Methodology

How Case Audit Analyzes Cold Cases

Every case on this site goes through the same process. No shortcuts, no cherry-picking, no rushing to a conclusion because it makes a better story. This page explains exactly how Case Audit works — from how we pick cases to how we structure findings to how those findings get to the people who can act on them.

If you're watching our videos or reading our case articles and wondering where the analysis comes from, this is it. Everything we do runs on this protocol.

What Case Audit Actually Does

Case Audit is a structured analytical review operation. We examine publicly available cold case files — unsolved murders, missing persons cases, unidentified remains — and look for things the original investigation may have missed, gotten wrong, or failed to pursue.

The focus is on the investigation, not the crime. We're not retelling what happened to someone for entertainment. We're asking whether the people responsible for solving the case had the right tools, followed the right leads, and avoided the cognitive traps that derail investigations. And we're asking whether modern technology — particularly advances in forensic science — could move the case forward today.

When we find something worth reporting, we do two things with it. First, we publish the analysison caseaudit.org — so the public can see the work. Second, we submit a formal analytical report directly to the law enforcement agency responsible for the case. Every case we cover gets both.

We work from publicly available information only. We don't have access to full case files, forensic evidence, witness interviews, or internal law enforcement communications. That's a real limitation, and we acknowledge it in every piece of content we produce. Some of what looks like a gap from the outside may have been investigated internally and never disclosed. We flag the question; we don't assume the answer.

How We Pick Cases

Not every cold case is a good fit for this kind of analysis. Some don't have enough public information to work with. Some have already received extensive coverage. Some don't have a clear agency to receive findings. So before we commit to a full review, every candidate case goes through a scoring system designed to filter for cases where our work can actually matter.

We score every case on four dimensions, each rated 1 to 5.

1. Information Density measures how much publicly available material exists. A score of 1 means there's basically nothing — just a name and a date. A score of 5 means there's a rich public record across multiple databases, news sources, court documents, and FOIA materials. We need enough information to conduct a meaningful analysis, not just enough to fill a video.
2. Investigative Gap Potential measures how many identifiable gaps exist in the original investigation. A 1 means the case appears thoroughly investigated with modern methods. A 5 means there are documented failures — mishandled evidence, tunnel vision on the wrong suspect, critical leads that were never pursued, evidence that was collected but never tested.
3. Actionability Potential measures whether our findings can actually reach someone who can do something about them. A 1 means there's no identified agency or the evidence is almost certainly destroyed. A 5 means the agency is actively requesting public help, or the case is listed on a public database with submission infrastructure — like NamUs, ViCAP, or the Doe Network.
4. Content Viability measures whether the case has enough material for a thorough video and article. This isn't about entertainment value. It's about whether there's enough substance to walk an audience through a real analytical process.

Each case also goes through an Ethical Clearance check — a simple pass/fail. A case fails if it's under active investigation, if the victim's family has requested privacy, if covering it would require naming a suspect who hasn't been publicly identified by law enforcement, or if the case involves a minor where coverage could cause harm without clear analytical value.

A case needs to score 14 out of 20 or higher, with a pass on ethical clearance, before we proceed to full analysis. Cases that score between 10 and 13 go on a watch list — we revisit them if new information becomes available.

The Seven-Point Case Review Protocol

Once a case clears the scoring threshold, we run it through a seven-step analytical protocol. Every case gets the same treatment, in the same order.

Step 1 — Case Intake and Information Gathering

We compile everything that's publicly available. That means searching across federal databases like NamUs and FBI ViCAP, nonprofit databases like the Doe Network and Uncovered, news archives going back to the original reporting, court records, and any FOIA documents that are accessible. We build a master case file that includes the victim's profile, a timeline of events, all known evidence, any named persons of interest, the investigating agency and their contact information, and the current case status.

Contradictions between sources get flagged immediately. If a news report says one thing and a database entry says another, we note it. Those contradictions often turn out to be analytically important.

Step 2 — Timeline Reconstruction

We build the most detailed timeline the public record supports — minute by minute when possible, hour by hour at minimum. We map it geographically: where was the victim, where were key individuals, and when? We look for temporal gaps where movements are unaccounted for, alibi contradictions, and periods that were never investigated.

Step 3 — Evidence Inventory and Forensic Technology Review

We catalog every piece of physical evidence mentioned in the available record. For each item, we ask: Was it collected? Was it tested with the technology available at the time? Has that technology advanced since? Could modern methods yield new results?

We specifically check for DNA — whether it was collected, whether it was uploaded to CODIS (the national DNA database), and whether investigative genetic genealogy has been attempted. We check for untested biological evidence. We check for digital evidence — phone records, financial records, early internet records — that may not have been fully exploited.

Step 4 — Investigative Gap Analysis

This is the core of the protocol. We systematically look for three categories of problems.

Cognitive bias indicators. Did investigators anchor on a suspect too early? Was exculpatory evidence dismissed? Did the team reach consensus without adversarial challenge? Did the investigation stop once a "good enough" theory emerged? These are well-documented patterns that derail criminal investigations, and they're often visible in the public record if you know what to look for.

Structural failures. Did the case cross jurisdictional boundaries where information sharing broke down? Were witnesses re-interviewed as the investigation developed? Was the victim's life thoroughly investigated, or were assumptions made? Were digital records — phone, financial, internet — fully analyzed? Were the spatial dimensions of the crime properly examined?

Missing investigative steps. Persons of interest who were identified but never fully investigated. Leads that were documented but never followed up. Witness statements that contradicted each other without resolution. Evidence that was noted but never collected or tested. Alternative theories that were dismissed without investigation.

Step 5 — Pattern and Connection Analysis

We search for potential links to other unsolved cases — looking at geographic proximity, similarity in method, victim profile overlap, and timing. We cross-reference against ViCAP and NamUs. We consider whether the case might connect to known offenders who were active in the area during the relevant time period. And we analyze what the crime scene itself tells us about the offender — their level of planning, their familiarity with the area, their likely relationship to the victim.

Step 6 — Modern Technology Assessment

For every case, we specifically evaluate whether current forensic technology could advance the investigation. The technologies we check for include investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), advanced DNA analysis methods like touch DNA and probabilistic genotyping, digital forensics for cases involving early-era electronic records, updated facial reconstruction and age progression techniques, isotopic analysis for geographic origin, and ground-penetrating radar or LiDAR for suspected burial sites.

This step is often where the most actionable findings emerge. Forensic science has advanced dramatically — especially since 2018 — and many cold cases are sitting on evidence that could be re-analyzed with tools that didn't exist when the case was originally investigated.

Step 7 — Findings Synthesis and Actionability Assessment

We compile everything from the previous six steps and rate each finding for actionability. More on that rating system below.

How We Rate Findings

Not all findings are created equal. A timeline contradiction is interesting, but it's not the same as untested DNA sitting in an evidence locker. So we rate every finding on a three-level scale that reflects what law enforcement could realistically do with the information.

Level A — Directly Actionable. These are specific, concrete leads that an agency could pursue immediately. Examples: untested evidence that should be submitted for genetic genealogy analysis, a witness who was identified but never interviewed, a database that was never checked. Level A findings are what we lead with in our submissions to law enforcement.

Level B — Analytically Significant. These are patterns, inconsistencies, or gaps that warrant professional investigation but require law enforcement resources to pursue. Examples: a geographic pattern suggesting a serial offender, a timeline contradiction suggesting a false alibi, a behavioral indicator pointing toward a different offender profile than the one originally pursued.

Level C — Contextually Important. These are observations that reframe the case or challenge assumptions but don't produce specific leads on their own. They're worth documenting because they can change how an investigator thinks about a case, even if they don't generate an immediate next step.

Every finding also gets a confidence level. High means the finding is supported by multiple independent sources. Medium means it's supported by a single credible source or by inference from multiple data points. Low means it's based on pattern recognition or inference with limited supporting evidence. We're transparent about how confident we are in every claim we make.

What Happens After the Analysis

Every case we analyze produces three deliverables.

A YouTube video that walks viewers through the full analysis — what the investigation did, what it missed, and what modern technology could contribute. These aren't true crime stories. They're analytical briefings. We show our work.

A written article on this site that serves as the permanent, searchable record of the analysis. The article includes all findings, sources, agency contact information, and tip lines. It's written so that someone searching for information about a specific case — a family member, a journalist, a detective — can find it and use it.

A formal analytical report submitted to the law enforcement agency responsible for the case. This is structured as a professional document with an executive summary, sourced findings, actionability ratings, and recommended next steps. It's sent under the Case Audit name, and it leads with Level A findings — the things that are directly actionable. We're not lecturing investigators. We're offering a structured second look and deferring to their judgment on how to use it.

After submitting, we log the case in our internal tracker. We follow up once at ninety days if we haven't received a response. We don't send repeated follow-ups. We don't publicly pressure agencies to act. If a case gets movement after we've covered it, we report that back to our audience.

Our Rules — What We Will and Won't Do

These aren't guidelines. They're hard lines.

We never name a living person as a suspect unless law enforcement or court proceedings have publicly identified them. Speculating about unnamed suspects is irresponsible, legally risky, and can compromise active investigations.

We never present analysis as certainty. You'll hear us say "the available evidence suggests" and "this gap warrants further investigation" and "a pattern consistent with." You won't hear us say "the killer was" or "this proves." We're working from incomplete public records. Humility about that isn't optional.

We never sensationalize. No graphic crime scene descriptions for shock value. No dramatizing victims' personal lives. No emotional manipulation. If the findings are significant, they speak for themselves.

We never interfere with active investigations. If we learn during research that a case has been reopened or is under active investigation, we pause public content on that case and redirect any findings to the investigating agency.

We always acknowledge alternative explanations. For every gap we identify, we consider the possibility that it's not actually a gap — that it was investigated internally and simply never made public. We document that alternative in every finding.

We always include agency contact information and tip lines. Every video and every article tells the viewer or reader exactly who to call if they have information. That's the point.

Every claim must be sourced. If we can't source it, we don't include it. Full stop.

What This Is Not

Case Audit is not true crime entertainment. We don't exist to give anyone a thrill. The cases we cover involve real people whose families are still waiting for answers. We treat that with the seriousness it deserves.

Case Audit is not a substitute for law enforcement. We're civilian analysts working from public records. We don't have badges, warrants, or subpoena power. We're offering a structured analytical review — a second set of eyes — and we defer to the agencies responsible for each case.

Case Audit is not speculation about suspects. If we don't have evidence, we don't guess. Period.

What Case Audit is: a systematic, structured, transparent effort to look at cold cases with fresh eyes and modern tools, document what we find, share it with the public, and put it in the hands of the people who can act on it. That's it. That's the whole thing.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Case Audit find cases to review?

We search across multiple databases — including NamUs, FBI ViCAP, the Doe Network, the Texas Rangers Cold Case database, and others — as well as news archives, court records, and public tip submissions. Every candidate case goes through our scoring system before we commit to a full review.

Can I submit a case for Case Audit to review?

Yes. Visit caseaudit.org/submit to submit a case for consideration. We prioritize cases with sufficient public information, clear investigative gaps, and identified agencies that can receive findings. We also focus on cases that haven't already received extensive coverage from major true crime media.

Does Case Audit work with law enforcement?

We submit formal analytical reports to the law enforcement agency responsible for every case we cover. These reports are structured, sourced, and lead with directly actionable findings. We don't demand responses, and we defer to each agency's judgment. We're offering analysis, not instructions.

What makes Case Audit different from other true crime content?

Three things. First, we follow a structured analytical protocol — the same seven-step process, every case, in the same order. We're not riffing. Second, we submit findings to law enforcement, not just to an audience. The analysis is designed to be useful, not just interesting. Third, we don't sensationalize. The focus is on investigative methodology, not on dramatizing the crime.

Is Case Audit a nonprofit or a government agency?

Neither. Case Audit is an independent analytical review operation founded by Darren Robinson. We have no law enforcement authority and no government affiliation. Our analysis is based solely on publicly available information and represents independent civilian review.

How is Case Audit funded?

Case Audit operates through this website, and soon YouTube. We don't accept payment from law enforcement agencies, victims' families, or any party with a stake in the outcome of a case. Our analysis is independent.