ZOMBIE CASES

Why Zombie Cases exists

Zombie Cases exists to deal with work that won’t die.

Some problems are marked no further action not because they are resolved, but because they are difficult, inconvenient, or uncomfortable to finish. The evidence is messy. The timelines don’t line up. Responsibility is diffuse. Someone benefits from closure without resolution.

Those cases don’t go away. They linger. They resurface. They metastasise.

Zombie Cases exists for that space.

This is not a consultancy, a service catalogue, or a volume operation. It is a deliberately small outfit focused on internet investigation and intelligence where judgement, reconstruction, and restraint matter more than speed or tooling.

• truth matters, even when it cannot be fully proven
• explanation matters more than narrative
• credibility depends on what can be defended, not what sounds convincing

Zombie Cases exists because the investigative craft has become noisy. Tool-led. Performative. Overconfident. There is too much certainty where there should be caution, and too much theatre where there should be evidence.

This is a return to fundamentals:

• understand the terrain
• follow what can be established
• state clearly what cannot
• stop when the line is reached

The work is slow by design. Selective by necessity. Quiet on purpose.

If a problem can be solved with a playbook, it probably doesn’t belong here.

How I work

I work from first principles.

That means starting with what can be established, not what is assumed. Internet investigation and intelligence work lives in partial signals, degraded data, and contested narratives. The job is not to force coherence, but to test it.

Work typically begins with ambiguity. It is treated as a condition to be managed, not a flaw to be hidden.

I do not rely on fixed playbooks. Methods are shaped by the problem, the terrain, and the constraints of the moment. Tooling is used where it helps and discarded where it distorts. Judgement always comes first.

• reconstruction over speculation
• corroboration over confidence
• restraint over speed

Where intelligence leads the work, it is handled with care. Where evidence is required, it is treated as something that must stand on its own. The boundary between the two is explicit and maintained.

I am impartial by design. I do not advocate for outcomes. I provide a clear account of what can be established, how it was established, and where uncertainty remains. If something cannot be defended, it is not claimed.

Engagements are qualified before work begins. Ethical boundaries are non-negotiable. If those boundaries are crossed, the work stops.

This is not collaborative theatre. It is not continuous reassurance. It is deliberate, independent work carried out quietly and finished properly.

Most of the value comes from knowing when not to proceed.

Work I take on

I take on work that is difficult to finish properly.

That usually means problems where:

• the signals are incomplete or contradictory
• responsibility is unclear or contested
• time, jurisdiction, or structure has made resolution hard
• or someone benefits from the issue remaining unresolved

The work is evidence-led and judgement-heavy. It favours depth over coverage and reconstruction over performance.

Typical engagements include:

• Hard-to-solve brand protection work
  Where harm is sustained, attribution is unclear, and surface-level monitoring is insufficient.
• High-value defamation and attribution investigations
  Including work involving public figures or politically sensitive contexts, where accuracy, restraint, and defensibility matter.
• Complex internet investigations
  Involving multiple platforms, identities, jurisdictions, or layers of obfuscation, where no single tool or dataset is decisive.
• Novel or non-standard problems
  Work that does not fit existing playbooks and requires bespoke approaches, tooling, or recomposition of methods.
• Public-interest or enforcement-aligned work
  Including support to enforcement bodies or environmental causes, where intent is clear and the work serves a wider good.

If a problem can be addressed quickly, cheaply, or procedurally, it is unlikely to belong here.

Work I won’t take on

I won’t take on work that cannot be done properly.

That includes:

• Domestic, relationship, or family disputes
  Divorce, couples, or interpersonal conflicts are not investigative problems in this context.
• Volume or rack-and-stack work
  Anything optimised for throughput, dashboards, or vanity outputs rather than deep investigative work.
• Pure theatre or narrative laundering
  Work intended to create cover, reassurance, or a story where truth is secondary or optional.
• Pre-decided outcomes
  If the conclusion is fixed in advance, there is nothing to investigate.
• Unethical or harmful engagements
  Including work that suppresses legitimate public-interest activity or causes environmental harm.

I am selective by necessity. Not every problem benefits from investigation, and not every investigation benefits the client or the public.

If an engagement crosses an ethical line, the work stops.