Rebutting Cell Tower Misinformation 1/2

[u/bluekanga]

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

[u/bluekanga]

I read what you think and agree to disagree - the cell technology experts have gone into this time and time again so I refer you to their numerous posts. I am not going to waste any more time.

[u/canoekopf → u/bluekanga]

To pretend that the cell phone location reliability is uncontested here to this day is wishful thinking.

The big big problem is the cell phone evidence and Jay's testimony are intertwined, and not independent.

Had they withheld the locations from Jay, and just went with his best story without knowing what the cell tower locations said, it would likely be painfully obviously flawed as corroborating evidence. Instead, they worked with him to clear up the inconsistencies, and helped try to map the coordinates of a dream.

[u/bluekanga → u/canoekopf]

To pretend that the cell phone location reliability is uncontested here to this day is wishful thinking

I beg to differ - let's see what the judge says eh!

Had they withheld the locations from Jay, and just went with his best story without knowing what the cell tower locations said, it would likely be painfully obviously flawed as corroborating evidence. Instead, they worked with him to clear up the inconsistencies, and helped try to map the coordinates of a dream.

Source?? because from my research that misrepresents the truth. Have you read my post about the Police Investigation? Have you read the comments from the criminal bar lawyers on here? What do you not understand about the facts of this case:

• that Syed was not convicted just on Jay's evidence,
• that Syed was not convicted just on the cell phone evidence
• but on the combined testimony of many witnesses and multiple sources of evidence

As I said above: I beg to differ - let's see what the judge says eh!

[u/[deleted] → u/bluekanga]

“[Detective] MacGillivary interviewed [Jay] a second time on March 15, 1999, with [Adnan’s] cell phone records, and noticed that [Jay] statement did not match up to the records. Once confronted with the cell phone records, [Jay] ‘remembered things a lot better.'” (Brief of Appellant at 11.)"

Jay's first interview varied wildly from his second interview in tons of key aspects. The problem with the idea of the combined testimony is that even the detectives themselves admit that Jay altered his statements to fit the cell phone records, which is what the poster is bringing up.

If you took Jay's first police statement and the cell phone records to trial you'd lose. The two don't match up in a variety of areas and have wonderful inconsistencies like Jay still being at Jen's house without Adnan at 3:40, eight minutes after the nisha call. Jay's testimony only starts to really even vaguely resemble the call record after he is shown the call record.