Expert Explains ‘Hos Long To Die In Cold’ Search And Deleted Calls

The Karen Read trial, with its swirling allegations of murder, conspiracy and law enforcement cover-up became a national spectacle not just for its courtroom drama, but for the pivotal role that digital evidence played in shaping the narrative.

As a digital forensics expert myself, I found the case to be a textbook example of both the power and the pitfalls of technical evidence in the justice system. My recent conversation with Jessica Hyde, who testified as a digital forensics expert in the trial for the prosecution, underscored how critical our discipline has become; and how easily it can be misunderstood.

The Search: ‘Hos Long To Die In Cold’

The trial’s most debated digital artifact was a Google search from Jen McCabe’s iPhone: “hos long to die in cold.” The defense’s expert in the first trial claimed this search occurred at 2:47 a.m., before the victim was found, implying prior knowledge. Hyde’s testimony clarified that the timestamp reflected when the browser tab was opened, not when the search was performed. This misinterpretation arose from an overreliance on automated forensic tools.

“If the tools themselves did the job for us, we wouldn’t need us as experts. We have to provide that nuanced meaning, because it is such technical work. You just can’t rely on the results of the forensics tools,” Hyde said, echoing a principle I stress in the Continuing Legal Education classes I teach to attorneys.

Call Logs: User Deleted or Automated?

Another flashpoint was the accusation that McCabe deleted call logs to cover her tracks. Hyde’s examination and testing revealed that the model and iOS version of McCabe’s iPhone retained a maximum of 200 calls per type, automatically overwriting the oldest entries as new ones come in. This is standard device behavior, not evidence of user deletion. I have encountered this exact misconceptions in my own work, and particularly in commercial vehicle and trucking accident cases. As Hyde expressed in our interview, it is essential to test and validate before drawing conclusions.

Neutrality Above All: The True Role of the Expert

Hyde emphasized a point I adamantly agree with: digital forensic experts are not advocates for either side. Our mandate is to remain independent, to interpret data impartially, and to present findings—exculpatory or inculpatory—based solely on the evidence. “Our entire job is to be neutral,” she explains. “When we’re hired, we’re hired as an independent expert. They don’t tell me what to find. They tell me my scope, and then I tell them my findings.” This independence is non-negotiable, and as I know from my own casework, it’s often misunderstood by the public and even by some legal professionals.

Digital Forensics: Lessons For The Legal System

The Read trial exposed the stakes of digital forensics in modern litigation. Hyde’s experience mirrors my own, and highlights the urgent need for more education, both for legal professionals and for experts themselves. As Hyde noted, “the field is only getting more complex, with new data sources and evolving technology raising the bar for both technical skill and clear communication.” If an expert cannot explain technical findings in plain language to judges and juries, they can become a liability rather than an asset, independent of their findings.

Ultimately, the Read case is a cautionary tale: digital evidence is only as reliable as the expertise behind its interpretation. In a world where digital footprints are central to so many investigations, the integrity and clarity of our work as digital forensics experts has never mattered more.