Digital Evidence Review in Social Media Hate Speech Allegation

In a criminal investigation involving alleged hate speech and the possession of a proscribed publication, IntaForensics was instructed to provide expert analysis of digital evidence obtained from a Twitter account. Our role was to assess the attribution of the account to the defendant, explain how Twitter operates for the court’s understanding, and comment on the context surrounding the possession of the publication in question. Our findings helped clarify key technical points and challenged assumptions in the prosecution’s case. 

The case concerned allegations that a defendant had used Twitter (now known as X) to post material displaying racial hatred, alongside accusations of possessing a publication believed to be illegal. The digital evidence included a mixture of public and protected tweets from the account under investigation. A comprehensive forensic review was required to assess the strength of the attribution evidence and provide context around both the social media activity and the status of the publication. 

The prosecution presented material that they stated had originated from a Twitter account controlled by the defendant, with the content including both openly accessible tweets and tweets that had been protected, and therefore visible only to approved followers. Some of these messages were alleged to contain racially inflammatory language. 

In addition, the defendant was found in possession of a book identified by investigators as a banned or illegal publication. However, there were questions around whether the material was in fact restricted, and whether the defendant would have had reasonable knowledge of its status. Our task was to examine the digital evidence and provide expert commentary on both the social media platform’s operation and the circumstances surrounding the publication. 

IntaForensics undertook a detailed review of the prosecution’s digital case, including the material seized and any associated evidential reports. Our work included the following: 

Explanation of Twitter functionality 

We prepared a plain-language explanation of how Twitter (X) operates, including the function of public versus protected tweets, user controls, follower access, and visibility settings. This was designed to assist the court in understanding how content could be seen, shared, or restricted. 

Assessment of account attribution 

We examined the available evidence linking the Twitter account to the defendant. This included user profile data, device associations, and any digital markers such as linked emails or IP addresses. We evaluated whether the evidence provided was sufficient to support a strong attribution. 

Review of the publication’s availability 

We assessed the publication described as illegal, including reviewing its current availability in the public domain. Our findings indicated that the book was freely available for purchase through mainstream online retailers without any age or content restriction. 

Evaluation of awareness and intent 

We provided commentary on whether a typical user could reasonably know that possession of the publication was unlawful, based on its availability and presentation on public platforms. This helped address questions of intent and knowledge in relation to possession.

Reporting on evidential strengths and weaknesses 

Our expert report offered a balanced analysis of the prosecution’s case, highlighting both the strengths of the technical material and the limitations or assumptions made. The report was structured to be accessible to non-technical legal professionals and suitable for court presentation. 

This analysis ensured the court was equipped with a clear understanding of the digital platforms involved and could assess the evidence in its proper technical and contextual framework. 

Our expert review confirmed that while the Twitter material had been correctly extracted, there were notable gaps in the evidence used to directly attribute the account to the defendant. Without supporting account registration data or IP information, the attribution relied largely on circumstantial connections.

In relation to the publication, our investigation confirmed it was readily available from mainstream sources, including large online retailers. There was no indication that the material was controlled or restricted at the point of sale. As such, there was no clear basis to suggest the defendant would have been aware that possession could be considered unlawful. 

This case highlights the importance of informed, contextualised analysis in criminal investigations involving digital evidence. Technical platforms like Twitter require expert interpretation to avoid misrepresentation in court, and attribution must be carefully examined with a complete evidential basis. IntaForensics continues to provide independent, reliable insight to support fair and accurate outcomes in digital investigations. 

Contact IntaForensics to discover how our digital investigation services can support your case with integrity, accuracy, and expert insight. Get in touch at sales@intaforensics.com or call us on: 0247 77 17780.