Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Jen McCabe and the 2.27 am Google search. The signed hash documentation from Jen McCabe’s phone extraction was not provided to either Greene or Whiffin, which has been described as unprecedented. Why? What are they hiding? Calling it “debunked” when both experts agree they cannot rule out manipulation is...

TheChauffeurX's profile picture

Lara

3,136 subscribers

21,412 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаЗдоровье и велнесНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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
0:06

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 просмотров • 1 год назад

Why did Ian Whiffin agree to give expert testimony on Jen McCabe’s cellphone extraction, when the state refused to let him look at or even give him the full, original extraction OR its verification hash? A thread🧵 Full cellphone extractions, sometimes called forensic images, generate what’s called a “hash value”, which serves as a unique digital fingerprint necessary for ensuring the integrity of data. Any discrepancy between the hash values indicates tampering with or corruption of evidence, alerting forensic examiners to potential issues with the evidence. Hash verification is a fundamental principle and a rather ubiquitous practice in the world of digital forensics, where data validation and verification are key. It is the gold standard across the industry, and has also become so in the courtroom, whereby admissibility of digital evidence is determined by its relevance, authenticity and reliability. In court, the hash value can be used to demonstrate that the evidence has not been altered since its collection, and is a universal way for experts to authenticate and validate the reliability of data for the trial Court. But, an extraction that’s missing a hash value altogether is a huge red flag. 🚩 Who removed the hash value? And why? It’s necessary to the chain of custody, and as Gaurino and Tully would be well aware, it’s also an element of the data that an expert would require in order to verify and validate it. There’s no “good” reason for why someone would remove a hash value, and the extraction can’t be characterized as a forensic image as its origin is unknown. This was a deliberate step taken to hide something, which one could argue shows consciousness of guilt. If the data are true and accurate, why would you bring their integrity into question by removing the hash? However, if the data were altered or tampered with, and let’s say, hypothetically speaking, you wanted a digital forensic expert to provide testimony supportive of your “Google search” theory. . . In that hypothetical, you’d have to remove the hash value. Otherwise, the expert would immediately detect that the data were altered, as they would not be able to verify the hash against the original. #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption #KarenRead #Cellebrite #DFIR
0:23

Why did Ian Whiffin agree to give expert testimony on Jen McCabe’s cellphone extraction, when the state refused to let him look at or even give him the full, original extraction OR its verification hash? A thread🧵 Full cellphone extractions, sometimes called forensic images, generate what’s called a “hash value”, which serves as a unique digital fingerprint necessary for ensuring the integrity of data. Any discrepancy between the hash values indicates tampering with or corruption of evidence, alerting forensic examiners to potential issues with the evidence. Hash verification is a fundamental principle and a rather ubiquitous practice in the world of digital forensics, where data validation and verification are key. It is the gold standard across the industry, and has also become so in the courtroom, whereby admissibility of digital evidence is determined by its relevance, authenticity and reliability. In court, the hash value can be used to demonstrate that the evidence has not been altered since its collection, and is a universal way for experts to authenticate and validate the reliability of data for the trial Court. But, an extraction that’s missing a hash value altogether is a huge red flag. 🚩 Who removed the hash value? And why? It’s necessary to the chain of custody, and as Gaurino and Tully would be well aware, it’s also an element of the data that an expert would require in order to verify and validate it. There’s no “good” reason for why someone would remove a hash value, and the extraction can’t be characterized as a forensic image as its origin is unknown. This was a deliberate step taken to hide something, which one could argue shows consciousness of guilt. If the data are true and accurate, why would you bring their integrity into question by removing the hash? However, if the data were altered or tampered with, and let’s say, hypothetically speaking, you wanted a digital forensic expert to provide testimony supportive of your “Google search” theory. . . In that hypothetical, you’d have to remove the hash value. Otherwise, the expert would immediately detect that the data were altered, as they would not be able to verify the hash against the original. #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption #KarenRead #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

270,376 просмотров • 1 год назад

Since the 2:27 am Jen McCabe search triggered the antis, I will repost this subject as long as I desire until everyone start asking critical questions. In that, Jen McCabe conducted the 2:27am search using Safari, not Google. Both are search engines. Dear Jen McCabe and the antis: ✍️Google is a search engine just like Safari and Yahoo are search engines. ✍️Cellebrite that the antis are bragging about is just a mere analyzing tool used for extractions. Cellebrite also has the capacity to search the B/W Database for deleted searches. ✅Jen carried out a search typing “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27 am using Safari search engine. ✅The commonwealth contracted Ian Wiffen who claimed he analyzed Jen McCabe’s phone extractions. 💁🏼The point is if the evidence shows in the extractions report is being denied by Jen McCabe, why is she not suing Safari that the extractions was collated from? 💁🏼Why is she not suing the company Ian Wiffen work for? 💁🏼Why is she not suing the commonwealth that relies on Cellebrite that provides the attached report which CLEARLY shows the Cellebrite BW / database showing that “hos long to die in cold” search occurred at 2:27am but B/W database exposed it as “deleted”? 💁🏼 Why didn’t Jen McCabe request her search history from Safari to counter Cellebrite extractions attached which CLEARLY state she searched “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am and the search was “deleted”? Guys, Safari, Google or Yahoo can provide you with your search histories including what is deleted dating back years but within a timeframe. 🤟Read the attached and watch Ian Whiffen stating that he cannot testify with certainty how the “hos long to die in cold” was “deleted”. 💁🏼The question you need to ASK JEN MCCABE is how did Cellebrite extracted “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am on the 29th from her phone Back Wall BW / Database? 💁🏼If Jen McCabe NEVER search “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am on the 29th as shown attached, it won’t reflect on her phone BW, database. ✅In fact, there is a recent missing person case that the FBI used the same BW to extract information from the ring camera that was said to have been override. ✅This is similar to what happened with Jen McCabe’s search and Cellebrite BW extracted the search from her phone Database even though it was deleted. Stop allowing corrupt officials and their colluded oligarchs pull a wool over your eyes. These same colluded party lied through their teeth during the criminal trials one and two in the matter between the Commonwealth vs Karen Read. Yet, they are suing the same Karen they attempted to frame for defamation? #karenread #justiceforofficerjohnokeefe #fkr
0:28

Since the 2:27 am Jen McCabe search triggered the antis, I will repost this subject as long as I desire until everyone start asking critical questions. In that, Jen McCabe conducted the 2:27am search using Safari, not Google. Both are search engines. Dear Jen McCabe and the antis: ✍️Google is a search engine just like Safari and Yahoo are search engines. ✍️Cellebrite that the antis are bragging about is just a mere analyzing tool used for extractions. Cellebrite also has the capacity to search the B/W Database for deleted searches. ✅Jen carried out a search typing “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27 am using Safari search engine. ✅The commonwealth contracted Ian Wiffen who claimed he analyzed Jen McCabe’s phone extractions. 💁🏼The point is if the evidence shows in the extractions report is being denied by Jen McCabe, why is she not suing Safari that the extractions was collated from? 💁🏼Why is she not suing the company Ian Wiffen work for? 💁🏼Why is she not suing the commonwealth that relies on Cellebrite that provides the attached report which CLEARLY shows the Cellebrite BW / database showing that “hos long to die in cold” search occurred at 2:27am but B/W database exposed it as “deleted”? 💁🏼 Why didn’t Jen McCabe request her search history from Safari to counter Cellebrite extractions attached which CLEARLY state she searched “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am and the search was “deleted”? Guys, Safari, Google or Yahoo can provide you with your search histories including what is deleted dating back years but within a timeframe. 🤟Read the attached and watch Ian Whiffen stating that he cannot testify with certainty how the “hos long to die in cold” was “deleted”. 💁🏼The question you need to ASK JEN MCCABE is how did Cellebrite extracted “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am on the 29th from her phone Back Wall BW / Database? 💁🏼If Jen McCabe NEVER search “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am on the 29th as shown attached, it won’t reflect on her phone BW, database. ✅In fact, there is a recent missing person case that the FBI used the same BW to extract information from the ring camera that was said to have been override. ✅This is similar to what happened with Jen McCabe’s search and Cellebrite BW extracted the search from her phone Database even though it was deleted. Stop allowing corrupt officials and their colluded oligarchs pull a wool over your eyes. These same colluded party lied through their teeth during the criminal trials one and two in the matter between the Commonwealth vs Karen Read. Yet, they are suing the same Karen they attempted to frame for defamation? #karenread #justiceforofficerjohnokeefe #fkr

AIM

14,791 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Michael Easter, a retired FBI special agent questions why the MSP did not subpoena Google in the murder case of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. A Google subpoena could have definitively resolved the 2.27 a.m. search issue. If Jennifer McCabe did not make the search, Google’s server logs would have been the strongest proof. Instead, they chose to rely on debated and confusing internal forensics. Jessica Hyde reported in May 2023 that the search existed and was deleted, then later issued a Cellebrite-only report after Ian Whiffin’s software updates removed the timestamp, even though other programs still showed the 2.27 a.m. search, as per Greene, Karen Read’s forensic expert, a point Whiffin agreed with. Subpoenaing Google would have put the facts with a neutral third party, so it was avoided. That absence speaks volumes. This was not incompetence. It was corruption.
1:19

Michael Easter, a retired FBI special agent questions why the MSP did not subpoena Google in the murder case of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. A Google subpoena could have definitively resolved the 2.27 a.m. search issue. If Jennifer McCabe did not make the search, Google’s server logs would have been the strongest proof. Instead, they chose to rely on debated and confusing internal forensics. Jessica Hyde reported in May 2023 that the search existed and was deleted, then later issued a Cellebrite-only report after Ian Whiffin’s software updates removed the timestamp, even though other programs still showed the 2.27 a.m. search, as per Greene, Karen Read’s forensic expert, a point Whiffin agreed with. Subpoenaing Google would have put the facts with a neutral third party, so it was avoided. That absence speaks volumes. This was not incompetence. It was corruption.

Lara

26,290 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

In the Lori Vallow murder trial a detective was asked about whether or not new updates to Cellebrite would result in previously found date being changed or omitted, which is what the Commonwealth's excuse for not finding Jennifer McCabe's deleted phone calls an Google searches was. He made it clear that it would change the format on how that information was presented, and possibly acquire more data with new software updates. But in Jennifer McCabe's case, the latest Cellebrite update, which was influenced and directed by Commonwealth witness Ian Wiffin, somehow acquired LESS data.
0:43

In the Lori Vallow murder trial a detective was asked about whether or not new updates to Cellebrite would result in previously found date being changed or omitted, which is what the Commonwealth's excuse for not finding Jennifer McCabe's deleted phone calls an Google searches was. He made it clear that it would change the format on how that information was presented, and possibly acquire more data with new software updates. But in Jennifer McCabe's case, the latest Cellebrite update, which was influenced and directed by Commonwealth witness Ian Wiffin, somehow acquired LESS data.

Aidan Kearney

66,879 просмотров • 1 год назад

I spoke to some neighbors of Annie Guthrie and Tommaso Cioni today They described the FBI visiting the neighborhood yesterday as a search for anything of value, but specifically for electronics, as in maybe a phone They aren’t surprised the FBI is in their neighborhood
0:35

I spoke to some neighbors of Annie Guthrie and Tommaso Cioni today They described the FBI visiting the neighborhood yesterday as a search for anything of value, but specifically for electronics, as in maybe a phone They aren’t surprised the FBI is in their neighborhood

Phil Holloway ✈️

204,520 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Michael Easter, a retired FBI special agent questions why the MSP did not subpoena Google in the murder case of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. A Google subpoena could have definitively resolved the 2.27 a.m. search issue. If Jennifer McCabe did not make the search, Google’s server logs would have been the strongest proof. Instead, they chose to rely on debated and confusing internal forensics. Jessica Hyde reported in May 2023 that the search existed and was deleted, then later issued a Cellebrite-only report after Ian Whiffin’s software updates removed the timestamp, even though other programs still showed the 2.27 a.m. search, as per Greene, Karen Read’s forensic expert, a point Whiffin agreed with. Subpoenaing Google would have put the facts with a neutral third party, so it was avoided. That absence speaks volumes. Michael Easter was a powerful witness for Karen, hence Auntie Bev denied his testimony. This was not incompetence. It was corruption.
1:19

Michael Easter, a retired FBI special agent questions why the MSP did not subpoena Google in the murder case of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. A Google subpoena could have definitively resolved the 2.27 a.m. search issue. If Jennifer McCabe did not make the search, Google’s server logs would have been the strongest proof. Instead, they chose to rely on debated and confusing internal forensics. Jessica Hyde reported in May 2023 that the search existed and was deleted, then later issued a Cellebrite-only report after Ian Whiffin’s software updates removed the timestamp, even though other programs still showed the 2.27 a.m. search, as per Greene, Karen Read’s forensic expert, a point Whiffin agreed with. Subpoenaing Google would have put the facts with a neutral third party, so it was avoided. That absence speaks volumes. Michael Easter was a powerful witness for Karen, hence Auntie Bev denied his testimony. This was not incompetence. It was corruption.

Lara

83,890 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

PROTECTED CELLEBRITE REPORT OF WITNESS TEXTS FROM AIDAN KEARNEY'S MTD LEAKED TO SOCIAL MEDIA Aidan Kearney, whose abuse of the discovery process is well known and well documented after a phone extraction he received of a former girlfriend was leaked to social media, has now shared protected discovery from a murder case. That discovery has also found its way to this platform. The discovery is a Cellebrite report of a text message between Jen McCabe and her daughter and was presented in a hysterical fashion by Bederow Law in Kearney's motion to dismiss. Rather than interpret the text in a plain manner, as a mother telling her daughter not to discuss in fear of jeopardizing the case, Bederow included the text as a footnote claiming it was all part of a cover up. Laughable. Other leaks from this same protected discovery include texts messages between witnesses Kerry Roberts and Jen McCabe as well as screenshots of communications between witnesses and the CW victim advocate. Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. and Bederow Law are well aware of their client's documented abuse of discovery. They are also well aware of the protective order which they unsuccessfully requested the court remove. That ruling came more than 3 months ago. Further, both men have been tagged in leaks of their own messages with Kearney showing they were well aware people outside the legal team had access to discovery and grand jury minutes. To date, they have done nothing to stop the invasion of privacy of the witnesses. Their client is charged with intimidating and harassing witnesses and at this point, through their lack of action, they appear to be aiding him in further harassment of these same witnesses. Their culpability needs to be scrutinized. It's time for consequences. Enough is enough.
0:43

PROTECTED CELLEBRITE REPORT OF WITNESS TEXTS FROM AIDAN KEARNEY'S MTD LEAKED TO SOCIAL MEDIA Aidan Kearney, whose abuse of the discovery process is well known and well documented after a phone extraction he received of a former girlfriend was leaked to social media, has now shared protected discovery from a murder case. That discovery has also found its way to this platform. The discovery is a Cellebrite report of a text message between Jen McCabe and her daughter and was presented in a hysterical fashion by Bederow Law in Kearney's motion to dismiss. Rather than interpret the text in a plain manner, as a mother telling her daughter not to discuss in fear of jeopardizing the case, Bederow included the text as a footnote claiming it was all part of a cover up. Laughable. Other leaks from this same protected discovery include texts messages between witnesses Kerry Roberts and Jen McCabe as well as screenshots of communications between witnesses and the CW victim advocate. Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. and Bederow Law are well aware of their client's documented abuse of discovery. They are also well aware of the protective order which they unsuccessfully requested the court remove. That ruling came more than 3 months ago. Further, both men have been tagged in leaks of their own messages with Kearney showing they were well aware people outside the legal team had access to discovery and grand jury minutes. To date, they have done nothing to stop the invasion of privacy of the witnesses. Their client is charged with intimidating and harassing witnesses and at this point, through their lack of action, they appear to be aiding him in further harassment of these same witnesses. Their culpability needs to be scrutinized. It's time for consequences. Enough is enough.

Julie Carpenter

16,165 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Imagine how badly Jessica Hyde & Ian Whiffin wanted to back out as expert witnesses for the Commonwealth when they found out that the FBI, including a Quantico trained Special Agent with the FBI’s Regional Computer Forensics Lab, specifically confirmed that the search “hos long to die in cold” was made on Jen McCabe’s phone, and it was made at or before 2:27:40am on January 29, 2022. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #Cellebrite #PoliceCorruption
0:40

Imagine how badly Jessica Hyde & Ian Whiffin wanted to back out as expert witnesses for the Commonwealth when they found out that the FBI, including a Quantico trained Special Agent with the FBI’s Regional Computer Forensics Lab, specifically confirmed that the search “hos long to die in cold” was made on Jen McCabe’s phone, and it was made at or before 2:27:40am on January 29, 2022. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #CantonCoverup #Cellebrite #PoliceCorruption

Olivia

293,083 просмотров • 2 лет назад

BOMBSHELL.🚨 The J6 pipe bombing "mystery" now appears to be a *COVER-UP.* "Cellular carriers have told Congress they POSSESS intact phone usage data from the vicinity where two pipe bombs were planted during the Jan. 6 incident, directly disputing FBI testimony that agents couldn't identify a suspect because the phone data was corrupted," Rep. Barry Loudermilk tells Just the News. “In the days and weeks following January 6, 2021, the FBI opened an investigation into the pipe bomber and attempted to identify the suspect by analyzing cell phone data linked to the area surrounding the RNC and DNC,” Loudermilk added. “In June 2023, the former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Steve D’Antuono, who oversaw the pipe bomb investigation, said that the FBI received corrupted data from one of the cell carriers and that it most likely contained the identity of the pipe bomber. Given the significance of this information, my Subcommittee sent letters to the three major cell carriers, asking them to respond to Mr. D’Antuono’s claim of corrupted data,” he said. “Every major cell carrier responded and confirmed that they did not provide the FBI corrupted data,” Loudermilk said. “Additionally every major cell carrier confirmed they were never notified that the FBI had any issues accessing the data. This contradictory testimony raises some serious questions about the status of the investigation into the pipe bomber and about why the case remains unsolved nearly four years later,” he added. As noted by the Just the News report, D’Antuono told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI received "corrupted" data from phone carriers who had participated in a "geofence" of the DNC and RNC areas. “We did a complete geofence. We have complete data. Not complete, because there's some data that was corrupted by one of the providers, not purposely by them, right. It just -- unusual circumstance that we have corrupt data from one of the providers,” D’Antuono testified. “But for that day, which is awful because we don't have that information to search. So could it have been that provider? Yeah, with our luck, you know, with this investigation it probably was, right,” he said. D’Antuono served as the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office until he stepped down in late 2022, the report noted. Thomas Massie grilled FBI Director Christopher Wray in July 2023 over the bureau's claims of corrupted cell phone data, as well as surveillance video that raised red flags over the official version of events. The J6 pipe bomb subject is still at large, despite the FBI hunting down hundreds of peaceful protesters from that day in one of the largest federal investigations in U.S. history. It doesn't add up.
2:21

BOMBSHELL.🚨 The J6 pipe bombing "mystery" now appears to be a *COVER-UP.* "Cellular carriers have told Congress they POSSESS intact phone usage data from the vicinity where two pipe bombs were planted during the Jan. 6 incident, directly disputing FBI testimony that agents couldn't identify a suspect because the phone data was corrupted," Rep. Barry Loudermilk tells Just the News. “In the days and weeks following January 6, 2021, the FBI opened an investigation into the pipe bomber and attempted to identify the suspect by analyzing cell phone data linked to the area surrounding the RNC and DNC,” Loudermilk added. “In June 2023, the former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Steve D’Antuono, who oversaw the pipe bomb investigation, said that the FBI received corrupted data from one of the cell carriers and that it most likely contained the identity of the pipe bomber. Given the significance of this information, my Subcommittee sent letters to the three major cell carriers, asking them to respond to Mr. D’Antuono’s claim of corrupted data,” he said. “Every major cell carrier responded and confirmed that they did not provide the FBI corrupted data,” Loudermilk said. “Additionally every major cell carrier confirmed they were never notified that the FBI had any issues accessing the data. This contradictory testimony raises some serious questions about the status of the investigation into the pipe bomber and about why the case remains unsolved nearly four years later,” he added. As noted by the Just the News report, D’Antuono told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI received "corrupted" data from phone carriers who had participated in a "geofence" of the DNC and RNC areas. “We did a complete geofence. We have complete data. Not complete, because there's some data that was corrupted by one of the providers, not purposely by them, right. It just -- unusual circumstance that we have corrupt data from one of the providers,” D’Antuono testified. “But for that day, which is awful because we don't have that information to search. So could it have been that provider? Yeah, with our luck, you know, with this investigation it probably was, right,” he said. D’Antuono served as the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office until he stepped down in late 2022, the report noted. Thomas Massie grilled FBI Director Christopher Wray in July 2023 over the bureau's claims of corrupted cell phone data, as well as surveillance video that raised red flags over the official version of events. The J6 pipe bomb subject is still at large, despite the FBI hunting down hundreds of peaceful protesters from that day in one of the largest federal investigations in U.S. history. It doesn't add up.

Kyle Becker

190,433 просмотров • 1 год назад

Oh my word, how is this even possible? There is now additional audio coming to light in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial from 6:03AM on 1/29/22. Karen says, in full, "Can you Google how long for someone to die in cold...hurry --Jen! Jen! Jen!-- hurry!" We'll talk about this, and so much more, on a special towel birthday stream this morning after 8:30AM ET. Watch live, say hello to little towel, ask your questions about the O'Keefe/Read re-trial and be merry! Link - Previously, I reported: I have now found both copies of Karen Read's voicemail (left on John O'Keefe's phone at 6:03AM on 1/29/22) where Karen directs Jen McCabe to Google how long it takes someone to "die in the cold." The statement can also be heard on Jen's 911 call! Find enhanced audio of Voicemail #8 (left by Karen on John's phone) from trial 1 and trial 2, along with enhanced audio of that 911 call (where Karen can clearly be heard, in the background, saying "...to die in cold", exactly as can he heard on the voicemail recordings). Voicemail #8 Trial 1 timestamped link (1st video in the attached compilation clip) - Voicemail #8 Trial 2 timestamped link (2nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Highest quality possible audio of the 911 call, timestamp 1 minute and 45 seconds in the file (3nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Yesterday, I reported; Ladies, gentlemen and fellow towels. I believe the towel friends have found audio proof that Karen Read asked Jen McCabe to Google "how long to die in cold" at 6:23am on 1/29/22. This is huge as the recording went under the radar during Read's first trial. Listen below with enhanced and isolated sound, in both real time and 0.75x speed, and hear Karen clearly saying to Jen: "Use your phone [to search] how long for you to die in the cold," as Jen is on the phone with 911 (the recording is from a voicemail from a different phone that caught Karen speaking to Jen) at the scene where John O'Keefe was found, suffering from a head injury and hypothermia, after Read allegedly struck John with her car --while drunk driving with a BAC 2-4 times over the legal limit-- and left him to die on a lawn at 12:32am that morning. So, in short, Jen McCabe --as multiple digital experts, including from Cellebrite, have confirmed-- Googled how long to die in cold at 6:23am and Karen's defense expert, Richard Green (a man with an arrest history for filing a false police report) simply misread a write ahead log in cell phone data from Jen's WallDB that caused years of unnecessary smears directed at McCabe.
2:24

Oh my word, how is this even possible? There is now additional audio coming to light in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial from 6:03AM on 1/29/22. Karen says, in full, "Can you Google how long for someone to die in cold...hurry --Jen! Jen! Jen!-- hurry!" We'll talk about this, and so much more, on a special towel birthday stream this morning after 8:30AM ET. Watch live, say hello to little towel, ask your questions about the O'Keefe/Read re-trial and be merry! Link - Previously, I reported: I have now found both copies of Karen Read's voicemail (left on John O'Keefe's phone at 6:03AM on 1/29/22) where Karen directs Jen McCabe to Google how long it takes someone to "die in the cold." The statement can also be heard on Jen's 911 call! Find enhanced audio of Voicemail #8 (left by Karen on John's phone) from trial 1 and trial 2, along with enhanced audio of that 911 call (where Karen can clearly be heard, in the background, saying "...to die in cold", exactly as can he heard on the voicemail recordings). Voicemail #8 Trial 1 timestamped link (1st video in the attached compilation clip) - Voicemail #8 Trial 2 timestamped link (2nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Highest quality possible audio of the 911 call, timestamp 1 minute and 45 seconds in the file (3nd video in the attached compilation clip) - Yesterday, I reported; Ladies, gentlemen and fellow towels. I believe the towel friends have found audio proof that Karen Read asked Jen McCabe to Google "how long to die in cold" at 6:23am on 1/29/22. This is huge as the recording went under the radar during Read's first trial. Listen below with enhanced and isolated sound, in both real time and 0.75x speed, and hear Karen clearly saying to Jen: "Use your phone [to search] how long for you to die in the cold," as Jen is on the phone with 911 (the recording is from a voicemail from a different phone that caught Karen speaking to Jen) at the scene where John O'Keefe was found, suffering from a head injury and hypothermia, after Read allegedly struck John with her car --while drunk driving with a BAC 2-4 times over the legal limit-- and left him to die on a lawn at 12:32am that morning. So, in short, Jen McCabe --as multiple digital experts, including from Cellebrite, have confirmed-- Googled how long to die in cold at 6:23am and Karen's defense expert, Richard Green (a man with an arrest history for filing a false police report) simply misread a write ahead log in cell phone data from Jen's WallDB that caused years of unnecessary smears directed at McCabe.

Grant Smith Ellis

32,695 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨NEW: Candace Owens falsely claimed Tyler Robinson’s defense didn’t have access to his phone data by the preliminary hearing, using that as a reason to doubt the authenticity of his text-message confessions. That’s not what happened. Utah County prosecutors produced Robinson’s forensic phone extraction to the defense on March 13, 2026. On March 27, Robinson’s lawyers asked to delay the preliminary hearing, specifically citing the massive digital production and saying they needed more time to review it. The judge granted the request and moved the hearing to July. Candace cited Kathy Nester saying she had “not been able to get into” her client’s phone as evidence the defense still didn’t have the phone data. But Nester said that in April, while her team was still processing the data it had already received. By the July preliminary hearing, the defense had possessed Robinson’s phone extraction for nearly four months. So Candace’s argument for doubting the text-message confessions rests on a false premise: that Robinson’s defense hadn’t been provided his phone data. They had the extraction. They asked for more time to review it. The judge gave them that time. Grok, is this accurate? Candace Owens Andrew Wilson Patrick Bet-David
2:13

🚨NEW: Candace Owens falsely claimed Tyler Robinson’s defense didn’t have access to his phone data by the preliminary hearing, using that as a reason to doubt the authenticity of his text-message confessions. That’s not what happened. Utah County prosecutors produced Robinson’s forensic phone extraction to the defense on March 13, 2026. On March 27, Robinson’s lawyers asked to delay the preliminary hearing, specifically citing the massive digital production and saying they needed more time to review it. The judge granted the request and moved the hearing to July. Candace cited Kathy Nester saying she had “not been able to get into” her client’s phone as evidence the defense still didn’t have the phone data. But Nester said that in April, while her team was still processing the data it had already received. By the July preliminary hearing, the defense had possessed Robinson’s phone extraction for nearly four months. So Candace’s argument for doubting the text-message confessions rests on a false premise: that Robinson’s defense hadn’t been provided his phone data. They had the extraction. They asked for more time to review it. The judge gave them that time. Grok, is this accurate? Candace Owens Andrew Wilson Patrick Bet-David

KanekoaTheGreat

70,427 просмотров • 15 дней назад

EXPOSING JEN MCCABE’S 2:27AM SEARCH 🧵A thread🧵 Proof she’s lying. No computer expert necessary. ADA Adam Lally asks Jen McCabe about when & why she made those Google searches at the scene in the morning. The video footage proves that Jen McCabe’s entire story about #KarenRead purportedly asking her to Google “hos long to die in cold” is a lie because it never happened. Jen claims Karen asked her to make those Google searches while the first responders are moving #JohnOKeefe’s body from the ground to the ambulance, which is interesting because her story starts out with them (her & Karen) seated in the back of a Police cruiser, so it’s unclear how they magically teleported from there to standing outside. As you’ll also see in the attached footage, it’s clear Jen & Karen are outside the entirety of the time leading up to when Jen claims this happened, removing the possibility that they could’ve moved from a cruiser to the outside to account for Jen’s story’s discrepancies. Officer Mullaney will further corroborate this. THE PROBLEM IS: Jen McCabe claims to have made these searches during the same time that first responders were working on/moving John into the ambulance, but this is completely disproven by dashcam surveillance footage from the scene showing him being worked on at 6:14:10am & moved into the ambulance at 6:14:50am. Jen made no searches at or around this time. She made her searches at 6:23 & 6:24am, nearly 10 minutes later. Furthermore, none of the things—like prayers & blood—that Jen claims happened between her, Karen & Kerry at this time, actually happen. The footage shows it’s all made up, like Karen asking Jen to Google anything. ————— JEN MCCABE’S TESTIMONY: Jen claims she was sitting in the back of the Police cruiser with #KarenRead, that she “scooched in” beside her in the back, and that Kerry Roberts came over. Next, Jen claims that Karen grabbed their hands & asked them to pray, looked at her (own) hands & saw blood, and proceeded to ask if she could’ve gotten her period. Jen then claims Karen said “what if he’s dead? Who’s gonna take care of the kids?” (or something to that effect). Jen then says: “Then we prayed. Um…then at the end, um, Mister—they were moving John, and at that point Karen told Kerry ‘go over, look! Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead?’ over & over, and Kerry says ‘I’ll go over and check on him’ and [Karen] was yelling ‘are they working on him?’.” Jen proceeds to say: “And then at that point, [Karen] grabbed my hands & she said ‘Google hypothermia, Google how long it takes to die in the cold’.” Then Jen McCabe testifies: “And so I had my phone out, and it was cold, and my hands were frozen, and I have MS, and I took my phone out while she was screaming & shaking my arm. And I attempted to Google “how long does it take to die in the cold”. ADA Lally then asks Jen McCabe: “And, um, when you conducted that search, that was at the defendant’s request, on scene, sometime after 6am on that date, correct?” Jen testifies: “Yes.” ADA Lally: “Do you recall anything as far as what the search results were, or did you click on anything, or did you get an answer to the question the defendant had posed to you?” Jen McCabe: “I don’t even think I got an answer because as I kept Googling, and she kept yelling, and then they were moving John, and the next thing I knew we were kind of moving because she wanted to see if they were working on him.” ADA Lally: “And so you were moving along with the defendant over towards where Mr. O’Keefe had gone to the back of the ambulance?” Jen McCabe: “Yes we kind of just moved to see what was going on.” ADA Lally: “When you moved over what did you see then?” Jen McCabe: “They were just, uh putting him in the back of the ambulance.” ————— See attached timeline. If Jen’s claim that Karen asked her to Google that were true, then Jen would’ve Google’d it during any time in the orange/red box (6:14 - 6:15am). #KarenReadTrial
2:51

EXPOSING JEN MCCABE’S 2:27AM SEARCH 🧵A thread🧵 Proof she’s lying. No computer expert necessary. ADA Adam Lally asks Jen McCabe about when & why she made those Google searches at the scene in the morning. The video footage proves that Jen McCabe’s entire story about #KarenRead purportedly asking her to Google “hos long to die in cold” is a lie because it never happened. Jen claims Karen asked her to make those Google searches while the first responders are moving #JohnOKeefe’s body from the ground to the ambulance, which is interesting because her story starts out with them (her & Karen) seated in the back of a Police cruiser, so it’s unclear how they magically teleported from there to standing outside. As you’ll also see in the attached footage, it’s clear Jen & Karen are outside the entirety of the time leading up to when Jen claims this happened, removing the possibility that they could’ve moved from a cruiser to the outside to account for Jen’s story’s discrepancies. Officer Mullaney will further corroborate this. THE PROBLEM IS: Jen McCabe claims to have made these searches during the same time that first responders were working on/moving John into the ambulance, but this is completely disproven by dashcam surveillance footage from the scene showing him being worked on at 6:14:10am & moved into the ambulance at 6:14:50am. Jen made no searches at or around this time. She made her searches at 6:23 & 6:24am, nearly 10 minutes later. Furthermore, none of the things—like prayers & blood—that Jen claims happened between her, Karen & Kerry at this time, actually happen. The footage shows it’s all made up, like Karen asking Jen to Google anything. ————— JEN MCCABE’S TESTIMONY: Jen claims she was sitting in the back of the Police cruiser with #KarenRead, that she “scooched in” beside her in the back, and that Kerry Roberts came over. Next, Jen claims that Karen grabbed their hands & asked them to pray, looked at her (own) hands & saw blood, and proceeded to ask if she could’ve gotten her period. Jen then claims Karen said “what if he’s dead? Who’s gonna take care of the kids?” (or something to that effect). Jen then says: “Then we prayed. Um…then at the end, um, Mister—they were moving John, and at that point Karen told Kerry ‘go over, look! Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead?’ over & over, and Kerry says ‘I’ll go over and check on him’ and [Karen] was yelling ‘are they working on him?’.” Jen proceeds to say: “And then at that point, [Karen] grabbed my hands & she said ‘Google hypothermia, Google how long it takes to die in the cold’.” Then Jen McCabe testifies: “And so I had my phone out, and it was cold, and my hands were frozen, and I have MS, and I took my phone out while she was screaming & shaking my arm. And I attempted to Google “how long does it take to die in the cold”. ADA Lally then asks Jen McCabe: “And, um, when you conducted that search, that was at the defendant’s request, on scene, sometime after 6am on that date, correct?” Jen testifies: “Yes.” ADA Lally: “Do you recall anything as far as what the search results were, or did you click on anything, or did you get an answer to the question the defendant had posed to you?” Jen McCabe: “I don’t even think I got an answer because as I kept Googling, and she kept yelling, and then they were moving John, and the next thing I knew we were kind of moving because she wanted to see if they were working on him.” ADA Lally: “And so you were moving along with the defendant over towards where Mr. O’Keefe had gone to the back of the ambulance?” Jen McCabe: “Yes we kind of just moved to see what was going on.” ADA Lally: “When you moved over what did you see then?” Jen McCabe: “They were just, uh putting him in the back of the ambulance.” ————— See attached timeline. If Jen’s claim that Karen asked her to Google that were true, then Jen would’ve Google’d it during any time in the orange/red box (6:14 - 6:15am). #KarenReadTrial

Olivia

342,007 просмотров • 2 лет назад

BREAKING 🚨🚨🚨: Ladies, gentlemen and fellow towels. I believe the towel friends have found audio proof that Karen Read asked Jen McCabe to Google "how long to die in cold" at 6:23am on 1/29/22. This is huge as the recording went under the radar during Read's first trial. Listen below with enhanced, in both real time and 0.75x speed, and hear Karen clearly saying to Jen: "Can you Google 'how long to die in the cold'" as Jen is on the phone with 911 (the recording is from a voicemail from a different phone that caught Karen speaking to Jen) at the scene where John O'Keefe was found, suffering from a head injury and hypothermia, after Read allegedly struck John with her car --while drunk driving with a BAC 2-4 times over the legal limit-- and left him to die on a lawn at 12:32am that morning. So, in short, Jen McCabe --as multiple digital experts, including from Cellebrite, have confirmed-- Googled how long to die in cold at 6:23am and Karen's defense expert, Richard Green (a man with an arrest history for filing a false police report) simply misread a write ahead log in cell phone data from Jen's WallDB that caused years of unnecessary smears directed at McCabe. Shout out to Old Made New Creations for figuring this out. Please support their channel here -
0:22

BREAKING 🚨🚨🚨: Ladies, gentlemen and fellow towels. I believe the towel friends have found audio proof that Karen Read asked Jen McCabe to Google "how long to die in cold" at 6:23am on 1/29/22. This is huge as the recording went under the radar during Read's first trial. Listen below with enhanced, in both real time and 0.75x speed, and hear Karen clearly saying to Jen: "Can you Google 'how long to die in the cold'" as Jen is on the phone with 911 (the recording is from a voicemail from a different phone that caught Karen speaking to Jen) at the scene where John O'Keefe was found, suffering from a head injury and hypothermia, after Read allegedly struck John with her car --while drunk driving with a BAC 2-4 times over the legal limit-- and left him to die on a lawn at 12:32am that morning. So, in short, Jen McCabe --as multiple digital experts, including from Cellebrite, have confirmed-- Googled how long to die in cold at 6:23am and Karen's defense expert, Richard Green (a man with an arrest history for filing a false police report) simply misread a write ahead log in cell phone data from Jen's WallDB that caused years of unnecessary smears directed at McCabe. Shout out to Old Made New Creations for figuring this out. Please support their channel here -

Grant Smith Ellis

404,821 просмотров • 1 год назад

The Christian Sexual Ethic from Ligonier. In this seminar, Drs. Rosaria Butterfield and Christopher Yuan look at the Christian sexual ethic and how it compares and contrasts with the way the world understands sexual identity. Rosaria: “Christians need to know what TIME it is.” Rosaria: “The first is to think that there is such a thing as a gay person, or a lesbian person, to actually think that your personhood or your image-bearing is attached. There is no such thing as a person made in the image of God as a lesbian, or a gay man, or a transgender. You are made in the image of God as a man or made in the image of God as a woman.” Christopher Yuan: “We need to make sure that our indwelling sin is something that we are mortifying, putting to death, that we aren't then coddling it and saying, "Well, it's, it's really neutral." And we can then identify, "I'm not a gay Christian." I am, when none of you should identify as a prideful Christian or a lustful Christian or whatever it is. That's my dead man, and no one is ever going to resuscitate him.”
8:39

The Christian Sexual Ethic from Ligonier. In this seminar, Drs. Rosaria Butterfield and Christopher Yuan look at the Christian sexual ethic and how it compares and contrasts with the way the world understands sexual identity. Rosaria: “Christians need to know what TIME it is.” Rosaria: “The first is to think that there is such a thing as a gay person, or a lesbian person, to actually think that your personhood or your image-bearing is attached. There is no such thing as a person made in the image of God as a lesbian, or a gay man, or a transgender. You are made in the image of God as a man or made in the image of God as a woman.” Christopher Yuan: “We need to make sure that our indwelling sin is something that we are mortifying, putting to death, that we aren't then coddling it and saying, "Well, it's, it's really neutral." And we can then identify, "I'm not a gay Christian." I am, when none of you should identify as a prideful Christian or a lustful Christian or whatever it is. That's my dead man, and no one is ever going to resuscitate him.”

Terri Green

19,213 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Agent Brian Davis confirms that investigators used the Israeli company Cellebrite to verify that the text exchange between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs was authentic. PROSECUTION: “As part of the investigation, was a Cellebrite extraction performed on Mr. Twiggs’ phone?” AGENT DAVIS: “Yes.” Cellebrite was founded in 1999 in Petah Tikva, Israel, where it is headquartered.
0:34

Agent Brian Davis confirms that investigators used the Israeli company Cellebrite to verify that the text exchange between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs was authentic. PROSECUTION: “As part of the investigation, was a Cellebrite extraction performed on Mr. Twiggs’ phone?” AGENT DAVIS: “Yes.” Cellebrite was founded in 1999 in Petah Tikva, Israel, where it is headquartered.

Shadow of Ezra

262,785 просмотров • 1 месяц назад