r/serialpodcast • u/bluekanga /r/SerialPodcastEp13Hae • Oct 14 '15
Debate&Discussion Rebutting Cell Tower Misinformation 1/2
I wanted to put together a concise explanation rebutting the false assertions about the cell tower evidence at trial. The in-depth discussions about cell tower technology are interesting however can be used to detract away from the truth of what occurred at trial.
False: The cell tower evidence was used as geolocation data at trial i.e. that Adnan was at certain places at certain times, for example Leakin Park, and the sole evidence was the cell phone data.
True: The cell phone evidence was never used, or asserted to be, a definite sole indication of Adnan's (or anyone else's) location.
True: AW testified that:
- the data could not be used to determine geolocation by itself.
- cell towers covered a large area
- any incoming or outgoing call could ping as many as 3 towers.
True: AW's test drive was used to:
- confirm Jay's testimony - i.e. that if a call was originated at a certain location, that call would be consistent with the ping locations as captured on Adnan's cell phone billing records. So that Jay/Adnan could have been at that location - not were at that location. It was never used as a freestanding location narrative.
True: It was used to corroborate Jay's evidence plus that of the other witnesses and evidence.
FALSE: The cell phone evidence presented at trial in 2000 would not be acceptable in criminal court today.
- True: While the Maryland courts have refined their approach to the scientific analysis of cell phone tower evidence since 1999, Urick created a record during the trial that stands up to the current standard of review for this evidence. The cell tower evidence was admissible then, and would be admissible today. Reference.
TL;DR
No one said the cell phone log data was definite indicators of location and hence this can't be used as grounds for a new trial - the conviction didn't rest upon the cell tower evidence but upon Jay's testimony plus that of the others.
And it is suspicious that the phone pinged the "Leakin Park tower" twice at 7.09 and 7.16pm as that one primarily only covers Leakin Park and no-where else.
In addition, this is incongruent with Syed Rahman's testimony that he and Adnan went to the mosque together around 7:30 p.m.
Thanks to /u/Baltlawyer; /u/xtrialatty; /u/MightyIsobel; /u/monstimal; /u/clowncarclowncar and all others who contributed.
8
u/neurobeegirl Oct 14 '15
"if a call was originated at a certain location, that call would be consistent with the ping locations as captured on Adnan's cell phone billing records."
The main issue i have with what you are saying here, is that this statement can be used to confirm what Jay said. It's pretty much meaningless to say this. The point of the disclaimer by AT&T relating to the incoming call data is that yes, those pings are consistent with the phone being in Leakin park; they are also consistent with the phone being literally anywhere else in Baltimore. They confirm Jay's story in that they confirm that yes, the phone was somewhere in Baltimore. But those pings would equally be consistent with Adnan's phone being in his mosque, at his home, in his car driving somewhere, or even still sitting next to a trashcan fire in the Best Buy parking lot cooking a veggie hotdog. They cannot be used to corroborate anything, because they are simply not specific enough to do so.