- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 12,180
- Reaction score
- 137,514
What?The big problem for trial is the prosecution didn’t provide an explanation outside google search results.
What?The big problem for trial is the prosecution didn’t provide an explanation outside google search results.
SBMThere is no proof that a 'human hand' plugged in any headphones.
…
The extraction downloads raw data from the phone. That data makes certain assumptions----like if something is in that audio output space then it triggers a notification of headphones being used. That raw data does not know if a human hand plugged in headphones or if a field mouse stuffed a twig into the hole. Or if condensation/dirt dripped inside?
There is no proof that a human hand plugged anything into that phone. And there are a few things which prove it didn't happen. The phone didn't move after the murders, which happened right there. The phone was never unlocked. Someone tried to unlock the phone around 2:17 pm ,IIRC, but were unsuccessful. No one ever unlocked it again. If someone was trying to plug in headphones for some reason they'd need to unlock the phone to use it.
…
We had a few people here who have experienced their cell phones giving notifications of their headphones being in, when they were not. So it is possible for that notification to be a glitch.
Sigh.What? Who said that?
Yes. PI from Nebraska who hasn’t had cell phone extraction training since 2009. All she did was review the data the state extracted & give her opinion, in a nutshell, as do most expert witnesses.She’s not FBI; not anymore, right? She’s a private investigator? I am playing catch up, missed some things, so I want to make sure.
Possibly, but I'd watch to see if this doesn't boomerang in the P's favor since most or all of those jurors themselves probably personally already know what happens when there's water damage to an electronic device. The P doesn't really have to bang them over the head with this. Just some nudges here and there with some emphasis in the closing statement is probably enough and may be far more effective than trying to turn it into rocket science (jmho).The big problem for trial is the prosecution didn’t provide an explanation outside google search results.
Something like that happened, but the mysterious "Mr. Whiteman" would still need to be a pin on the map as the girls saw a man at the time.Maybe that is how it was 'cleared'. If an officer tried to find someone by that name, and it didn't check out, maybe it was cleared rather than checked for mistakes. With thousands of tips, it's possible.
True, the jury can also assess the credibility of Eldridge and weigh her opinion in the light of the crime scene evidence. I still wish that the state had been ready with another expert because imo this could easily have been debunked with another expert opinion without getting into too much techno.Ie. all they needed to have opined , yes, water,/dirt can result in a phone log re audio jack plugged etc.Possibly, but I'd watch to see if this doesn't boomerang in the P's favor since most or all of those jurors themselves probably personally already know what happens when there's water damage to an electronic device. The P doesn't really have to bang them over the head with this. Just some nudges here and there with some emphasis in the closing statement is probably enough and may be far more effective than trying to turn it into rocket science (jmho).
The big problem for trial is the prosecution didn’t provide an explanation outside google search results.
No, I don't think it can. It can not differentiate between a human hand plugging in a headphone and any other way something could be in the headphone jack. KnowledgeC Database is just that---a database of the I-phones raw data.
The KnowledgeC database, or KnowledgeC.db, is an SQLite database file that stores records of activities on Apple devices. It's the database behind the coreduet daemon in iOS, which synchronizes states between Apple products. The KnowledgeC database can provide insight into a phone owner's usage, including: Application activity, When the device was locked or unlocked, When the device was plugged into a charger or PC, Login events, and Screen status.
The I-phone cannot see/feel/know that a human hand did or did not plug in headphones. It only knows what its sensors detect. Its sensors alert the notifications when they detect 'headphones' being plugged in. It sends the message for the audio output to go 'headphone mode.'
How do we KNOW that the I-phone can't tell the difference between actual headphones plugged in and water/debris in the jack? We know that because hundreds of people have complained that the I-phone has a glitch that makes it go into headphone mode EVEN IF no one plus in any headphones.
So that KnowledgeC Database is not going to be able to differentiate unless they can also see that phone was unlocked and a podcast was being streamed between 5 and 10 pm. Then I would agree that a human hand was responsible for the headphones being plugged in.
But the phone was not unlocked and nothing was being streamed or played. And we know the phone was wet and dirty.
YES, it does explain the data. That is exactly what it explains. When the sensors in the audio jack detect 'something' in the headphone jack, a notification is sent to go into Headphone Mode, and have the sound rerouted to headphone outlet.
Sometimes, when the phone gets wet or dirty, the sensors mistakenly think there are headphones plugged in. And the Knowledge C Database would still compute that as 'headphone mode.' The Knowledge C database does not know the difference.
Someone interpreting that data can tell the difference. The raw data tells a story.If there is an alert that something is plugged into the headphone jack, the next clues would be that the phone would be unlocked, maybe charged, and a selection would be chosen to listen to. Or a call would be made. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.
KnowledgeCdatabase is not doing all of the analysis---it takes the digital expert to make that determination.
The headphones make no sense because there weren't any, imo. The phone data shows it was never unlocked during that time. Why have headphones plugged in for 5 hours and never use the phone to make a call or listen to music?
It makes no sense. And Abby's pants were wet from the creek and the phone was probably in the pants. IMO
To me, no. Hard to say what every juror may feel about it though.Question: Is this a BAM moment or not?
Have to agree though - big problem and unacceptable.
JMO MOO JMT