I do believe the geo-fence warrant - a fairly standard tool, is being misrepresented. And I do suspect the defence seeks to create a 'conspiracy' I doubt exists here.
To recap, the geofence warrant is a way of restricting a warrant for phone data by time and geo so that it is constitutional. The prosecutors podcast had a recent
deep dive into the history and use, which is fascinating and I highly recommend skimming it for the basic understanding of how they work and what you get back.
So the key idea here is first you'd get back a lot of info that is anonymised. Then you winnow it down via your investigation and go back to the phone company/google and say aha! tell us about this one!
The fact that there exists a plot of 3 users on an AT&T chart does not mean there are unknown killers at the crime scene, nor witnesses to the murders. Indeed as the State points out (in State’s Response To Defendants 3rd Motion For Franks Hearing - screencapped) , these users are all known. It could well be the case that the geo-fence stuff simply won't be more than a one sentence answer in the state case .... "nothing of interest" - precisely because the killer likely wasn't helpful enough to take a turned on phone to the murders. Perhaps it will help with the timeline stuff, but then I suspect they will be relying on more detailed extractions and specific data for key witnesses.
IMO the state is simply saying this kind of misdirection should not be allowed at trial. But it won't be anyway. At best the geofence is going to have identified some known people, who may already be witnesses at trial, or who won't be because they never saw anything. But there will likely be specific subpoenas/phone analysis for these people.
tldr; i am sceptical geofence will play a significant role
MOO
I am more interested in RA's phone records for the day
Frankly, the veracity of the State's timeline is EVERYTHING..
The methods and tools the State used to establish the timeline must be disclosed and will be rightfully challenged by the Defense. The methods and tools available that the State decided to ignore - the same.
Whatever evidence agrees, disagrees, or was considered then ignored for a reason - has contributed to the creation of the State timeline, and is not a distraction. It is fair game
. The geofencing information should be consistent with the State's timeline. When the state developed the timeline, did they make use of the geofencing information or did they choose to discount it?
If discounted, why? Does the geofencing report capture Libby's phone? Did the State make use of RA's phone data for the timeline? If discounted, why? Is the geofencing data part of exculpatory evidence for RA because RA's phone is
not in the report?
It matters WHO was captured in the geofencing and it matters even more that LE knows who these people are b/c those captured in the geofencing are timeline witnesses (including Libby's phone.) The Defense has the right to know facts that LE knows as to who (via phones) was in the vicinity of the crime scene and when. The Defense has the right to question all potential timeline witnesses and evidence. These are not limited to the known park eye-witnesses or security cams.
Per LE depositions, RA's phone data does not connect him to these murders. This mystery we don't yet understand. How did the State's timeline accounts for RA's phone data? Libby's phone data?
In the State's timeline, what specifically connects RA to the murders beyond the bullet casing, certain eyewitnesses and ... a harveststore video of a car that resembles RA's? (Apparently no geofencing? No phone data?)
If RA's phone records for the day - (phone records both sides have studied) conflict with the State's timeline, including RA's phone being missing from the geofencing during the State's timeline - this is an area where the Defense can bring doubt to the State's timeline, if not alibi. Evidence that there is no evidence can be exculpatory.
If RA's phone records show RA's phone was turned during the day of the murders - (records which both sides have studied - LE likely having that basic information prior to charging), RA's turned off phone becomes critical evidence in the State's timeline. IMO, that fact would be part of the charging evidence; and part of the State's timeline. I'm inclined to think RA's phone was not turned off. (RA provided info to DD long ago that his phone was with him, it was on, he was using the cell towers to scroll stocks. RA basically offered his phone use as a timestamp.)
If the data shows RA's phone was turned off for the murder timeline ... the Defense would know this ... and would not push for geofencing evidence as exculpatory to RA.
If the Prosecution wishes to block the geofencing evidence from trial wouldn't it be easier to answer the Defense's demands thusly: The geofencing report is not germaine nor exculpatory to RA because RA's phone data confirms that RA's phone was turned off during the entire geofencing and kidnap/murders timeline.
Instead, the P states the geofencing report contains "nothing of interest". Either that means the geofencing is not a source for the State's timeline or that RA's phone is not on it, and/or Libby's phone is not on it, or both.
I think that we can all agree that RA's phone missing from this investigation's geofencing report is a point of interest.
As to Libby's phone being on the geofencing report ... or not ... we have no information. But I'd argue that the location of Libby's phone during the State's timeline should also be a point of great interest.
JMHO.
www.wrtv.com
