The Metadata That Caught a Lie: Digital Forensics in Action

May, 2025 | By Carla Vieira

In February 2017, authorities discovered a USB drive at the site of a suspicious death. This case study illustrates how far digital forensics expertise can go, even in what would have seemed to be the simplest of cases. Two files appeared to create a straightforward context: a suic*** note and an asset list. We'll find, however, the real story hiding in the metadata. Although the most burning question (was it suicide or murder?) ought not to be answered in haste, the investigation's details are key elements in ensuring justice is served. The context could be corporate espionage, banking fraud, or cyberstalking, but in this case, we're talking about the potential for a killer to walk free.

This blog is not based on a movie I watched last night; it's a forensic case worked through in Autopsy software that demonstrates why limiting digital evidence analysis to the surface-level can destroy lives, tank legal cases, and expose organizations to massive liability. When digital timelines don't add up, due diligence warrants a thorough investigation. Otherwise, the consequences may ripple far beyond IT departments and into boardrooms, courtrooms, and compliance offices.

The Case

The investigation centered on John Smith's girlfriend, whose death appeared to be suic*** based on two digital artifacts found on a USB drive: a last note (suic***1.txt) and a detailed asset spreadsheet (Donna Assets.xls). Without proper forensic analysis, local investigators were prepared to rule the death a suicide and close the case. Using Autopsy forensic software, I examined the complete metadata timeline and found inconsistencies that painted an entirely different picture.

The Red Flags Hidden in Plain Sight

The forensic analysis uncovered several critical timeline inconsistencies that shattered the suicide narrative:

Impossible Timeline: MAC times (Modified, Accessed, Changed) of both files showed creation dates from 2002 and saved to the USB drive in 2005 (within one second of each other), but conveniently surfaced at a death scene in 2017. The victim would have needed to write her suic*** note 15 years before her death—an impossibility that metadata analysis reveals.

Identity Inconsistencies: The asset spreadsheet listed the victim as "Dana" not "Donna"—an unlikely spelling error for someone documenting their own assets. More damning, the Excel file's hidden metadata revealed the true author: "Samantha Key" not the deceased.

System Artifacts: The files used legacy 8.3 filename conventions (DANA~1.XLS), indicating they originated from older Windows systems. This technical detail, invisible to casual observation, suggested the files were created long before modern systems and deliberately planted as evidence.

Coordinated Activity: The files were accessed and saved with suspicious synchronization in 2005. These patterns are consistent with someone deliberately preparing evidence rather than organic document creation over time.

The Broader Threat: How Attackers Manipulate Digital Evidence

The John Smith case revealed planted evidence through timeline analysis, but it represents just one facet of a much larger threat. Academic research and cybersecurity intelligence reveal that sophisticated actors routinely employ timestamp manipulation techniques to forge digital evidence:

Timestomping Attacks: Current threat intelligence identifies "timestomping" as a common technique where attackers change file metadata timestamps "to a time prior to the timeframe the incident occurred" with the main goal being "to delay detection by as much as they can." This allows malware, for example, to masquerade as legitimate system files or helps attackers cover their tracks during network intrusions.

At the time I'm writing this article, MITRE ATT&CK documents over 50 distinct procedure examples for this type of attack (technique ID T1070.006).

Anti-Forensic Techniques: Research published by IEEE shows that "timeline forgery is a widely employed technique in computer anti-forensics" with "numerous freely available and easy-to-use tampering tools" making it difficult for forensic scientists to collect legally valid evidence. These tools can alter creation dates, modification times, and access logs across multiple file systems. While our case involved a FAT32 file system, recent research demonstrates successful forensic outcomes even on modern systems like NTFS. If you are looking for great cases to read, I recommend these: a study on an algortihm that detects malware activity causing NTFS timeline forgery, a case study by the SANS Institute on a kids-game decoy, and this analysis of system-level manipulation.

The Business Risks of Limiting Analysis to Surface-Level Evidence

Organizations that treat digital forensics as optional IT expertise rather than essential business infrastructure unfortunately face predictable consequences:

Legal Exposure: Courts increasingly rely on digital evidence. Organizations that present planted or manipulated evidence (even unknowingly) face sanctions, case dismissals, and credibility destruction that impacts future litigation.

Regulatory Compliance Failures: Compliance auditors expect organizations to validate digital evidence integrity. Surface-level document reviews that miss timeline inconsistencies can result in failed audits, penalty assessments, and consent decree requirements that cost millions annually.

Third-Party Vendor Risk: Supply chain partners and contractors can present backdated documentation, falsified compliance records, or manipulated audit trails. Without forensic verification capabilities, organizations unknowingly accept fraudulent assurances that create massive downstream liability. This is not a hypothetical risk. Consider the landmark 2013 Target breach, where the attackers' entry point was a trusted HVAC vendor with weak security. Target unknowingly accepted the risk the vendor posed, and suffered a huge breach affecting over 40 million customers.

The Verdict: Forensics as Business Strategic Alignment

In the John Smith case, proper forensic analysis prevented a potential miscarriage of justice by revealing that apparently authentic suic*** evidence was actually planted years earlier. For modern organizations, the lesson is clear: digital evidence inconsistencies and manipulation aren't theoretical threats, they're present realities that require specialized detection capabilities. Academic and other types of industry relevant research confirms that timestamp manipulation and evidence planting techniques are widely available and actively used by sophisticated attackers.

Organizations that treat forensic analysis as reactive incident response rather than proactive business intelligence are making a costly mistake. In a world where digital evidence drives legal outcomes, regulatory compliance, and business decisions, the ability to detect manipulation and timeline inconsistencies isn't technical luxury. We're talking about survival infrastructure.

Digital evidence integrity isn't optional—it's a business survival issue. Whether you're securing a compliance case or defending a company's reputation, the ability to deconstruct metadata and validate evidence origins is essential.

Curious how staged digital evidence was detected and dismantled?

This case goes beyond theory. You can explore the complete forensic analysis and see the evidence firsthand in my project's GitHub repository. It includes:

• The full Forensic Report (PDF) summarizing the investigation.

• A step-by-step Timeline Walkthrough of the technical analysis in Autopsy.

• The extracted evidence_metadata.csv file used to identify anomalies.

• Screenshots of the key findings from the Autopsy interface.

Explore the Full Case on GitHub

Because in a world where digital evidence builds or breaks business outcomes, not knowing isn't a defense.

References:

1. SANS Institute. (2004). Forensic Investigation of USB Flashdrive Image for CC Terminals.

2. IEEE Computer Society. (2021). Research on anti-forensic techniques and timestamp manipulation detection.

3. International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security. Research on timeline forgery in digital forensics.

4. Arizona State University. Anti-forensic technique detection in NTFS file systems.

5. Carrier, B. (2025). Timeline Mode.

6. Microsoft. (2025). Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces.