Methodology

Methodology & Evidence

How I approach an internet defamation investigation, from initial evidence capture through final documentation.

Process

A Five-Step Investigative Process

1. Evidence Capture

Full-page screenshots with visible URLs, timestamps, and page context, plus source HTML capture and, where appropriate, third-party archiving tools, done as early as possible.

2. Platform & Technical Analysis

Review of platform-level data — posting history, account creation signals, metadata, and cross-references to related accounts or content.

3. Attribution Research

Where identification is in scope, correlating usernames, writing style, images, and cross-platform activity to develop a technical attribution analysis.

4. Impact & Damages Analysis

Analytics-based review of search visibility, traffic, and business impact tied to the timeline of the defamatory content, using tools such as Google Search Console, Google Analytics, and rank tracking data.

5. Documentation & Reporting

A clear, well-organized report or expert declaration that lays out findings, methodology, and conclusions in language attorneys, judges, and juries can follow.

Standards

Why Methodology Matters

An investigation is only as useful as its documentation. Screenshots without timestamps and source URLs, evidence captured after content has already changed, or attribution conclusions that aren't supported by the underlying data all weaken a case — sometimes fatally. I document methodology explicitly for every engagement so that findings can withstand scrutiny in deposition, cross-examination, or opposing expert review.

Tools & Data Sources

What I Work With

Depending on the matter, that typically includes platform-native tools, third-party archiving and monitoring services, WHOIS and DNS history, Google Search Console and Analytics, backlink and rank-tracking tools, and, where litigation counsel has obtained it through discovery, subpoenaed platform data such as IP logs and account records.

Related

See Also