A departing employee and a suspiciously empty laptop. A dispute that turns on when a file was made. A tribunal wanting deleted emails produced properly. Forensic work is recovery with the burden of proof attached — imaging that preserves, methods that document, and results that survive the other side’s expert.
$ edr connecting…
The difference is procedure at every step: original media write-blocked from first contact and never altered; imaging verified by cryptographic hash so any party can prove the copy is exact; a documented chain of custody from your hands to ours to the report; and analysis on the images — deleted-file recovery, timeline reconstruction from file-system metadata, USB and external-device traces, the artefacts that show what was accessed, copied or destroyed and roughly when. Findings arrive as a plain-language report with the technical appendix an opposing expert will look for — built to be examined, not just read.
One boundary stated openly: forensic work here requires a legitimate basis — your own devices and systems, company equipment under company policy, or matters instructed through solicitors and insurers. We work regularly alongside legal teams (engagement letters and NDAs as standard, ICO-registered handling throughout) on employment disputes, IP theft investigations, fraud matters and data-destruction claims. What this bench doesn’t do is covert surveillance of partners, family or anyone else’s private devices — asking politely doesn’t change the law, and a lab that would bend it for you would bend it about you.
Typically a great deal: what deletion or wiping ran and when, what USB devices connected in the final weeks, what left via cloud or email artefacts, and — often — recovery of the deleted material itself. The laptop should go straight into quarantine now: no IT reimaging, no 'quick look' logins.
They're built to: hash-verified images, documented chain of custody, methodology stated, and reporting separated into findings and technical appendix. We can also work to directions agreed between parties' solicitors. What no honest examiner offers is a guaranteed conclusion — evidence says what it says.
No — that's covert access to someone else's private device, and it's outside both the law and this bench's terms regardless of the suspicion. Where there's a legitimate route (your own devices, joint business equipment, or matters via a solicitor), we'll gladly discuss it.