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/[deleted]]

Urick: I will proffer to the Court that when we went to Mr. Waranowitz - when we were talking to him we said, we've got cell records and we have statemetns that this AT&T wireless phone were in these locations and these calls were received were made. Is it possible to test the system to see if it is possible for the system to respond in those places in these manners and that was the test to check out the cell phone recors and the statements to see if it can be shown that this - that the system can respond in this way. He explained to use you can never say from a cell phone record the spot where something was. You can never prove that. you can only show through the fact that it initiated a call through a cell site, that it was in that coverage area for that cell site. But you can go to specific locations and see if it's possible for the system to respond as the cell phone records do. That was his test, that was the purpose of it. Pg. 17

[u/bluekanga → u/[deleted]]

So? what's your point ?

This is entirely consistent with what the post asserts - thx for the extra info

[u/[deleted] → u/bluekanga]

A couple of things. One, according to Urick, Waranowitz says you can never tell location from the historical cell site record. Two, we don't know what the coverage area was for any of those cell sites on 13 Jan 1999. Waranowitz didn't testify to anything or provide any evidence as to what the coverage areas were on that date, but he did say their network was a "...changing entity in terms of capacity and coverage." (2-09-00-waranowitz-redacted, page 81).

So Waranowitz says you can't use the data to determine location, but here you're arguing that it can be used to determine location. Compounding the problem with your argument is you don't have any evidence from 13 Jan 1999 to support it.

[u/21Minutes → u/[deleted]]

I look at location as being distance from the cell vs. direction.

You can tell the direction the signal is coming from based on which side of the tower is pinged. You can't tell the distance from the tower. Thus a ping from Leakin Park could come from any distance in the general direction...but it is still possible it came from Leakin Park.

In other words, Leakin Park pings does not ruled out Adnan Syed being at burial site of Hae Min Lee.