State’s 12th Supp.

2012-10-15_0001

2012-10-16_0001

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/discovery-log/state-s-12th-discovery

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/122-state-s-12th-discovery

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/discovery-log/state-s-11th-discovery

2012-10-15_0002

I guess it’s a flip-phone now huh? Big Laugh Knee Slapper

 

2012-10-15_0003

2012-10-15_0004

2012-10-15_0005

2012-10-15_0006

2012-10-15_0007

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “State’s 12th Supp.

  1. Interesting he is using Google for a code, Google saves your videos, bookmarks, other passwords a trove of information on their servers. I wonder in MOM and West are on this.

          • This is one of the problems I am having with the police story about the phone and being unable to retrieve information from the phone. All they needed was this device, most major PD now have them, even have a portable version. All they needed was a warrant to search the phone, and the Ufed, for they to access the phone. Watch the video.

              • That same device can download all the data in the phone, make a clone, etc. I believe this is how Sgt. Brenton downloaded the information out of the phone.

                So why was it necessary to send the phone for further testing? What was missing from the phone? What is the prosecution trying to find? If everything matched as they claimed, you think it would be the Defense performing the phone forensics, not the prosecutors.

            • I had never heard of a Cellebrite until I read the Sanford police reports from that night where they say they tried to use one but the phone was too wet or the battery too far down or something for it to work.

              So, they had one. That night, 02/26/12.

              It’s in the OCR’ed 184 page PDF, on page 16 of the PDF and by coincidence says “page 16 of 18” at the bottom.

              It’s Joseph Santiago’s account.

              unitron

              • I missed that before, I remember the mention of the battery being dead, but did not recall the rest. That makes the travels of the phone even more suspicious, if they had the ability to get the information in-house. The prosecution must have been looking for something in particular for them to send the phone for these forensic tests.

  2. Thanks Dman and Nettles….

    Shame the GZLegal site like to save bandwidth by not linking to stuff via any normal means.
    It does save on bandwidth usage if nobody knows about the stuff I guess?
    Glad you guys are keeping them honest.

    Dman I am adding your blog to the other 22 tabs I have open.. to monitor. I will read but may not have time to comment much 😀

  3. In the grass evidence pix, there is a long scratch on the phone, I do wear glasses, but does anyone see it on this phone? on the back side.. Dman can you do a pix of them side by side? Thank YOU!

  4. The icon next to the missed call icon in the top left corner of the phone looks like a “Text message” icon

      • The sticker doesn’t concern me as much (though, why would it have been removed?); what does concern me, however, is the obviously missing, half-inch, diagonal gouge between the sticker and the “bil” of “T-Mobile”.

          • looks like a little piece of grass to me.

            I don’t think it’s grass, for 3 reasons:

            1) Scale. It is far too small to be grass
            2) Jagged shape
            3) Given the location of the light source (flash), if it were a piece of grass, the shadow produced would be on the other side. The location of the shadow is with respect to the light source implies an indentation into the phone, not a piece of debris sitting on the surface of the phone.

            Side note: there also appears to be a blemish above the lens in the 12th supplement phone, that is not present in the original photo.

            Side note 2: the “with” in “with Google”: can photo resolution explain why “with” appears to be a solid block of white in the 12th supplement photo? It looks like it’s been covered with white-out, it’s so blurred.

            • Some observations re: Chip’s points:

              1) There are blades of grass or other lawn debris that are roughly the same shape and color as the “blemish” – see just to left of the case even with the lens.
              2) The jagged shape could be a torn grass leaf
              3) The shadows in the grass to the left of the camera indicate that the flash was above and to the right a little – perfectly aimed to illuminate the inside of the lens optics. Also, I can’t see any shadow from the “blemish”, indicating that it could be in direct contact with the phone case. My display might not show what you see, though…

              WRT the 12th Supp image, it looks to me like:

              1) the camera/flash was placed towards the bottom of the frame, angled towards the top, so the illumination of the camera optics is reflecting off the side of the optics assy.
              2) the “blemish” above the lens could be a specular reflection from the flash from something in the “sparkly” case material. There is a similar reflection from the bottom-left corner.
              3) Of more interest, looks like someone removed the Heart sticker and what’s remaining is glue residue or paper backing from the sticker. The heart shape is distorted on the right side, kind of like someone dug under the sticker with a fingernail or other object.

              Re: the “with Google”, looks to me that the 12 Supp image is lower resolution than the grass image, or out of focus to the point that the “with” is filled in, like the “tm” on the other end of the “Google”. You can also get this kind of effect if you use too low a resolution when you convert the picture to a .jpg from the camera format.

              • Small Correction:

                Others may have mentioned this, but In the 12th Supp image, the case back has been removed from the phone, so the reflection from the lens hole must be the table top behind.

    • During the February 5th hearing is the one in which MOM made a comment along the lines of “when we finally found the phone”.

  5. It seems as though the last time Daisha talked to TM was on Friday, two days earlier.

    [sorry about that, have to fix something, DM]

    I vote same phone.

  6. I wonder what video’s and photos are on that mini SD card. you can tell from the wear and tear on the battery that he used the SD card a lot.

    • It could have been laying around awhile. We have old cell phones the kids play with and I find them everywhere after they leave.

      • But look at the markings, I don’t see all that chipped paint on the side by side photo above. This is from TM’s crime scene.

        • I know. Do you remember MOM saying something after the phone was sent to California that he had discovered the sim cards were different? I remember that.

          • I’ll search and see if I can find anything in his interviews, i’m not remembering much about the sim cards, but it wouldn’t suprise me after all the games the state has played. 🙂

            • Yes, thank you, you just put it behind you and move on. My daughter will be getting much needed counseling, it was much harder on her. I think it might have been the hearing before the Feb. 5th one. Omara had discovered this on hisw own I believe.

        • I keep going back and forth, but I believe that is water droplets or moisture on the phone in the crime scene pics and the glare from the flash. Where as the other it is dry. Could be why the heart appears to be coming off too, if it were paper and being exposed to the dripping water and they didnt find it right away IIRC. JMO

          • I’m just thinking back to Casey A trial. I remember they had lost the heart sticker print due to the process of lifting the fingerprints. It had something to do with the glue they use(weird another heart sticker) If they tried to get prints using that process, would that process take any superficial marks away from the phone. I know it wouldn’t do anything to cover scratches though.

  7. So all they had to do is Subpoena Google for the password or have it reset so they could get into the phone with out taking it apart. Google is very good at complying with law enforcement. This just shows that BDLR did not want to open up the Google account. he did not want the emails to become discovery.

    • There might not be any emails to or from that account. It may have been set up just for the purpose of password recovery, backups, etc. The account name, if it is tmtm2199, looks like one someone would pick just for utility and let google supply an arbitrary number to make it unique. It doesn’t seem personal to me. But who knows for sure. It’s worth checking the account regardless.

  8. Pingback: State’s Supplemental Discovery |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s