So, I read through the article and could not find what was concretely wrong, technically, with the data. Does he state that any where? Thanks.
"There are reasons I’m not going to dig into the details of the case. Certain people that were involved could easily be pinpointed by revealing technical details that could be pieced together with news reports, and help build a story in your mind that would probably be inaccurate. The details aren’t so important as the errors that were made. All you need to know from a technical perspective is right here: some of the types of information that these commercial tools were (and likey still are) misreporting is significant. Evidence and timestamps of a device erasure event. Evidence of a backup restore event. Application usage dates. Application deletion events and timestamps. File access times. This, and many other types of artifacts are often either completely overlooked by numerous commercially sold, expensive-as-hell tools, or in the case of at least one tool – seemingly made up data. All of these came into play in this case and would later play a role in its outcome."
I kept having to skip paragraphs to get to the juicy bits. Eventually, I gave up and closed the tab. I don't much like this guy's writing style, as it constantly goes off on tangents that don't really add anything to the story, much less the baity title.
He may indeed not be able to reveal certain details of the case. However, he'd certainly be capable of reproducing whatever bugs he found in the unnamed software (likely EnCase or FTK) and discussing them. Instead of science, though, he merely provides lip service thereto, along with political commentary, irrelevant asides, and run-on sentences.