Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

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...

TheChauffeurX's profile picture

Lara

3,471 subscribers

83,890 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

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 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Michael Easter discusses Jen McCabe’s Google search. He would’ve used Google reverse search warrants and keyword + search term warrants. Google returns a list of users who searched for those terms during that time period, and the timestamps each search was entered (via Google’s servers). Google’s servers don’t record one’s iPhone’s safari tab manipulation data, so an entry of “hos long to die in cold” made on Jen McCabe’s iPhone, at or before 2:27:40am on January 29, 2022, is definitive proof of its occurrence. ————— Be sure to check out Justice Served’s YouTube channel, where Linda Kenney Baden (she/her) and Michel Bryant bring on exceptional guests, including Michael Easter, a retired FBI Special Agent of 20 years, to discuss the Karen Read case.
1:10

Michael Easter discusses Jen McCabe’s Google search. He would’ve used Google reverse search warrants and keyword + search term warrants. Google returns a list of users who searched for those terms during that time period, and the timestamps each search was entered (via Google’s servers). Google’s servers don’t record one’s iPhone’s safari tab manipulation data, so an entry of “hos long to die in cold” made on Jen McCabe’s iPhone, at or before 2:27:40am on January 29, 2022, is definitive proof of its occurrence. ————— Be sure to check out Justice Served’s YouTube channel, where Linda Kenney Baden (she/her) and Michel Bryant bring on exceptional guests, including Michael Easter, a retired FBI Special Agent of 20 years, to discuss the Karen Read case.

Olivia

98,950 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Boom. It has happened. Cellebrite expert Ian Whiffin showed, in real time, how Karen Read's defense witness, Richard Green, got the timestamp of Jen McCabe's 6:23am and 624am Google searches (done at Karen's request) so wrong. Whiffin did a real-time demonstration that showed the entire world how that timestamp was initially misread. Whiffin then humiliated Read's lawyer Bob Alessi on re-cross. We now await the next witness! Watch along live, with the towel friends and including special Towel Multi-Cam Coverage --with the world famous Karen Cam-- via this link -
6:48

Boom. It has happened. Cellebrite expert Ian Whiffin showed, in real time, how Karen Read's defense witness, Richard Green, got the timestamp of Jen McCabe's 6:23am and 624am Google searches (done at Karen's request) so wrong. Whiffin did a real-time demonstration that showed the entire world how that timestamp was initially misread. Whiffin then humiliated Read's lawyer Bob Alessi on re-cross. We now await the next witness! Watch along live, with the towel friends and including special Towel Multi-Cam Coverage --with the world famous Karen Cam-- via this link -

Grant Smith Ellis

31,291 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

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 difficult to justify. “However, as Mr. Whiffin acknowledges in his report, the Cellebrite program cannot validate the data because the value is unsigned. In other words, the GreyKey Image of Jennifer McCabe's cell phone could have been manipulated, then re-hashed after the manipulation, and still show the same resulting hash value included in the PDF file.” “In all of my years working as a forensic examiner, this is the first, time I have ever received a forensic image of a phone without the corresponding hash value.” “In addition to law enforcement's failure to provide the hash documentation associated with the raw image of Jennifer McCabe's cell phone, there were additional: anomalies within the processed data that are suggestive of manipulation as reported by tools such as Cellebrite and Axiom.”
0:31

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 difficult to justify. “However, as Mr. Whiffin acknowledges in his report, the Cellebrite program cannot validate the data because the value is unsigned. In other words, the GreyKey Image of Jennifer McCabe's cell phone could have been manipulated, then re-hashed after the manipulation, and still show the same resulting hash value included in the PDF file.” “In all of my years working as a forensic examiner, this is the first, time I have ever received a forensic image of a phone without the corresponding hash value.” “In addition to law enforcement's failure to provide the hash documentation associated with the raw image of Jennifer McCabe's cell phone, there were additional: anomalies within the processed data that are suggestive of manipulation as reported by tools such as Cellebrite and Axiom.”

Lara

21,412 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

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

293,051 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

In a pretrial hearing before Karen Reads first trial, Adam Lally told the court that the extraction of Jen McCabe’s phone, was sent to the FBI’s Regional Center Forensic Lab in Boston. It was ran through Cellebrite and Axiom and the expert determined the search was done at 6:23 am and 6:24 am. The hos long to die in the snow search that Richard Green found, was before Karen Read was indicted when the software didn’t exist. Richard Green apologized to Adam Lally and admitted he was mistaken when he testified in the first trial. He didn’t testify in the retrial because he knew he would be committing perjury. Why didn’t KR and her defense attorneys hire another digital forensics expert to testify? They couldn’t find one to go along with their false narrative and kept pushing it to taint the jury. If you still believe it happened after it was debunked by Jessica Hyde, Ian Wiffin and the FBI, then you don’t have any interest in the truth.
1:28

In a pretrial hearing before Karen Reads first trial, Adam Lally told the court that the extraction of Jen McCabe’s phone, was sent to the FBI’s Regional Center Forensic Lab in Boston. It was ran through Cellebrite and Axiom and the expert determined the search was done at 6:23 am and 6:24 am. The hos long to die in the snow search that Richard Green found, was before Karen Read was indicted when the software didn’t exist. Richard Green apologized to Adam Lally and admitted he was mistaken when he testified in the first trial. He didn’t testify in the retrial because he knew he would be committing perjury. Why didn’t KR and her defense attorneys hire another digital forensics expert to testify? They couldn’t find one to go along with their false narrative and kept pushing it to taint the jury. If you still believe it happened after it was debunked by Jessica Hyde, Ian Wiffin and the FBI, then you don’t have any interest in the truth.

Elaine S

17,890 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🤣So, Johnny Somali just did a live-stream and he mistakenly showed a website he was visiting - it was a GOOGLE search for the age of consent in the UK. So, pedophile #johnnysomali is looking to have sex with underaged minors in the UK (if he can escape Korea):
0:20

Sensitive content

🤣So, Johnny Somali just did a live-stream and he mistakenly showed a website he was visiting - it was a GOOGLE search for the age of consent in the UK. So, pedophile #johnnysomali is looking to have sex with underaged minors in the UK (if he can escape Korea):

johnnysosmally

194,357 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

You may be wondering why one of the MSP Troopers who investigated Officer #JohnOKeefe’s murder is glaringly absent from the prosecutions witness list in the #KarenReadTrial. Is that because her testimony might be devastating for the claim that Jen McCabe didn’t make that google search at 2:27am? Yes, it’d appear so! (Part 1 of 2). Attorney Yannetti gave us some insight yesterday into why Massachusetts State Police Trooper Kathleen Prince is notably missing from the state’s witness list, but is on the defense’s witness list. Why would the state want to avoid calling the Trooper that interviewed star “witness” Jen McCabe on February 1, 2022? After all, unlike Lead Investigator Michael Proctor’s unrecorded & unsigned interview of Jen, Trooper Prince’s interview is far more detailed and thorough, and Prince also didn’t wait several months to write down & document her interview like Proctor did. Well, perhaps it’s because Trooper Prince’s is the only interview of Jen McCabe’s that ever even mentions anything about the Google search & from Jen McCabe herself. However, this is not the only lie seemingly told by Jen McCabe that Trooper Prince’s interview will expose. McCabe claims that: “Karen was told to sit in a car. Jen went over to Karen when she was in the car…Jen also stated that while her and Karen were in the back of the car, Karen was yelling and screaming one moment and then completely calm the next. Jen said that they prayed the "Our Father" together. Karen then immediately yelled at Jen two times to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?" That’s a big problem for McCabe, which the state probably later realized, hence why they took the creative liberty to completely distort & change Jen’s statements in their later court filings, particularly about how the Google search came about. Why? Jen probably didn’t realize when making this statement to Trooper Prince, who she’s not close friends with unlike Michael Proctor, that the Police cars have dash-cams in them. Thus, if this conversation ever actually happened, like Jen claims, then it’d all be recorded on dash-cam footage. It’s convenient how Jen’s story about when #KarenRead purportedly asked her to Google such a thing also happened inside a car where nobody else would be able to hear it to corroborate Jen’s story. But again, in this early stage of the investigation, Jen likely was unaware that her entire claim would be debunked by the dash-cams that would’ve captured it as proof. So to her, being inside a car was the perfect explanation for why no one else at the scene heard Karen ask that. Because Karen never actually asked it! THIS is Jen McCabe framing Karen Read. But beyond this, we also now have confirmation from Officer Mullaney that Karen & Jen never got into a car together while he was there. So this entire story seems to have been fabricated altogether. In a desperate attempt to remedy this critical fact issue, the state just completely fabricated new testimony in its documents, stating that immediately upon finding John’s body, ‘The defendant then yelled at Ms. McCabe twice to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?’, or something to that effect.” What else was fabricated? The claim that Jen McCabe was taking any measures to try to help save Officer O’Keefe’s life, unlike Read who was. In her interview with Prince, Jen claims: “[She] observed Karen to have blood on her hands and face. Karen was holding her hands up and was saying, ‘I have my period.’ Jen said that she told Karen that was not her blood that it was John's blood from them doing CPR.” Jen McCabe’s trying to win favor for trying to help save John’s life—something she did not do—when she says that the blood on Karen’s face “was John’s blood from them doing CPR”. Except “they” didn’t do CPR. Only Karen Read did CPR as confirmed by yesterday’s 3 state’s first responder witnesses who confirmed as such. #FreeKarenRead
0:47

You may be wondering why one of the MSP Troopers who investigated Officer #JohnOKeefe’s murder is glaringly absent from the prosecutions witness list in the #KarenReadTrial. Is that because her testimony might be devastating for the claim that Jen McCabe didn’t make that google search at 2:27am? Yes, it’d appear so! (Part 1 of 2). Attorney Yannetti gave us some insight yesterday into why Massachusetts State Police Trooper Kathleen Prince is notably missing from the state’s witness list, but is on the defense’s witness list. Why would the state want to avoid calling the Trooper that interviewed star “witness” Jen McCabe on February 1, 2022? After all, unlike Lead Investigator Michael Proctor’s unrecorded & unsigned interview of Jen, Trooper Prince’s interview is far more detailed and thorough, and Prince also didn’t wait several months to write down & document her interview like Proctor did. Well, perhaps it’s because Trooper Prince’s is the only interview of Jen McCabe’s that ever even mentions anything about the Google search & from Jen McCabe herself. However, this is not the only lie seemingly told by Jen McCabe that Trooper Prince’s interview will expose. McCabe claims that: “Karen was told to sit in a car. Jen went over to Karen when she was in the car…Jen also stated that while her and Karen were in the back of the car, Karen was yelling and screaming one moment and then completely calm the next. Jen said that they prayed the "Our Father" together. Karen then immediately yelled at Jen two times to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?" That’s a big problem for McCabe, which the state probably later realized, hence why they took the creative liberty to completely distort & change Jen’s statements in their later court filings, particularly about how the Google search came about. Why? Jen probably didn’t realize when making this statement to Trooper Prince, who she’s not close friends with unlike Michael Proctor, that the Police cars have dash-cams in them. Thus, if this conversation ever actually happened, like Jen claims, then it’d all be recorded on dash-cam footage. It’s convenient how Jen’s story about when #KarenRead purportedly asked her to Google such a thing also happened inside a car where nobody else would be able to hear it to corroborate Jen’s story. But again, in this early stage of the investigation, Jen likely was unaware that her entire claim would be debunked by the dash-cams that would’ve captured it as proof. So to her, being inside a car was the perfect explanation for why no one else at the scene heard Karen ask that. Because Karen never actually asked it! THIS is Jen McCabe framing Karen Read. But beyond this, we also now have confirmation from Officer Mullaney that Karen & Jen never got into a car together while he was there. So this entire story seems to have been fabricated altogether. In a desperate attempt to remedy this critical fact issue, the state just completely fabricated new testimony in its documents, stating that immediately upon finding John’s body, ‘The defendant then yelled at Ms. McCabe twice to Google, "How long do you have to be left outside to die from hypothermia?’, or something to that effect.” What else was fabricated? The claim that Jen McCabe was taking any measures to try to help save Officer O’Keefe’s life, unlike Read who was. In her interview with Prince, Jen claims: “[She] observed Karen to have blood on her hands and face. Karen was holding her hands up and was saying, ‘I have my period.’ Jen said that she told Karen that was not her blood that it was John's blood from them doing CPR.” Jen McCabe’s trying to win favor for trying to help save John’s life—something she did not do—when she says that the blood on Karen’s face “was John’s blood from them doing CPR”. Except “they” didn’t do CPR. Only Karen Read did CPR as confirmed by yesterday’s 3 state’s first responder witnesses who confirmed as such. #FreeKarenRead

Olivia

193,892 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

If you are trying to understand why Jessica Hyde --a state expert witness against Karen Read in the John O'Keefe trial-- testifying for the federal government in Matthew Farwell's trial for the murder of Sandra Birchmore (investigated by the same MSP unit) is huge, this video is for you. The emails Hyde sent to Brian Tully --the head of Norfolk DA Michael Morrissey's State Police Detective Unit-- in May of 2023 read shockingly different when viewed through the lens of Hyde being a cooperating federal witness against Tully and the Norfolk DA's office (with Hyde playing the role of a sympathetic expert trying to explain Jen McCabe's infamous 'hos long to die in cold' Google search). Full stream -
46:58

If you are trying to understand why Jessica Hyde --a state expert witness against Karen Read in the John O'Keefe trial-- testifying for the federal government in Matthew Farwell's trial for the murder of Sandra Birchmore (investigated by the same MSP unit) is huge, this video is for you. The emails Hyde sent to Brian Tully --the head of Norfolk DA Michael Morrissey's State Police Detective Unit-- in May of 2023 read shockingly different when viewed through the lens of Hyde being a cooperating federal witness against Tully and the Norfolk DA's office (with Hyde playing the role of a sympathetic expert trying to explain Jen McCabe's infamous 'hos long to die in cold' Google search). Full stream -

Grant Smith Ellis

33,301 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Michael Caputo is a former Trump administration official who was secretly surveilled by Biden's weaponized DOJ for YEARS. Back in 2020, Caputo created a documentary that aired on One America News Network. This documentary was called "The Ukraine Hoax," and it was about Joe Biden and his family's corruption in Ukraine. "Apparently, as soon as Biden was sworn in on inauguration Day January 2021, the FBI opened a federal criminal investigation to me, my family, and every person listed in the credit in the credits of my movie. Every single one...They didn't accuse me of a crime. They accused me of taking Russian-connected money to make the movie...It's a First Amendment issue, right? But the fact is I did not take any money from Russians or Russian-connected money..." "They issued a broad search warrant for all my information, bank accounts, emails, everything, right after Donald Trump was elected in 2024...They issued a search warrant and they started surveilling me...You know what they asked for in that search warrant? The same thing they asked for since 2016—my connections to Russia. They surveilled me until the president shut it down on December 8th, 2025. Google had just sent me a user notice and said, Sir, you have had a classified subpoena against all of your data, emails, locations, services, search prompts, and everything since 2023. They sent the same subpoenas to Verizon and all my other technology companies and the only one that told me...was Google. The rest of them were too afraid to say anything..." -Michael Caputo In addition to secretly subpoenaing Google and Verizon, Biden's weaponized DOJ also secretly subpoenaed Apple and Bank of America for all of Michael's information and data. Michael is one of the thousands of reasons why we MUST stand the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund back up. Those politically persecuted by the Biden administration deserve JUSTICE.
2:56

Michael Caputo is a former Trump administration official who was secretly surveilled by Biden's weaponized DOJ for YEARS. Back in 2020, Caputo created a documentary that aired on One America News Network. This documentary was called "The Ukraine Hoax," and it was about Joe Biden and his family's corruption in Ukraine. "Apparently, as soon as Biden was sworn in on inauguration Day January 2021, the FBI opened a federal criminal investigation to me, my family, and every person listed in the credit in the credits of my movie. Every single one...They didn't accuse me of a crime. They accused me of taking Russian-connected money to make the movie...It's a First Amendment issue, right? But the fact is I did not take any money from Russians or Russian-connected money..." "They issued a broad search warrant for all my information, bank accounts, emails, everything, right after Donald Trump was elected in 2024...They issued a search warrant and they started surveilling me...You know what they asked for in that search warrant? The same thing they asked for since 2016—my connections to Russia. They surveilled me until the president shut it down on December 8th, 2025. Google had just sent me a user notice and said, Sir, you have had a classified subpoena against all of your data, emails, locations, services, search prompts, and everything since 2023. They sent the same subpoenas to Verizon and all my other technology companies and the only one that told me...was Google. The rest of them were too afraid to say anything..." -Michael Caputo In addition to secretly subpoenaing Google and Verizon, Biden's weaponized DOJ also secretly subpoenaed Apple and Bank of America for all of Michael's information and data. Michael is one of the thousands of reasons why we MUST stand the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund back up. Those politically persecuted by the Biden administration deserve JUSTICE.

Liz Wheeler

31,466 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

FBI Director, Kash Patel FBI Director Kash Patel eloquently explains WHY the Epstein case is at an impasse: “The original sin on the Epstein case was how it was handled by Mr.Acosta when he first brought the case in 2006/7/8. The original case had a very limited search warrant, had a very limited search window, had a very limited investigative window. I was not there when those search warrants and that investigation was launched. I would not have done it that way…Mr. Acosta allowed Mr. Epstein to enter into a plea agreement…PLUS he allowed a NON PROSECUTION AGREEMENT to be signed as PART OF THAT PLEA DEAL. PROHIBITING FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS…”
1:12

FBI Director, Kash Patel FBI Director Kash Patel eloquently explains WHY the Epstein case is at an impasse: “The original sin on the Epstein case was how it was handled by Mr.Acosta when he first brought the case in 2006/7/8. The original case had a very limited search warrant, had a very limited search window, had a very limited investigative window. I was not there when those search warrants and that investigation was launched. I would not have done it that way…Mr. Acosta allowed Mr. Epstein to enter into a plea agreement…PLUS he allowed a NON PROSECUTION AGREEMENT to be signed as PART OF THAT PLEA DEAL. PROHIBITING FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS…”

MAGA Kitty

189,106 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce