone. Now they want to see if there’s anything on the computer. I said, “Yes, we can do that. But it was an iPhone, and it was back in 2019. And — even though this isn’t necessarily what we would prefer to do in every case — there are new exploits for iPhones with older iOS versions and older hardware versions. We may be able to get you literally gigabytes more of data if you resubmit that phone and we do another extraction on it.

So the moving goalposts of what we’re able to do is one of those things that is not only an asset, but it can be a liability because then explaining those things, ultimately, is what we’re charged with. 

Christa: And explaining them, not just to the litigators, but potentially also in court.

Patrick: Correct. Yeah. So, if you think litigators are technically challenged, some judges can be really… I am fortunate that I go before a ton of great judges — but there are some judges that are just not technically inclined. Now, many of them — in fact, I would say by and large — are willing to, while you’re on the witness stand, have you educate them. Is that ideal? No. I’d love to get them outside the courtroom and have an audience with judges and say, “Look, these are the things you need to look for in cases.” But judges are very busy and have gotten also to a point, I think, in their career where maybe some of that stuff is just on an as-needed basis. Not necessarily proactive.

Christa: It sounds a little bit also, as you’re talking about all the different changes that are happening on the fly, that professional development sounds like it’s also a challenge, where it’s not necessarily always formalized. 

Patrick: Yeah. I think again, the whole COVID situation has brought about the fact that probably, like everyone else, I get emails weekly about this webinar, that webinar, and I was actually musing to myself last week. I said, if I subscribe to all these webinars, I wouldn’t have any time to do any work!

[laughter]

Christa: Right, right.

Patrick: So you’ve got to pick and choose what you’re going to do as far as that. But yeah, professional development is obviously  something that I I’ve dedicated myself to. And anybody that’s involved with Pro Digital is also… that’s one of the things that we have to do.

I got out of digital forensics in my last year of law enforcement. I worked for an agency that really had no use for the skill set. So when I was in an administrative role, I got out of it. And then when I decided that I was going to invest in Pro Digital full-time, I obviously got back into it. That year that I was out of it, I was amazed at what I didn’t know, or what bypassed me. Without that professional development, if you’re just going to sit stagnant and say, I’ve got a couple of certifications behind my name, I’m sorry. You’re going to be left behind, because without that updated training, you’re doing yourself a disservice and you’re doing your clients, or whoever your stakeholders are, you’re doing them a disservice

Christa: So my next question actually was going to be the biggest non-technical challenges. But, as you’ve been talking, it sounds like the technical and the non-technical really converge, and they’re almost one and the same. I mean, you’re describing some of the technical issues and then communicating those issues to your clients.

Patrick: Yes. And I would say again, not to repeat myself too much, but being a good communicator and being a good educator, because I do instruct as well, is an asset when it comes to that, because if you can’t adequately portray whatever you need to portray to the stakeholders in your case at a basic level… 

I tell people all the time: I don’t get paid for all the technical stuff.  If I sit here and tell you a bunch of technical jargon, I’m going to number one, put you to sleep. I’m going to lose you on the facts of the case. Really what I get paid for is to take the technical stuff and boil it all down to simple terms that non-technical people can understand, because ultimately that’s what we need to do, is take the technical facts of the case, the data in the case, what the data’s telling us, and then boil it down to the nuts and bolts using things like analogies of real world examples is a great asset when it comes to that.

Because if I can draw a picture in your mind about how messages or images are stored in a SQLite database table — without going into the jargon about the shim and the WAL file and all that technical stuff — if I can drill that down to something to where you can understand it, then all of a sudden you see that light bulb go off above the judge’s head or above the opposing counsel or above the jury’s head. And that’s a win, whether or not you actually quote, unquote, “win” the case, getting that point across to those stakeholders is a big win. 

Christa: Do you think that that comes with experience, or do the changes in technology tend to complicate that issue or effort?

Patrick: I do think it comes with experience. As head of a company who does digital forensics, we’ve seen over the years, a lot of colleges are now doing Bachelor’s and Master’s and even doctoral programs in digital forensics. And so usually about May or June of every year, I get a bunch of people contacting me with their resumes and they’re straight out of college with a degree, which is fine. Education is great. I’m a big proponent of it. 

However, just because you can sit in a classroom and take a test and get a degree, does not mean you can sit in front of a jury and adequately relay these things to people that are not technical. I think that unfortunately, for somebody breaking in new, into digital forensics, that’s a challenge.

Let’s say for argument’s sake, that I was going to interview someone that was fresh out of college and wanted a job in digital forensics. Their communication skills are going to be just as important to me as their background knowledge or basic level knowledge of how to do forensics and data storage and file systems and all that stuff. I could teach anybody all that stuff. I can have a group of 20 people sitting in front of me and talk to them about FAT and NTFS and whatever all day long. But if you can’t use that knowledge and then communicate it effectively to other people, you’re really kind of just half an examiner, in my personal opinion.

I don’t know if you’ve ever taken any classes with Steve Whalen from Sumuri, but he starts off every class by saying, “What is digital forensics?” And in a room full of professionals, you know, 20, 25 people, it gets a bunch of blank stares. Admittedly, I was one of them the first time around. But ultimately it’s taking the data, doing an analysis in a structured way to be… with the findings and conclusions there to be presented in a court of law.

Christa: Right. The forensic part of that.

Patrick: Correct. Whether or not you’re working incident response for Kroll or KPMG, could those cases potentially go to litigation? Absolutely. And those skills are sort of intangible and if you don’t have them, then again, you’re maybe a little bit more than halfway, but you’re only hitting some of the rubrics. There’s a whole other part there that is kind of an intangible, like I said, and if you don’t hone those skills and practice them, or even have them to begin with — I mean, I put up a slide with a lot of presentations I do. And my phrase is, “You can make a cop a geek. But you can’t make a geek a cop, you know what I mean? How many times have any one of us called up to a help desk, or talked to somebody at the Geek Squad at Best Buy or whatever, and they can hardly form a sentence? So, all that to say that there’s an investigative piece to it, and there’s a huge communication piece to it.

Christa: How do you evaluate that when you’re interviewing some of these new candidates, or students, or any candidate during the interview process, is that something that you bake into the interview process? Is it something that you look out and go, well, this person’s skills are a little bit rough, but I think with a little bit of mentoring, it’ll work out for them? How do you shepherd them along that path to being better communicators? 

Patrick: That’s a good question. I haven’t had the opportunity to do it yet. However, I do have a rough structure in place for how it would be done. The one examiner that we have on staff aside from myself is a full-time law enforcement officer. He’s been doing it for decades. And so he’s squared away.

What I would do and what I would suggest anybody would do is to make contact with your litigators that you work with on a regular basis. See if you can get an hour of their time. And I know that’s a tough call sometimes. See if you can get an hour of their time and have them sit in an interview with that person. And almost do a question and answer as if they were on the stand to see how they would react on some of those things, because there’s a whole art form, for lack of a better term, to being an expert witness. Again, if you can’t meet that basic level of how to do those things, then I’m not sure you’re going to be ultimately a great candidate for the basic qualifications of the job.

Christa: I’m going to switch gears a slight little bit.  On a related note, I wanted to find out about the real impact of these kinds of challenges — the technical challenges, the communications challenges on the types of cases that you work, especially with regard to outcomes. Have you noticed any changes in the rates of convictions or dismissals or plea bargains over the years, as you’ve been, A) explaining more of the technology, but B) also that the technology is becoming more complicated? 

Patrick: Yes and no. Coming from the law enforcement side, many of my cases were plea bargained. Some for — you would never think somebody would plea bargain to that — and then many of them went to trial. I’d say the majority of the criminal cases will go to trial. In the cases where I’m able to have a very good rapport and communication style with not only defense counsel, but in relaying that to the prosecution, there are times when the technology and the law work together to create a different outcome. Usually it’s a plea bargain. Many times they don’t get acquitted, but as far as that goes, I just report what the evidence shows. As the technology evolves, it just becomes more of an onus on us as experts to relay that adequately.

I had a horrible case last year where a woman was [in] a car accident and she was a triple fatality and one of the people was pregnant. So it was a bad case. And so there was call detail records involved and there were the accusations that she was texting and driving , and there was data from the phone involved. And so, you know, getting into the databases and doing some granular analysis on times of sending versus times of receipt versus times of read and all that stuff. And then taking that to a gentleman who I work with frequently who’s a very, very good defense attorney and saying, “Here’s what I did, and here’s what it shows. And unfortunately, I don’t think what it shows is necessarily going to help out your client.” That’s a very basic way to say that telling him what we did is one step of it, telling him what we found is another step of it, and then telling him what our conclusions are as a third step of it.

And not to get off on a little bit of a tangent, but I recently reviewed a case where the case started off as a civil case. Another company did an analysis on the hard drive first, and the report that I received is full of conclusions with no basis. And so I’m trying to figure out how this person came to these conclusions without illustrating in his report where and how those conclusions were derived. 

Unfortunately, I think that’s something that we’re going to have to start looking at as a digital forensic community, because I’m getting concerned — and I’m not the only one, I’ve had conversations with a lot of people — I’m getting concerned that the standard of practice by which we’re operating is getting watered down by certain people that click a button and get the answers and move on. And there’s a lot more to it than that. 

Christa: Why do you think that is? 

Patrick: My personal opinion is because a lot of tools are generated these days to kind of have an easy button, a “find evidence” button, and a lot of them, I would say most of the very good ones, will present you the “find easy button” stuff. They’ll present it to you in a portion of your output for analysis, I don’t know how much analysis goes into and it’s a lot of review of stuff. Those tools also have the ability to dig a lot deeper, but I think people just aren’t digging deeper. 

I think a lot of people are just taking whatever they have at face value: “Oh, well, Tool X is telling me this. So that must be the way it is.” Not necessarily, you may want to validate it with another tool. You may want to do some independent analysis of the database tables or whatever to try to shore that conclusion up. 

My personal approach is, if I’m going to put something down on paper and testify about it, it’s going to be shored up as good as I can shore it up. And I’m going to do a lot. I’m going to put a lot of time and effort into it, into research, into making sure that what I’m putting down there are the facts as I know them at that point in time, based upon all my training, experience, and all that stuff. 

So I do think the ” easy button” has caused a little bit of a watered down version of forensics out there. I don’t mean to malign some of my compatriots in the private investigation industry, but there are some PIs out there that say they do forensics and all they do is they have a $500 tool or even a free tool they pulled off the internet and they spit out a bunch of text messages and they charge the client for it. 

That’s not forensics. That’s data acquisition and reporting that, even done in a forensically sound manner, again I go back to: how did you get it? Where did it come from? What are the methods that you used? All that stuff has to be, as part of the forensic process, defensible, repeatable, all that. And if it’s not, it’s just a watered down version of what professionals like us do. 

And it concerns me that that is starting to creep in more and more. I’m seeing it more and more as somebody who gets hired as an opposing expert on many civil litigation cases and even some criminal cases where the output I’m getting provided to me is certainly not what I would call thorough, or even professional. It’s just not a good product. It’s disconcerting to me. I don’t like it. 

Christa: Yeah, no. And I think it goes back to your earlier point about litigators and judges not necessarily being technologists, because they don’t necessarily know what questions to ask, to be sure that the evidence wasn’t somehow tampered with or manipulated in some way.

Patrick: Yeah. A lot of the stuff I harp on — now, to be clear, I love taking a data set and pulling out artifacts and displaying them for my blog and stuff like that — but a lot of stuff I’ve been talking about on my blog lately has to deal with standards of practice, ethics, things like that, that I think are not talked about enough in our field. I mean, yes, they are talked about, but I don’t know if they’re harped on as much as, “Hey, can we get the phone on, and can we get the data off of this Android phone, and how do we do it, and the workaround for this and the problem solving for that?” Those are all great. And we need them. We all encounter them virtually every day. But some of the more intangible stuff is worthy of more discussion. 

Christa: Yeah, I’ve been seeing it more on the academic side, some of the research has been talking quite a bit about building more trust in digital forensics and the methods and so on, and there are a lot of theories or discussions about how to go about doing that. But getting it actually filtered down to the practitioner level seems like it’s going to be the challenging part. 

Patrick: Yeah, I agree. Hopefully nobody else take my brilliant idea, but somewhere in me I have a book about it. 

Christa: Cool!

Patrick: All it takes is time, right? 

Christa: Yeah, no problem!

Patrick: That’s probably what I should have done from March through May. Instead I bought a new motorcycle. 

Christa: Yeah, but when you’re trapped in the house, it’s like you’ve got to get out for a ride and enjoy yourself, right?

[laughter]

Christa: So, I want to go back a little bit, because we were talking about the “find evidence” button and some of the tools. You are one of Forensic Focus’ product reviewers. I wanted to touch on that a little bit, in terms of a digital forensics professional,  who needs to get fairly technical. What kinds of tool features do you look for? What do you get most excited about that benefit your work and the industry the most, and, what would be on your wishlist for those kinds of features? 

Patrick: Yeah, that’s a good question. We’ll break it down between mobile and computer. So, in mobile, I like the tools that will help me drill down into the databases that will help display it in a decent manner to where I can document it. 

As we all know, when you start getting to app analysis, very, very few apps in the grand scheme of things are supported. So just like the case dealing with the Pages program on MacOS, the same thing exists on the mobile platforms to where I may get a case that deals with an app that is not popular and not supported, and I need to dig into it manually at the database level and dig out the XMLs and the plists and all that stuff.

So tools that allow me to do that in a concise and easy to understand manner. Because my time, I think everybody’s time, is money. I think it’s a misnomer  that certain people’s time is worth more or less, but my time is not in great supply most of the time. So when I can have a tool that allows me to do that on the mobile side, that is a time-saver and it helps me. 

As far as on the computer side, I really appreciate a tool that will, number one, allow me to do things several different ways. There’s more than one way to skin a cat; there’s [more than] one way to find a particular type of document or file. There’s more than one way to do the analysis of that. There’s more than one way to display certain things that we may want to look at a granular level. 

I’m a big fan of X-Ways Forensics because — and I’m a little bit weird like this — it scares a lot of people away. I trained on the older versions of EnCase and it reminds me a lot of that. It’s actually better, but… I’m a big fan of X-Ways Forensics and how it addresses especially PC-based analysis. The layout is basic, but it also has a lot of nuances about it. 

One of the things I think every tool developer could do to make it easier on all of us — because as we all know, not one tool will cover everything; not one tool should be used for everything — one of the things I think they could all get together and do is my dream scenario, is that they have a consortium where they all use the same terminology for everything. Because using the refined volumes snapshot, versus the — I forget what it was called in EnCase. It was something like disk tools or something like that. Yes, you do have to actually either read about in the manual or get a third-party manual or go through their tool-specific training to figure out exactly what we’re doing with this particular little option in their tool. So that would be lovely, but I know it’ll never happen.

Christa: I don’t know. Isn’t that one of the things that the CASE Ontology is looking at doing? I haven’t had a chance to research it in depth, but definitely want to do that in the new year. 

Patrick: It would be nice, just because it would be great for me to be able to jump from one tool to another and know that the option I’m picking here is the same as the option I’m picking here.

Christa: It’d be way more efficient. 

Patrick: Yes, yes. As far as a wishlist, I’ve been, and I’m still currently, looking at the Belkasoft Evidence Center products. I really like what they’re doing, particularly with iOS and acquisition methods, and things like that. There are other vendors that are right in line with what they’re doing. I really do think that they’re putting a lot of work into it.  

Any time a company is willing to put in that backend development time and effort, that’s really what we’re paying for as users of those programs, is that backend development time. Yes, the tool does what it does, and most of them do roughly the same things, but that development time, that reverse engineering and all that stuff that goes on, usually overseas, is really what we’re paying the big bucks for. But in 2021, that’s probably a tool that I will be investing in.

Christa: So, what else do you anticipate for 2021? Either business-wise or in general? 

Patrick: Well, I’m really pleased to say that for every year that Pro Digital has been in existence, we have increased case production by at least 10 if not 20%, so that’s good. And even knock on wood with the pandemic, 2020 was no exception to that. I look for the online training to be even more ubiquitous, even though we may get back to quote unquote, “normal.” 

It’s a good financial decision for the company putting on this training because they don’t necessarily have to fly people all over the place. They don’t have to get a facility and all that stuff. As one who puts on training, I can certainly appreciate where that would be a bottom line consideration for them. My particular learning style is probably better in the classroom than it is live online, but to each their own.

As far as the technology in 2021, that’s sort of hard to predict. I can tell you the thing that’s been coming around quite a bit, particularly from Apple, as we all know, is the fact that they’re making it harder and harder for us to get as much data as we would like to get, whether it be in iOS or on the Mac side. I don’t know if that’s by design. I don’t know if it’s a privacy thing. I’m not that deep into it to where I put that much time and effort into looking into it. 

But I do see it as being an issue and I’ll probably catch some ire for this, but I think that usually the Apple side has been on the forefront of that. And usually Microsoft follows suit somewhere down the road. The same thing happened with iOS and Android. iOS started coming out with encryption out of the box and all this stuff, and then Android followed suit. So all that stuff is going to keep moving. I think it’s going to present bigger challenges for us.

Fortunately, again, we have people out there, who are much smarter than I am, with multiple companies that are putting a lot of effort into helping us out. I do think it’s interesting, now that I’ve been on the business side for several years, that I have cases coming back around where I might be able to get more data from almost two years ago where I wasn’t able to get as much data. So I wonder how much that will actually become more ubiquitous over time. I don’t like the idea of redoing work, but as long as we can articulate what we did and why we did it, I think it’s fine.

Christa: On the law enforcement side, I would think that that would enable more cold cases potentially to be —

Patrick: Yes, absolutely.

Christa: — advanced at least. 

Patrick: Yeah. I mean, that’s essentially what this is on the civil side, is a cold case. 

I would love, and again, in the pantheon of dreams and wishes, I would love to have a private sector option for something like GrayKey, and I know I’m not alone in that. I hear my contemporaries in the private sector talk about it all the time. It’s just such a great tool. I’m sure there’s licenses and all that legal stuff that goes into it and why we can’t access it. I know it’s expensive, but it’s well worth it. 

I mean, I get multiple cases a year where people contact me and say, “My son died,” or “he tragically committed suicide,” or something like that, “and we want to get the data off of this phone, but we don’t know the passcode. Are you able to help us out?” And unfortunately, depending on the device and what the circumstances are, I may not be able to. Obviously those are one-off cases, but even still, there are a lot of cases I get where people are just like, well, “I don’t remember my passcode,” or “it’s an old phone and I need the data off of it. And I don’t remember it.” And again, increasingly we’re unable to help them with that.

Most of our cases are still, we get the passcode via court order or consent, but with every passing year, those other cases come up to where something, a solution like GrayKey or something like that, would be great for us in the private sector. 

And shoot, I’d even call up one of my competitors and say, “Hey, you want to go halfsies on it?” Because it would help us both. You know what I mean? So yeah, I would love to see certain things in 2021, I just think as we go forward, the data security aspect of everything is just going to make our jobs a little bit harder. You know, sans passcodes and passwords. A lot of times it’s just going to be difficult. 

Christa: How about from a Forensic Focus standpoint? What can our audience anticipate coming from you in terms of new thought leadership? 

Patrick: Well, that’s a good question. I’ve got a whole list on my phone of blog ideas. 

Christa: Sweet! 

Patrick: Again, all it takes is time, right? Now, one of the things I love about doing what we do is there’s always something to write about. There’s always something to talk about. And I do enjoy writing. Forensic Focus does forward me some of the product reviews. But I would say probably more stuff along the lines of standards of practice, anecdotes and case studies of things that have come about that are probably more ubiquitous than just dealing with the cases that I have. I hope that when people read the things that both you and I write, it causes a little bit of a light bulb to go off and, you know, gee, I’m really glad that she wrote this. 

I wrote one for my company’s website earlier this year about screenshots and about how they’re not good evidence and it may have been republished. I would love to be able to push stuff like that out to the litigators and the judges. I keep hearing stories over and over and over again about screenshots being used as evidence. And it’s just horrible, awful, no good, very bad evidence. 

Christa: The little team of attorneys that I work with for the Forensic Focus Legal Update, that came up in one of our discussions. And one of the articles that we co-authored together was exactly that, is how complete is that digital evidence? Like how can you authenticate that? 

Patrick: Yeah. It’s a big problem. And the fact that people are getting, on the criminal side, many times, they’re being put away, getting their freedom taken away, or on the civil side, they’re getting their kids taken away, they’re losing tons of money, whatever the case may be. 

In every case that I work, I try to look at, okay, what is at stake in this particular matter? And try to put myself in the shoes of the person who has the most at stake in that particular matter.

I think being objective is incredibly important in our business. 

We could probably do a whole ‘nother conversation about objectivity and bias in digital forensics, but I think if we maintain objectivity in our cases and we have the stakeholders in mind, I think we’re coming from a good place. 

I try to push that forth in a lot of the articles that I write and then publish directly for republish[ing] by Forensic Focus. I really appreciate the audience that gives me. It’s a little bit of a wider audience. Sure, I love people to go to my website ’cause it drives up traffic and it drives up numbers, but, the exposure and the fact that by and large, I get a lot of positive feedback from the community, from those articles. So I really appreciate it. 

Christa: Excellent. Yep. All right. Well, Patrick, thank you again for joining us on the Forensic Focus podcast. 

Patrick: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. I used to do a podcast on my own, but again, that whole time thing just started slipping away from me.

Christa: I know. Yeah. Well, I mean, hopefully we can do it again sometime. 

Patrick: Yes, absolutely. 

Christa: Awesome. Thanks also to our listeners, you’ll be able to find this recording and transcription along with more articles, information and forums at www.forensicfocus.com. If there are any topics you would like us to cover, or if you would like to suggest someone for us to interview, please let us know.

Leave a Comment