NEWSFEED 6/14-19/2001, NYSE FLOOR, CHINA SPY PLANE, ROBBERY SURVEILLANCE, BLACK BERETS FOR ARMY, LA LAKER VICTORY PARADE, FIRES; DX: NYSE, STOCK FLOOR, US ARMY ON PODIUM, swish and pan of floor activity, new logos on towers, flags etc...stock exchange; DX: PRESS CONFERENCE US STEEL, short talking heads at press conference; DX: short from 'MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE', DO NOT USE; DX: CHINA DISMANTLE OF SPY PLANE, aerials of US spy plane on the ground in China, ground level entrance to airstrip China; DX: PRESS CONFERENCE US STEEL, repeat press conference on US steel workers, regarding US steel industry protection; DX: GA/GOOD SAMARITAN, talking head and local scenery of street in Georgia, talkingheads; DX: GEORGIA/FLOODING, receding flood waters, damage left after flooding, downed trees, damaged homes; DX: ALABAMA/TRAIN KILLS MAN, pictures of train and wooded area, cu of train tracks, police look over scene of man's death; DX: NORTH CAROLINA/BLACK BERETS, US Army ceremony changing over of offical head gear of army to Black Berets, soldiers change hats; NX: FLORIDA/SMALL PLANE CRASH, plane crash aftermath white corporate type jet, EMS and fire trucks at scene; NX: FLORIDA/CHLORINE LEAK, evacuated people waiting to return to homes and jobs, Haz Mat cleans up mess, EMS loads victims ;DX: NYSE/FLOOR ACTIVITY, swish and pan of trader floor at NYSE, new flags, towers and logos; DX: BUSH IN POLAND, President George W. Bush, Alexsander Kwasniewski, Mrs. Bush, tomb of unknown soldier, gives speech at podium; DX: BUSH & RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladmir Putin, George W. Bush gives speech all things start with simple work friend; DX: FLORIDA/FUR COAT LADY, woman robbing store of fur coats, surveillance tape tracks woman in fur store; DX: NORTH CAROLINA, ANDY GRIFFITH EXHIBIT, historical and family photos of life, and acting achievements; DX: FLORIDA/ENRON POWER PLANT, board meeting of person, on power plant, ext. of power plant, voters complain; NX: TENNESSEE/TRENCH RESCUE, equipment and man power at scene, worker trapped, pipes, air hoses, other equipment; NX: TENNESSEE/TRENCH RESCUE, victim loaded onto stretcher and placed in ambulance, lights flashing, EMS workers; DX: JEWELRY SURVEILLANCE OF HEIST, robbery in progress tapes; DX: TENNESSEE/LIONS AT PLAY, children with paper pinatas, cut to NYSE floor activity; DX: NEW DINOSAURS, LETTERBOX OF DINOSAURS - DO NOT USE; DX: LAKER PARADE, crowds massive follow parade of basketball players, Shaq, Shaquille O'Neal, holds up trophy, team on bus top; DX: LAKER PARADE, more LA Laker Parade for championship 2001, aerial of the Staples Center, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, crowds, aerials of parade; DX: RE-BIRTHING SENTENCING, accused takes stand, accused and attorneys enter courtroom; NX: PROTESTORS, flashing lights, police at scenes, police tape, scene of wheelchair killing, repeats, cu light bar flashing; DX: FLORIDA/BRUSH FIRES, ground level burning brush, grass, smoke, some nx shots of fire, firefighters on lines, flames; DX: BURNED WOMAN, woman loaded onto stretcher, EMS, workers, fire rescue trucks; DX: MISTAKEN IDENTITY, Trampus R. Lehman, mistaken for burglar, ext. of house; DX: GEORGIA/STATE FLAG PROTEST, Govenor mansion flag protest for and against confederate flag, protestors; DX: NYSE FLOOR ACTIVITY, swish and pan of trading floor, new logo and towers and banners; DX: HEARINGS/FORD/FIRESTONE, man inspects firestone tires, crash photos and footage, senate hearing, parade of protestors ;

A man smashes a truck into a metro Atlanta Macy's Department Store and grabs merchandise.

COVERAGE IN AMERICUS, GEORGIA FOR A JAMES WALKER CS VO ABOUT POLICE ACCUSED OF FAKING FINGERPRINTS. 01:00:03 NO SLATE EXT SURVEILLANCE FTG OF ELDERLY MAN W/ A CANE AND YOUNG WOMAN GETTING FOOD FROM A CATERING TRUCK. 01:06:22 INTV W/ FORMER CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN AND CURRENT ASSISTANT DIETARY MANAGER AT A HOSPITAL, RAY EDWARDS, WHO FIRST FAKED FINGERPRINTS IN 1988. 01:07:17 HE SAYS HE STARTED FAKING FINGERPRINTS BECAUSE OF, A LOT OF PRESSURE AND THEN I STARTED TAKING SHORTCUTS AND IT WAS WRONG AND WHEN EACH TIME IT PROGRESSED, IT GOT WORSE. 01:12:09 FTG OF RAY WALKING AWAY FROM CAMERA ALONG A GRAVEL ROAD BACK TO HIS JOB. 01:12:28 CU AMERICUS CITY LIMIT SIGN. PULL OUT TO WS ROAD AND SIGN. 01:15:21 CU AMERICUS WATER TOWER AGAINST BLUESKY. 01:16:17 PULL IN ON WHITE POLICE CAR PARKED BELOW WATER TOWER IN FRONT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING. 01:16:42 FTG OF OFFICER EXITING CAR. 01:17:13 MS SHIELD ON SIDE OF AMERICUS SQUAD CAR. 01:18:02 WS POLICE CARS PARKED SIDE BY SIDE. 01:19:22 CU SHIELD ON SIDE OF SQUAD CAR DOOR. 01:20:00 PULL OUT FROM CITY OF AMERICUS SIGN ON FIRE TRUCK IN BG TO AMERICUS POLICE CARS PARKED IN FG. 01:20:55 WS SIGN ON BRICK BUILDING READING RUSSELL THOMAS JR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT.

<pi> ***This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment. Usage must cease on all platforms (including digital) within ten days of its initial delivery or such shorter time as designated by CNN.*** </pi>\n\n --TEASE--\nSURVEILLANCE CAMERAS CAPTURE A TRUCK GOING AIRBORNE ...\nAND A STUDENTS RECEIVE A BACK TO SCHOOL WELCOME IN ... THE BATHROOM.\nCOMING UP IN TODAY'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!\n\n --SUPERS--\nPrefonted\n\n --LEAD IN--\nCRAZY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO SHOWS WORKERS SCURRYING \nAS A TRUCK GOES AIRBORNE OFF A TEXAS HIGHWAY.\nJEREMY ROTH HAS TODAY'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!\n\n --REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS--\nA SHOCKING VEHICLE ACCIDENT WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA IN SOUTHWEST TEXAS.\nJIM CAMPBELL WAS WORKING IN HIS AUTO AND MARINE SHOP WHEN HE HEARD THE CRASH.\n"All the sudden this crazy explosion happened. I thought a plane had crashed or something."\nA VEHICLE BECAME AIRBORNE AND SLAMMED INTO PARKED TRUCK OFF HIGHWAY 71\nLUCKILY NO ONE WAS HURT. \nCAMPBELL SAYS HE'S SEEN MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS ALONG THIS STRETCH OF HIGHWAY \n"This is not something that they dont know about, but I think it's. Something to do as a priority though."\nTHE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS LOOKING INTO WAYS TO MAKE ROADS SAFER...\nBUT IN STATEMENT -- DRIVERS ARE REMINDED TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS BEHIND THE WHEEL. \n\nSOME STUDENTS IN GEORGIA ARE FINDING A LITTLE BACK-TO-SCHOOL POSITIVITY IN A UNEXPECTED PLACE.\nUPLIFTING MESSAGES ADORN THE BATHROOM STALLS AT NORTH DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY.\nALL 48 STALL DOORS WERE PAINTED BY REKNOWNED LOCAL ARTIST SHARANDA WILBURN.\nTHE PROJECT WAS FUNDED BY THE COUNTY'S CULTURAL ARTS COUNCIL.\nCOLLABORATORS SAY THE IDEA IS TO EMPOWER, MOTIVATE AND ENCOURAGE YOUNG MINDS.\nTHE SCHOOL'S PRINCIPAL SAYS SHE'S THRILLED HER SCHOOL WAS CHOSEN.\n"To have these quotes on their stalls is going to help to encourage them to continue to believe in themselves and know they are worthy because they are."\n\nFOR TALAT, I'M JEREMY ROTH\n -----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----\n\n --KEYWORD TAGS--\nSOCIAL MEDIA TRENDING VIRAL VIDEO CAUGHT ON CAMERA SURVEILLANCE TEXAS ACCIDENT SCHOOL STUDENTS ART CUTE FUN FUNNY COOL CRAZY WIERD KICKER\n\n

ROSSVILLE, GEORGIA - MARCh 11: (AUDIO OMITTED) Garbage truck is picking up trash bin on March 11, 2024 in Rossville, Georgia.(Footage by WW News/Getty Images)

<p><pi><b>This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment.</b></pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Supers/Fonts: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Location: </b> Milwaukee</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>State/Province: </b> Wisconsin</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Shot Date: </b> 05/19/2023</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>URL: </b> https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/large-police-presence-near-teutonia-and-atkinson</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Notes and Restrictions: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Newsource Notes: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Description: </b></p>\n<p>Elements: PKG vo of downed bus shelter and traffic light; car fragments on the side of the road; vo of the car shattered window door open; vo of family members behind police tape; </p>\n<p>bumper on the road ; surveillance video from business; sots with store /wittness Owner Harjiner Breich v o of car on tow truck </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Wire/StoryDescription:</p>\n<p>MILWAUKEE A Georgia man was shot and killed while driving near Teutonia and Atkinson in Milwaukee on Thursday. According to Milwaukee police, the homicide happened around 2:40 p.m.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Station Notes/Scripts:</p>\n<p>10P FATAL DRIVE BY SHOOTING_WTMJfee1_140.mxf_WTMJ0054_140.mxf "A SHATTERED BUS SHELTER DOWNED STOP SIGN AND CAR FRAGMENTS TRACE THE DEADLY PATH THIS CAR TOOK DURING THE DRIVER'S FINAL MOMENTS ALIVE. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>POLICE SAY THE 44-YEAR-OLD GEORGIA MAN WHO WAS BEHIND THE WHEELWAS SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES WHILE DRIVING LEADING TO THE WRECKAGE. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>HEARTBROKEN FAMILY MEMBERS WERE HUDDLED AROUND THE POLICE TAPE AS OFFICERS INVESTIGATED. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>THEY TOLD ME OFF CAMERA THE VICTIM HAD JUST COME FROM A FAMILY MEMBERS FUNERAL AND WAS DRIVING HOME WHEN THIS HAPPENED. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>HE WAS IN TOWN JUST FOR A FEW DAYS. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE FROM HB LIQUOR ON THE CORNER OF THE STREET SHOWS THE RED CAR LOSING CONTROL AND FLYING DOWN TEUTONIA. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>HARJINER BREICH// WITNESS </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>22:12:37 yeah I was very shocked when I saw the video </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>THE STORE'S OWNER HEARD THE IMPACT AND RAN OUT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>HARJINER BREICH// WITNESS </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>22:10:57 he hit that pole first, then he hit that one, then he ran over the bus stop then he stop over there 22:11:01 </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>OTHER WITNESSES RAN AFTER THE CAR AS THEY SAW IT RACE BY. POLICE SAY THE VICTIM... DIED ON SCENE FROM HIS EXTENSIVE INJURIES. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>THOSE AT THURSDAY'S SCENE... SAY THE GUN VIOLENCE NEEDS TO END </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>22:12:55 yeah its bad every other day its shooting, shooting thats no good, people need to do something better with their life </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>POLICE SAY THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO THE SHOOTING ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>AND THEY'RE SEARCHING FOR UNKNOWN SUSPECTS"> </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>(*TAPE ENDS*)</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

A Georgia man is facing a reckless conduct charge after he started a fire at a gas station that "severely injured" his wife, authorities said.Austin Dawkins, 37, of Clarkesville, Ga., was arrested and taken into custody at Habersham County Jail Saturday, according to jail records. He is being held without bond.Dawkins was fueling his 2002 Ford F-250 at the Gulf Food Mart in Clarksville when he flicked a cigarette lighter near his gas tank and caused a fuel vapor explosion Oct. 16, according to a Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner news release.Dawkins' wife, Jessica, 30, was standing next to her husband when the incident occurred, the news release said. She suffered second-and third degree-burns to her legs, arms, back and head.Jessica Dawkins was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital for treatment.She was released home a week LATER.Dawkins sustained minor injuries to his hands, according to the news release.A warrant was issued for Dawkins' arrest Friday, the Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner news release said. The case was turned over to the Habersham District Attorney's Office for prosecution.An arraignment for Dawkins is scheduled for Monday, Allen said. Reckless conduct is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.

NEWSFEED: SEPT. 19-20, 2002, RUSSIAN AMBASSADORS. AERIAL WHITTIER HS HURRICANE AFTERMATH. MADELINE TOOGOOD IRISH GYPSY TRAVELER, BABY BEATING VIDEO ; DX CALIFORNIA: Dentist at work. Receptionist at work. VAR CU advertisments. Gray Davis speaking, signing ; DX US: UN Russian ambassador giving speech thru translator. Another Russian. They are discussing Georgia, Iraq. Ambassador again ; DX US: White house press conference on Bush meeting with Russians ; DX US: Aerial: School w/ no peds outside. Sign: 'Whittier Cardinals'. LS Cops walking thru school ; DX US: EST 'Shoe Carnival' in rain. INT ransacked. Hurricane damage ; DX US: Dark clouds over power lines, behind US flag. Cars in rain. Fire truck in rain. Down power lines. Hurricane damage ; DX CONT'D: Interviews. Pile of wreckage includes car. INT blown out car. Broken strip mall. Downed street sign ; DX US: Line of cars in rain. Power lines on ground. Apt bldg w/ no roof. Houses and lawns post storm. Hurricane damage; DX CONT'D: House/Garage w/ tree in it. VAR trees on road, on houses ; DX US: Madeline Toogood video: Accused Gypsy, woman caught on video surveillance tape beating her baby in car seat ; NX ISRAEL/PALESTINE: Overlooking Ramallah, searchlight moves ;

TAPE: EF01/0506 IN_TIME: 22:23:03 DURATION: 3:43 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Various - 3 July 2001 SHOTLIST: Manila, Philippines NIGHT SHOTS 1. Wide shot of plane parked on tarmac 2. Pan of plane 3. Fuel truck 4. Wide shot of fuel truck parked at plane side 5. Men holding fuel hose at bottom of plane 6. Pan of plane 7. Wide shot of plane parked at tarmac LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICS STILLS Hainan Island, China - 2 July 2001 8. Still of Russian plane Hainan Island, China - 29 June 2001 9. Still of plane being loaded Hainan Island, China - 28 June 2001 10. Still of spy plane without wings APTN Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan - 16 June 2001 11. Russian cargo plane Antonov 124 taking off AP PHOTOS Hainan Island, China - 16 June 2001 12. Antonov 124 on approach to Lingshui air base 13. Antonov 124 approaching base 14. Antonov 124 on final approach 15. US EP 3E spy plane on tarmac LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICS STILLS Hainan Island, China - 18 June 2001 16. Spy plane on tarmac await disassembly 17. Recovery team at cargo hold of AN 124 preparing to loads parts 18. Mid shot of spy plane 19. Military vehicle pumping fuel, oil and hydraulic fluid from plane AP PHOTOS Hainan Island, China - 4 April 2001 20. Wide of plane on tarmac 21. Close up under wing section 22. Mid shot propeller CCTV 23. Wide shot of news conference 24. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin): Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhang Qiyue: "The work is to be finished, and according to my knowledge, this work will be completed soon. Should there is any more information on this, I will let you know immediately." 25. Cutaway of reporters Washington 26. Wide shot of news conference 27. SOUNDBITE: (English) Whitehouse Spokesman: "The recovery operation began on June 13 has been completed. After final loading operations the remaining parts of the EP3 aircraft, including the fuselage are currently on route to the United States. The final flight of the AN124 that carries the airplane departed Ling Sheui today at 4.45am Eastern Daylight Time. And 124 will make fuel stops in Manila and Hawaii while en route to a final destination of Davins airforce base in Marieta, Georgia. The flight is scheduled to arrive in Hawiai later today about 11.30pm Eastern Time, so it's still a way from Georgia. As far as the future of the US-China relationship, certainly we are glad to resolve this issue and to get the airplane back. We do seek a productive relationship with China, as the Secretary and the President have made clear on a number of occasions. We don't see China as an enemy, we don't think China should see us as one." 28. Cutaway of reporters STORYLINE: The last parts of a U-S Navy spy plane that collided with a Chinese fighter jet, sparking a crisis in U-S-China relations, have arrived in the Phillipines en route to the US. The fuselage of the EP-3E and the equipment used to dismantle it were put onto a cargo aircraft and flown to Manila in the Philippines for refuelling en route to the US. The EP-3, packed with sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment, made an emergency landing on April 1 on Hainan island after colliding with a Chinese fighter sent to intercept it over the South China Sea. The collision and China's 11-day detention of the US crew caused the worst tensions between Beijing and Washington since the bombing of China's embassy in Yugoslavia by US planes in 1999. A 12-member team from Lockheed Martin, the plane's manufacturer, that was dismantling the EP-3 will leave Hainan on Wednesday morning. The EP-3 will end its journey at a Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Georgia, where it will be reassembled in preparation for returning to service. Other parts of the aircraft have already been taken to Kadena Air Base on the Japanese island of Okinawa. In a news briefing on Tuesday, the U-S State Department said that it didn't consider China an enemy and didn't think China needed to see it as an enemy either. Both sides have said they now want to put the incident behind them.

ROSSVILLE, GEORGIA - MARCh 12: (AUDIO OMITTED) UPS delivers on March 12, 2024 in Rossville, Georgia.(Footage by WW News/Getty Images)

<pi> ***This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment. Usage must cease on all platforms (including digital) within ten days of its initial delivery or such shorter time as designated by CNN.*** </pi>\n\n 3rd Party NON-LICENSED Content:\nMcGlockton Family Photos\n\n PUBLISH DATE: 08/14/2018\n LOCATOR: Atlanta, Georgia\n SOURCE: CNN; Pinellas County Sheriff Office; Bay News 9; WFTS; McGlockton Family\n\n --SUPERS--\n:00 - :04 - Pinellas County Sheriff's Office\n:04 - :09 - McGlockton Family Photos; NON-LICENSED\n:09 - :12 - Pinellas County Sheriff's Office/Circle A Food Store; Clearwater, Florida; 07/19/2018\n:12 - :15 - WFTS; Clearwater, Florida (US); 08/13/2018\n:15 - :22 - SOT, Michele Rayner, Family Attorney: "Michael Drejka period point blank is a cold blooded murderer and he took Markeis' life without a second thought." (WFTS; Clearwater, Florida (US); 08/13/2018)\n:22 - :31 - WFTS; Clearwater, Florida; 07/19/2018\n:31 - :36 - Pinellas County Sheriff's Office/Circle A Food Store; Clearwater, Florida; 07/19/2018\n:36 - :41 - Pinellas County Sheriff's Office\n:41 - :50 - Pinellas County Sheriff's Office/Circle A Food Store; Clearwater, Florida; 07/19/2018\n:49 - :57 - Pinellas County Sheriff Office\n:57 - 1:12 - Bay News 9; Clearwater, Florida (US); 07/23/2018\n1:12 - 1:21 - SOT, Richard Kelly, Encountered Michael Drejka: "He asked me if I was handicap, I'm obviously driving a tanker. I'm not handicapped. I asked him was he handicapped. He said, no my mom is." (Bay News 9; Clearwater, Florida (US); 07/23/2018)\n1:21 - 1:27 - Pinellas County Sheriff Office\n1:25 - 1:34 - SOT, Richard Kelly, Encountered Michael Drejka: "He flipped out on me, he just totally flipped out. He called me every N word, he said he was going to shoot me. He was going to kill me. He went back to his truck. Got something out of his truck and walked back up on me." (Bay News 9; Clearwater, Florida (US); 07/23/2018)\n1:34 - END - Bay News 9; Clearwater, Florida (US); 07/23/2018\n\n\n --LEAD IN--\nA FLORIDA MAN IS FACING MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES... AFTER HE ALLEGEDLY SHOT AND KILLED A FATHER IN A PARKING LOT.\nTHE CHARGES CAME AFTER A NINE-DAY REVIEW... AFTER THE MAN CLAIMED SELF-DEFENSE UNDER THE STATE'S STAND YOUR GROUND LAW.\nMARTIN SAVIDGE REPORTS.\n --REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS--\nMICHAEL DREJKA NOW FACING MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES FOR THIS SHOOTING OF A FLORIDA FATHER IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY AFTER AN ARGUMENT OVER A PARKING SPACE. THE DEADLY DRAMA CAPTURED ON SURVEILLANCE VIDEO. \nAN ATTORNEY EXPRESSING THE FEELINGS OF THE VICTIM'S FAMILY. \nMichele Rayner/Family Attorney: "Michael Drejka period point blank is a cold blooded murderer and he took Markeis' life without a second thought."\nTHERE'S NO QUESTION DREJKA KILLS MARKEIS MCGLOCKTON, ITS ON THE TAPE… BUT DREJKA INITIALLY AVOIDED CRIMINAL CHARGES BY INVOKING FLORIDA'S CONTROVERSIAL STAND YOUR GROUND LAW... SAYING WHEN MCGLOCKTON SHOVED HIM HE SHOT IN SELF-DEFENSE. BUT ALMOST TWO WEEKS LATER... A STATE ATTORNEY REVIEWING THE CASE DISAGREED, ISSUING THE ARREST WARRANT.\nUNDER FLORIDA LAW - PROSECUTORS WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE QUOTE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT STAND YOUR GROUND DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS SHOOTING.\nMEANWHILE REPORTS HAVE SURFACED DREJKA HAS HAD SIMILAR CONFRONTATIONS BEFORE, BUT NEVER SO VIOLENT AND POLICE WERE NEVER CALLED. \nTHE OWNER OF THE CLEARWATER CONVENIENCE STORE, WHERE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED, TELLS CNN AFFILIATE BAY 9 NEWS, DREJKA HAS A HISTORY OF CONFRONTING CUSTOMERS PARKED IN THE HANDICAP SPACE… \nTRUCK DRIVER RICHARD KELLY SAYS HE WITNESSED DREJKA'S WRATH FIRST HAND WHEN HE BRIEFLY PARKED THERE. \nRichard Kelly/Encountered Michael Drejka: "He asked me if I was handicap, I'm obviously driving a tanker. I'm not handicapped. I asked him was he handicapped. He said, no my mom is." \nKELLY SAYS DREJKA JUST KEPT GETTING MORE AND MORE ANGRY…\nRichard Kelly/Encountered Michael Drejka: "He flipped out on me, he just totally flipped out. He called me every N word, he said he was going to shoot me. He was going to kill me. He went back to his truck. Got something out of his truck and walked back up on me." \nTHE STORE OWNER STEPPED IN AND BROKE UP THE ARGUMENT… BUT KELLY SAYS THE INCIDENT LEAVES HIM WONDERING WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD THE STORE OWNER NOT INTERVENED. \n -----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----\n\n --KEYWORD TAGS--\nFLORIDA LEGAL SHOOTING STAND YOUR GROUND \n\n

COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / CAM 2 [13:07:51][3827.4] [13:07:51] It's going to. All right for the jury. They. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully you had a good lunch. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case state ready with its next witness. Yes, Your Honor. The state calls Jesse Whurley Jesse a oh, yes, Makes sense. [13:10:14][143.3] [13:10:14] Yeah, Truth and nothing but the truth. I do good. Good afternoon. Can you please go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell me your name and spell it for the court. Reporter. My name is Jesse Worley. It's Jesse w o r e y. OK, and this really how are you currently employed? I work in the Division of Forensic Sciences for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It's also referred to as the crime lab. I work in the impressions, evidence section as a latent print examiner. OK, and what are your job duties currently? [13:11:01][47.5] [13:11:01] Primarily my job is a latent print examiner is to analyze items of evidence that are submitted for latent print services for comparison, database searching or chemical processing. In our laboratory, I conducted database searches. I do comparisons of latent prints to known exemplars, are known prints and then issue results of by reports of my results and then testify in court when needed. And how long have you been working in that capacity in your field? I've been with the GBI for 14 years. And please go ahead and tell us your education and training. I have a bachelor's of science in forensic and investigative sciences from West Virginia. University. I graduated from there in 2007. I was employed by the GBI that fall in November and I completed a training program that lasted about two years prior to being able to write my own reports. [13:11:59][57.9] [13:11:59] The training covered every aspect of casework that we do as latent print examiners and included courtroom testimony and evidence, analysis and processing. I can complete sixteen hours of annual outside education or continuing education every year as well since the completion of my training program. OK, and are you a member of any professional organizations in your field? Yes, I am. Can you tell us which ones? Primarily, I am a member of a member of the International Association for Identification, which is a professional organization across the globe that is geared towards education and publications for forensic practitioners and identification sciences. Like latent prints also question documents, DNA and crime scene investigation. I'm also a member of the Georgia State Division of the I and I also hold an office with that group as well. Have you testified as an expert before? Yes, I have. OK, what have testified testified as an expert in specifically in late inference. OK, and has that been in Georgia? Yes, ma'am. About how many times getting close to 60. I think the last time I counted it was like fifty seven. Fifty eight times. OK, Your Honor, at this point we would tender Miss Worli as an expert in latent print examination. No objection to objection. Thank you. Now, Mr. Lee, I want to go through some terms with you. And if you can just describe or explain those for me, OK? OK, are you familiar with the term Friction Ridge detail? Yes. Can you tell the jury what that is? So friction Ridgedale, as we refer to it and latent print examination is actually the composition and features that are on the skin that make up the palms of the hands and also the soles of the feet. It's that detail and those characteristics that are replicated in your hand or finger or foot makes contact with a surface. And in that detail, that arrangement of those features is transferred onto the surface and leave the latent print that we can subsequently develop and then hopefully compare in in hopes of identifying it to a source. So when I look at my finger, are you talking about the lines and grooves? Yes. So my fingertips, the the skin on the the palms surface of the hands is referred to as friction rich skin. It's made up of a series of ridges and raised areas as opposed to the rest of the skin on the body, which is fairly smooth within that rich flow. There are different features where ridges either start and stop or they split into two. [13:14:46][166.9] [13:14:46] And it's those specific features in the arrangement of those features within the the friction rich skin that make up the detail that we use for comparison. Now, what is an inked print also known as a known print? What's that? So ink prints that traditionally were taken using printers, ink on on a white card stock to record the detail of the finger prints or palm print of a specific person so that they can be used for comparison in today with all the advances in technology, most known prints are now recorded digitally with a glass like a glass plate and almost a scanner or camera type setup underneath [13:15:27][41.1] [13:15:27] But the idea is the same. The detail of the skin is recorded clearly so that it can be used for comparison. And can you please tell the jury what is a latent print? So latent prints are what we are looking for, primarily like in evidence in a case to determine who may have handled an item or come in contact with a particular surface. Latent prints are typically referred to is latent in that they're not necessarily visible right away. [13:15:58][31.5] [13:15:58] When an object is discovered as a piece of evidence, the latent print may require development techniques like fingerprint powder or other chemical methods to make it visible. And then even at that point, as an examiner, we commonly refer to them as still being latent prints until we've identified them to a known source. Now, what does it mean when an item is positive for latent prints at the GBI crime lab? The policy that we employ for determining whether an item is positive or negative for latent prints, we conduct a visual examination of the item, whether it's a lift card that has a powdered impression that was collected from the crime scene, or if we're getting in an item itself and we do the processing in-house, we're looking to see if after development there is any visible friction. Ridge detail that could be used for comparison. So sometimes if an item is decided, we decide that it's negative. It might mean that there is no ridge detail on it at all, or it could be that there is some detail, but it's so limited or so sparse or even obliterated or distorted where it's not going to be usable because it's not clear enough for a comparison that could also still produce a negative result. [13:17:14][75.4] [13:17:13] But but at the point where we say we have enough detail present on the item to to use it for a comparison, then we say it's positive. And what does it mean when you say an item is suitable for comparison? So once we have a positive results that we've done a visual examination and there is usable friction, rich detail on this item or this list card, the first step of our process is to analyze the amount of detail that's there, the type of detail, the clarity of it, and determine if it is in fact suitable for comparison. So we do the visual examination is either positive or negative. If we have the positive results, then we determine if it's suitable or not. Suitable for comparison, which is really just we're going kind of up a ladder in terms of how much quality and quantity of detail is present in the impression. So we have positive. And then if we say the analysis results are suitable, we have enough detail or sufficient detail to be able to compare it to a known set of prints and can you just let the jurors know what is the process that you use that the GBI for comparing latent prints to known prints? So the first step I'd like, as I said, is the visual examination to determine if we have any latent print detail present. The next part of the methodology we refer to is the ace. The method is an acronym for analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification. So the analysis is the first part that I've described in determining from our positive results which of those impressions may be suitable for a comparison. Once an impression is determined to be suitable, then we'll move on to a comparison that's that's taking the latent print and putting it side by side with a set of known prints and looking for similarity or differences between the and print and any of the prints that are on the records that we have for comparison. During the comparison, we're looking for similarity or differences. It just depends. Not every comparison will result in a match or an ID. So you may see more differences than you see similarities. But as we start to make the decision in our mind in whether what the result is that comparison is that prompts the beginning of our evaluation phase, which is really the decision making, part of the process in the methodology that we the way we use it at GBI, we have we can make an identification, which means that we've determined that the latent print and the set of known records we're comparing it to came from the same person we can have an exclusion, which would mean that the latent print and the known prints were made by different sources or different persons, inconclusive within that. There's just not enough detail to say definitively it either is or isn't this person, or it can also be that we need a better set of records. Maybe the ones that we were given may not have been clear enough in a specific area. So we may say that we need new records for comparison. And then lastly, we also use a conclusion that's was not identified or no identification was made, which is it's kind of like a it's not an identification. [13:20:23][190.3] [13:20:23] And we're confident at the latent print is not from a specific source, but we haven't compared it enough to say that it's definitely an exclusion. Exclusion decisions tend to, in some instances, be harder to make when you're doing a comparison as an examiner and you start to feel like you're making an identification because you're seeing and observing features in the same arrangement, you're seeing the similarity. It becomes very easy to say when you've reached an identification because you have like proof positive. This feature is this feature. This one is this one. And everything lines up and you can see it when you have an exclusion. And sometimes it's depending on the area. If you're looking for a link within a large area of the home, there's a lot of area to search and you have to exhaust all the available features and relevant area of the skin before you can confidently say that you have an exclusion. So sometimes exclusion decisions are harder to reach than an identification. And so what we have adopted in our policy is that I know it's not an identification, but I haven't fully excluded this particular person yet. And that we report as we report that as an identification has not been made. Now, I want to turn your attention to DOFFS case number two thousand twenty six zero zero one one eight three. OK, who are the subjects involved under that case? [13:21:52][88.8] [13:21:52] Number? According to the report that I have, the subjects that were listed on the evidence, admission forms were listed as Gregory Johns, MacMichael Traves James McMichaels and William Brian, OK, and who's listed there as the victim? The victim is a listed is listed from the evidence admission forms as a mod Harbury. OK, so I want to turn your attention to the work that you did in this case. Yes. OK, what items did you use to do your comparison in this case? The latent prints that I was asked to examine were on evidence that was labeled as item twenty one in the GBI crime lab. Information system. [13:22:40][47.8] [13:22:39] I itemized them to be twenty one, a twenty one, be twenty one S. and twenty one D. So those are all latent lift cards that were submitted. OK, and then I was given a known finger and palm print cards bearing the name Amy Eileen Elrod and William Roderick. Brian Jr. OK, and did you also use known prints of a modern very. Yes, they appear as item twenty four. OK, if I can just have to tell you this here. Thank you. And this Worley, are you able to see what's there, what's hits or if he needs to step down, you can just make sure he is speaking loud enough for the court for ok, ok, ok. Are you able to see this. OK, please be careful. OK, so you see what I have here. A zone prince. If you need can. Yes. OK, so Amy Elrod, known Prince. You say you received those, right? Yes. Those are marked as item twenty. A reminder. And did you also utilize William Bryans? No. Prince. Yes. And also a Mod Arbor's. No Prince. Yes. OK, and some mid and late list. We talked about those, right? Yes. And did you say they were labeled twenty one A, 21, B, 21 C and 21 D? Yes, ma'am. OK, so if we can just start I guess in reverse chronological order with the twenty one B, what did you determine about twenty one is the cap off my marker for 21 days after I did the initial visual examination for latent prints on that item, [13:24:38][118.3] [13:24:38] I determine that that item was negative. There was not a fraction of details that could be used for comparison. OK, so twenty one, the negative for latent prints for. Yes, ok, go into twenty one, see what did you determine. So there is also the visual examination for twenty one. C was positive, there was friction, detail, presence, but upon analysis I determined it to be unsuitable for comparison. OK, so positive for latent prints but still on unsuitable. Yes Miss. For comparison. OK, so that leaves us with twenty one and twenty one. Be looking at those lists for twenty one and twenty one. B what if anything did you see in those. So on both. [13:25:34][56.1] [13:25:33] I am twenty one A twenty one B my visual examination result is that these items were positive for latent prints. I also notice that they appear to be duplicate lists of the same latent prints. OK, so we have essentially A and B are the same print. Yes, OK. And that's something that from experience in the way latent prints work, you can't ever you can't ever create the same impression twice. They're always going to have different shapes, a different amount of distortion movement because of the pliability and the the way the hand is is built in atomically that you can't ever create the same thing twice. So when we see lift cards that are the same in most aspects, it's likely that they are duplicate lists where the impression is powder's and then piece of tape is used to lift it. And this piece of tape is used to lift it a second time as it both lists were submitted. [13:26:34][60.4] [13:26:34] OK, so before we go further on and B, I just want to go back to D, so were you able to compare anything to see. No, it was negative. OK, were you able to compare anything to see. No, because it was determined to be not suitable for a suitable OK, so no comparison here. Surface. OK, so back to and be positive for latent prints but the same. Yes. [13:27:00][26.1] [13:26:59] Did you choose one over the other for comparison. Yes. Which one did I use. Twenty one. Eh. Because it appeared to be the first list. The development was a little darker on the card. Is a little clearer than what was visible in this. Now go ahead and just tell the jurors your findings for twenty one s in the process that is of course. So I completed an analysis of the latest print that was on twenty one a I determined that the print appear to be from the right home of an individual and that there was sufficient detail present to determine it to be suitable for comparison. At that point, I began the comparison process by comparing the latent print to the palm print cards for Amy Eileen Elrod and William Rodrik. [13:27:53][53.3] [13:27:53] Brian Jr. And my conclusion for both of those comparisons is that no identification was made OK, so for Amy Elrod and William Ryan, we said no identification. Yes, OK, all right. What did you do next, if anything? At that point I compared the latent print from twenty one A, which again is that palm print to the palm print cards that bearing the name Ahmad Marquez Aubury and was able to make an identification to that set of records so identified to Ahmad are very. [13:28:34][41.6] [13:28:34] Yes, OK, so positive I.D.. OK, and did you testify that that was the right palm print. I did. So from his right, yes. OK, were you able to tell where on his right palm that print came from? Yes. OK, so may I approach Your Honor. OK, actually can you step down please. Miss Worley's OK, so I'm going to show you my hand and right hand. And if you can just show and if you can come. So we can just go this way please. Yeah. You do it your back to. Oh, I'm sorry. [13:29:16][42.1] [13:29:16] I'll do this if everybody can because you're off. Of course, Judge. Thank you. We'll just going to flip to the image that I had of the lift card. OK, And my hand is called the the shape of the impression that was made. [13:29:38][21.4] [13:29:38] The shape that appears on the left part is indicative of being from the edge of the palm. So this this area here, it's commonly referred to as a writer's home, because when your writing and your hand moves across the page is usually that portion of the poem that rests on the paper. And so it was very similar to the shape of the palm print that was on this card. Twenty one and then subsequently as well. Twenty one beats. OK, so one second before you said so if I'm holding this marker in my hands, are we talking about like that side that's resting here. Yes. [13:30:13][35.9] [13:30:13] And then sometimes it varies whether it's very straight up and down or if it's angled in a little bit more to get more of the center portion of the palm. But that's still typically referred to as the writer's home when it's that outer edge of the poem. OK, all right. You can have a seat. Thank you so much. Because it was here. [13:30:48][35.0] [13:30:48] I think you're going with this. This is sort of like it was just not touch anything. This. So, Miss Whurley, what, if anything, in looking at the list, what, if anything, did you observe as it relates to the presence or absence of moisture in this particular impression? There did appear to be some areas that looked like they might have been wet or had an additional amount of moisture then other areas within the same impression. In my training, in my experience, one of the things that we are taught to look for as an examiner is what kind of differences may still be present even when an identification is made. As I testified already, you can never create the same impression twice. So even when we have an identification, the latent print is never going to look exactly like the known print. [13:31:52][64.6] [13:31:52] I know sometimes on TV they say show them up on screens and they overlay them and they kind of they match perfectly. But that's not really how latent print comparison works. There's always going to be inherent movement and distortion within any impression that sometimes may be recorded. A known print, sometimes known prints are well recorded and they're free from as much distortion as possible. [13:32:17][24.7] [13:32:17] But one of the things that we have to evaluate in making an identification decision is are we seeing differences that are due to moisture or surface or development issues or are we seeing differences that are inherent to them being from different sources? And we have to use tolerance where where appropriate in making that decision. In this instance, there were areas of the impression that do appear to be wet. The ridges do have a different appearance and the powder does adhere or react differently to more wet areas of the impression. And so that was one of the observations that I did make in this case. But it wasn't so significant that it over or overreached the tolerance that I can use in making an identification decision. OK, so it didn't affect your your evaluation in terms of the identification to Misrata? No, but it does make a difference in in explaining why if it were to be put up for anyone to see, the latent print does not look exactly like the known prints. And one of the reasons for that is there is moisture present. And in doing your comparison, did you follow valid scientific procedure and methods accepted in your field? Yes, I did. OK, and are those methods reliable? Yes, I believe actually in going through the ASV method I left off the V portion. The last part of ASV is the verification. [13:33:45][88.1] [13:33:45] Our policy advice requires that if we all of our decisions are verified by a second examiner, with the exception of the no identification decision and some of are inconclusive. But my suitability decisions for whether for A, B and C, those were all verified by a second examiner. And then my identification decision for item twenty one was also verified by a second examiner. One moment at this time, that is all I have for you. [13:34:18][33.4] [13:34:18] The swirlies that since I have some questions for you, I may just briefly this work. Yes. Hi, I'm Jason Chestnutt. We have talked about this case. Have we know OK, were you given any photographs to come along with items? Twenty one, ABC and No. Four, is it true that you're not sure where that latents palm print came from on the other, that it was came from a trust that you're not sure where all the traffic came from? That's correct. We we describe our evidence based on what's labeled on the lift card. Specifically in this case, they were simply labeled as being from William Bryan's truck. Got it. And then 21 C, which had some some detail on it. Was that a fingerprint? I believe it was, yes. OK, do you know from which finger it came from? No. OK, and then 21 D is that simply you don't know what in the world that was or that it was a fingerprint with no detail that could be used for comparison purposes based on the image that I have available. From what I recall in working this case, there wasn't enough detail to to say otherwise. And that's primarily why the result is also negative. [13:36:15][117.1] [13:36:15] There's just very little detail present, if any. So do you have the photograph of the car photograph? I have a copy. So it's not a great copy. It's just a quick look to see what you're seeing. I may have a question. I'm not sure that I will. The list cards. You. Yeah, the one that the one that goes to see this. Please. OK, so I'm looking at this. Do you see any detail in it that makes you believe that it probably came from the finger? The shape of the impression and the direction of the rich flow is indicative of it being from a finger. [13:37:02][47.3] [13:37:02] But still not sufficient to compare it to any known source. So you've got some detail that you think this probably came from a finger, but then you're looking for enough detail where you can say now I can start counting up enough of the detail to try to match it to another round, say yes. So our our determination for suitability is a combination of quantity and quality of detail. So while that number of features present is a part of the decision, it's not the total or whole component. OK, D is probably a finger. We don't know which D I don't know. I didn't make any determination. OK, but it has some of the details that's consistent with a thing we were talking about. Twenty C over there. All right. So 21 C is probably a finger. It's very likely from a finger. [13:37:51][49.2] [13:37:51] OK, and then D is such that you can't even begin to determine whether it could have come from a finger or not. Correct. OK, got it. And then you don't know where on the truck those things came from. Correct. OK, very good. Thank you. Your question. Yeah there is right now. You're right. Thank you. You may step down. You and you're excused but subject to recall. Stay ready with the Sex Pistols. [13:38:43][51.7] [13:38:43] Yes, right. This time the state's going to call Special Agent Lawrence sort of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. [13:40:47][124.5] [13:40:46] I do lot of. All right. Please state your name and spell it for a court reporter, please. My name is Lawrence Kelly. That's LSW RNC KLFY. And how are you currently employed? I'm a special agent with the GBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I am. What is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? We are a state law enforcement agency. We're the investigative arm of the state government. We of when requested to do so, can assist local agencies with investigations or we can initiate certain investigations on our own involving certain specific violations of law. All right. So you're a special agent. What does that mean? It means I'm a post Georgia Coast Council certified law enforcement officer. I have powers of arrest throughout the state. [13:41:49][63.0] [13:41:49] I have a specialized training in various forms of investigative practices, interviewing and interrogation, certain specialized training in examining cellular telephones and cellular telephone records and elder abuse investigations and general just investigations. All right. So you got the normal training that the GBI provides all special agents, is that right? Yes. OK, but you have some special technical expertize. I do. All right. Tell the jury about your special technical expertize. I have two specialties. One is the only pertinent to this case. I my elder abuse are at risk. Adult from specialist. The other one I am a specialist in the gathering and use of data from cellular telephones and cellular telephones and social media records. [13:42:39][49.3] [13:42:39] I have a specific training and to download and extract data from cellular telephones to obtain records from various providers and to analyze those records. Right. So be fair to say that sometimes you're the guy who gets called out by other fellow agents. Yes, ma'am. Happens of quite frequent. All right. So direct to your attention specifically to May 6th of twenty twenty. Did you become involved in the homicide investigation for Mr. Ahmad Harbury? I did. All right. How did that come to you? I was called I was not involved in in the early stages. I was called by asexuals, but first lady in charge, Richard Dial, who was my direct supervisor, and he told me to report the next morning to assist in syntactical matters involving the Aubury investigation. Right. So he was the one who is in charge of the investigation. He was his back. All right. So, Richard, Dial calls you up. And at this time, did you then submit some video files to another arm of your agency? I did. When I arrived the following morning, I submitted two video files that I had received from Agent for Massingale that were videos, two videos. One was about how the lover of probably a minute moment, little shy of two minutes long, another one was like truncated version of that video to Matthew. He was a digital forensic investigator with our child exploitation and criminal Computer Crimes Unit Indicator. OK, so we'll go ahead and take a piece by piece when it comes to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, [13:44:34][115.4] [13:44:34] that's a statewide agency. We are. So where is your office? My office is in Queensland. All right. And Matthew Heath, where is he? Out of his offices? He's at our headquarters. Indicate where at the time that our headquarters indicated Decatur. And that is close to what town? Atlanta. OK, so now he was in a different unit, you said? Yes. From the child Exploitation and Computer Crimes Unit has two computer based units, the cat, which is the United Kingdom and the Georgia Cybercrime Center in Augusta, Georgia. So he is a digital forensic investigator. Yes, ma'am. All right. So how is his job duty different than your job duties? He's not a sworn agent. We do some of the same things as a cell phone expert. I can download and extract data from cell phones and cell phones by themselves. He can do that for cell phones, computers, other devices. [13:45:29][54.7] [13:45:29] He also has the ability to do other technical things, such as enhancing enhance video files or reviewing video files for information. OK, so you sent him a one minute forty three second video. Is that the video of the homicide of a moderate? It is. All right. And the shortened version of it. That was the duplicate. Yes, it was. It was a truncated version originally created. I was I viewed the metadata. It was originally created approximately 30 some thirty seven minutes after the after the first oh, and it's just a it's truncated. I mean, it's just like cut force and it's like a thirty six second portion of the original video. All right. So did you also send him surveillance video from two nineteen sitilides, right. I did. Did you also send him five surveillance videos from the interior of 220 Satullo Drive and were those the ones dated February. Twenty third of twenty twenty. Yes. You also send him forty seven surveillance videos from two to four Sadil satellite drive. Yes. All right. Now with regard to the videos from two to four Pilet Drive were three of them from the date in question. February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. I believe so, yes, ma'am. All right. [13:46:50][81.7] [13:46:50] So the other forty four, they were from January 1, 2020. But I don't recall they were not from they were from prior to the incident. I called exactly two leading questions please. Yeah. Keep wondering. Sure. So after submitting all of this to Matthew, he he's the digital forensic investigator indicator. What did he provide back to you? He provided back to me several videos that he had enhanced of. [13:47:21][31.6] [13:47:21] One of them was a contrast enhancement. Basically, he lightened up certain shadow areas in the video. One was a stabilized video that showed portions of the of the or the video kind of keep it in, keep the video had a lot of extraneous stuff on the side. So it just showed the the major part of the video. And then there were some frame by frame videos, frames each school frames from each of the videos that we saw. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and take you through this. If you had the opportunity, of course, to review the items, Matthew, he's sent back to you back in May 2011. All right. So did you have the opportunity to review State's Exhibit 191, Matthew? He's half speed video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. All right. And was it fair and accurate? There was. At this time, the state retender into evidence state's exhibit 191. The objection is that they'll be submitted. In addition, did he also submit to state's exhibit 192? [13:48:30][69.4] [13:48:30] I think you mentioned the high contrast video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. Right at this time, the state would enter into evidence state's exhibit 192 section of the objection to publishing state's exhibit 181. And how is this legal mean? I'll back it up to the beginning. And if you tell the houses it's five six one eight half speed, not empty for me. Agent Kelly. Now, state's exhibit one to two houses, level five six one eight. Not contrast, but just. Yeah, that is by far the difference between one ninety one and one. Ninety two point ninety one was slower. Yes ma'am. One only one is that half speed from the original. And this is, these are from the thirty second the thirty second truncated video. These are half speed. All right. And then the high contrast that is at which speed probably three or four full speed. All right. So when we get approximately, approximately here, which appears to be about ten seconds described, this image is compared to the half speed image, I guess. Is it brighter or darker? It's more. It's brighter. As you can see, the the road on this one is kind of washed out in the sun. You know, the intensity in the blue sky in Asabi, you see white or whether the light has washed out the pale blue in the sky. And the intent behind this is so you can see what I see, things that are that are maybe might be obscured by shadow in the original video. All right. So when we look at this right here, my focus, your attention right here, are we able to actually see what takes place here? It's way what did what? It appeared that the person known to me as Mr. Travis, that Michael raised his hands in this kind of motion. Did you see what he had in the sense that he had something in his hands? I couldn't see directly exactly what it was at that point. I can infer it was from from contact from later, but any contact from later? What does he have? You know, I'm going to object to the witness describing what is obviously in the video. I don't understand why the witness needs to say there are trees in the video. There's a road in the video. The Travis McMichaels holding a shotgun, videos and evidence. Now, video is the evidence. [13:53:39][308.3] [13:53:39] Witness doesn't need to describe. This is a key investigator who received evidence and there's a reason behind what he is doing and what he's observing as far as this case and prosecution goes, which is the details that are in these particular videos is that would be the appropriate question. What do you do that describing the video? It doesn't make any sense. And it's it's fraught with peril. We he's explained what he's done. You're asking me to explain what he believes he's seeing in the video. It's just like something to in addition to Matthew, he's also having received state's exhibit or for having received the videos from 219 Soto Drive to TriZetto Drive and two to four civil drives provide you with another video he did. He took me, took those videos. And basically there's extraneous material in both of them. We cut that out to show Mr. Aubrey's passed through the through the neighborhood and through any way he was seen in any of those particular videos that was submitted by. And you had the opportunity to review state's exhibit two to four. I have. All right. And was that what Matthew, he said, provided to you to just show Mr. Avery's past that day? It is. At this time, the state would tender into evidence state's exhibit two to one to two to two to three and then to two for the past March. If I could just have a moment, Your Honor. Remember what those are. So it's going to be six to one to two to two to three and then to two for the combined. Thank any objection that you don't clarify. Yes, no, no objection. [13:56:09][150.2] [13:56:09] We were just clarifying the exhibits she put to death object to submit to judge looking at state's exhibit two to four, completed and published the state's completed publishing state's exhibit two to four. So May 7th, did you also then receive from our CIC, Caitlyn Ngala in Tennessee? Did she attempt to provide you what she's attempted to do with the Greggory? Michael, no one will call. And the Brian video as far as audio went. Yes, ma'am. I received a letter from Kyle that the Gwinnett County Police Department had previously submitted the 911 calls and the same videos that I submitted to Mr. Keith to the Regional Organized Crime Intelligence Center, or I see they also have the capability of enhancing audio and video. [13:59:32][203.1] [13:59:30] And I was told that some of the files are ready. And so I downloaded enhanced 911 calls and some of the enhanced video products that they produced. But the audio files, no noticeable enhancement was made. But the audio files, it's not like NCIS or TV is there. And it really wasn't. The original video was of a of an audio quality that you could hear what was going on. And I don't think the enhancements brought anything new to light right. But with it came to Mr. Gray that she had also done some videos. Yes, ma'am. In an effort to enhance some things. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. All right. So State's Exhibit 129 has already been entered into evidence and you had an opportunity to review that. That's the one where she said she kind of cut out some extraneous stuff. Yes. Yes. Right. At this time, the state will go ahead and publish the two video files from state to state at one twenty nine, I believe one twenty nine is contained in the court's exhibit three stipulation. What is to stay here? State was the state level from it from IMG five six one seven, which is the longer of the two video polishing state's first female sixty six point twenty nine. The second video of the season 129. Let's say the bottom is stabilized I img five six one seven which is again the longer of the two videos. Now directing your attention to me is of twenty twenty where you tat's with following up on tips. Yes ma'am. That's actually I was actually tasked with that upon my arrival May 7th. But with all the other things I was doing, it was myself, Nicholas Anzac and several of our analysts from the George Information Sharing and Analysis Center in Atlanta, which is a deep work unit. We're tasked with reviewing the numerous tips that were coming in. All right. So they're coming into where they were coming in originally. They were just coming in through either Glen County PD or the sheriff's office. And then GBI announced we had created a tip line and most of them shifted to the GBI tip line. All right. So you were tasked with this unit to follow up on tips that you're getting. And these are from where just from the general public that believe the video had been released publicly at that point. And people were calling in. We had asked anyone with information to call in directly about the case, but we were getting everything from object to here. [14:03:51][260.4] [14:03:50] Your Honor, it's not being a search for the truth of the matter. Asserted that, you know, I'll just make something up. Bob called in and suggested this. It goes to they were receiving these and he took some action on one of the specific tips that I was going to ask about getting more specific. I will judge. All right. So did you attempt to determine if Mr. Aubrey could be seen running with a stick or a hammer? I did. All right. Tell the jury what you did. We have, as I I viewed the video, the half speed videos, we also had all of the still frame images that I mentioned earlier. I believe there were nearly 2000 of them. And we picked the one from the requisite area and reviewed them one by one. And what were you able to determine as far as Mr. Aubrey running with a stick? Objection, Your Honor. This is not an expert opinion here. He's saying I've looked at some pictures taken from some videos that other people enhanced for me. And this is what I think I see or I don't see. This is an issue for the jury. In Georgia. It's the same issues. He's looking at pictures and saying what he thinks he sees in the picture. We join your honor, and I think we're potentially opening doors to go into other tips and the narratives that they might foster say it wasn't going to go into any other tips or other narratives that they might foster. He was tasked with dispelling this tipper, this rumor that was out there, and he went victimization rosacea. We're now testifying. And so I think we need to take it outside. I think I'm still going over. Thank you for you. Overruling Mr. Voss. We're concerned about going into other tips. Mine was the issue of him testifying as an expert officer. It is actually what I was overruled on both. For the record. Thank you. You may ask the question if there's anything in Mr. Always have any point of influence. OK, all right. So you mentioned our frame by frame. That agent he gave to you. Have you a chance to look at state's exhibit three fourteen, the folder containing those? Yes, there is the large number of forms. All right. At this time, the state will tender into evidence the state's 314 at this time, the state's 314 at this time. And I'm sorry, as a witness the same way it was. But I said, you know, a lot of them wrong. I believe there's one thousand ninety five still images from the video. I just want people to have the support of what he was following up on, correct? Yes. And that's the state's tendering 1000 still images for this video. Is that what you're sticking to? Yes, we are tendering the entire one thousand ninety five still images digitally in a digital folder. These are the stills higher video. We're doing a selection of the these what I understand is being tendered. And he just testified to a review of photographs from the video. I understand these are the still photographs that were reviewed by the agent as part of his follow up that he has already described on the record notation, nosegay. I'm still trying to justify why you're the witness. Is this are these still these are still. But he did not read. These are still that were provided to him in the pickup. The other stuff in the stipulation, is that correct? All right. Very good. It was it just wasn't made very clear. So no objection from breaking my submitted. Thank you. So your discussions were like concentric circles. You know, we all eventually realized we're talking about this. I think we're talking about right. I'm actually going go back when we look at this particular folder, what does it say right down here in states three fourteen, the name of the profile, you mean right down here in the far back corner? How many are in there? One thousand ninety five. All right. We open it up. Are we looking at the first image? Yes, ma'am. And how is it labeled? At the very top and five six one eight frame, zero zero zero zero one EMG, which is an image format. All right. And how did you scroll through the same way it appears you're doing it? I use the gallery function on the computer. Such as this. Yes. Somnath, go ahead and stop here real quick for you while fifty seven and then we look at fifty eight. Do you know why there is a difference in clarity between those two particular images? Based on my training since the case at the time I didn't base my training. This case is going to be probably because there was motion blur in that particular frame, as is the camera might be moving a little bit of the cars moving. That would cause the the distortion in the earlier front because you're in a moving car. Yes, he's the the the two things are moving. The car is moving and the and the person taking the video is is moving. [14:10:10][380.1] [14:10:10] All right. Do you have any idea. I don't know. You know, do you know whether this has autofocus. It's trying to focus. I happen to know it was taken with an Apple iPhone. It does. And anybody who's ever taken a photograph of an iPhone as well as you move it, it kind of locks it on something and tries to focus to do that one thing, continue to publish. I hold it down. What does it do? It, move it. Move forward. Like an animation. Like a movie with one frame at a time. But it looks like a movie. And by the time we are here on frame three seventy nine, what's happened first taking the video is let's move the camera. For what reason. [14:12:22][131.8] [14:12:21] I don't know. I don't know. Does that include all one thousand ninety five which just from state's exhibit 190, the actual video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. Direct your attention now to state's exhibit 315. And Kelly said he had opportunity to look through state's exhibit three fifteen prior to coming in and taking the stand today. Yes, ma'am. And are these just printed out stills of some of the InFocus shots from state's exhibit 314? Yes, it's not included because I overshot and it does it has the response that there was at this time the state enter into evidence state's exhibit 315. No objection to is this a subset of the last exhibit of printed? Correct. These are hard copy printed of Select InFocus images from State's 314. [14:18:13][351.7] [14:18:13] OK, did he take some action to focus on there? Just we're just clear ones as opposed to the ones. All right. So but these are not images that have been manipulated to be different than the images we see on them. These have not been manipulated in any way. They just were printed out from three fourteen. But yes, from the right, there is a good deal. No objection, Your Honor, to see the little more foundation. Thank you. No objection. Gudermes. Thank you. So closing down state's 314. So when we look at state's 315, so for instance, just the very first put up here to see and focus. All right. So is this just one of the still shots from state's 314? Yes, ma'am. It's one of these this one of the from the exhibit we just looked at. All right. So when we look at this address from there, how has how is the state's label that it? So you can see it. It's just about four state three fifteen and then it's 299, which I'm assuming is the the number of the frame from the previous set of rights of 314. This would be still shot to ninety nine so they could print it out. Now you indicated you were kind of the cell phone guy, is that right? I am. All right. So go ahead. And tell the jury what it is you do when you do a cell phone extraction. What is that, a cell phone. That exactly is just that. There's data maintained on cellular telephone for smart devices. It's maintained differently. Only the one we use a software or a device to extract the zero. The the the base data from the device using various methods of from the various software or equipment that we're using. So, for instance, if you have like a Samsung phone or iPhone, do you need different computers to extract the data at the time of this? Yes, ma'am. At the time of that of this case, we needed a major cities use. We have seven different methods that we use. But I was use the Cellebrite physical analyzer to do an iPhone, which they software that runs off of a laptop PC. And we had a self you Fed, which is a device for forensic extraction device also made by Cellebrite to do Android devices like Samsung. All right. So during your investigation, where you give in previous extractions. I was was I was given the extracts and I was given the reports of the extraction, which is when you load the extraction into Cellebrite physical analyzer in order to make any sense without that software, you have to generate a report. And I was given the reports from extractions that Linn County PD did. So Glencairn PD, were they able to give you the raw data? They were not. I asked for it in. Detective Morrison said he did not maintain the data at that time. Since then, he has been told it's probably best to maintain everything. OK, so you got the report, not the data yet. We're able to work with the report, though, due to the Cellebrite system. I was investigating MÃsSICA generated reports in what's called you. You said are you can read the report, which can also be loaded physically, a lot of software and reviewed. All right. So for the purpose of your analysis on May 11th, 20/20, did you look at the report, the extraction reports for Travis McMichaels? I think? And should you look at the extraction reports from William Ryan's cell phone? All right. Were you able to find any communication between Brian Cell Phone and Travis McMichaels cell phone on February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. Nothing. Nothing that extraction of. All right. So I'm going to move you then forward to May 11th of twenty twenty. Did you work with Agent Seacrest, along with Mr. Ryan and his attorney, Mr. Off? I did. OK, and did Mr. Ryan consent to the download of his phone at that time on May 11th? Twenty, twenty. All right. So but this, of course, is a download as the phone is on. What date? Ismailov OK, so this is May 11th at your downloading. This is. All right. And what were you able to notice as far as Greg, with Michael's cell phone number and Mr. Ryan's number in the original extraction reports? Mitzvot neither neither Michael appeared as a contact in the May 11th extraction. Mr. Greg MacMichael appeared as a contact in Mr Rudd's office right now, also on May 11th, 20-20, were you present during the entire time Mr. Brian was being interviewed by Seacrest? No, ma'am. I was up there for the very beginning, Mr.. Of agreed to let us off his phone and I took his phone in the hopes that we would be able to get it back to him at the end of the interview of the president. But taking longer than we had thought. So we weren't able to do that. Oh, right. So May 11th, were you also interested in any surveillance video that Mr. Ryan may have had? All right. Tell the jury what happens with regard to the night owl surveillance video. Agent Seacrest after the interview came to me and said that they had surveillance at their house and the video had caught some might have some information related to the case. [14:24:34][380.8] [14:24:34] So I accompanied Mr. Ryan Metcalfe and I, an Agent Seacrest, to the house two to three or seven before the Ryan's house to attempt to download the the videos. All right. I'm going to show you that. Go ahead and show you what's been marked as state's exhibit one for ephedrin. Just so Special Agent Kelly, I'm showing you state's exhibit 194. You able to recognize that documents? Yes, ma'am. It appears to be true and great copy of a waiver of constitutional rights for. All right. What's that regard to the our digital security system at the Bryan residence? All right. And who witnessed that? Well, I find it is the witness, Mr. Mr. Bryant signed giving consent. All right. And did he sign freely and voluntarily? He did. This on the state retender into evidence state's exhibit 194 objects. Objects object to move state's exhibit 194. This is for the night, Elpidio. Yes, sir. Right. And what is the date we have here? Five eleven, twenty, twenty, eighteen for which is military time for six fifty four p.m.. All right. So once he signs the waiver and agreed to have his side, our surveillance system download, you went out to the house. What happened? Initially, neither Ryan nor Amy Elrod, who lived with him, could recall the password. So we began looking for the instruction manual for the device. We found that in the course of finding it, they were able to I don't remember how they remember remember the password. So we were able to, in the instruction manual, said that you could download a software that would allow you to view and download the videos from the device. So I did that on my computer. Downloading software and installing it was no problem. But due to the do a poor Internet connection, downloading the videos we download kept failing and it was going to take an inordinate amount of time if we continue to let you decide to do Mr. Golf suggestion, I took the passwords, the consent form, and I had the software loaded on my computer and I went back to where we were working out of the DNR office here in Brunswick, much better Internet connection and was able to download several videos. I tell the jury what the DNR is the of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Their office is right there next to the Millennium Bridge that I white building with the tower right there on the marsh. I see you're operating out of there. Yes, ma'am. We were operating on a hillside building. And were you able to then download the night out here? Yes, I was right. Have you had the opportunity to review State's Exhibit 193, the night owl videos? Yes, ma'am. We actually reviewed the videos at the scene. We were we were able look at them, just not download them. And then when I got back to the office, the downloads that we had were didn't seem to play very well. [14:28:15][221.0] [14:28:14] So we actually got the DVR later and got the downloads off of them again. They got the videos off the TV are specifically again. OK, so I kind of did it twice. Yes, ma'am, we did. But do you see change? No matter the videos that we receive, the actual ones that we could actually play were true and correct. What I saw when I was at some Burford that night. Right. So at this time, the state will enter into evidence state's exhibit one 193 U.S. objections. No objection to educate. What I want to do is I'm going to direct your attention first to the night owl video that ends in two five seven within the folder labeled one ninety four. The right here. What's the jury looking at? The video of the porch. And I think I'm beginning to that's the Bryant residence. I think it's three oh seven four four drive by. And what does it say down here front door? What to say up here in the upper right hand corner, do twenty three twenty twenty thirteen oh nine forty five, which is again in and minus times one of nine fifty five publishing. So this particular video system, we have about thirty seconds here. Why that it appeared in the video system was motion activated so it only records when there is motion to capture. Usually as anybody who's ever walked into like a bathroom with windows, motion detectors, there's a split second before it actually starts. And then if there's if there's not a lot of motion, it turns off. So when you looked at the night owl videos, you didn't have one continuous long video? No, man. [14:30:52][158.0] [14:30:52] There were short little snippets right. Publishing then within states, exhibit 194, the video ending in two five states. So what's the apostrophe at the beginning? What time are we looking at up here in the upper right hand? Corner at thirteen eleven and a four one and one of the four. All right. So we're talking about two minutes later publishing the video, the last three numbers to fifty eight within state's exhibit 194. So even though we don't have anything happening here in motion within the video, it's still taking us 30 second snippets. But yes, monitoring of how the motion video works is once the motion is activated, it takes video for a of time. If there is continual motion, it will continue to report. It's not it will it will stop recording. And I want to correct the record from it. The state's exhibit 193 is the folder containing the images six exhibit ninety four was the signed waiver. So if I misspoke earlier, this is the folder labeled one ninety three. We're now going to look at the video with the last three digits to six one. So what is the time on this? The View and do two six one thirteen eleven oh three is when it first. Was there any video with this angle before this number? I call remember, degen with. And were you able to then find any video afterwards meeting as Mr. Brian pulls the truck up, was there another video showing what he actually did out in the street. No, no. Your attention to the video for two, seven, eight. What time do we have here? Thirteen fifty eight. [14:34:27][215.0] [14:34:27] Oh, not same day. So thirteen fifty eight hours for some of the ones with this truck. That was at thirteen, eleven and publishing video three twelve was the time we have had here. Fourteen forty eight. And do you have any idea why Mr. Ryan is going back to his residence on a bicycle. Ebenstein. All right. So let's go ahead and talk about May 13th of twenty. Twenty where you present what Agent Seacrest had another interview with Mr Ryan. Mr Gosse, I was not present for the interview. After the interview. I was told that we had consented to download the Facebook page. And did you, in fact, download his Facebook? I did. All right. So with regard to Mr Bryan's Facebook page, was he a member of the satellite or Facebook group? He was not. And was he Facebook friends with Travis or Michael? No, no makeup. And was Facebook friends with Greg. Michael, not on May 13th. So when you downloaded it, you were able to see who he was friends with on that date? Yes, I downloaded it on the date that the that the download actually takes that. But you actually download we use the feature of the feature of Facebook that just allows a user to download their their page. I was provided from with the passwords and user credentials and was able to. I believe you. I've actually used his phone to do it to download the page. So this isn't like an official record from Facebook. I know. And this is not a we didn't get this from Facebook. We didn't get it from the provider do legal methods. We got it through the consent and downloaded log into his Facebook page and downloaded it just like anybody else could. All right. So would be fair to characterize it as a snapshot, as it was in May of 2014 to her testifying in leading the witness. She got on direct. It's asking a question. How would you characterize the download from a twenty twenty? It is how the account appeared all the day at the time that I initiated the download, was there any historical data? There was. There was historical posts and things that were just like your Facebook feed. It can stays there that you deleted or until until it eventually, I guess, goes away that most. I've got a Facebook information back many years, though, so I think if you actually have to actually delete it for the way, is there any way for you to know, based on the download from May 13th of twenty twenty, whether Mr. Brian had deleted anything? Oh no, not, not with that. Oh not with the information from the download. It May 15th. Did you continue to assist with looking into text from the GBI tip line part and were you tasked with looking into another social media website. Not Facebook, but a different one. Yes. Which one of several actually next door and Snapchat. Right. So regarding next door dot com, what did you do? I preservation letter to through their their legal compliance office preservation letter. Just federal law allows law enforcement to reserve certain records on electronic communications providers, social media platforms, telephone. So your telephone providers, things like that. And all you have to do to preserve it is send a letter with case number six and a preservation request to next door. Yes, sir. Do you send a preservation request to any other provider of cell phone data you've been authorized? AT&T, I believe we sent one Apple, we set one up thing. OK, so that was it. How in dispute was it as far as the defendant's location on the day of February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. It was an issue. Sometimes it's nice to corroborate information that you already have with additional information. So this is an abundance of caution. Yes. May twenty twenty. Did you also download someone else's Facebook data related to Mr. Bryan yesterday? A.m. rather I believe it was, I believe chooses his fiancee at time. They pull it together and they May 19th, Bizzell. I tell them, yes, ma'am. She could not provide her cell phone. She told me and I verified later verified that she had provided consent to do both. And I was not able to get her. She had work, so we had to get her cell phone following that. All right. Now, let's jump forward to May 19th of twenty twenty. What was going to take place on May 19th of twenty twenty? I sort of got the down for this examination is going to be how do I do that rape. I'm trying not to be disruptive. I, I have five more questions and nothing else to publish. But we're going to take place on May 19. Twenty twenty eight search of the micro residence. Right. And what you do to assist in that execution of a search warrant for prior to the search, I search the tax records of Thirty Telegraph, who actually owned two three satellite drive Descombes. I don't remember. There's something Amy was the first one of them that there from Athens, Georgia. [14:41:50][443.2] [14:41:50] I don't remember the exact address. All right. So two, three still drive on by the Scroggs of Athens, Georgia. What did you do next? I don't believe the agency we to perform the search. All right. It would be fair to say all he did was seize the Wi-Fi router. That's all I did. I just did other things that we were interested in. Some of the data we got had gotten off one of the cell phone dumps. How do I find out information we were trying to verify it. Was that right? [14:41:50][0.0] [14:42:21] I and then going ahead to June 30th of twenty twenty, you said a preservation request to some other agency or rather Amazon.com. Oh, I did. Intermedia, I think it was owned by Amazon is who I sent it to, would say for blink the blank camera systems. All right. And who had a blank camera system, Larry, did you ever get anything back from Amazon.com or the other company with regard to the blinks camera? We never got a response that they received the preservation request. I don't know if any. I was not my purview at this case. The issue was I don't know if you want to pay or anything like that, but we've never got verification of it for the records right now. On June 4th, did you actually get feedback from next door dotcom idea? I received that telephone call from their legal analyst and their their counsel of record, and they advised that they had done a diligent search of their records based on the information that I had provided them, [14:43:28][66.9] [14:43:27] plus publicly available information at the time to see if there was anything in their system that would be relevant to the case. Very important. And they were unable to find any. Were you specifically looking for Larry English's potential next or stuff? We yes, we were looking for four references to what references to the case in general. We're also looking maybe references to to crimes in the in the city stores or adjacent neighborhoods. Nothing of relevance and nothing in that's what they call me. Nothing of relevance. I didn't provide anything much and eventually received the cell phone records back from Verizon for Travis MacMichael and Prizefighting. And at some point in time, were you given an extraction report for another person, cell phone? I was. I specialize a lot with our region for office. Who was my counterpart over there? He's the cell phone person over there. I downloaded Mr. Engelhardt's his cell phone and provided me if actually the data it was not a report. He provided me with the data and I generated the report. All right. So now the videos of the interior exterior to satellite drive when they came that way to you from Larry Englishes phone, did they data associated with them? Yes, ma'am. So I guess when they did and were you able to find them embedded in texts that he had sent out? Yes. And some of them were duplicated, which is indicative of them being associated or forwarded or sent the text message and we also found them within the text messages in the some of the I will pass the witness list. Don't wear a good time to go ahead and break when we go take a fifteen minute recess and do not discuss the case among yourselves. We'll see in about 15 minutes. Mr.. All right. As you step down, I remind you that you're under oath. Do not discuss your testimony with anybody during the recess. Recess for 15 minutes [14:43:27][0.0] [GAP]

CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO HAS SURFACED TAKEN FROM AN AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. IT SHOWS COPS LIFTING A WOMAN OFF THE GROUND AS THEY PLACE HER IN CUSTODY AND TOSSING HER AROUND IN A VIOLENT WAY. THE WOMAN, DIANA DIETRICH BARNES, ARRIVED AT THE AIRPORT TO PICK UP HER MOTHER. AN OFFICER TOLD HER TO KEEP MOVING..THAT SHE COULDNT' PARK IN THE PASSENGER PICKUP AREA. BARNES HAD TO BACK UP TO AVOID A TRUCK IN FRONT OF HER AND SHE HIT THE OFFICER WITH HER SIDE VIEW MIRROR. THAT'S WHEN COPS WENT TO ARREST THE WOMAN. POLICE ARE REVIEWING ALL THE TAPE AS ARE COUNTY ATTORNIES.

ROSSVILLE, GEORGIA - MARCh 15: (AUDIO OMITTED) UPS delivers on March 15, 2024 in Rossville, Georgia.(Footage by WW News/Getty Images)

***This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment. Usage must cease on all platforms (including digital) within ten days of its initial delivery or such shorter time as designated by CNN.***\n\n --TEASE--\nA CAR CRASH SPARKS A HUGE HOUSE EXPLOSION ...\nAND A MAN TRIES TO ROB A GAMESTOP WITH A WATER BOTTLE CASE ON HIS HEAD. \nNO, REALLY.\nCOMING UP IN TODAY'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!\n\n --SUPERS--\nPrefonted\n\n --LEAD IN--\nA CAR THAT CRASHED INTO A HOUSE IN TEXAS ENDED UP BEING THE LEAST DANGEROUS PART OF THE INCIDENT ...\nWHEN A BROKEN GAS LINE ERUPTED IN A HUGE EXPLOSION.\nJEREMY ROTH HAS TODAY'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS\n\n --REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS--\nTEXAS POLICE RELEASED INCREDIBLE DASHCAM VIDEO CAPTURING A HOUSE EXPLOSION\n <pi>(NATS-BOOM)</pi>\nA HURST POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO A CAR THAT CRASHED INTO THE HOUSE WHEN IT HAPPENED\nA GASLINE THAT WAS RUPTURED DURING THE ACCIDENT WAS REPORTEDLY THE CAUSE\nTHREE PEOPLE INSIDE THE HOUSE WERE HOSPITALIZED, BUT ARE EXPECTED TO RECOVER\nAMAZINGLY, NEITHER THE OFFICER NOR THE DRIVER WERE SERIOUSLY INJURED\n\nPOLICE ARE INVESTIGATING THE FOURTH ATM HEIST IN A MONTH AT HOUSTON AREA COURTHOUSES\nIT STARTED IN MARCH, WHEN SUSPECTS CRASHED INTO A HARRIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND MADE OFF WITH AN ATM\nTHEN, ON APRIL 15, A TRUCK WAS USED TO SMASH THROUGH THE DOORS OF A COURTHOUSE IN PASADENA\nTHOSE SUSPECTS FLED AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO TOW THE CASH MACHINE AWAY\nDAYS LATER, IT HAPPENED AGAIN.\nTHIS TIME, THE SUSPECTS FLED WHEN THEY REALIZED THE MACHINE WAS EMPTY\nTHEN ON APRIL 19, YET ANOTHER ATM WAS STOLEN FROM A COURTHOUSE IN HARRIS COUNTY\n INVESTIGATORS NOW SUSPECT THE ACTS MAY BE LINKED \n\nSPEAKING OF CRIMINAL MASTERMINDS ...\nPOLICE ARE LOOKING FOR A MAN CAUGHT ON CAMERA BREAKING IN AT A GEORGIA GAMESTOP STORE ...\nWEARING A CLEAR PLASTIC BAG USED TO PACKAGE WATER BOTTLES -- ON HIS HEAD.\nREALLY?\nPOLICE POSTED IMAGES OF THE SUSPECT ON FACEBOOK, ASKING FOR THE PUBLIC'S HELP, SAYING ...\n"YOU CAN HELP US CATCH HIM, ONCE YOU STOP LAUGHING."\nNO WORD ON WHAT BRAND OF WATER BOTTLE PACKAGING HE USED ...\nNO MATTER THE BRAND, CLEARLY .. IT WENT STRAIGHT TO HIS HEAD.\n\nFOR TALAT - I'M JEREMY ROTH\n -----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----\n\n --KEYWORD TAGS--\nSOCIAL MEDIA TRENDING VIRAL VIDEO CAUGHT ON CAMERA CRASH BLAST TEXAS HOUSTON COURTHOUSE ATM THEFT SURVEILLANCE WATER GAMESTOP COOL FUN FUNNY CUTE CRAZY\n\n

COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / CAM 3 [13:07:51][3827.4] [13:07:51] It's going to. All right for the jury. They. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully you had a good lunch. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case state ready with its next witness. Yes, Your Honor. The state calls Jesse Whurley Jesse a oh, yes, Makes sense. [13:10:14][143.3] [13:10:14] Yeah, Truth and nothing but the truth. I do good. Good afternoon. Can you please go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell me your name and spell it for the court. Reporter. My name is Jesse Worley. It's Jesse w o r e y. OK, and this really how are you currently employed? I work in the Division of Forensic Sciences for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It's also referred to as the crime lab. I work in the impressions, evidence section as a latent print examiner. OK, and what are your job duties currently? [13:11:01][47.5] [13:11:01] Primarily my job is a latent print examiner is to analyze items of evidence that are submitted for latent print services for comparison, database searching or chemical processing. In our laboratory, I conducted database searches. I do comparisons of latent prints to known exemplars, are known prints and then issue results of by reports of my results and then testify in court when needed. And how long have you been working in that capacity in your field? I've been with the GBI for 14 years. And please go ahead and tell us your education and training. I have a bachelor's of science in forensic and investigative sciences from West Virginia. University. I graduated from there in 2007. I was employed by the GBI that fall in November and I completed a training program that lasted about two years prior to being able to write my own reports. [13:11:59][57.9] [13:11:59] The training covered every aspect of casework that we do as latent print examiners and included courtroom testimony and evidence, analysis and processing. I can complete sixteen hours of annual outside education or continuing education every year as well since the completion of my training program. OK, and are you a member of any professional organizations in your field? Yes, I am. Can you tell us which ones? Primarily, I am a member of a member of the International Association for Identification, which is a professional organization across the globe that is geared towards education and publications for forensic practitioners and identification sciences. Like latent prints also question documents, DNA and crime scene investigation. I'm also a member of the Georgia State Division of the I and I also hold an office with that group as well. Have you testified as an expert before? Yes, I have. OK, what have testified testified as an expert in specifically in late inference. OK, and has that been in Georgia? Yes, ma'am. About how many times getting close to 60. I think the last time I counted it was like fifty seven. Fifty eight times. OK, Your Honor, at this point we would tender Miss Worli as an expert in latent print examination. No objection to objection. Thank you. Now, Mr. Lee, I want to go through some terms with you. And if you can just describe or explain those for me, OK? OK, are you familiar with the term Friction Ridge detail? Yes. Can you tell the jury what that is? So friction Ridgedale, as we refer to it and latent print examination is actually the composition and features that are on the skin that make up the palms of the hands and also the soles of the feet. It's that detail and those characteristics that are replicated in your hand or finger or foot makes contact with a surface. And in that detail, that arrangement of those features is transferred onto the surface and leave the latent print that we can subsequently develop and then hopefully compare in in hopes of identifying it to a source. So when I look at my finger, are you talking about the lines and grooves? Yes. So my fingertips, the the skin on the the palms surface of the hands is referred to as friction rich skin. It's made up of a series of ridges and raised areas as opposed to the rest of the skin on the body, which is fairly smooth within that rich flow. There are different features where ridges either start and stop or they split into two. [13:14:46][166.9] [13:14:46] And it's those specific features in the arrangement of those features within the the friction rich skin that make up the detail that we use for comparison. Now, what is an inked print also known as a known print? What's that? So ink prints that traditionally were taken using printers, ink on on a white card stock to record the detail of the finger prints or palm print of a specific person so that they can be used for comparison in today with all the advances in technology, most known prints are now recorded digitally with a glass like a glass plate and almost a scanner or camera type setup underneath [13:15:27][41.1] [13:15:27] But the idea is the same. The detail of the skin is recorded clearly so that it can be used for comparison. And can you please tell the jury what is a latent print? So latent prints are what we are looking for, primarily like in evidence in a case to determine who may have handled an item or come in contact with a particular surface. Latent prints are typically referred to is latent in that they're not necessarily visible right away. [13:15:58][31.5] [13:15:58] When an object is discovered as a piece of evidence, the latent print may require development techniques like fingerprint powder or other chemical methods to make it visible. And then even at that point, as an examiner, we commonly refer to them as still being latent prints until we've identified them to a known source. Now, what does it mean when an item is positive for latent prints at the GBI crime lab? The policy that we employ for determining whether an item is positive or negative for latent prints, we conduct a visual examination of the item, whether it's a lift card that has a powdered impression that was collected from the crime scene, or if we're getting in an item itself and we do the processing in-house, we're looking to see if after development there is any visible friction. Ridge detail that could be used for comparison. So sometimes if an item is decided, we decide that it's negative. It might mean that there is no ridge detail on it at all, or it could be that there is some detail, but it's so limited or so sparse or even obliterated or distorted where it's not going to be usable because it's not clear enough for a comparison that could also still produce a negative result. [13:17:14][75.4] [13:17:13] But but at the point where we say we have enough detail present on the item to to use it for a comparison, then we say it's positive. And what does it mean when you say an item is suitable for comparison? So once we have a positive results that we've done a visual examination and there is usable friction, rich detail on this item or this list card, the first step of our process is to analyze the amount of detail that's there, the type of detail, the clarity of it, and determine if it is in fact suitable for comparison. So we do the visual examination is either positive or negative. If we have the positive results, then we determine if it's suitable or not. Suitable for comparison, which is really just we're going kind of up a ladder in terms of how much quality and quantity of detail is present in the impression. So we have positive. And then if we say the analysis results are suitable, we have enough detail or sufficient detail to be able to compare it to a known set of prints and can you just let the jurors know what is the process that you use that the GBI for comparing latent prints to known prints? So the first step I'd like, as I said, is the visual examination to determine if we have any latent print detail present. The next part of the methodology we refer to is the ace. The method is an acronym for analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification. So the analysis is the first part that I've described in determining from our positive results which of those impressions may be suitable for a comparison. Once an impression is determined to be suitable, then we'll move on to a comparison that's that's taking the latent print and putting it side by side with a set of known prints and looking for similarity or differences between the and print and any of the prints that are on the records that we have for comparison. During the comparison, we're looking for similarity or differences. It just depends. Not every comparison will result in a match or an ID. So you may see more differences than you see similarities. But as we start to make the decision in our mind in whether what the result is that comparison is that prompts the beginning of our evaluation phase, which is really the decision making, part of the process in the methodology that we the way we use it at GBI, we have we can make an identification, which means that we've determined that the latent print and the set of known records we're comparing it to came from the same person we can have an exclusion, which would mean that the latent print and the known prints were made by different sources or different persons, inconclusive within that. There's just not enough detail to say definitively it either is or isn't this person, or it can also be that we need a better set of records. Maybe the ones that we were given may not have been clear enough in a specific area. So we may say that we need new records for comparison. And then lastly, we also use a conclusion that's was not identified or no identification was made, which is it's kind of like a it's not an identification. [13:20:23][190.3] [13:20:23] And we're confident at the latent print is not from a specific source, but we haven't compared it enough to say that it's definitely an exclusion. Exclusion decisions tend to, in some instances, be harder to make when you're doing a comparison as an examiner and you start to feel like you're making an identification because you're seeing and observing features in the same arrangement, you're seeing the similarity. It becomes very easy to say when you've reached an identification because you have like proof positive. This feature is this feature. This one is this one. And everything lines up and you can see it when you have an exclusion. And sometimes it's depending on the area. If you're looking for a link within a large area of the home, there's a lot of area to search and you have to exhaust all the available features and relevant area of the skin before you can confidently say that you have an exclusion. So sometimes exclusion decisions are harder to reach than an identification. And so what we have adopted in our policy is that I know it's not an identification, but I haven't fully excluded this particular person yet. And that we report as we report that as an identification has not been made. Now, I want to turn your attention to DOFFS case number two thousand twenty six zero zero one one eight three. OK, who are the subjects involved under that case? [13:21:52][88.8] [13:21:52] Number? According to the report that I have, the subjects that were listed on the evidence, admission forms were listed as Gregory Johns, MacMichael Traves James McMichaels and William Brian, OK, and who's listed there as the victim? The victim is a listed is listed from the evidence admission forms as a mod Harbury. OK, so I want to turn your attention to the work that you did in this case. Yes. OK, what items did you use to do your comparison in this case? The latent prints that I was asked to examine were on evidence that was labeled as item twenty one in the GBI crime lab. Information system. [13:22:40][47.8] [13:22:39] I itemized them to be twenty one, a twenty one, be twenty one S. and twenty one D. So those are all latent lift cards that were submitted. OK, and then I was given a known finger and palm print cards bearing the name Amy Eileen Elrod and William Roderick. Brian Jr. OK, and did you also use known prints of a modern very. Yes, they appear as item twenty four. OK, if I can just have to tell you this here. Thank you. And this Worley, are you able to see what's there, what's hits or if he needs to step down, you can just make sure he is speaking loud enough for the court for ok, ok, ok. Are you able to see this. OK, please be careful. OK, so you see what I have here. A zone prince. If you need can. Yes. OK, so Amy Elrod, known Prince. You say you received those, right? Yes. Those are marked as item twenty. A reminder. And did you also utilize William Bryans? No. Prince. Yes. And also a Mod Arbor's. No Prince. Yes. OK, and some mid and late list. We talked about those, right? Yes. And did you say they were labeled twenty one A, 21, B, 21 C and 21 D? Yes, ma'am. OK, so if we can just start I guess in reverse chronological order with the twenty one B, what did you determine about twenty one is the cap off my marker for 21 days after I did the initial visual examination for latent prints on that item, [13:24:38][118.3] [13:24:38] I determine that that item was negative. There was not a fraction of details that could be used for comparison. OK, so twenty one, the negative for latent prints for. Yes, ok, go into twenty one, see what did you determine. So there is also the visual examination for twenty one. C was positive, there was friction, detail, presence, but upon analysis I determined it to be unsuitable for comparison. OK, so positive for latent prints but still on unsuitable. Yes Miss. For comparison. OK, so that leaves us with twenty one and twenty one. Be looking at those lists for twenty one and twenty one. B what if anything did you see in those. So on both. [13:25:34][56.1] [13:25:33] I am twenty one A twenty one B my visual examination result is that these items were positive for latent prints. I also notice that they appear to be duplicate lists of the same latent prints. OK, so we have essentially A and B are the same print. Yes, OK. And that's something that from experience in the way latent prints work, you can't ever you can't ever create the same impression twice. They're always going to have different shapes, a different amount of distortion movement because of the pliability and the the way the hand is is built in atomically that you can't ever create the same thing twice. So when we see lift cards that are the same in most aspects, it's likely that they are duplicate lists where the impression is powder's and then piece of tape is used to lift it. And this piece of tape is used to lift it a second time as it both lists were submitted. [13:26:34][60.4] [13:26:34] OK, so before we go further on and B, I just want to go back to D, so were you able to compare anything to see. No, it was negative. OK, were you able to compare anything to see. No, because it was determined to be not suitable for a suitable OK, so no comparison here. Surface. OK, so back to and be positive for latent prints but the same. Yes. [13:27:00][26.1] [13:26:59] Did you choose one over the other for comparison. Yes. Which one did I use. Twenty one. Eh. Because it appeared to be the first list. The development was a little darker on the card. Is a little clearer than what was visible in this. Now go ahead and just tell the jurors your findings for twenty one s in the process that is of course. So I completed an analysis of the latest print that was on twenty one a I determined that the print appear to be from the right home of an individual and that there was sufficient detail present to determine it to be suitable for comparison. At that point, I began the comparison process by comparing the latent print to the palm print cards for Amy Eileen Elrod and William Rodrik. [13:27:53][53.3] [13:27:53] Brian Jr. And my conclusion for both of those comparisons is that no identification was made OK, so for Amy Elrod and William Ryan, we said no identification. Yes, OK, all right. What did you do next, if anything? At that point I compared the latent print from twenty one A, which again is that palm print to the palm print cards that bearing the name Ahmad Marquez Aubury and was able to make an identification to that set of records so identified to Ahmad are very. [13:28:34][41.6] [13:28:34] Yes, OK, so positive I.D.. OK, and did you testify that that was the right palm print. I did. So from his right, yes. OK, were you able to tell where on his right palm that print came from? Yes. OK, so may I approach Your Honor. OK, actually can you step down please. Miss Worley's OK, so I'm going to show you my hand and right hand. And if you can just show and if you can come. So we can just go this way please. Yeah. You do it your back to. Oh, I'm sorry. [13:29:16][42.1] [13:29:16] I'll do this if everybody can because you're off. Of course, Judge. Thank you. We'll just going to flip to the image that I had of the lift card. OK, And my hand is called the the shape of the impression that was made. [13:29:38][21.4] [13:29:38] The shape that appears on the left part is indicative of being from the edge of the palm. So this this area here, it's commonly referred to as a writer's home, because when your writing and your hand moves across the page is usually that portion of the poem that rests on the paper. And so it was very similar to the shape of the palm print that was on this card. Twenty one and then subsequently as well. Twenty one beats. OK, so one second before you said so if I'm holding this marker in my hands, are we talking about like that side that's resting here. Yes. [13:30:13][35.9] [13:30:13] And then sometimes it varies whether it's very straight up and down or if it's angled in a little bit more to get more of the center portion of the palm. But that's still typically referred to as the writer's home when it's that outer edge of the poem. OK, all right. You can have a seat. Thank you so much. Because it was here. [13:30:48][35.0] [13:30:48] I think you're going with this. This is sort of like it was just not touch anything. This. So, Miss Whurley, what, if anything, in looking at the list, what, if anything, did you observe as it relates to the presence or absence of moisture in this particular impression? There did appear to be some areas that looked like they might have been wet or had an additional amount of moisture then other areas within the same impression. In my training, in my experience, one of the things that we are taught to look for as an examiner is what kind of differences may still be present even when an identification is made. As I testified already, you can never create the same impression twice. So even when we have an identification, the latent print is never going to look exactly like the known print. [13:31:52][64.6] [13:31:52] I know sometimes on TV they say show them up on screens and they overlay them and they kind of they match perfectly. But that's not really how latent print comparison works. There's always going to be inherent movement and distortion within any impression that sometimes may be recorded. A known print, sometimes known prints are well recorded and they're free from as much distortion as possible. [13:32:17][24.7] [13:32:17] But one of the things that we have to evaluate in making an identification decision is are we seeing differences that are due to moisture or surface or development issues or are we seeing differences that are inherent to them being from different sources? And we have to use tolerance where where appropriate in making that decision. In this instance, there were areas of the impression that do appear to be wet. The ridges do have a different appearance and the powder does adhere or react differently to more wet areas of the impression. And so that was one of the observations that I did make in this case. But it wasn't so significant that it over or overreached the tolerance that I can use in making an identification decision. OK, so it didn't affect your your evaluation in terms of the identification to Misrata? No, but it does make a difference in in explaining why if it were to be put up for anyone to see, the latent print does not look exactly like the known prints. And one of the reasons for that is there is moisture present. And in doing your comparison, did you follow valid scientific procedure and methods accepted in your field? Yes, I did. OK, and are those methods reliable? Yes, I believe actually in going through the ASV method I left off the V portion. The last part of ASV is the verification. [13:33:45][88.1] [13:33:45] Our policy advice requires that if we all of our decisions are verified by a second examiner, with the exception of the no identification decision and some of are inconclusive. But my suitability decisions for whether for A, B and C, those were all verified by a second examiner. And then my identification decision for item twenty one was also verified by a second examiner. One moment at this time, that is all I have for you. [13:34:18][33.4] [13:34:18] The swirlies that since I have some questions for you, I may just briefly this work. Yes. Hi, I'm Jason Chestnutt. We have talked about this case. Have we know OK, were you given any photographs to come along with items? Twenty one, ABC and No. Four, is it true that you're not sure where that latents palm print came from on the other, that it was came from a trust that you're not sure where all the traffic came from? That's correct. We we describe our evidence based on what's labeled on the lift card. Specifically in this case, they were simply labeled as being from William Bryan's truck. Got it. And then 21 C, which had some some detail on it. Was that a fingerprint? I believe it was, yes. OK, do you know from which finger it came from? No. OK, and then 21 D is that simply you don't know what in the world that was or that it was a fingerprint with no detail that could be used for comparison purposes based on the image that I have available. From what I recall in working this case, there wasn't enough detail to to say otherwise. And that's primarily why the result is also negative. [13:36:15][117.1] [13:36:15] There's just very little detail present, if any. So do you have the photograph of the car photograph? I have a copy. So it's not a great copy. It's just a quick look to see what you're seeing. I may have a question. I'm not sure that I will. The list cards. You. Yeah, the one that the one that goes to see this. Please. OK, so I'm looking at this. Do you see any detail in it that makes you believe that it probably came from the finger? The shape of the impression and the direction of the rich flow is indicative of it being from a finger. [13:37:02][47.3] [13:37:02] But still not sufficient to compare it to any known source. So you've got some detail that you think this probably came from a finger, but then you're looking for enough detail where you can say now I can start counting up enough of the detail to try to match it to another round, say yes. So our our determination for suitability is a combination of quantity and quality of detail. So while that number of features present is a part of the decision, it's not the total or whole component. OK, D is probably a finger. We don't know which D I don't know. I didn't make any determination. OK, but it has some of the details that's consistent with a thing we were talking about. Twenty C over there. All right. So 21 C is probably a finger. It's very likely from a finger. [13:37:51][49.2] [13:37:51] OK, and then D is such that you can't even begin to determine whether it could have come from a finger or not. Correct. OK, got it. And then you don't know where on the truck those things came from. Correct. OK, very good. Thank you. Your question. Yeah there is right now. You're right. Thank you. You may step down. You and you're excused but subject to recall. Stay ready with the Sex Pistols. [13:38:43][51.7] [13:38:43] Yes, right. This time the state's going to call Special Agent Lawrence sort of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. [13:40:47][124.5] [13:40:46] I do lot of. All right. Please state your name and spell it for a court reporter, please. My name is Lawrence Kelly. That's LSW RNC KLFY. And how are you currently employed? I'm a special agent with the GBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I am. What is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? We are a state law enforcement agency. We're the investigative arm of the state government. We of when requested to do so, can assist local agencies with investigations or we can initiate certain investigations on our own involving certain specific violations of law. All right. So you're a special agent. What does that mean? It means I'm a post Georgia Coast Council certified law enforcement officer. I have powers of arrest throughout the state. [13:41:49][63.0] [13:41:49] I have a specialized training in various forms of investigative practices, interviewing and interrogation, certain specialized training in examining cellular telephones and cellular telephone records and elder abuse investigations and general just investigations. All right. So you got the normal training that the GBI provides all special agents, is that right? Yes. OK, but you have some special technical expertize. I do. All right. Tell the jury about your special technical expertize. I have two specialties. One is the only pertinent to this case. I my elder abuse are at risk. Adult from specialist. The other one I am a specialist in the gathering and use of data from cellular telephones and cellular telephones and social media records. [13:42:39][49.3] [13:42:39] I have a specific training and to download and extract data from cellular telephones to obtain records from various providers and to analyze those records. Right. So be fair to say that sometimes you're the guy who gets called out by other fellow agents. Yes, ma'am. Happens of quite frequent. All right. So direct to your attention specifically to May 6th of twenty twenty. Did you become involved in the homicide investigation for Mr. Ahmad Harbury? I did. All right. How did that come to you? I was called I was not involved in in the early stages. I was called by asexuals, but first lady in charge, Richard Dial, who was my direct supervisor, and he told me to report the next morning to assist in syntactical matters involving the Aubury investigation. Right. So he was the one who is in charge of the investigation. He was his back. All right. So, Richard, Dial calls you up. And at this time, did you then submit some video files to another arm of your agency? I did. When I arrived the following morning, I submitted two video files that I had received from Agent for Massingale that were videos, two videos. One was about how the lover of probably a minute moment, little shy of two minutes long, another one was like truncated version of that video to Matthew. He was a digital forensic investigator with our child exploitation and criminal Computer Crimes Unit Indicator. OK, so we'll go ahead and take a piece by piece when it comes to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, [13:44:34][115.4] [13:44:34] that's a statewide agency. We are. So where is your office? My office is in Queensland. All right. And Matthew Heath, where is he? Out of his offices? He's at our headquarters. Indicate where at the time that our headquarters indicated Decatur. And that is close to what town? Atlanta. OK, so now he was in a different unit, you said? Yes. From the child Exploitation and Computer Crimes Unit has two computer based units, the cat, which is the United Kingdom and the Georgia Cybercrime Center in Augusta, Georgia. So he is a digital forensic investigator. Yes, ma'am. All right. So how is his job duty different than your job duties? He's not a sworn agent. We do some of the same things as a cell phone expert. I can download and extract data from cell phones and cell phones by themselves. He can do that for cell phones, computers, other devices. [13:45:29][54.7] [13:45:29] He also has the ability to do other technical things, such as enhancing enhance video files or reviewing video files for information. OK, so you sent him a one minute forty three second video. Is that the video of the homicide of a moderate? It is. All right. And the shortened version of it. That was the duplicate. Yes, it was. It was a truncated version originally created. I was I viewed the metadata. It was originally created approximately 30 some thirty seven minutes after the after the first oh, and it's just a it's truncated. I mean, it's just like cut force and it's like a thirty six second portion of the original video. All right. So did you also send him surveillance video from two nineteen sitilides, right. I did. Did you also send him five surveillance videos from the interior of 220 Satullo Drive and were those the ones dated February. Twenty third of twenty twenty. Yes. You also send him forty seven surveillance videos from two to four Sadil satellite drive. Yes. All right. Now with regard to the videos from two to four Pilet Drive were three of them from the date in question. February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. I believe so, yes, ma'am. All right. [13:46:50][81.7] [13:46:50] So the other forty four, they were from January 1, 2020. But I don't recall they were not from they were from prior to the incident. I called exactly two leading questions please. Yeah. Keep wondering. Sure. So after submitting all of this to Matthew, he he's the digital forensic investigator indicator. What did he provide back to you? He provided back to me several videos that he had enhanced of. [13:47:21][31.6] [13:47:21] One of them was a contrast enhancement. Basically, he lightened up certain shadow areas in the video. One was a stabilized video that showed portions of the of the or the video kind of keep it in, keep the video had a lot of extraneous stuff on the side. So it just showed the the major part of the video. And then there were some frame by frame videos, frames each school frames from each of the videos that we saw. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and take you through this. If you had the opportunity, of course, to review the items, Matthew, he's sent back to you back in May 2011. All right. So did you have the opportunity to review State's Exhibit 191, Matthew? He's half speed video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. All right. And was it fair and accurate? There was. At this time, the state retender into evidence state's exhibit 191. The objection is that they'll be submitted. In addition, did he also submit to state's exhibit 192? [13:48:30][69.4] [13:48:30] I think you mentioned the high contrast video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. Right at this time, the state would enter into evidence state's exhibit 192 section of the objection to publishing state's exhibit 181. And how is this legal mean? I'll back it up to the beginning. And if you tell the houses it's five six one eight half speed, not empty for me. Agent Kelly. Now, state's exhibit one to two houses, level five six one eight. Not contrast, but just. Yeah, that is by far the difference between one ninety one and one. Ninety two point ninety one was slower. Yes ma'am. One only one is that half speed from the original. And this is, these are from the thirty second the thirty second truncated video. These are half speed. All right. And then the high contrast that is at which speed probably three or four full speed. All right. So when we get approximately, approximately here, which appears to be about ten seconds described, this image is compared to the half speed image, I guess. Is it brighter or darker? It's more. It's brighter. As you can see, the the road on this one is kind of washed out in the sun. You know, the intensity in the blue sky in Asabi, you see white or whether the light has washed out the pale blue in the sky. And the intent behind this is so you can see what I see, things that are that are maybe might be obscured by shadow in the original video. All right. So when we look at this right here, my focus, your attention right here, are we able to actually see what takes place here? It's way what did what? It appeared that the person known to me as Mr. Travis, that Michael raised his hands in this kind of motion. Did you see what he had in the sense that he had something in his hands? I couldn't see directly exactly what it was at that point. I can infer it was from from contact from later, but any contact from later? What does he have? You know, I'm going to object to the witness describing what is obviously in the video. I don't understand why the witness needs to say there are trees in the video. There's a road in the video. The Travis McMichaels holding a shotgun, videos and evidence. Now, video is the evidence. [13:53:39][308.3] [13:53:39] Witness doesn't need to describe. This is a key investigator who received evidence and there's a reason behind what he is doing and what he's observing as far as this case and prosecution goes, which is the details that are in these particular videos is that would be the appropriate question. What do you do that describing the video? It doesn't make any sense. And it's it's fraught with peril. We he's explained what he's done. You're asking me to explain what he believes he's seeing in the video. It's just like something to in addition to Matthew, he's also having received state's exhibit or for having received the videos from 219 Soto Drive to TriZetto Drive and two to four civil drives provide you with another video he did. He took me, took those videos. And basically there's extraneous material in both of them. We cut that out to show Mr. Aubrey's passed through the through the neighborhood and through any way he was seen in any of those particular videos that was submitted by. And you had the opportunity to review state's exhibit two to four. I have. All right. And was that what Matthew, he said, provided to you to just show Mr. Avery's past that day? It is. At this time, the state would tender into evidence state's exhibit two to one to two to two to three and then to two for the past March. If I could just have a moment, Your Honor. Remember what those are. So it's going to be six to one to two to two to three and then to two for the combined. Thank any objection that you don't clarify. Yes, no, no objection. [13:56:09][150.2] [13:56:09] We were just clarifying the exhibits she put to death object to submit to judge looking at state's exhibit two to four, completed and published the state's completed publishing state's exhibit two to four. So May 7th, did you also then receive from our CIC, Caitlyn Ngala in Tennessee? Did she attempt to provide you what she's attempted to do with the Greggory? Michael, no one will call. And the Brian video as far as audio went. Yes, ma'am. I received a letter from Kyle that the Gwinnett County Police Department had previously submitted the 911 calls and the same videos that I submitted to Mr. Keith to the Regional Organized Crime Intelligence Center, or I see they also have the capability of enhancing audio and video. [13:59:32][203.1] [13:59:30] And I was told that some of the files are ready. And so I downloaded enhanced 911 calls and some of the enhanced video products that they produced. But the audio files, no noticeable enhancement was made. But the audio files, it's not like NCIS or TV is there. And it really wasn't. The original video was of a of an audio quality that you could hear what was going on. And I don't think the enhancements brought anything new to light right. But with it came to Mr. Gray that she had also done some videos. Yes, ma'am. In an effort to enhance some things. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. All right. So State's Exhibit 129 has already been entered into evidence and you had an opportunity to review that. That's the one where she said she kind of cut out some extraneous stuff. Yes. Yes. Right. At this time, the state will go ahead and publish the two video files from state to state at one twenty nine, I believe one twenty nine is contained in the court's exhibit three stipulation. What is to stay here? State was the state level from it from IMG five six one seven, which is the longer of the two video polishing state's first female sixty six point twenty nine. The second video of the season 129. Let's say the bottom is stabilized I img five six one seven which is again the longer of the two videos. Now directing your attention to me is of twenty twenty where you tat's with following up on tips. Yes ma'am. That's actually I was actually tasked with that upon my arrival May 7th. But with all the other things I was doing, it was myself, Nicholas Anzac and several of our analysts from the George Information Sharing and Analysis Center in Atlanta, which is a deep work unit. We're tasked with reviewing the numerous tips that were coming in. All right. So they're coming into where they were coming in originally. They were just coming in through either Glen County PD or the sheriff's office. And then GBI announced we had created a tip line and most of them shifted to the GBI tip line. All right. So you were tasked with this unit to follow up on tips that you're getting. And these are from where just from the general public that believe the video had been released publicly at that point. And people were calling in. We had asked anyone with information to call in directly about the case, but we were getting everything from object to here. [14:03:51][260.4] [14:03:50] Your Honor, it's not being a search for the truth of the matter. Asserted that, you know, I'll just make something up. Bob called in and suggested this. It goes to they were receiving these and he took some action on one of the specific tips that I was going to ask about getting more specific. I will judge. All right. So did you attempt to determine if Mr. Aubrey could be seen running with a stick or a hammer? I did. All right. Tell the jury what you did. We have, as I I viewed the video, the half speed videos, we also had all of the still frame images that I mentioned earlier. I believe there were nearly 2000 of them. And we picked the one from the requisite area and reviewed them one by one. And what were you able to determine as far as Mr. Aubrey running with a stick? Objection, Your Honor. This is not an expert opinion here. He's saying I've looked at some pictures taken from some videos that other people enhanced for me. And this is what I think I see or I don't see. This is an issue for the jury. In Georgia. It's the same issues. He's looking at pictures and saying what he thinks he sees in the picture. We join your honor, and I think we're potentially opening doors to go into other tips and the narratives that they might foster say it wasn't going to go into any other tips or other narratives that they might foster. He was tasked with dispelling this tipper, this rumor that was out there, and he went victimization rosacea. We're now testifying. And so I think we need to take it outside. I think I'm still going over. Thank you for you. Overruling Mr. Voss. We're concerned about going into other tips. Mine was the issue of him testifying as an expert officer. It is actually what I was overruled on both. For the record. Thank you. You may ask the question if there's anything in Mr. Always have any point of influence. OK, all right. So you mentioned our frame by frame. That agent he gave to you. Have you a chance to look at state's exhibit three fourteen, the folder containing those? Yes, there is the large number of forms. All right. At this time, the state will tender into evidence the state's 314 at this time, the state's 314 at this time. And I'm sorry, as a witness the same way it was. But I said, you know, a lot of them wrong. I believe there's one thousand ninety five still images from the video. I just want people to have the support of what he was following up on, correct? Yes. And that's the state's tendering 1000 still images for this video. Is that what you're sticking to? Yes, we are tendering the entire one thousand ninety five still images digitally in a digital folder. These are the stills higher video. We're doing a selection of the these what I understand is being tendered. And he just testified to a review of photographs from the video. I understand these are the still photographs that were reviewed by the agent as part of his follow up that he has already described on the record notation, nosegay. I'm still trying to justify why you're the witness. Is this are these still these are still. But he did not read. These are still that were provided to him in the pickup. The other stuff in the stipulation, is that correct? All right. Very good. It was it just wasn't made very clear. So no objection from breaking my submitted. Thank you. So your discussions were like concentric circles. You know, we all eventually realized we're talking about this. I think we're talking about right. I'm actually going go back when we look at this particular folder, what does it say right down here in states three fourteen, the name of the profile, you mean right down here in the far back corner? How many are in there? One thousand ninety five. All right. We open it up. Are we looking at the first image? Yes, ma'am. And how is it labeled? At the very top and five six one eight frame, zero zero zero zero one EMG, which is an image format. All right. And how did you scroll through the same way it appears you're doing it? I use the gallery function on the computer. Such as this. Yes. Somnath, go ahead and stop here real quick for you while fifty seven and then we look at fifty eight. Do you know why there is a difference in clarity between those two particular images? Based on my training since the case at the time I didn't base my training. This case is going to be probably because there was motion blur in that particular frame, as is the camera might be moving a little bit of the cars moving. That would cause the the distortion in the earlier front because you're in a moving car. Yes, he's the the the two things are moving. The car is moving and the and the person taking the video is is moving. [14:10:10][380.1] [14:10:10] All right. Do you have any idea. I don't know. You know, do you know whether this has autofocus. It's trying to focus. I happen to know it was taken with an Apple iPhone. It does. And anybody who's ever taken a photograph of an iPhone as well as you move it, it kind of locks it on something and tries to focus to do that one thing, continue to publish. I hold it down. What does it do? It, move it. Move forward. Like an animation. Like a movie with one frame at a time. But it looks like a movie. And by the time we are here on frame three seventy nine, what's happened first taking the video is let's move the camera. For what reason. [14:12:22][131.8] [14:12:21] I don't know. I don't know. Does that include all one thousand ninety five which just from state's exhibit 190, the actual video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. Direct your attention now to state's exhibit 315. And Kelly said he had opportunity to look through state's exhibit three fifteen prior to coming in and taking the stand today. Yes, ma'am. And are these just printed out stills of some of the InFocus shots from state's exhibit 314? Yes, it's not included because I overshot and it does it has the response that there was at this time the state enter into evidence state's exhibit 315. No objection to is this a subset of the last exhibit of printed? Correct. These are hard copy printed of Select InFocus images from State's 314. [14:18:13][351.7] [14:18:13] OK, did he take some action to focus on there? Just we're just clear ones as opposed to the ones. All right. So but these are not images that have been manipulated to be different than the images we see on them. These have not been manipulated in any way. They just were printed out from three fourteen. But yes, from the right, there is a good deal. No objection, Your Honor, to see the little more foundation. Thank you. No objection. Gudermes. Thank you. So closing down state's 314. So when we look at state's 315, so for instance, just the very first put up here to see and focus. All right. So is this just one of the still shots from state's 314? Yes, ma'am. It's one of these this one of the from the exhibit we just looked at. All right. So when we look at this address from there, how has how is the state's label that it? So you can see it. It's just about four state three fifteen and then it's 299, which I'm assuming is the the number of the frame from the previous set of rights of 314. This would be still shot to ninety nine so they could print it out. Now you indicated you were kind of the cell phone guy, is that right? I am. All right. So go ahead. And tell the jury what it is you do when you do a cell phone extraction. What is that, a cell phone. That exactly is just that. There's data maintained on cellular telephone for smart devices. It's maintained differently. Only the one we use a software or a device to extract the zero. The the the base data from the device using various methods of from the various software or equipment that we're using. So, for instance, if you have like a Samsung phone or iPhone, do you need different computers to extract the data at the time of this? Yes, ma'am. At the time of that of this case, we needed a major cities use. We have seven different methods that we use. But I was use the Cellebrite physical analyzer to do an iPhone, which they software that runs off of a laptop PC. And we had a self you Fed, which is a device for forensic extraction device also made by Cellebrite to do Android devices like Samsung. All right. So during your investigation, where you give in previous extractions. I was was I was given the extracts and I was given the reports of the extraction, which is when you load the extraction into Cellebrite physical analyzer in order to make any sense without that software, you have to generate a report. And I was given the reports from extractions that Linn County PD did. So Glencairn PD, were they able to give you the raw data? They were not. I asked for it in. Detective Morrison said he did not maintain the data at that time. Since then, he has been told it's probably best to maintain everything. OK, so you got the report, not the data yet. We're able to work with the report, though, due to the Cellebrite system. I was investigating MÃsSICA generated reports in what's called you. You said are you can read the report, which can also be loaded physically, a lot of software and reviewed. All right. So for the purpose of your analysis on May 11th, 20/20, did you look at the report, the extraction reports for Travis McMichaels? I think? And should you look at the extraction reports from William Ryan's cell phone? All right. Were you able to find any communication between Brian Cell Phone and Travis McMichaels cell phone on February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. Nothing. Nothing that extraction of. All right. So I'm going to move you then forward to May 11th of twenty twenty. Did you work with Agent Seacrest, along with Mr. Ryan and his attorney, Mr. Off? I did. OK, and did Mr. Ryan consent to the download of his phone at that time on May 11th? Twenty, twenty. All right. So but this, of course, is a download as the phone is on. What date? Ismailov OK, so this is May 11th at your downloading. This is. All right. And what were you able to notice as far as Greg, with Michael's cell phone number and Mr. Ryan's number in the original extraction reports? Mitzvot neither neither Michael appeared as a contact in the May 11th extraction. Mr. Greg MacMichael appeared as a contact in Mr Rudd's office right now, also on May 11th, 20-20, were you present during the entire time Mr. Brian was being interviewed by Seacrest? No, ma'am. I was up there for the very beginning, Mr.. Of agreed to let us off his phone and I took his phone in the hopes that we would be able to get it back to him at the end of the interview of the president. But taking longer than we had thought. So we weren't able to do that. Oh, right. So May 11th, were you also interested in any surveillance video that Mr. Ryan may have had? All right. Tell the jury what happens with regard to the night owl surveillance video. Agent Seacrest after the interview came to me and said that they had surveillance at their house and the video had caught some might have some information related to the case. [14:24:34][380.8] [14:24:34] So I accompanied Mr. Ryan Metcalfe and I, an Agent Seacrest, to the house two to three or seven before the Ryan's house to attempt to download the the videos. All right. I'm going to show you that. Go ahead and show you what's been marked as state's exhibit one for ephedrin. Just so Special Agent Kelly, I'm showing you state's exhibit 194. You able to recognize that documents? Yes, ma'am. It appears to be true and great copy of a waiver of constitutional rights for. All right. What's that regard to the our digital security system at the Bryan residence? All right. And who witnessed that? Well, I find it is the witness, Mr. Mr. Bryant signed giving consent. All right. And did he sign freely and voluntarily? He did. This on the state retender into evidence state's exhibit 194 objects. Objects object to move state's exhibit 194. This is for the night, Elpidio. Yes, sir. Right. And what is the date we have here? Five eleven, twenty, twenty, eighteen for which is military time for six fifty four p.m.. All right. So once he signs the waiver and agreed to have his side, our surveillance system download, you went out to the house. What happened? Initially, neither Ryan nor Amy Elrod, who lived with him, could recall the password. So we began looking for the instruction manual for the device. We found that in the course of finding it, they were able to I don't remember how they remember remember the password. So we were able to, in the instruction manual, said that you could download a software that would allow you to view and download the videos from the device. So I did that on my computer. Downloading software and installing it was no problem. But due to the do a poor Internet connection, downloading the videos we download kept failing and it was going to take an inordinate amount of time if we continue to let you decide to do Mr. Golf suggestion, I took the passwords, the consent form, and I had the software loaded on my computer and I went back to where we were working out of the DNR office here in Brunswick, much better Internet connection and was able to download several videos. I tell the jury what the DNR is the of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Their office is right there next to the Millennium Bridge that I white building with the tower right there on the marsh. I see you're operating out of there. Yes, ma'am. We were operating on a hillside building. And were you able to then download the night out here? Yes, I was right. Have you had the opportunity to review State's Exhibit 193, the night owl videos? Yes, ma'am. We actually reviewed the videos at the scene. We were we were able look at them, just not download them. And then when I got back to the office, the downloads that we had were didn't seem to play very well. [14:28:15][221.0] [14:28:14] So we actually got the DVR later and got the downloads off of them again. They got the videos off the TV are specifically again. OK, so I kind of did it twice. Yes, ma'am, we did. But do you see change? No matter the videos that we receive, the actual ones that we could actually play were true and correct. What I saw when I was at some Burford that night. Right. So at this time, the state will enter into evidence state's exhibit one 193 U.S. objections. No objection to educate. What I want to do is I'm going to direct your attention first to the night owl video that ends in two five seven within the folder labeled one ninety four. The right here. What's the jury looking at? The video of the porch. And I think I'm beginning to that's the Bryant residence. I think it's three oh seven four four drive by. And what does it say down here front door? What to say up here in the upper right hand corner, do twenty three twenty twenty thirteen oh nine forty five, which is again in and minus times one of nine fifty five publishing. So this particular video system, we have about thirty seconds here. Why that it appeared in the video system was motion activated so it only records when there is motion to capture. Usually as anybody who's ever walked into like a bathroom with windows, motion detectors, there's a split second before it actually starts. And then if there's if there's not a lot of motion, it turns off. So when you looked at the night owl videos, you didn't have one continuous long video? No, man. [14:30:52][158.0] [14:30:52] There were short little snippets right. Publishing then within states, exhibit 194, the video ending in two five states. So what's the apostrophe at the beginning? What time are we looking at up here in the upper right hand? Corner at thirteen eleven and a four one and one of the four. All right. So we're talking about two minutes later publishing the video, the last three numbers to fifty eight within state's exhibit 194. So even though we don't have anything happening here in motion within the video, it's still taking us 30 second snippets. But yes, monitoring of how the motion video works is once the motion is activated, it takes video for a of time. If there is continual motion, it will continue to report. It's not it will it will stop recording. And I want to correct the record from it. The state's exhibit 193 is the folder containing the images six exhibit ninety four was the signed waiver. So if I misspoke earlier, this is the folder labeled one ninety three. We're now going to look at the video with the last three digits to six one. So what is the time on this? The View and do two six one thirteen eleven oh three is when it first. Was there any video with this angle before this number? I call remember, degen with. And were you able to then find any video afterwards meeting as Mr. Brian pulls the truck up, was there another video showing what he actually did out in the street. No, no. Your attention to the video for two, seven, eight. What time do we have here? Thirteen fifty eight. [14:34:27][215.0] [14:34:27] Oh, not same day. So thirteen fifty eight hours for some of the ones with this truck. That was at thirteen, eleven and publishing video three twelve was the time we have had here. Fourteen forty eight. And do you have any idea why Mr. Ryan is going back to his residence on a bicycle. Ebenstein. All right. So let's go ahead and talk about May 13th of twenty. Twenty where you present what Agent Seacrest had another interview with Mr Ryan. Mr Gosse, I was not present for the interview. After the interview. I was told that we had consented to download the Facebook page. And did you, in fact, download his Facebook? I did. All right. So with regard to Mr Bryan's Facebook page, was he a member of the satellite or Facebook group? He was not. And was he Facebook friends with Travis or Michael? No, no makeup. And was Facebook friends with Greg. Michael, not on May 13th. So when you downloaded it, you were able to see who he was friends with on that date? Yes, I downloaded it on the date that the that the download actually takes that. But you actually download we use the feature of the feature of Facebook that just allows a user to download their their page. I was provided from with the passwords and user credentials and was able to. I believe you. I've actually used his phone to do it to download the page. So this isn't like an official record from Facebook. I know. And this is not a we didn't get this from Facebook. We didn't get it from the provider do legal methods. We got it through the consent and downloaded log into his Facebook page and downloaded it just like anybody else could. All right. So would be fair to characterize it as a snapshot, as it was in May of 2014 to her testifying in leading the witness. She got on direct. It's asking a question. How would you characterize the download from a twenty twenty? It is how the account appeared all the day at the time that I initiated the download, was there any historical data? There was. There was historical posts and things that were just like your Facebook feed. It can stays there that you deleted or until until it eventually, I guess, goes away that most. I've got a Facebook information back many years, though, so I think if you actually have to actually delete it for the way, is there any way for you to know, based on the download from May 13th of twenty twenty, whether Mr. Brian had deleted anything? Oh no, not, not with that. Oh not with the information from the download. It May 15th. Did you continue to assist with looking into text from the GBI tip line part and were you tasked with looking into another social media website. Not Facebook, but a different one. Yes. Which one of several actually next door and Snapchat. Right. So regarding next door dot com, what did you do? I preservation letter to through their their legal compliance office preservation letter. Just federal law allows law enforcement to reserve certain records on electronic communications providers, social media platforms, telephone. So your telephone providers, things like that. And all you have to do to preserve it is send a letter with case number six and a preservation request to next door. Yes, sir. Do you send a preservation request to any other provider of cell phone data you've been authorized? AT&T, I believe we sent one Apple, we set one up thing. OK, so that was it. How in dispute was it as far as the defendant's location on the day of February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. It was an issue. Sometimes it's nice to corroborate information that you already have with additional information. So this is an abundance of caution. Yes. May twenty twenty. Did you also download someone else's Facebook data related to Mr. Bryan yesterday? A.m. rather I believe it was, I believe chooses his fiancee at time. They pull it together and they May 19th, Bizzell. I tell them, yes, ma'am. She could not provide her cell phone. She told me and I verified later verified that she had provided consent to do both. And I was not able to get her. She had work, so we had to get her cell phone following that. All right. Now, let's jump forward to May 19th of twenty twenty. What was going to take place on May 19th of twenty twenty? I sort of got the down for this examination is going to be how do I do that rape. I'm trying not to be disruptive. I, I have five more questions and nothing else to publish. But we're going to take place on May 19. Twenty twenty eight search of the micro residence. Right. And what you do to assist in that execution of a search warrant for prior to the search, I search the tax records of Thirty Telegraph, who actually owned two three satellite drive Descombes. I don't remember. There's something Amy was the first one of them that there from Athens, Georgia. [14:41:50][443.2] [14:41:50] I don't remember the exact address. All right. So two, three still drive on by the Scroggs of Athens, Georgia. What did you do next? I don't believe the agency we to perform the search. All right. It would be fair to say all he did was seize the Wi-Fi router. That's all I did. I just did other things that we were interested in. Some of the data we got had gotten off one of the cell phone dumps. How do I find out information we were trying to verify it. Was that right? [14:41:50][0.0] [14:42:21] I and then going ahead to June 30th of twenty twenty, you said a preservation request to some other agency or rather Amazon.com. Oh, I did. Intermedia, I think it was owned by Amazon is who I sent it to, would say for blink the blank camera systems. All right. And who had a blank camera system, Larry, did you ever get anything back from Amazon.com or the other company with regard to the blinks camera? We never got a response that they received the preservation request. I don't know if any. I was not my purview at this case. The issue was I don't know if you want to pay or anything like that, but we've never got verification of it for the records right now. On June 4th, did you actually get feedback from next door dotcom idea? I received that telephone call from their legal analyst and their their counsel of record, and they advised that they had done a diligent search of their records based on the information that I had provided them, [14:43:28][66.9] [14:43:27] plus publicly available information at the time to see if there was anything in their system that would be relevant to the case. Very important. And they were unable to find any. Were you specifically looking for Larry English's potential next or stuff? We yes, we were looking for four references to what references to the case in general. We're also looking maybe references to to crimes in the in the city stores or adjacent neighborhoods. Nothing of relevance and nothing in that's what they call me. Nothing of relevance. I didn't provide anything much and eventually received the cell phone records back from Verizon for Travis MacMichael and Prizefighting. And at some point in time, were you given an extraction report for another person, cell phone? I was. I specialize a lot with our region for office. Who was my counterpart over there? He's the cell phone person over there. I downloaded Mr. Engelhardt's his cell phone and provided me if actually the data it was not a report. He provided me with the data and I generated the report. All right. So now the videos of the interior exterior to satellite drive when they came that way to you from Larry Englishes phone, did they data associated with them? Yes, ma'am. So I guess when they did and were you able to find them embedded in texts that he had sent out? Yes. And some of them were duplicated, which is indicative of them being associated or forwarded or sent the text message and we also found them within the text messages in the some of the I will pass the witness list. Don't wear a good time to go ahead and break when we go take a fifteen minute recess and do not discuss the case among yourselves. We'll see in about 15 minutes. Mr.. All right. As you step down, I remind you that you're under oath. Do not discuss your testimony with anybody during the recess. Recess for 15 minutes [14:43:27][0.0] [GAP]

SMALL STOLEN PICKUP IS LOCATED ON THE ROAD AND WHEN OFFICER CATCHES UP WITH IT, A HIGH SPEED CHASE IS ON! TRUCK EVENTUALLY SPINS OUT AND THE COPS GET THEIR MAN!

ROSSVILLE, GEORGIA - MARCh 15: (AUDIO OMITTED) UPS delivers on March 15, 2024 in Rossville, Georgia.(Footage by WW News/Getty Images)

<p><pi><b>This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment.</b></pi></p>\n<p><b>Story Location: </b> ATLANTA</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>State/Province: </b> Georgia</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Shot Date: </b> 01/03/2023</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>URL: </b> https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/suspect-arrested-fulton-county-deputys-killing/85-6598af4c-1f7c-4f28-a54e-091b785b7d07</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Description: </b></p>\n<p>Elements: file scene video, official photo of Deputy Thomas, suspect's mugshot, APD presser sound </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Wire/StoryDescription:</p>\n<p> The Fulton County Sheriff's Office has arrested a suspect in connection to the killing of 24-year-old deputy James Thomas. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Deputy Chief Charles Hampton Jr. identified the suspect on Tuesday as 26-year-old Alton Oliver. He is in custody at the Cobb County Jail, according to Hampton.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Oliver's charges include felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"Great work by the homicide team, crime scene technician, we spent hours canvassing and looking for additional information," Hampton said, crediting two detectives who worked the case over the New Year's holiday and helped bring the suspect into custody.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Police had few other details about how they identified the suspect, but added credit to the "work of citizens" including a 911 caller and truck drivers who provided dash cam videos. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Mayor Andre Dickens also credited the city's voluntary camera network, and encouraged other residents and businesses to sign up at connectatlanta.org.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Deputy Thomas was found shot and killed in the driver's seat of a crashed vehicle around 4:30 a.m. last Thursday on Bolton Road in the Riverside neighborhood.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Tuesday, Deputy Chief Hampton said that it appeared that "the suspect was on foot and there was some type of argument that escalated to the gunfire."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>It is not believed Thomas and Oliver knew each other or had any prior contact before whatever altercation occurred between them.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Fulton Sheriff Pat Labat thanked APD and said "we're extremely grateful to the investigative work that led to the arrest."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"The family needs time to heal and we ask you to give them the grace and space to do so," Labat said.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The sheriff said services for Thomas will be held in his native Mississippi, but that a remembrance would be held on Thursday night at 6:30 p.m. at the Fulton County Government Center in Assembly Hall.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The sheriff also asked anyone who wishes to contribute to funeral expenses to do so at this GoFundMe.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Station Notes/Scripts:</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>[item]ELC SEL1 SOT[/item]</p>\n<p>[item]RIPLEY FULTON CO ARREST-PKG_WXIA-PRODEDIT26_20230103_175404.mxf[/item][TAKE PKG</p>\n<p>OUTCUE:bringing them to justice."</p>\n<p>DURATION:1:03]</p>\n<p>{***PKG***}</p>\n<p>[item](L3-Main) - Suspect arrested in shooting of slain deputy | [/item]</p>\n<p>[item](L3-Name) - deputy chief charles hampton, jr. | atlanta police department | [/item][Notes:37-:43]</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>[item](L3-Main) - Suspect arrested in shooting of slain deputy | [/item]</p>\n<p>[item](L3-Name) - mayor andre dickens | city of atlanta | [/item][Notes:56-1:01]</p>\n<p>[item](L3-Main) - Suspect arrested in shooting of slain deputy | [/item]</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><</p>\n<p> KEITH BANKSTON -- HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY IN MISSISSIPPI FINALLY HAS SOME CLOSURE IN THE DEATH OF HIS FRIEND, JAMES THOMAS.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>BANKSTON 1:57 (:11) "We're so happy and relieved that a person is in custody for him, and justice worked out for Deputy Thomas this time."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p> Deputy THOMAS SERVED THE FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR LESS THAN A YEAR.</p>\n<p> LAST THURSDAY MORNING, HE WAS FOUND SHOT IN his CRASHED CAR ON BOLTON ROAD IN ATLANTA.</p>\n<p> Today, NVESTIGATORS IDENTIFIED 26-YEAR-OLD ALTON OLIVER AS THE SUSPECT.</p>\n<p> They say Oliver REPORTEDLY GOT INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH THOMAS.</p>\n<p> but they don't believe the two knew EACH OTHER BEFORE THE SHOOTING.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Clip 8823 18:26:00 (:10) "They just went to the workplace of the individual and were able to have a traffic stop conducted and get him to custody yesterday."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p> A-P-D DEPUTY CHIEF CHARLES HAMPTON, JR. SAYS INVESTIGATORS WORKED for HOURS, LOOKING OVER DASH CAM VIDEO FROM TRUCKS, ALONG WITH footage from THE CITY'S NETWORK OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Clip 8823 18:19:37 (:07) "This is the result of good police work and bringing individuals who commit heinous crimes, bringing them to justice."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / CAM 1 [13:07:51][3827.4] [13:07:51] It's going to. All right for the jury. They. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully you had a good lunch. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case state ready with its next witness. Yes, Your Honor. The state calls Jesse Whurley Jesse a oh, yes, Makes sense. [13:10:14][143.3] [13:10:14] Yeah, Truth and nothing but the truth. I do good. Good afternoon. Can you please go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell me your name and spell it for the court. Reporter. My name is Jesse Worley. It's Jesse w o r e y. OK, and this really how are you currently employed? I work in the Division of Forensic Sciences for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It's also referred to as the crime lab. I work in the impressions, evidence section as a latent print examiner. OK, and what are your job duties currently? [13:11:01][47.5] [13:11:01] Primarily my job is a latent print examiner is to analyze items of evidence that are submitted for latent print services for comparison, database searching or chemical processing. In our laboratory, I conducted database searches. I do comparisons of latent prints to known exemplars, are known prints and then issue results of by reports of my results and then testify in court when needed. And how long have you been working in that capacity in your field? I've been with the GBI for 14 years. And please go ahead and tell us your education and training. I have a bachelor's of science in forensic and investigative sciences from West Virginia. University. I graduated from there in 2007. I was employed by the GBI that fall in November and I completed a training program that lasted about two years prior to being able to write my own reports. [13:11:59][57.9] [13:11:59] The training covered every aspect of casework that we do as latent print examiners and included courtroom testimony and evidence, analysis and processing. I can complete sixteen hours of annual outside education or continuing education every year as well since the completion of my training program. OK, and are you a member of any professional organizations in your field? Yes, I am. Can you tell us which ones? Primarily, I am a member of a member of the International Association for Identification, which is a professional organization across the globe that is geared towards education and publications for forensic practitioners and identification sciences. Like latent prints also question documents, DNA and crime scene investigation. I'm also a member of the Georgia State Division of the I and I also hold an office with that group as well. Have you testified as an expert before? Yes, I have. OK, what have testified testified as an expert in specifically in late inference. OK, and has that been in Georgia? Yes, ma'am. About how many times getting close to 60. I think the last time I counted it was like fifty seven. Fifty eight times. OK, Your Honor, at this point we would tender Miss Worli as an expert in latent print examination. No objection to objection. Thank you. Now, Mr. Lee, I want to go through some terms with you. And if you can just describe or explain those for me, OK? OK, are you familiar with the term Friction Ridge detail? Yes. Can you tell the jury what that is? So friction Ridgedale, as we refer to it and latent print examination is actually the composition and features that are on the skin that make up the palms of the hands and also the soles of the feet. It's that detail and those characteristics that are replicated in your hand or finger or foot makes contact with a surface. And in that detail, that arrangement of those features is transferred onto the surface and leave the latent print that we can subsequently develop and then hopefully compare in in hopes of identifying it to a source. So when I look at my finger, are you talking about the lines and grooves? Yes. So my fingertips, the the skin on the the palms surface of the hands is referred to as friction rich skin. It's made up of a series of ridges and raised areas as opposed to the rest of the skin on the body, which is fairly smooth within that rich flow. There are different features where ridges either start and stop or they split into two. [13:14:46][166.9] [13:14:46] And it's those specific features in the arrangement of those features within the the friction rich skin that make up the detail that we use for comparison. Now, what is an inked print also known as a known print? What's that? So ink prints that traditionally were taken using printers, ink on on a white card stock to record the detail of the finger prints or palm print of a specific person so that they can be used for comparison in today with all the advances in technology, most known prints are now recorded digitally with a glass like a glass plate and almost a scanner or camera type setup underneath [13:15:27][41.1] [13:15:27] But the idea is the same. The detail of the skin is recorded clearly so that it can be used for comparison. And can you please tell the jury what is a latent print? So latent prints are what we are looking for, primarily like in evidence in a case to determine who may have handled an item or come in contact with a particular surface. Latent prints are typically referred to is latent in that they're not necessarily visible right away. [13:15:58][31.5] [13:15:58] When an object is discovered as a piece of evidence, the latent print may require development techniques like fingerprint powder or other chemical methods to make it visible. And then even at that point, as an examiner, we commonly refer to them as still being latent prints until we've identified them to a known source. Now, what does it mean when an item is positive for latent prints at the GBI crime lab? The policy that we employ for determining whether an item is positive or negative for latent prints, we conduct a visual examination of the item, whether it's a lift card that has a powdered impression that was collected from the crime scene, or if we're getting in an item itself and we do the processing in-house, we're looking to see if after development there is any visible friction. Ridge detail that could be used for comparison. So sometimes if an item is decided, we decide that it's negative. It might mean that there is no ridge detail on it at all, or it could be that there is some detail, but it's so limited or so sparse or even obliterated or distorted where it's not going to be usable because it's not clear enough for a comparison that could also still produce a negative result. [13:17:14][75.4] [13:17:13] But but at the point where we say we have enough detail present on the item to to use it for a comparison, then we say it's positive. And what does it mean when you say an item is suitable for comparison? So once we have a positive results that we've done a visual examination and there is usable friction, rich detail on this item or this list card, the first step of our process is to analyze the amount of detail that's there, the type of detail, the clarity of it, and determine if it is in fact suitable for comparison. So we do the visual examination is either positive or negative. If we have the positive results, then we determine if it's suitable or not. Suitable for comparison, which is really just we're going kind of up a ladder in terms of how much quality and quantity of detail is present in the impression. So we have positive. And then if we say the analysis results are suitable, we have enough detail or sufficient detail to be able to compare it to a known set of prints and can you just let the jurors know what is the process that you use that the GBI for comparing latent prints to known prints? So the first step I'd like, as I said, is the visual examination to determine if we have any latent print detail present. The next part of the methodology we refer to is the ace. The method is an acronym for analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification. So the analysis is the first part that I've described in determining from our positive results which of those impressions may be suitable for a comparison. Once an impression is determined to be suitable, then we'll move on to a comparison that's that's taking the latent print and putting it side by side with a set of known prints and looking for similarity or differences between the and print and any of the prints that are on the records that we have for comparison. During the comparison, we're looking for similarity or differences. It just depends. Not every comparison will result in a match or an ID. So you may see more differences than you see similarities. But as we start to make the decision in our mind in whether what the result is that comparison is that prompts the beginning of our evaluation phase, which is really the decision making, part of the process in the methodology that we the way we use it at GBI, we have we can make an identification, which means that we've determined that the latent print and the set of known records we're comparing it to came from the same person we can have an exclusion, which would mean that the latent print and the known prints were made by different sources or different persons, inconclusive within that. There's just not enough detail to say definitively it either is or isn't this person, or it can also be that we need a better set of records. Maybe the ones that we were given may not have been clear enough in a specific area. So we may say that we need new records for comparison. And then lastly, we also use a conclusion that's was not identified or no identification was made, which is it's kind of like a it's not an identification. [13:20:23][190.3] [13:20:23] And we're confident at the latent print is not from a specific source, but we haven't compared it enough to say that it's definitely an exclusion. Exclusion decisions tend to, in some instances, be harder to make when you're doing a comparison as an examiner and you start to feel like you're making an identification because you're seeing and observing features in the same arrangement, you're seeing the similarity. It becomes very easy to say when you've reached an identification because you have like proof positive. This feature is this feature. This one is this one. And everything lines up and you can see it when you have an exclusion. And sometimes it's depending on the area. If you're looking for a link within a large area of the home, there's a lot of area to search and you have to exhaust all the available features and relevant area of the skin before you can confidently say that you have an exclusion. So sometimes exclusion decisions are harder to reach than an identification. And so what we have adopted in our policy is that I know it's not an identification, but I haven't fully excluded this particular person yet. And that we report as we report that as an identification has not been made. Now, I want to turn your attention to DOFFS case number two thousand twenty six zero zero one one eight three. OK, who are the subjects involved under that case? [13:21:52][88.8] [13:21:52] Number? According to the report that I have, the subjects that were listed on the evidence, admission forms were listed as Gregory Johns, MacMichael Traves James McMichaels and William Brian, OK, and who's listed there as the victim? The victim is a listed is listed from the evidence admission forms as a mod Harbury. OK, so I want to turn your attention to the work that you did in this case. Yes. OK, what items did you use to do your comparison in this case? The latent prints that I was asked to examine were on evidence that was labeled as item twenty one in the GBI crime lab. Information system. [13:22:40][47.8] [13:22:39] I itemized them to be twenty one, a twenty one, be twenty one S. and twenty one D. So those are all latent lift cards that were submitted. OK, and then I was given a known finger and palm print cards bearing the name Amy Eileen Elrod and William Roderick. Brian Jr. OK, and did you also use known prints of a modern very. Yes, they appear as item twenty four. OK, if I can just have to tell you this here. Thank you. And this Worley, are you able to see what's there, what's hits or if he needs to step down, you can just make sure he is speaking loud enough for the court for ok, ok, ok. Are you able to see this. OK, please be careful. OK, so you see what I have here. A zone prince. If you need can. Yes. OK, so Amy Elrod, known Prince. You say you received those, right? Yes. Those are marked as item twenty. A reminder. And did you also utilize William Bryans? No. Prince. Yes. And also a Mod Arbor's. No Prince. Yes. OK, and some mid and late list. We talked about those, right? Yes. And did you say they were labeled twenty one A, 21, B, 21 C and 21 D? Yes, ma'am. OK, so if we can just start I guess in reverse chronological order with the twenty one B, what did you determine about twenty one is the cap off my marker for 21 days after I did the initial visual examination for latent prints on that item, [13:24:38][118.3] [13:24:38] I determine that that item was negative. There was not a fraction of details that could be used for comparison. OK, so twenty one, the negative for latent prints for. Yes, ok, go into twenty one, see what did you determine. So there is also the visual examination for twenty one. C was positive, there was friction, detail, presence, but upon analysis I determined it to be unsuitable for comparison. OK, so positive for latent prints but still on unsuitable. Yes Miss. For comparison. OK, so that leaves us with twenty one and twenty one. Be looking at those lists for twenty one and twenty one. B what if anything did you see in those. So on both. [13:25:34][56.1] [13:25:33] I am twenty one A twenty one B my visual examination result is that these items were positive for latent prints. I also notice that they appear to be duplicate lists of the same latent prints. OK, so we have essentially A and B are the same print. Yes, OK. And that's something that from experience in the way latent prints work, you can't ever you can't ever create the same impression twice. They're always going to have different shapes, a different amount of distortion movement because of the pliability and the the way the hand is is built in atomically that you can't ever create the same thing twice. So when we see lift cards that are the same in most aspects, it's likely that they are duplicate lists where the impression is powder's and then piece of tape is used to lift it. And this piece of tape is used to lift it a second time as it both lists were submitted. [13:26:34][60.4] [13:26:34] OK, so before we go further on and B, I just want to go back to D, so were you able to compare anything to see. No, it was negative. OK, were you able to compare anything to see. No, because it was determined to be not suitable for a suitable OK, so no comparison here. Surface. OK, so back to and be positive for latent prints but the same. Yes. [13:27:00][26.1] [13:26:59] Did you choose one over the other for comparison. Yes. Which one did I use. Twenty one. Eh. Because it appeared to be the first list. The development was a little darker on the card. Is a little clearer than what was visible in this. Now go ahead and just tell the jurors your findings for twenty one s in the process that is of course. So I completed an analysis of the latest print that was on twenty one a I determined that the print appear to be from the right home of an individual and that there was sufficient detail present to determine it to be suitable for comparison. At that point, I began the comparison process by comparing the latent print to the palm print cards for Amy Eileen Elrod and William Rodrik. [13:27:53][53.3] [13:27:53] Brian Jr. And my conclusion for both of those comparisons is that no identification was made OK, so for Amy Elrod and William Ryan, we said no identification. Yes, OK, all right. What did you do next, if anything? At that point I compared the latent print from twenty one A, which again is that palm print to the palm print cards that bearing the name Ahmad Marquez Aubury and was able to make an identification to that set of records so identified to Ahmad are very. [13:28:34][41.6] [13:28:34] Yes, OK, so positive I.D.. OK, and did you testify that that was the right palm print. I did. So from his right, yes. OK, were you able to tell where on his right palm that print came from? Yes. OK, so may I approach Your Honor. OK, actually can you step down please. Miss Worley's OK, so I'm going to show you my hand and right hand. And if you can just show and if you can come. So we can just go this way please. Yeah. You do it your back to. Oh, I'm sorry. [13:29:16][42.1] [13:29:16] I'll do this if everybody can because you're off. Of course, Judge. Thank you. We'll just going to flip to the image that I had of the lift card. OK, And my hand is called the the shape of the impression that was made. [13:29:38][21.4] [13:29:38] The shape that appears on the left part is indicative of being from the edge of the palm. So this this area here, it's commonly referred to as a writer's home, because when your writing and your hand moves across the page is usually that portion of the poem that rests on the paper. And so it was very similar to the shape of the palm print that was on this card. Twenty one and then subsequently as well. Twenty one beats. OK, so one second before you said so if I'm holding this marker in my hands, are we talking about like that side that's resting here. Yes. [13:30:13][35.9] [13:30:13] And then sometimes it varies whether it's very straight up and down or if it's angled in a little bit more to get more of the center portion of the palm. But that's still typically referred to as the writer's home when it's that outer edge of the poem. OK, all right. You can have a seat. Thank you so much. Because it was here. [13:30:48][35.0] [13:30:48] I think you're going with this. This is sort of like it was just not touch anything. This. So, Miss Whurley, what, if anything, in looking at the list, what, if anything, did you observe as it relates to the presence or absence of moisture in this particular impression? There did appear to be some areas that looked like they might have been wet or had an additional amount of moisture then other areas within the same impression. In my training, in my experience, one of the things that we are taught to look for as an examiner is what kind of differences may still be present even when an identification is made. As I testified already, you can never create the same impression twice. So even when we have an identification, the latent print is never going to look exactly like the known print. [13:31:52][64.6] [13:31:52] I know sometimes on TV they say show them up on screens and they overlay them and they kind of they match perfectly. But that's not really how latent print comparison works. There's always going to be inherent movement and distortion within any impression that sometimes may be recorded. A known print, sometimes known prints are well recorded and they're free from as much distortion as possible. [13:32:17][24.7] [13:32:17] But one of the things that we have to evaluate in making an identification decision is are we seeing differences that are due to moisture or surface or development issues or are we seeing differences that are inherent to them being from different sources? And we have to use tolerance where where appropriate in making that decision. In this instance, there were areas of the impression that do appear to be wet. The ridges do have a different appearance and the powder does adhere or react differently to more wet areas of the impression. And so that was one of the observations that I did make in this case. But it wasn't so significant that it over or overreached the tolerance that I can use in making an identification decision. OK, so it didn't affect your your evaluation in terms of the identification to Misrata? No, but it does make a difference in in explaining why if it were to be put up for anyone to see, the latent print does not look exactly like the known prints. And one of the reasons for that is there is moisture present. And in doing your comparison, did you follow valid scientific procedure and methods accepted in your field? Yes, I did. OK, and are those methods reliable? Yes, I believe actually in going through the ASV method I left off the V portion. The last part of ASV is the verification. [13:33:45][88.1] [13:33:45] Our policy advice requires that if we all of our decisions are verified by a second examiner, with the exception of the no identification decision and some of are inconclusive. But my suitability decisions for whether for A, B and C, those were all verified by a second examiner. And then my identification decision for item twenty one was also verified by a second examiner. One moment at this time, that is all I have for you. [13:34:18][33.4] [13:34:18] The swirlies that since I have some questions for you, I may just briefly this work. Yes. Hi, I'm Jason Chestnutt. We have talked about this case. Have we know OK, were you given any photographs to come along with items? Twenty one, ABC and No. Four, is it true that you're not sure where that latents palm print came from on the other, that it was came from a trust that you're not sure where all the traffic came from? That's correct. We we describe our evidence based on what's labeled on the lift card. Specifically in this case, they were simply labeled as being from William Bryan's truck. Got it. And then 21 C, which had some some detail on it. Was that a fingerprint? I believe it was, yes. OK, do you know from which finger it came from? No. OK, and then 21 D is that simply you don't know what in the world that was or that it was a fingerprint with no detail that could be used for comparison purposes based on the image that I have available. From what I recall in working this case, there wasn't enough detail to to say otherwise. And that's primarily why the result is also negative. [13:36:15][117.1] [13:36:15] There's just very little detail present, if any. So do you have the photograph of the car photograph? I have a copy. So it's not a great copy. It's just a quick look to see what you're seeing. I may have a question. I'm not sure that I will. The list cards. You. Yeah, the one that the one that goes to see this. Please. OK, so I'm looking at this. Do you see any detail in it that makes you believe that it probably came from the finger? The shape of the impression and the direction of the rich flow is indicative of it being from a finger. [13:37:02][47.3] [13:37:02] But still not sufficient to compare it to any known source. So you've got some detail that you think this probably came from a finger, but then you're looking for enough detail where you can say now I can start counting up enough of the detail to try to match it to another round, say yes. So our our determination for suitability is a combination of quantity and quality of detail. So while that number of features present is a part of the decision, it's not the total or whole component. OK, D is probably a finger. We don't know which D I don't know. I didn't make any determination. OK, but it has some of the details that's consistent with a thing we were talking about. Twenty C over there. All right. So 21 C is probably a finger. It's very likely from a finger. [13:37:51][49.2] [13:37:51] OK, and then D is such that you can't even begin to determine whether it could have come from a finger or not. Correct. OK, got it. And then you don't know where on the truck those things came from. Correct. OK, very good. Thank you. Your question. Yeah there is right now. You're right. Thank you. You may step down. You and you're excused but subject to recall. Stay ready with the Sex Pistols. [13:38:43][51.7] [13:38:43] Yes, right. This time the state's going to call Special Agent Lawrence sort of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. [13:40:47][124.5] [13:40:46] I do lot of. All right. Please state your name and spell it for a court reporter, please. My name is Lawrence Kelly. That's LSW RNC KLFY. And how are you currently employed? I'm a special agent with the GBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I am. What is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? We are a state law enforcement agency. We're the investigative arm of the state government. We of when requested to do so, can assist local agencies with investigations or we can initiate certain investigations on our own involving certain specific violations of law. All right. So you're a special agent. What does that mean? It means I'm a post Georgia Coast Council certified law enforcement officer. I have powers of arrest throughout the state. [13:41:49][63.0] [13:41:49] I have a specialized training in various forms of investigative practices, interviewing and interrogation, certain specialized training in examining cellular telephones and cellular telephone records and elder abuse investigations and general just investigations. All right. So you got the normal training that the GBI provides all special agents, is that right? Yes. OK, but you have some special technical expertize. I do. All right. Tell the jury about your special technical expertize. I have two specialties. One is the only pertinent to this case. I my elder abuse are at risk. Adult from specialist. The other one I am a specialist in the gathering and use of data from cellular telephones and cellular telephones and social media records. [13:42:39][49.3] [13:42:39] I have a specific training and to download and extract data from cellular telephones to obtain records from various providers and to analyze those records. Right. So be fair to say that sometimes you're the guy who gets called out by other fellow agents. Yes, ma'am. Happens of quite frequent. All right. So direct to your attention specifically to May 6th of twenty twenty. Did you become involved in the homicide investigation for Mr. Ahmad Harbury? I did. All right. How did that come to you? I was called I was not involved in in the early stages. I was called by asexuals, but first lady in charge, Richard Dial, who was my direct supervisor, and he told me to report the next morning to assist in syntactical matters involving the Aubury investigation. Right. So he was the one who is in charge of the investigation. He was his back. All right. So, Richard, Dial calls you up. And at this time, did you then submit some video files to another arm of your agency? I did. When I arrived the following morning, I submitted two video files that I had received from Agent for Massingale that were videos, two videos. One was about how the lover of probably a minute moment, little shy of two minutes long, another one was like truncated version of that video to Matthew. He was a digital forensic investigator with our child exploitation and criminal Computer Crimes Unit Indicator. OK, so we'll go ahead and take a piece by piece when it comes to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, [13:44:34][115.4] [13:44:34] that's a statewide agency. We are. So where is your office? My office is in Queensland. All right. And Matthew Heath, where is he? Out of his offices? He's at our headquarters. Indicate where at the time that our headquarters indicated Decatur. And that is close to what town? Atlanta. OK, so now he was in a different unit, you said? Yes. From the child Exploitation and Computer Crimes Unit has two computer based units, the cat, which is the United Kingdom and the Georgia Cybercrime Center in Augusta, Georgia. So he is a digital forensic investigator. Yes, ma'am. All right. So how is his job duty different than your job duties? He's not a sworn agent. We do some of the same things as a cell phone expert. I can download and extract data from cell phones and cell phones by themselves. He can do that for cell phones, computers, other devices. [13:45:29][54.7] [13:45:29] He also has the ability to do other technical things, such as enhancing enhance video files or reviewing video files for information. OK, so you sent him a one minute forty three second video. Is that the video of the homicide of a moderate? It is. All right. And the shortened version of it. That was the duplicate. Yes, it was. It was a truncated version originally created. I was I viewed the metadata. It was originally created approximately 30 some thirty seven minutes after the after the first oh, and it's just a it's truncated. I mean, it's just like cut force and it's like a thirty six second portion of the original video. All right. So did you also send him surveillance video from two nineteen sitilides, right. I did. Did you also send him five surveillance videos from the interior of 220 Satullo Drive and were those the ones dated February. Twenty third of twenty twenty. Yes. You also send him forty seven surveillance videos from two to four Sadil satellite drive. Yes. All right. Now with regard to the videos from two to four Pilet Drive were three of them from the date in question. February. Twenty third. Twenty twenty. I believe so, yes, ma'am. All right. [13:46:50][81.7] [13:46:50] So the other forty four, they were from January 1, 2020. But I don't recall they were not from they were from prior to the incident. I called exactly two leading questions please. Yeah. Keep wondering. Sure. So after submitting all of this to Matthew, he he's the digital forensic investigator indicator. What did he provide back to you? He provided back to me several videos that he had enhanced of. [13:47:21][31.6] [13:47:21] One of them was a contrast enhancement. Basically, he lightened up certain shadow areas in the video. One was a stabilized video that showed portions of the of the or the video kind of keep it in, keep the video had a lot of extraneous stuff on the side. So it just showed the the major part of the video. And then there were some frame by frame videos, frames each school frames from each of the videos that we saw. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and take you through this. If you had the opportunity, of course, to review the items, Matthew, he's sent back to you back in May 2011. All right. So did you have the opportunity to review State's Exhibit 191, Matthew? He's half speed video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. All right. And was it fair and accurate? There was. At this time, the state retender into evidence state's exhibit 191. The objection is that they'll be submitted. In addition, did he also submit to state's exhibit 192? [13:48:30][69.4] [13:48:30] I think you mentioned the high contrast video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. Right at this time, the state would enter into evidence state's exhibit 192 section of the objection to publishing state's exhibit 181. And how is this legal mean? I'll back it up to the beginning. And if you tell the houses it's five six one eight half speed, not empty for me. Agent Kelly. Now, state's exhibit one to two houses, level five six one eight. Not contrast, but just. Yeah, that is by far the difference between one ninety one and one. Ninety two point ninety one was slower. Yes ma'am. One only one is that half speed from the original. And this is, these are from the thirty second the thirty second truncated video. These are half speed. All right. And then the high contrast that is at which speed probably three or four full speed. All right. So when we get approximately, approximately here, which appears to be about ten seconds described, this image is compared to the half speed image, I guess. Is it brighter or darker? It's more. It's brighter. As you can see, the the road on this one is kind of washed out in the sun. You know, the intensity in the blue sky in Asabi, you see white or whether the light has washed out the pale blue in the sky. And the intent behind this is so you can see what I see, things that are that are maybe might be obscured by shadow in the original video. All right. So when we look at this right here, my focus, your attention right here, are we able to actually see what takes place here? It's way what did what? It appeared that the person known to me as Mr. Travis, that Michael raised his hands in this kind of motion. Did you see what he had in the sense that he had something in his hands? I couldn't see directly exactly what it was at that point. I can infer it was from from contact from later, but any contact from later? What does he have? You know, I'm going to object to the witness describing what is obviously in the video. I don't understand why the witness needs to say there are trees in the video. There's a road in the video. The Travis McMichaels holding a shotgun, videos and evidence. Now, video is the evidence. [13:53:39][308.3] [13:53:39] Witness doesn't need to describe. This is a key investigator who received evidence and there's a reason behind what he is doing and what he's observing as far as this case and prosecution goes, which is the details that are in these particular videos is that would be the appropriate question. What do you do that describing the video? It doesn't make any sense. And it's it's fraught with peril. We he's explained what he's done. You're asking me to explain what he believes he's seeing in the video. It's just like something to in addition to Matthew, he's also having received state's exhibit or for having received the videos from 219 Soto Drive to TriZetto Drive and two to four civil drives provide you with another video he did. He took me, took those videos. And basically there's extraneous material in both of them. We cut that out to show Mr. Aubrey's passed through the through the neighborhood and through any way he was seen in any of those particular videos that was submitted by. And you had the opportunity to review state's exhibit two to four. I have. All right. And was that what Matthew, he said, provided to you to just show Mr. Avery's past that day? It is. At this time, the state would tender into evidence state's exhibit two to one to two to two to three and then to two for the past March. If I could just have a moment, Your Honor. Remember what those are. So it's going to be six to one to two to two to three and then to two for the combined. Thank any objection that you don't clarify. Yes, no, no objection. [13:56:09][150.2] [13:56:09] We were just clarifying the exhibits she put to death object to submit to judge looking at state's exhibit two to four, completed and published the state's completed publishing state's exhibit two to four. So May 7th, did you also then receive from our CIC, Caitlyn Ngala in Tennessee? Did she attempt to provide you what she's attempted to do with the Greggory? Michael, no one will call. And the Brian video as far as audio went. Yes, ma'am. I received a letter from Kyle that the Gwinnett County Police Department had previously submitted the 911 calls and the same videos that I submitted to Mr. Keith to the Regional Organized Crime Intelligence Center, or I see they also have the capability of enhancing audio and video. [13:59:32][203.1] [13:59:30] And I was told that some of the files are ready. And so I downloaded enhanced 911 calls and some of the enhanced video products that they produced. But the audio files, no noticeable enhancement was made. But the audio files, it's not like NCIS or TV is there. And it really wasn't. The original video was of a of an audio quality that you could hear what was going on. And I don't think the enhancements brought anything new to light right. But with it came to Mr. Gray that she had also done some videos. Yes, ma'am. In an effort to enhance some things. Is that right? Yes, ma'am. All right. So State's Exhibit 129 has already been entered into evidence and you had an opportunity to review that. That's the one where she said she kind of cut out some extraneous stuff. Yes. Yes. Right. At this time, the state will go ahead and publish the two video files from state to state at one twenty nine, I believe one twenty nine is contained in the court's exhibit three stipulation. What is to stay here? State was the state level from it from IMG five six one seven, which is the longer of the two video polishing state's first female sixty six point twenty nine. The second video of the season 129. Let's say the bottom is stabilized I img five six one seven which is again the longer of the two videos. Now directing your attention to me is of twenty twenty where you tat's with following up on tips. Yes ma'am. That's actually I was actually tasked with that upon my arrival May 7th. But with all the other things I was doing, it was myself, Nicholas Anzac and several of our analysts from the George Information Sharing and Analysis Center in Atlanta, which is a deep work unit. We're tasked with reviewing the numerous tips that were coming in. All right. So they're coming into where they were coming in originally. They were just coming in through either Glen County PD or the sheriff's office. And then GBI announced we had created a tip line and most of them shifted to the GBI tip line. All right. So you were tasked with this unit to follow up on tips that you're getting. And these are from where just from the general public that believe the video had been released publicly at that point. And people were calling in. We had asked anyone with information to call in directly about the case, but we were getting everything from object to here. [14:03:51][260.4] [14:03:50] Your Honor, it's not being a search for the truth of the matter. Asserted that, you know, I'll just make something up. Bob called in and suggested this. It goes to they were receiving these and he took some action on one of the specific tips that I was going to ask about getting more specific. I will judge. All right. So did you attempt to determine if Mr. Aubrey could be seen running with a stick or a hammer? I did. All right. Tell the jury what you did. We have, as I I viewed the video, the half speed videos, we also had all of the still frame images that I mentioned earlier. I believe there were nearly 2000 of them. And we picked the one from the requisite area and reviewed them one by one. And what were you able to determine as far as Mr. Aubrey running with a stick? Objection, Your Honor. This is not an expert opinion here. He's saying I've looked at some pictures taken from some videos that other people enhanced for me. And this is what I think I see or I don't see. This is an issue for the jury. In Georgia. It's the same issues. He's looking at pictures and saying what he thinks he sees in the picture. We join your honor, and I think we're potentially opening doors to go into other tips and the narratives that they might foster say it wasn't going to go into any other tips or other narratives that they might foster. He was tasked with dispelling this tipper, this rumor that was out there, and he went victimization rosacea. We're now testifying. And so I think we need to take it outside. I think I'm still going over. Thank you for you. Overruling Mr. Voss. We're concerned about going into other tips. Mine was the issue of him testifying as an expert officer. It is actually what I was overruled on both. For the record. Thank you. You may ask the question if there's anything in Mr. Always have any point of influence. OK, all right. So you mentioned our frame by frame. That agent he gave to you. Have you a chance to look at state's exhibit three fourteen, the folder containing those? Yes, there is the large number of forms. All right. At this time, the state will tender into evidence the state's 314 at this time, the state's 314 at this time. And I'm sorry, as a witness the same way it was. But I said, you know, a lot of them wrong. I believe there's one thousand ninety five still images from the video. I just want people to have the support of what he was following up on, correct? Yes. And that's the state's tendering 1000 still images for this video. Is that what you're sticking to? Yes, we are tendering the entire one thousand ninety five still images digitally in a digital folder. These are the stills higher video. We're doing a selection of the these what I understand is being tendered. And he just testified to a review of photographs from the video. I understand these are the still photographs that were reviewed by the agent as part of his follow up that he has already described on the record notation, nosegay. I'm still trying to justify why you're the witness. Is this are these still these are still. But he did not read. These are still that were provided to him in the pickup. The other stuff in the stipulation, is that correct? All right. Very good. It was it just wasn't made very clear. So no objection from breaking my submitted. Thank you. So your discussions were like concentric circles. You know, we all eventually realized we're talking about this. I think we're talking about right. I'm actually going go back when we look at this particular folder, what does it say right down here in states three fourteen, the name of the profile, you mean right down here in the far back corner? How many are in there? One thousand ninety five. All right. We open it up. Are we looking at the first image? Yes, ma'am. And how is it labeled? At the very top and five six one eight frame, zero zero zero zero one EMG, which is an image format. All right. And how did you scroll through the same way it appears you're doing it? I use the gallery function on the computer. Such as this. Yes. Somnath, go ahead and stop here real quick for you while fifty seven and then we look at fifty eight. Do you know why there is a difference in clarity between those two particular images? Based on my training since the case at the time I didn't base my training. This case is going to be probably because there was motion blur in that particular frame, as is the camera might be moving a little bit of the cars moving. That would cause the the distortion in the earlier front because you're in a moving car. Yes, he's the the the two things are moving. The car is moving and the and the person taking the video is is moving. [14:10:10][380.1] [14:10:10] All right. Do you have any idea. I don't know. You know, do you know whether this has autofocus. It's trying to focus. I happen to know it was taken with an Apple iPhone. It does. And anybody who's ever taken a photograph of an iPhone as well as you move it, it kind of locks it on something and tries to focus to do that one thing, continue to publish. I hold it down. What does it do? It, move it. Move forward. Like an animation. Like a movie with one frame at a time. But it looks like a movie. And by the time we are here on frame three seventy nine, what's happened first taking the video is let's move the camera. For what reason. [14:12:22][131.8] [14:12:21] I don't know. I don't know. Does that include all one thousand ninety five which just from state's exhibit 190, the actual video of the homicide. Yes, ma'am. Direct your attention now to state's exhibit 315. And Kelly said he had opportunity to look through state's exhibit three fifteen prior to coming in and taking the stand today. Yes, ma'am. And are these just printed out stills of some of the InFocus shots from state's exhibit 314? Yes, it's not included because I overshot and it does it has the response that there was at this time the state enter into evidence state's exhibit 315. No objection to is this a subset of the last exhibit of printed? Correct. These are hard copy printed of Select InFocus images from State's 314. [14:18:13][351.7] [14:18:13] OK, did he take some action to focus on there? Just we're just clear ones as opposed to the ones. All right. So but these are not images that have been manipulated to be different than the images we see on them. These have not been manipulated in any way. They just were printed out from three fourteen. But yes, from the right, there is a good deal. No objection, Your Honor, to see the little more foundation. Thank you. No objection. Gudermes. Thank you. So closing down state's 314. So when we look at state's 315, so for instance, just the very first put up here to see and focus. All right. So is this just one of the still shots from state's 314? Yes, ma'am. It's one of these this one of the from the exhibit we just looked at. All right. So when we look at this address from there, how has how is the state's label that it? So you can see it. It's just about four state three fifteen and then it's 299, which I'm assuming is the the number of the frame from the previous set of rights of 314. This would be still shot to ninety nine so they could print it out. Now you indicated you were kind of the cell phone guy, is that right? I am. All right. So go ahead. And tell the jury what it is you do when you do a cell phone extraction. What is that, a cell phone. That exactly is just that. There's data maintained on cellular telephone for smart devices. It's maintained differently. Only the one we use a software or a device to extract the zero. The the the base data from the device using various methods of from the various software or equipment that we're using. So, for instance, if you have like a Samsung phone or iPhone, do you need different computers to extract the data at the time of this? Yes, ma'am. At the time of that of this case, we needed a major cities use. We have seven different methods that we use. But I was use the Cellebrite physical analyzer to do an iPhone, which they software that runs off of a laptop PC. And we had a self you Fed, which is a device for forensic extraction device also made by Cellebrite to do Android devices like Samsung. All right. So during your investigation, where you give in previous extractions. I was was I was given the extracts and I was given the reports of the extraction, which is when you load the extraction into Cellebrite physical analyzer in order to make any sense without that software, you have to generate a report. And I was given the reports from extractions that Linn County PD did. So Glencairn PD, were they able to give you the raw data? They were not. I asked for it in. Detective Morrison said he did not maintain the data at that time. Since then, he has been told it's probably best to maintain everything. OK, so you got the report, not the data yet. We're able to work with the report, though, due to the Cellebrite system. I was investigating MÃsSICA generated reports in what's called you. You said are you can read the report, which can also be loaded physically, a lot of software and reviewed. All right. So for the purpose of your analysis on May 11th, 20/20, did you look at the report, the extraction reports for Travis McMichaels? I think? And should you look at the extraction reports from William Ryan's cell phone? All right. Were you able to find any communication between Brian Cell Phone and Travis McMichaels cell phone on February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. Nothing. Nothing that extraction of. All right. So I'm going to move you then forward to May 11th of twenty twenty. Did you work with Agent Seacrest, along with Mr. Ryan and his attorney, Mr. Off? I did. OK, and did Mr. Ryan consent to the download of his phone at that time on May 11th? Twenty, twenty. All right. So but this, of course, is a download as the phone is on. What date? Ismailov OK, so this is May 11th at your downloading. This is. All right. And what were you able to notice as far as Greg, with Michael's cell phone number and Mr. Ryan's number in the original extraction reports? Mitzvot neither neither Michael appeared as a contact in the May 11th extraction. Mr. Greg MacMichael appeared as a contact in Mr Rudd's office right now, also on May 11th, 20-20, were you present during the entire time Mr. Brian was being interviewed by Seacrest? No, ma'am. I was up there for the very beginning, Mr.. Of agreed to let us off his phone and I took his phone in the hopes that we would be able to get it back to him at the end of the interview of the president. But taking longer than we had thought. So we weren't able to do that. Oh, right. So May 11th, were you also interested in any surveillance video that Mr. Ryan may have had? All right. Tell the jury what happens with regard to the night owl surveillance video. Agent Seacrest after the interview came to me and said that they had surveillance at their house and the video had caught some might have some information related to the case. [14:24:34][380.8] [14:24:34] So I accompanied Mr. Ryan Metcalfe and I, an Agent Seacrest, to the house two to three or seven before the Ryan's house to attempt to download the the videos. All right. I'm going to show you that. Go ahead and show you what's been marked as state's exhibit one for ephedrin. Just so Special Agent Kelly, I'm showing you state's exhibit 194. You able to recognize that documents? Yes, ma'am. It appears to be true and great copy of a waiver of constitutional rights for. All right. What's that regard to the our digital security system at the Bryan residence? All right. And who witnessed that? Well, I find it is the witness, Mr. Mr. Bryant signed giving consent. All right. And did he sign freely and voluntarily? He did. This on the state retender into evidence state's exhibit 194 objects. Objects object to move state's exhibit 194. This is for the night, Elpidio. Yes, sir. Right. And what is the date we have here? Five eleven, twenty, twenty, eighteen for which is military time for six fifty four p.m.. All right. So once he signs the waiver and agreed to have his side, our surveillance system download, you went out to the house. What happened? Initially, neither Ryan nor Amy Elrod, who lived with him, could recall the password. So we began looking for the instruction manual for the device. We found that in the course of finding it, they were able to I don't remember how they remember remember the password. So we were able to, in the instruction manual, said that you could download a software that would allow you to view and download the videos from the device. So I did that on my computer. Downloading software and installing it was no problem. But due to the do a poor Internet connection, downloading the videos we download kept failing and it was going to take an inordinate amount of time if we continue to let you decide to do Mr. Golf suggestion, I took the passwords, the consent form, and I had the software loaded on my computer and I went back to where we were working out of the DNR office here in Brunswick, much better Internet connection and was able to download several videos. I tell the jury what the DNR is the of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Their office is right there next to the Millennium Bridge that I white building with the tower right there on the marsh. I see you're operating out of there. Yes, ma'am. We were operating on a hillside building. And were you able to then download the night out here? Yes, I was right. Have you had the opportunity to review State's Exhibit 193, the night owl videos? Yes, ma'am. We actually reviewed the videos at the scene. We were we were able look at them, just not download them. And then when I got back to the office, the downloads that we had were didn't seem to play very well. [14:28:15][221.0] [14:28:14] So we actually got the DVR later and got the downloads off of them again. They got the videos off the TV are specifically again. OK, so I kind of did it twice. Yes, ma'am, we did. But do you see change? No matter the videos that we receive, the actual ones that we could actually play were true and correct. What I saw when I was at some Burford that night. Right. So at this time, the state will enter into evidence state's exhibit one 193 U.S. objections. No objection to educate. What I want to do is I'm going to direct your attention first to the night owl video that ends in two five seven within the folder labeled one ninety four. The right here. What's the jury looking at? The video of the porch. And I think I'm beginning to that's the Bryant residence. I think it's three oh seven four four drive by. And what does it say down here front door? What to say up here in the upper right hand corner, do twenty three twenty twenty thirteen oh nine forty five, which is again in and minus times one of nine fifty five publishing. So this particular video system, we have about thirty seconds here. Why that it appeared in the video system was motion activated so it only records when there is motion to capture. Usually as anybody who's ever walked into like a bathroom with windows, motion detectors, there's a split second before it actually starts. And then if there's if there's not a lot of motion, it turns off. So when you looked at the night owl videos, you didn't have one continuous long video? No, man. [14:30:52][158.0] [14:30:52] There were short little snippets right. Publishing then within states, exhibit 194, the video ending in two five states. So what's the apostrophe at the beginning? What time are we looking at up here in the upper right hand? Corner at thirteen eleven and a four one and one of the four. All right. So we're talking about two minutes later publishing the video, the last three numbers to fifty eight within state's exhibit 194. So even though we don't have anything happening here in motion within the video, it's still taking us 30 second snippets. But yes, monitoring of how the motion video works is once the motion is activated, it takes video for a of time. If there is continual motion, it will continue to report. It's not it will it will stop recording. And I want to correct the record from it. The state's exhibit 193 is the folder containing the images six exhibit ninety four was the signed waiver. So if I misspoke earlier, this is the folder labeled one ninety three. We're now going to look at the video with the last three digits to six one. So what is the time on this? The View and do two six one thirteen eleven oh three is when it first. Was there any video with this angle before this number? I call remember, degen with. And were you able to then find any video afterwards meeting as Mr. Brian pulls the truck up, was there another video showing what he actually did out in the street. No, no. Your attention to the video for two, seven, eight. What time do we have here? Thirteen fifty eight. [14:34:27][215.0] [14:34:27] Oh, not same day. So thirteen fifty eight hours for some of the ones with this truck. That was at thirteen, eleven and publishing video three twelve was the time we have had here. Fourteen forty eight. And do you have any idea why Mr. Ryan is going back to his residence on a bicycle. Ebenstein. All right. So let's go ahead and talk about May 13th of twenty. Twenty where you present what Agent Seacrest had another interview with Mr Ryan. Mr Gosse, I was not present for the interview. After the interview. I was told that we had consented to download the Facebook page. And did you, in fact, download his Facebook? I did. All right. So with regard to Mr Bryan's Facebook page, was he a member of the satellite or Facebook group? He was not. And was he Facebook friends with Travis or Michael? No, no makeup. And was Facebook friends with Greg. Michael, not on May 13th. So when you downloaded it, you were able to see who he was friends with on that date? Yes, I downloaded it on the date that the that the download actually takes that. But you actually download we use the feature of the feature of Facebook that just allows a user to download their their page. I was provided from with the passwords and user credentials and was able to. I believe you. I've actually used his phone to do it to download the page. So this isn't like an official record from Facebook. I know. And this is not a we didn't get this from Facebook. We didn't get it from the provider do legal methods. We got it through the consent and downloaded log into his Facebook page and downloaded it just like anybody else could. All right. So would be fair to characterize it as a snapshot, as it was in May of 2014 to her testifying in leading the witness. She got on direct. It's asking a question. How would you characterize the download from a twenty twenty? It is how the account appeared all the day at the time that I initiated the download, was there any historical data? There was. There was historical posts and things that were just like your Facebook feed. It can stays there that you deleted or until until it eventually, I guess, goes away that most. I've got a Facebook information back many years, though, so I think if you actually have to actually delete it for the way, is there any way for you to know, based on the download from May 13th of twenty twenty, whether Mr. Brian had deleted anything? Oh no, not, not with that. Oh not with the information from the download. It May 15th. Did you continue to assist with looking into text from the GBI tip line part and were you tasked with looking into another social media website. Not Facebook, but a different one. Yes. Which one of several actually next door and Snapchat. Right. So regarding next door dot com, what did you do? I preservation letter to through their their legal compliance office preservation letter. Just federal law allows law enforcement to reserve certain records on electronic communications providers, social media platforms, telephone. So your telephone providers, things like that. And all you have to do to preserve it is send a letter with case number six and a preservation request to next door. Yes, sir. Do you send a preservation request to any other provider of cell phone data you've been authorized? AT&T, I believe we sent one Apple, we set one up thing. OK, so that was it. How in dispute was it as far as the defendant's location on the day of February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. It was an issue. Sometimes it's nice to corroborate information that you already have with additional information. So this is an abundance of caution. Yes. May twenty twenty. Did you also download someone else's Facebook data related to Mr. Bryan yesterday? A.m. rather I believe it was, I believe chooses his fiancee at time. They pull it together and they May 19th, Bizzell. I tell them, yes, ma'am. She could not provide her cell phone. She told me and I verified later verified that she had provided consent to do both. And I was not able to get her. She had work, so we had to get her cell phone following that. All right. Now, let's jump forward to May 19th of twenty twenty. What was going to take place on May 19th of twenty twenty? I sort of got the down for this examination is going to be how do I do that rape. I'm trying not to be disruptive. I, I have five more questions and nothing else to publish. But we're going to take place on May 19. Twenty twenty eight search of the micro residence. Right. And what you do to assist in that execution of a search warrant for prior to the search, I search the tax records of Thirty Telegraph, who actually owned two three satellite drive Descombes. I don't remember. There's something Amy was the first one of them that there from Athens, Georgia. [14:41:50][443.2] [14:41:50] I don't remember the exact address. All right. So two, three still drive on by the Scroggs of Athens, Georgia. What did you do next? I don't believe the agency we to perform the search. All right. It would be fair to say all he did was seize the Wi-Fi router. That's all I did. I just did other things that we were interested in. Some of the data we got had gotten off one of the cell phone dumps. How do I find out information we were trying to verify it. Was that right? [14:41:50][0.0] [14:42:21] I and then going ahead to June 30th of twenty twenty, you said a preservation request to some other agency or rather Amazon.com. Oh, I did. Intermedia, I think it was owned by Amazon is who I sent it to, would say for blink the blank camera systems. All right. And who had a blank camera system, Larry, did you ever get anything back from Amazon.com or the other company with regard to the blinks camera? We never got a response that they received the preservation request. I don't know if any. I was not my purview at this case. The issue was I don't know if you want to pay or anything like that, but we've never got verification of it for the records right now. On June 4th, did you actually get feedback from next door dotcom idea? I received that telephone call from their legal analyst and their their counsel of record, and they advised that they had done a diligent search of their records based on the information that I had provided them, [14:43:28][66.9] [14:43:27] plus publicly available information at the time to see if there was anything in their system that would be relevant to the case. Very important. And they were unable to find any. Were you specifically looking for Larry English's potential next or stuff? We yes, we were looking for four references to what references to the case in general. We're also looking maybe references to to crimes in the in the city stores or adjacent neighborhoods. Nothing of relevance and nothing in that's what they call me. Nothing of relevance. I didn't provide anything much and eventually received the cell phone records back from Verizon for Travis MacMichael and Prizefighting. And at some point in time, were you given an extraction report for another person, cell phone? I was. I specialize a lot with our region for office. Who was my counterpart over there? He's the cell phone person over there. I downloaded Mr. Engelhardt's his cell phone and provided me if actually the data it was not a report. He provided me with the data and I generated the report. All right. So now the videos of the interior exterior to satellite drive when they came that way to you from Larry Englishes phone, did they data associated with them? Yes, ma'am. So I guess when they did and were you able to find them embedded in texts that he had sent out? Yes. And some of them were duplicated, which is indicative of them being associated or forwarded or sent the text message and we also found them within the text messages in the some of the I will pass the witness list. Don't wear a good time to go ahead and break when we go take a fifteen minute recess and do not discuss the case among yourselves. We'll see in about 15 minutes. Mr.. All right. As you step down, I remind you that you're under oath. Do not discuss your testimony with anybody during the recess. Recess for 15 minutes [14:43:27][0.0] [GAP]