The evidence problem
When the sequence of events is disputed, fragmented or spread across a large case file.
Typical material
Statements, orders, correspondence, reports, logs, decisions and dated records.
Reviewable output
A source-linked chronology with conflicts, gaps and supporting document references.
Scope the chronology
Define the relevant period, issues, people and proceedings before extracting events from the wider bundle.
Source-linked events
Each entry records the date, event, source document and any qualification needed to understand the evidential basis.
Conflicting accounts
Where documents describe the same event differently, preserve both versions and identify the source of each account.
Practical output
Produce a working chronology suitable for case preparation, disclosure review and later bundle cross-reference.
METHOD
How this analysis is carried out.
1. Define the period and issue
Set the relevant timeframe, people and questions before extracting events.
2. Extract dated events
Events are captured from orders, statements, emails, reports, logs and other dated records.
3. Preserve provenance
Each chronology entry retains a route back to the document that supports it.
4. Compare competing accounts
Where sources describe the same event differently, both accounts are preserved and the difference is identified.
5. Review sequence and gaps
The chronology is checked for missing periods, duplicated events, timing conflicts and unsupported later summaries.
DELIVERABLES
What a professional output should contain.
Evidence register
A structured record of the material actually reviewed, suitable for audit and later cross-reference.
Source-linked findings
Material observations presented with enough source information to locate the supporting record.
Chronology / analytical schedule
Where relevant, events, transactions, comparisons or issues arranged into a practical working schedule.
Evidence gaps and limitations
A separate record of missing material, ambiguity, assumptions and points that cannot safely be concluded from the supplied evidence.
Review status
Clear distinction between automated extraction, analytical review points and human-reviewed findings.
MOLE REPORT STANDARD
Precise enough to be checked.
Professional evidence work should not hide the route from observation back to source. MOLE outputs are designed around traceability, scope control and explicit limitations.
Question first
The report states what was asked, what material was supplied and what falls outside the review.
Source-linked
Material observations are linked to identifiable source records rather than presented as unsupported assertions.
Fact, inference, limitation
Extracted facts, analytical observations, unresolved points and limitations are kept distinguishable.
Review before reliance
Automated signals remain review points until checked against the underlying material.
Dated and controlled
Reports can be versioned so later evidence or corrections do not silently overwrite the earlier analytical record.
No inflated claims
Where the evidence cannot safely establish a proposition, the report should say so explicitly.
CLIENT EVIDENCE ROOM
Keep the brief, evidence, reports and billing together.
Open a secure MOLE case and track exactly what has been requested and delivered.
Scope: MOLE provides evidence analysis and investigative support. Automated intelligence points require human review. MOLE does not currently claim accredited device acquisition, deleted-data recovery or laboratory computer/mobile examination.