When Timestamps Tell Two Stories — and Only One is True. Lessons from the Karen Read Trial on the Limits of Device-Only Forensics.

By Kevin R. Horan, Esq.Co-Founder, Precision Cellular Analysis LLCFormer FBI Supervisory Special Agent, CAST | Expert Witness – Cellular & Digital Forensics

Introduction: A Case that Turned on One Line of Data

In the Commonwealth v. Karen Read trial, a single timestamp became one of the most contentious pieces of evidence.

Investigators discovered a Google search on an iPhone — “hos long to die in cold” (a misspelled version of how long to die in cold). The recorded time was 2:27 a.m., suggesting that someone may have searched that phrase hours before the victim was found.

The prosecution’s digital forensic expert, however, claimed the search didn’t occur until 6:24 a.m. The defense disagreed. Both pointed to the same Cellebrite extraction but drew opposite conclusions.

Two experts. One phone. Two timelines.

And here’s the key: both experts were working from device-side evidence only — no one introduced cellular carrier data that could have answered the question definitively.

Device Artifacts/Evidence vs. Network Evidence

Cellebrite extractions show what’s on a phone — app databases, browser histories, cached files, and system logs. But those timestamps come from local device events, not necessarily when the device communicated with the outside world.

For example:

• A Safari “history” entry might reflect when a browser tab was opened — not when the search was made.

• Cached data can persist or reappear long after a query.

• Device clocks can drift minutes (or even hours) from carrier time.

In short, device-based timestamps tell you what the phone recorded, not always what the network saw.

Carrier data fills that gap. Every time a device opens a data session — even for a brief web query — it leaves a trace in the provider’s IP Detail Records (IPDRs), also known as “Data Session.” Those logs record:

• Start and stop times of the session

• Tower and sector used

• Bytes transferred

• Subscriber and device identifiers (IMSI/IMEI)

Cross-referencing that data with device artifacts transforms speculation into science.

What a Proper Correlation Would Have Revealed

If full network records had been obtained and analyzed, the timeline debate in Karen Read could have been settled in minutes.

A forensic correlation would involve:

1. Verifying device time accuracy against carrier UTC to correct any clock drift.

2. Mapping Safari or Chrome activity to specific IP sessions on the network.

3. Identifying DNS or TLS handshakes with Google servers (google.com, clients3.google.com, etc.).

4. Confirming tower/sector location to ensure the phone was where it was expected to be.

If no network session existed around 2:27 a.m., then that timestamp likely reflected a tab opening or background refresh, not an intentional search.If a session did exist, the data would confirm the search as live user activity.

Either way, the evidence would speak for itself — not through competing interpretations of internal logs.

Why Cellebrite Isn’t Enough

Cellebrite, Magnet, Oxygen, and similar tools are powerful, but they only show half the truth. They’re designed to parse local data, not reconstruct what the network experienced.

That’s why expert testimony based solely on extractions can be misleading in isolation.Without network validation, even a trained examiner can mistake cached or delayed entries for real-time user actions.

Precision Cellular Analysis routinely sees this in criminal and civil cases — where timing disputes hinge on seconds or minutes. Our approach integrates:

• Device extractions

• Carrier records (CDRs, IPDRs, tower data)

• Wi-Fi or router logs

• Cloud sync records (iCloud, Google, app-level APIs)

Together, these data sources produce a unified, defensible timeline that withstands courtroom scrutiny.

Lessons for Attorneys and Investigators

1. Never rely on device data alone when timing or intent is at issue.

2. Request IP session or data session activity as well as Call Detail Records (CDRs).

3. Correlate all timestamps to a consistent time source (UTC).

4. Engage cellular forensics experts early, not just “digital examiners.”

In the Read trial, the entire “hos long” debate revolved around ambiguous local timestamps. Cellular records from the carrier could have clarified it beyond argument.

Conclusion: Data Has Two Sides — The Phone and the Network

Device artifacts/evidence tell one story. Network records tell the other.Only by merging both can investigators, attorneys, and courts know the truth.

The “hos long” search controversy wasn’t just a case-specific glitch — it was a systemic failure to correlate data across sources. And as digital evidence becomes more complex, this gap will only grow.

At Precision Cellular Analysis, that’s where we work — in the space between the device and the network — where answers stop being debatable and start being provable.

About the Author

Kevin R. Horan is a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent with the Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST) and co-founder of Precision Cellular Analysis LLC, specializing in advanced cellular, digital, and forensic analysis for law firms, corporations, and law enforcement. He provides expert witness testimony nationwide in cases involving location data, digital timelines, and forensic correlation.