Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Brian Walshe Cellebrite extraction testimony via MSP trooper Connor Keefe from NDAO. Trooper Keefe (just like Nick Guarino) testified today that the “timestamp” on a Cellebrite extraction is the “TIME THE SEARCH OCCURRED” Jen McCabe: 0 NDAO: 2 Jen McCabe is FUCKED.

36,457 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

FACT CHECK: Here at the first trial, the Commonwealth’s own expert witness, Ian Whiffin, confirms the necessity & importance of hash values for the sake of “hash verification”, a necessary step in authenticating the data & being able to verify that it hasn’t been altered or manipulated. In fact, Whiffin actually gives this testimony in response to a question about when the data have been altered or tampered with, if there’s a way for the forensic examiner (him) to detect it, and/or verify its authenticity and integrity. Remarkably, despite the DFIR industry standard methodology of hash verifying a digital forensic extraction, like that of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, prior to conducting any analysis on it with any forensic tools, Ian Whiffin testified that notably, for his work on this case, not only did he abandon this standard methodology, but he also admitted that the forensic extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, which he received from the Commonwealth, was stripped of its hash value. Perhaps more remarkably, this stunning fact apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Ian Whiffin when conducting his analysis in this case, where he’s providing testimony in a murder trial. One must ask themselves why that is? However, defense expert Richard Green, in his affidavit, states that: “Typically, forensic examiners are provided with the raw image file and the associated: hash value documentation together. After validating the hash value, I would then accept that the data has not been manipulated. Here, however, the hash documentation was not provided with the raw image of the cell phone. Instead, it was withheld from the defense. As a forensic examiner having received hundreds of imaged phones over the course of my decades-long career, this was unprecedented.” Contrary to Mr. Whiffin’s approach, upon initially receiving a purported extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone without a hash value to authenticate and verify the integrity of the data, Mr. Green promptly requested the hash value and corresponding GrayKey supplemental files from the Commonwealth in order to conduct his analysis. After making this demand, and when the Commonwealth had to produce the hash verification data for Jen McCabe’s iPhone, remarkably, the Commonwealth also produced—for the first time, and over a year later on February 8, 2023—the Full File System Extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone (see “Notice of Discovery VIII,” attached). Unlike the initial purported “extraction” produced by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, this one contained Jen McCabe’s incriminating 2:27am Google search and all of the manual deletions of her communications, among other incriminating evidence, surrounding the murder of Officer John O’Keefe (see defense’s Rule 17 motion from April 12, 2023, attached). So, this begs the question: If Ian Whiffin knows the importance of hash verification in validating the authenticity of the data he’s working with in the first place, then why didn’t he take the same actions as defense expert Richard Green did to responsibly and reliably provide analysis in this case? If Whiffin ought to be deemed an expert, qualified to provide analysis and testimony at trial, then why did he abandon his industry’s standard methodology of hash verification in this case? Even Cellebrite knows this is a no-no! What say you? #KarenReadTrial #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

20,211 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It looks like we may have just figured out where Attorney Marc Diller got his original “Exhibit J”... And the answer is Jen McCabe’s best friend. 😱 Attorney Marc Diller’s first version of “Exhibit J” was the exhibit he filed in support of his motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Karen Read from getting her cell phones back from the Norfolk County DA’s Office. In multiple posts after the March 6th hearing, Kerry can be seen sharing the very exhibit that attorneys Diller, Rosenberg, and Seligson referenced in their filings over the past few weeks. In the video she posted, the tweet in question appears at the beginning, followed by screenshots that are described as coming from an alleged phone extraction. We can confirm this appears to be the original version of Exhibit J (before Diller later attempted to substitute a different version while still labeling it “Exhibit J”) because it matches exactly how Seligson described it in Read’s filing. In his response, Seligson states the exhibit is: 🔹 a partial screenshot of a tweet originally posted by Sean McDonough 🔹 includes a quote stating the recording was a “one-party consent call” 🔹 contains the audio of the call itself 🔹 matches the image of the exhibit included in the court filing All of those elements are in the version Kerry has been circulating online. This includes a comment on a Boston Fox 25 post. Ms. Drama Llama has publicly stated many times that she is close with Jen McCabe and communicates with witnesses as well as members of the O’Keefe family. She also appears regularly on a YouTube channel promoting “Justice for JJ” content and the Albert/McCabe/Higgins defense fund. As recently as Friday, she was seemingly publicly speaking about an opinion from the O'Keefe family in regards to a photo of John being posted (that she, herself, posted first). This could also explain why Attorney Diller may have considered the material reliable given that Kerry appears to be a trusted voice within the O’Keefe/McCabe circle. Now the question is, why is the best friend of a key witness seemingly inserting herself into active civil litigation by circulating exhibits connected to court filings? 🤔

BoozeyBeauty

24,098 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Kerry Roberts complained about being a “victim” of “harassment” for “the crime of telling the truth” yesterday on Good Morning America. Then she took the witness stand & admitted to lying under oath & committing perjury at a grand jury to protect Jen McCabe. The Feds are the ONLY reason we know this information. What does that tell you? These witnesses are comfortable lying under oath at the state grand jury because they know they’ve got immunity from DA Michael Morrissey’s Office. They’re protected. But suddenly, once under investigation by the Feds, and under the threat of federal perjury charges while on the witness stand at a federal grand jury, a whole lot of admissions and truth started coming out. This is also why Brian Higgins testified (at the federal grand jury) that he saw someone, that fit John O’Keefe’s criteria, enter the house. Higgins didn’t know what the Feds knew at the time, and being an ATF agent, he’s surely well aware of the fact that he could be facing prison time for lying to a federal agent. The only reason Kerry Roberts changed her testimony and told the truth—that she never heard Karen Read ask Jen McCabe to Google anything—was because she knew she no longer had the protection of her friends at the federal grand jury. This is what the general public finds so outrageous about these “witnesses”. It’s how they brazenly lie to your face to frame an innocent woman for a murder she did not commit, and then if you dare call them on it, they have to make themselves “victims” by whining and crying about “hawassment” and “witness intimidation”. The public is going to be critical and unfavorable of you when you willingly lie to coverup and frame someone else for murder. That’s a necessary age-old aspect of society called “shame”. If you don’t like it, don’t lie or do shameful things. It’s really that simple. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

58,743 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr