Theory matters, but outcomes matter more. The following examples illustrate how investigative methodology — or its absence — shapes results in legal and commercial contexts.
The Serial Debtor
Last year, we located a debtor and successfully served them early in the year. When a subsequent matter arose, same subject – different client, the subject had moved and our standard process returned NIL new leads. We were unsuccessful in locating the subject on that occasion within the time frame allocated for the search.
Only weeks later, a separate client requested a search for the same individual with the aim of serving a bankruptcy notice. Within that short window, little new data had entered the usual systems. But a different source emerged: a housemate of the subject had listed an item on an online buy-swap-sell platform. The listing itself was unremarkable — but the photographs showed the interior of a property.
Those images were used to verify the dwelling. An operative then attended the property and sighted the subject before service was effected.
The lesson is not that buy-swap-sell platforms are skip tracing tools (though, they can be). The lesson is that intelligence can emerge from unexpected sources in unexpected timing — and that recognising, verifying, and acting on that intelligence requires methodology. The investigator did not assume the listing was accurate. They verified visually, confirmed conversationally, and sighted physically before acting.
Four layers of verification. No assumptions.
Frost v Kourouche (2014): Social media as evidence
In this NSW Court of Appeal matter, a pedestrian claimed psychological injury following a motor vehicle accident. She stated that she had not engaged in public speaking and had "no social activities with friends or relatives" since the collision.
Evidence from her Facebook and Twitter accounts told a different story. Posts showed her attending a public forum, presenting a paper for International Women's Day, taking a holiday, and enjoying "a great night with friends."
The case is often cited for the evidentiary value of social media. But the deeper point is verification. The plaintiff's claims were tested against publicly available information — and found to be inconsistent. For practitioners, the case is a reminder that OSINT is not only useful for locating people. It can also be decisive in assessing credibility.
The Erin Patterson case (2025): Digital evidence in a murder prosecution
In July 2025, a Victorian jury convicted Erin Patterson of murdering three of her former in-laws by serving them beef Wellingtons laced with death cap mushrooms. The prosecution's case rested heavily on digital and open-source evidence — a masterclass in how disparate data points can be assembled into a coherent evidentiary picture.
The investigation drew on multiple sources. Prosecutors presented evidence that Patterson had accessed iNaturalist, a citizen science website where users post sightings of plants and fungi. Within days of users posting the precise locations of death cap mushrooms in the towns of Loch and Outtrim, mobile phone tower data placed Patterson's phone in those areas. On the same day her phone connected to towers near Loch, she purchased a food dehydrator from a local store.
Facebook group chat messages — recovered through forensic analysis — showed Patterson discussing her new dehydrator with friends and posting images of dried mushrooms. She asked the group about beef Wellington recipes in the weeks before the fatal lunch. CCTV footage captured her disposing of the dehydrator at a local tip days after the meal.
For practitioners, the Patterson case illustrates how open-source intelligence and digital forensics work together. The iNaturalist posts were publicly available; the phone location data corroborated the timeline; the social media messages established preparation and intent; the physical evidence closed the loop.
No single piece of evidence convicted Patterson. It was the convergence — the methodology of gathering, verifying, and presenting interconnected data points — that allowed the jury to reach its verdict.
The value of negative results
Not every investigation leads to an ideal outcome. Some subjects are determined to be overseas or deceased. Some are off the grid, in hiding, being protected, or may be deceased. But a properly documented negative result is not a failure — it is evidence.
Divorce matters are a common example. Many respondents are well aware their former spouse is trying to serve them — and they refuse to be found. Not because they are genuinely hidden, but because withholding the divorce becomes an act of spite, manipulation, or control.
In these circumstances, having a respected agency provide a detailed report showing every lawful avenue exhausted can be decisive in whether substituted service is granted. The court needs to be satisfied that genuine efforts have been made. A report that details exactly what was searched, when the information was captured, what the results mean, and how the outcome was determined provides that foundation.
In OSINT, no information is still information. If searches find no trace of the subject across multiple verified sources, that absence is itself a data point — one that may indicate evasion, identity issues, or circumstances that warrant further enquiry.
The common thread
Each of these examples turns on the same principle: methodology determines outcomes. The debtor was located not because a database returned an address, but because an investigator recognised indirect intelligence and verified it through multiple channels. The plaintiff's credibility was tested because someone thought to check publicly available records. The Patterson prosecution succeeded because investigators methodically assembled digital evidence from multiple sources into a coherent narrative.
Assumptions are the enemy of good investigation. Process is the safeguard.
This concludes our four-part series on OSINT, Online Investigation and Due Diligence — What Lawyers Need to Know in 2026.
If you have any questions or would like us to cover a topic – please let us know!
Ready to hire a Skip Tracer? At Skip Tracing Australia, all our skip tracers are licensed private investigators, insured, and highly experienced. We assist law firms, businesses, and individuals with ethical, lawful, and effective location services.
Reach out today to discuss how we can help you locate the person you're looking for.
Frequently Asked Questions
Blog
Terms and Conditions
Get A Quote
Book Now
