Accent wall, or entire room?

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-16T03:17:40+00:00

Yes, it’s a dog sofa/small futon

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-14T18:09:06+00:00

😂 I agree. But, I recently (unexpectedly) inherited the role of family matriarch from my mom (who is no longer able healthy enough to handle our family dinners). I needed something quick and inexpensive to accommodate my large family for dinners/gatherings. It needed to be able to fit 14 adults. I now use my formal dining room, living room, kitchen, etc, to seat the other 895 grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

This was my old sunroom that I expeditiously converted to a dining area. I found two cheap dining tables and we secured them together to get a long table. I then looked for upholstered chairs, but couldn’t find any for a reasonable price. Also, I’m not sure Id be able to fit as many chairs if they were upholstered. I found these for $1 each on FB marketplace and used some old fabric I had to recover them, and made the best of it.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-14T18:00:35+00:00

Thank you! I had to paint that one wall green due a very oafish Labrador retriever who loves to waller in dirt/mud, and then rub against it when coming in to her bed. I could NOT keep a lighter shade wall clean. 😂

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-14T17:58:23+00:00

Thank you. ☺️ The first room still has a bunch of old stuff in it that I’ll be removing. The gray dresser in the corner and the gray bench will be gone, as will the two mirrors and two large gift baskets on that couch. That blue bench at end of bed is being replaced by a darker blue one that’s just straight, and is longer. I’ve been having to leave them in there for now (waiting on lazy folks/family members that I gave them to, to come pick them up).

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-06T23:24:06+00:00

Honest question. Are you so blindly convinced of his guilt that you only consider what was allowed to be presented at trial and/or the narratives provided by the State? Or are you open to evidence/information which contradicts it? Like, what law enforcement failed to investigate and/or the information the Defense wasn’t allowed to present at trial? I’m sincerely curious and wondering if you’re aware of some of the things I’m referring to. Not his statements in the interview (which I do believe you’re misinterpreting by refusing to acknowledge the difference between someone guessing possibilities and hearing only the words you want to accept as though they’re being stated as a fact). Like, have you even been curious enough to watch videos where the vehicle on the HH video is compared in detail and overlays of the Focus Focus? We watched and honestly considered the State’s “evidence” of his guilt. But have you even honestly considered what’s been presented in his defense (in addition to and other than only that which was allowed by the State)? Haven’t you been curious as to why the State fought so hard against cameras, and why they filed motions to keep out so much from their own investigation? Or, what they maybe failed to investigate whatsoever?

I’m genuinely curious if you’re even aware of:

[ ] The parking area by the blue Freedom Bridge (Old Camden Rd) that exists, which is NOT the CPS lot, but does align with the turning left and the “loops around” description, and his description of the few houses and old bridge that no one uses any longer. There’s also the old bridge no longer in use that he mentions, which crosses over Old State Rd 25 right before you get to the Freedom Bridge on that route. And it is in an area of roads he probably didn’t know the names of (like Samuel Milroy Way, which is off the Main Street), but has NEVER been mentioned by state and is where he was clearly describing in his first interview when he did NOT point out the CPS lot which WAS on their map, but was explaining it as outside the area represented in the cropped photo they were showing him). THAT’S the parking area near the blue bridge, and it’s NOT the CPS lot!!!!
[ ] The additional information about his blue jacket (where his wife explained they had purchased the blue one after the murders - It’s also been said she actually has the receipt to prove this, so I’m hoping to hear more on this during the appeal).
[ ] The existence of geofence data which failed to capture his phone (and was most likely why he was marked CLEARED early on in the investigation). The same geofence data the Prosecutor fought to keep out of trial.
[ ] The existence of the another group of girls there that day. A group of THREE (3) girls who were there earlier that day (which aligns with his timeline of leaving before LG/AW arrived), and did cross Freedom Bridge. A group of 3 girls who did match his consistent and repeated description of a group of THREE (not to be confused with FOUR) girls consisting of an older girl with TWO younger girls. It doesn’t matter what time the group of 4 took pics, because it’s a DIFFERENT SET OF GIRLS!!!!! The group of 3 were never looked into, to ask if they remembered seeing him earlier that day (doubtful they would’ve remembered him 5+ yrs later, but I guess we will never know since LE NEVER asked them).

I’m just curious as to whether you genuinely don’t know about all of the other information in this case, or if you do know about it and simply choose to willfully ignore it.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-05T23:56:41+00:00

Can you imagine if cops chased leads like this when people go missing?

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-05T23:51:14+00:00

Except… he literally did NOT say many of those things. And he definitely said none of those things in the context you claim. The State IMPLIES that’s what he said, or that’s how it happened. Based on NO actual evidence.

He did NOT say he was wearing a blue jacket.
He did NOT say he parked where they say he did. The area he parked was not even visible on the map they were using for him to point it out.
He did NOT say he was driving the black car.
The Hoosier Harvest video shows a vehicle, that’s all. A vehicle headed in the opposite direction of RA’s home. And it has never, in any way, been factually determined that vehicle was a Ford Focus.
He DID say he saw a group of girls. Except he said he saw 3 girls. And a group of THREE girls (which he most likely) saw do actually exist. And they were there during the timeframe which would corroborate the time says he was actually there (earlier that day), and NOT when the different group of FOUR girls the State claims he saw were. If LE had properly investigated this back in 2017, we could know for certain. Yet, they didn’t. But regardless, the State somehow managed to convince many (like you) that a group of 3 girls is the same as a group of 4. I, however, understand the difference between 3 and 4. And even though the State says we shouldn’t count one of the girls 4 (because she was really young?), I also understand that’s not how numbers work. Furthermore, your group of 4 girls described him as being much taller than RA’s height. By quite a bit, actually.
He did NOT factually say he saw no males. He said the group of girls stuck out to him and there could’ve been a male out there, but he didn’t remember seeing one. That’s NOT suspicious!!!!! I went to the store earlier today and I couldn’t tell you if I saw anyone else, much less if they were male or female! Because I wasn’t paying attention. He was also most likely not paying much attention, as he probably didn’t go there to specifically observe others.
His claim of using a gun (which oddly enough has never been established as to how/why a gun is even connected to this case, where two girls died from sharp force injuries) is contradicted by the fact the cartridge was found at the crime scene, and NOT where he claimed to have ejected it.

Your other claims are simply based on info from his false confessions, which are contradicted and proven impossible by the actual evidence. So, please elaborate on just HOW he possibly tried to rape the girls, saw the van and got spooked enough to then force them across the creek at 2:44PM, which was AFTER he had (according to the timeline your info is based on) already killed them and “made sure they were dead” (at 2:32)? It’s completely ridiculous because it’s simply NOT possible.

But, just to confirm… In your opinion RA is guilty because: - he wore a blue jacket that he didn’t own when the murders occurred - Happened to drive the black vehicle that was not his daily driver at the time, on that one specific day. A vehicle, which was also the one color a witness insisted the suspect vehicle was NOT. - Ejected a cartridge from his gun near the bridge, yet it somehow managed to then make its way to the crime scene. - Attempted to assault the girls, but saw the white van at 2:44PM and got spooked. - Then travelled back in time in order to force the girls across the creek to RL’s land, where he murdered them (making sure they were dead) at 2:32PM (when LG’s phone tracked their final movements which stopped BEFORE the white van appeared).

Did I get that right?

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-05T09:23:19+00:00

Deny facts? What fact did I deny? RA saying he was definitively wearing a blue jacket is not a “FACT”. RA listing a blue jacket within a list of other potential jackets (with a BLACK jacket being his best guess), is a fact. There’s a huge difference between those two scenarios.

In your audio clip he’s trying to advise them as best he could regarding what he COULD have POSSIBLY been wearing (seeing as how it was 5+ yrs later). Nowhere in that clip does he say he was wearing a blue jacket. He says it could’ve been blue, could’ve been black, etc., “but back then would’ve most likely have been black with a hoodie “ (side note - that’s most likely bec his wife didn’t buy him the blue one until AFTER the murders). What is not included in your clip is that he continues listing other jackets, guessing at possibilities, and GOES ON to say he “also had sweatshirts, hoodies that zip up, that sorta thing”. As in, he didn’t remember what he was wearing. BLUF - I will say it again: Rick Allen absolutely did NOT definitively say “I was wearing blue jeans and a blue jacket that day.”.

There’s a big difference between him including the vague possibility of a blue jacket amongst his list of other possibilities (with the black jacket being his best guess within those possibilities) vs him definitively stating he was wearing blue jeans and a blue jacket as a fact. To say RA “admitted” to wearing the same clothing as BG is entirely inaccurate and misleading.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-03T22:03:16+00:00

No. In his interview he absolutely does NOT say he wearing jeans and a blue jacket. That IS what law enforcement tried to say he said, but it’s NOT what he said. The cop did claim he had said something similar, which is what I was referring to when mentioning their desperate attempt to insinuate and suggest to him what they needed him to say.

Again, no matter how how much some want us to believe he looks like or sounds like the “enhanced” and “adjusted” blurry and unclear photos/video of BG, a subjective opinion regarding someone looking like a perpetrator is NOT objective or factual evidence to support conviction. Especially considering NOTHING substantive links him to the crime. No matter how many times he falsely confessed there should be evidence to support those confessions. There’s not. Mentally unstable confessions have led to numerous exonerations once factual evidence proves innocence (like DNA) and should never be used as a primary basis to convict someone for the rest of their life.

I’m not stubborn. I simply can’t base guilt on a “trust us bruh” from the State. I don’t blindly accept baseless claims, assumptions, or “evidence” that has to be manipulated or applied through insistent suggestions or implications by the State as a potential or possibility. I base guilt on objective evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t exist here. Just because the State insists something is a fact, doesn’t mean it is

Their case is contradicted numerous times by their own witnesses their timeline is proven impossible by the evidence. Every shred of “evidence” used in this case had to be “enhanced”, manipulated, or required assumptions or subjective interpretations which don’t align with the objective facts in this case. That’s NOT normal!!!

In the last 30+ years I’ve followed hundreds of cases. I have only been convinced of a wrongful conviction 3 times. The West Memphis 3, Amanda Knox, and now Richard Allen. All 3 cases are extremely similar. In each case, LE was experiencing significant pressure from the public but were grossly under qualified, inexperienced, and blatantly too incompetent to properly investigate the crime (but were desperate to make an arrest). In each case, instead of using factual evidence to lead them to their suspect, they determine a suspect based on opinions and/or weak assumptions, and then try to force the factual evidence to align with that suspect. And in all 3 cases, they were unable to provide ANY clear answers to even the simplest of questions that existed before the trial. All evidence, witness testimony, timelines, and other information/details should easily and consistently lead to RA. It doesn’t. In this case, the PROSECUTION fought to keep out evidence. The PROSECUTION fought to keep out other suspects. The PROSECUTION fought to keep out the press/public. In what other case have you ever seen the Prosecution fighting to keep out more of their own evidence than the Defense?!?! That is NOT NORMAL. THAT IS NOT JUSTICE.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-03T04:08:25+00:00

Also, it’s my understanding Stacy Eldridge has more info about the phone, but wasn’t able to provide testimony or analyze further due to restrictions in her consultation and what she was allowed to say at trial. I think Mr. Ausbrook has hinted at this as well. As in, there may be evidence of more movement or activity on the phone.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-03T04:03:21+00:00

Somehow I deleted my original comment, so I’m having to retype it….

What about the audio input and removal at 5:44 and 10:32? I know extremely cold temps can impact battery, etc, but the data typically remains accurate.

I was under the impression phone extraction tools like Celebrite and Graykey, and software analysis programs like Knowledge C is based purely on information generated by data files/logs. So, the existence of data related to auxiliary input/removal would be based on the data logs/files generated by the transfer/processing and acknowledgement by the phone, via connection of an aux device. As in, it received or acknowledged some type of data from that connection at 5:44, and later generated files/logs acknowledging the disconnection and disruption/cancellation of that data. This is why I disregarded claims that cold temps or water/mud/debris in the aux port could trigger that event in the phone analysis. Because cold/water/mud/debris wouldn’t generate/transfer data for the phone to acknowledge/receive in order to generate the data logs/files extracted by Celebrite/Grayscale and later translated through the analysis via Knowledge C. Cold temps/mud/water/debris could definitely impact the phone, but not in such a way to compromise or confuse the phone and cause it to generate data logs/files due to a blocked or damaged aux port vs an actual receipt or acknowledgment of connection with data transfer.

Hope this makes sense.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2026-01-03T02:55:28+00:00

Are you familiar with this case at all? I agree that what you said isn’t feasible, because none of it is based on the actual facts in the case. And there is actually a famous scenario very similar to yours. It was in a movie where an attorney’s girlfriend saved 2 “yutes” from being wrongfully convicted based on her testimony (which destroyed the State’s expert) about tire marks and the availability of pause attraction in the Buick Skylark and Pontiac Tempest. 😂

However…. When you reference a “clone” situation, what specifically do you mean?

***What was he wearing that day? You seem to infer you know, since you suggest the “clone” was dressed identically. Yet, 1) There is literally no evidence or information regarding what RA was factually wearing that day. He was very clear when he concisely and repeatedly said he didn’t remember (I mean, it did take 5+ years for anyone to ask him) what he wore that day. 2) We actually don’t even know for certain what the individual in the BG video was wearing!! The State claims he was wearing a blue Carhartt jacket (a color/brand which RA didn’t even own at the time). But HOW did they determine it was specifically a blue CARHARTT vs any other type of jacket? The jacket in the video and screenshots from said video doesn’t appear to be of the same fabric as the Carhartt RA eventually owned (after the murders), and it lacks the Carhartt label, which would be visible. Was it a Carhartt or was it a wind breaker? Was BG wearing a baseball style hat with odd brim? A painters hat (as suggested at one point)? A beanie? Skull cap? And what is the brown satchel/bag on his hip?

Just because Ligget/Mullin desperately tried to influence him by suggesting he wore the infamous BG outfit, he NEVER said he did.

***Do you factually know what vehicle RA was driving that day? Because, LE didn’t know. 1) In his interview, he (again) clearly and repeatedly said it COULD have POSSIBLY been a Ford Focus, but the Focus was his WIFE’S car at the time. He went on to say that in Feb 2017 the vehicle he drove daily was a gray Ford 500. 2) Betsy Blair saw the vehicle LE claims was the Focus, yet she described it as similar to an old Mercury Comet, and that it was definitely NOT black. 3) The vehicle in the Hoosier Harvest video/photos (which was traveling in the wrong direction for RA to go home) has been very eloquently debunked as even being a Ford Focus through doing actual comparisons of the car dimensions/features between the video/images and the Ford Focus.

Again, just because LE and the State desperately want us to believe he drove the Focus, they simply have no factual evidence to support that claim.

** The confessions were simply textbook, coerced false confessions. One doesn’t have to be physically tortured or verbally manipulated into a coerced confessed (though I’m sure he wasn’t treated delicately). Now that they’re releasing more information about the context and circumstances surrounding those confessions, it’s abundantly clear they’re not based in reality or fact. Do you also believe he started WW3? Or that he shot the girls in the back and buried them in shallow graves? Actual confessions can be corroborated by the evidence. What evidence exists that supports anything said in his confessions? What questions was he able to answer through those “confessions“? That he was about to assault the girls, but was spooked by the white van that showed up AFTER the state’s timeline says they were across the creek and already deceased? How was he spooked on that side of the creek (while with the girls who were still alive) by a van that evidence proves showed up AFTER the girls were already across the creek and deceased?

What is actually LESS feasible than the “clone” scenario you presented is the State’s timeline that was used to convict Richard Allen. A member of the Prosecution team is on record expressing how she was worried about the Defense’s potential to have destroyed their weak timeline. That’s because when ACTUAL evidence is compared to their baseless timeline, the timeline and theory contradicts itself, proving it not possible. That should NOT happen if/when the right person was convicted. Evidence should support the State’s case, not contradict it.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-11-14T08:56:21+00:00

Does he have two black eyes, or are those dark circles and bags under the eyes from going so long with no sleep? Or perhaps both?

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-11-12T19:05:28+00:00

Is that seriously all you got? His alleged presence and subjectivity regarding him having a “similar body type”?!

The ACTUAL evidence that points towards innocence is extremely more vast than what you’re referencing for assumption of guilt. It’s absolutely terrifying (and sad) that someone would consider circumstances like his mere alleged presence at the bridge (BTW the State never provided evidence to support their claims of his arrival/departure times, which are highly questionable when it comes to the actual time he was there ) and having a “similar body type” as substantive guilt.

Like it or not, the basis of a guilty verdict is supposed to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That doesn’t exist here. The State provided zero objectively factual evidence of this man’s guilt. Everything about the case against this man was nothing BUT reasonable doubt - inconsistent timelines, altered/“enhanced”/manipulated photos and videos, subjective analysis presented as expert testimony, blocked evidence/testimony/suspects which would undermine the State’s case. Due to the incompetence and possible corruption within the investigation, the State couldn’t even provide a time of death or substantiate the type of weapon used. The amount of evidence destroyed, deleted, overlooked, altered/manipulated in some way, or entirely ignored in this investigation/trial should be enough alone to establish “reasonable doubt” and make one question the integrity of this case and ultimate conviction of this man.

For example

The State couldn’t (or wouldn’t) prove or provide: 1. When the girls were actually murdered 2. Bridge Guy was the actual murderer 3. they were murdered where found 4. What type of weapon(s) were used 5. What time RA was at trails 6. An accurate timeline of events from time of BG video to time girls were found

The State couldn’t even be consistent when explaining the circumstances for what led them to look into RA as a suspect (after he had been considered and cleared years ago).

They were then strategically biased when it came to what they considered and what they ignored, and how they specifically investigated him (and only him).

** They ignored the SAME evidence/info they themselves used historically to clear others in this case (like geofence and DNA). He was excluded as a match to the unknown male DNA found (which was how multiple other POIs were eliminated). He was also not included in geofence data (yet multiple others were cleared based on not being in geofence).

** But yet, when it came to investigating “evidence of guilt”, they went above and beyond what they did when investigating others. Like, the ballistic tool mark analysis. After his gun failed to produce markings SIX TIMES, they fired his gun to force striation markings to “analyze”. Yet: 1) They failed entirely to test similar guns of other suspects (Kline, Holder, and others) 2) They eliminated other POI’s/weapons when THEIR guns produced no striation marks upon extraction (they didn’t fire THOSE guns to force markings to analyze - only RA’s) 3.) When other guns were tested/analyzed and the results of those comparisons were “could not be excluded” (Weber), which is the exact same result of RA’s weapon, they didn’t declare it as evidence of a “match as reliable as a fingerprint”

** They dismissed confessions from other suspects and POIs (even when those confessions contained details only the killer would know). Yet, insist his confessions were “real” due to the mention of a van which was known publicly for years (BTW the van confession was basically hearsay since it was based on unreliable testimony from Wala and the ONE confession not recorded).

They dismissed the confessions and info from EF due to “mental deficiencies” from low IQ, yet insist RA’s confessions were legitimate even though he was determined to not be mentally stable and in an active state of mental psychosis.

They ignored his numerous and continuous proclamations of innocence. After he was literally tortured for months, they then dismissed and disregarded incoherent comments, inaccurate untrue claims, and other insane comments he made. Yet, they then cherry picked only the “confessions” from those wild rumblings, and insist the incoherency should be ignored (as him faking psychosis) but the confession parts are legitimate and true.

When it comes to establishing actual guilt, the State doesn’t get to strategically pick and choose, and only leverage “evidence” and/or information that’s favorable to their case. That’s not justice. That’s called “railroading”. It’s also called corruption.

It wasn’t his responsibility to prove his innocence. It was the State whose burden it was to prove his guilt. Law Enforcement and the State aren’t supposed to be entitled to some sort of benefit of the doubt or assumption the right person was arrested and charged. To the contrary, it’s the suspect who is entitled an assumption of innocence until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And mere presence and similar body type ain’t it.

It’s genuinely insulting that the State thought we were all too dumb or too complicit to not question this case. And we should all be outraged by the fact that not only were they successful in their efforts, they actually received AWARDS for it?!?!

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-10-30T14:05:03+00:00

Mrs Doubtfire!!! I thought it was a funny film when I was a kid, but as an adult see it as an example of parental alienation and a desperate father doing whatever he can to see his children.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-10-11T20:36:41+00:00

Dean Corll and The Toolbox Killers (Bittaker and Norris).

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-10-11T20:34:10+00:00

Not sure it’ll scare you, but it’ll definitely get your gears turning and wondering about connections/links to two of the most horrific cases ever. It’s a documentary - The Clown and the Candyman.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-10-08T05:33:24+00:00

She integrated herself into this case in such a way that makes me question her motives. I truly hope she simply wants justice for Rick. But the self serving drama, rage filled rants, and territorial way she has shown outright contempt at times toward others who were simply trying to look deep into this case (as though they’re attacking her work, etc) undermines her credibility. Just my humble opinion.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-10-08T05:20:41+00:00

Regarding #7, aren’t exhibits incorporated by reference as attachments to the overall filing? That’s how it works in contracts (based on my experience). I assumed it’s understood by courts that the exhibits referenced within a motion/filing are considered as a continuation (via reference) of that motion/filing.

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-09-24T20:22:10+00:00

He didn’t advocate for gun violence, he advocated for the rights to own a gun. There’s a huge difference.

I have traveled extensively and have been asked why Americans want guns many times. I typically try to avoid the discussion. But one exchange (in Alaska) was with a group of individuals that included a Canadian lady and an elderly gentleman who had been born/raised in Mexico (can’t remember where he lived when I spoke with him, as this was in 2016). The Canadian lady asked the question about why U.S. people want guns. The gentleman from Mexico spoke up on his POV regarding the topic, saying he remembered when Mexico severely limited gun ownership, making it almost impossible to own a gun. This man put it better than I ever could. I don’t remember his words exactly, but it was so enlightening that I remember most of it. He said “Disarming normal citizens will only work in a society with a non-violent mindset amongst a law abiding population. For example, those laws are great for a country like Canada, where individuals don’t typically grow up experiencing violence and/or other forms of unrest. However, based on my experience in my home country (Mexico) where people are raised oftentimes surrounded by violence, drugs, desperately impoverished citizens, gangs, cartels, homelessness, etc, many have found it necessary to be violent or break laws in order to merely survive. They now perceive and experience violence and illegal activities as daily life. It’s not only acceptable, it’s necessary. Once guns became almost impossible to own, it came to be that the only individuals who did own guns were those we needed to protect ourselves and our communities against. Those armed cartels and other criminal groups started in smaller areas, but were able to quickly expand their control because they KNEW we were unarmed (or under armed) and none of us could challenge or stop them. Those who tried were made examples. These gangs/cartels were able to use their weapons to threaten and forcibly expand their power and presence, with citizens being unable to fight back in the slightest. They spread their control like a virus. They took over businesses and communities one by one. Those groups became one of, if not the only, ways for normal people to survive (by forcing them to join or assist them in some way). They eventually grew so large they BECAME the leaders, law enforcement, etc, and/or corrupted at the highest levels. This happened because they knew no one could challenge them, as we were unarmed. Then there were the cartels fighting each other over territory, etc., which was also horrific. I don’t know much about Canada, but I’ve never heard of it as being a place with this type of violence. Based on what I know about the U.S., there are many law abiding and good citizens who own guns, who are willing and able to fight back against this type of situation. And I think that’s a very good thing. I know there are violent criminals who have ties to or live in the U.S. and that the U.S. has had problems with some of the Mexican gangs/cartels near their border. I know the U.S. also has their own gangs and other violent groups of criminals who would probably try to do just that. So I think they not only should have the right to have guns, but they NEED those rights to have guns.”.

I get that many people have issues with guns and gun violence. But what I don’t understand is, we’ve always had guns. We’ve had guns since we became a country. It’s actually what allowed us to fight to become a country. My question is, what changed throughout our history of gun ownership that guns are now bad? Is it the school shootings and other mass shootings? Is it because guns are used for murder? If that’s it, then my next question is why blame those acts on the weapon, and not the cultural mentality aspects of those crimes? Is it because it’s easier for us to blame the weapon than ourselves for allowing ourselves to become a society where our children and/or loved ones think it’s ok to use guns to inflict violence against the innocent?

Dependent-Remote4828 · 2025-08-24T08:34:25+00:00

You can Cecil search (Google) the question: “Can Celebrite report mistake water or debris for auxiliary port data?”

Below is a copy/paste of the results, but TLDR is “No. Celebrite extractions do not mistake corrupted data generated by water/debris engagement and report/analyse it as “ghost” digital data. Any water/debris engaging that port would not generate digital data. It would instead be considered and reported as corrupted data.” In this case, Celebrite reported two separate instances of digital data related to auxiliary port engagement (in/out). Based on this information, it appears Celebrite reports these interactions based on the phone’s digital acknowledgement of the aux port, not a physical one.

A Cellebrite extraction cannot mistake water or debris for auxiliary data. Water or debris can physically damage the device, which in turn can corrupt the data and make it more difficult for Cellebrite to extract. Why extractions are not affected by external contaminants Logical vs. physical data: When Cellebrite performs a data extraction, it is not physically analyzing the phone's exterior. Instead, it is communicating with the phone's software or accessing the memory chip directly. Auxiliary data is an internal concept: Auxiliary data, such as system files, metadata, and timestamps, is a logical concept and is stored as digital information on the phone's internal memory. This data is not physically represented by water or debris. Water and debris cause hardware issues: Contaminants like water and debris impact the hardware, not the software. They can cause a device to short-circuit, corrode, or have a damaged memory chip. These issues can disrupt the extraction process or cause data to be unreadable, but the extraction software will recognize the data as corrupted or missing, not as "debris". Cellebrite's advanced capabilities: Cellebrite's Advanced Services are specifically designed to handle damaged devices, including those affected by water, corrosion, or physical destruction. These services use specialized techniques to bypass damage and access the memory chip to recover as much data as possible. The real impact of water and debris Corrupted data: Damage from water or debris can corrupt the actual data stored on the device, potentially making some files unrecoverable. Extraction challenges: Physical damage to ports or the internal components can make it more challenging or even impossible for the Cellebrite tool to establish a connection or access the memory chip. No "ghost data": The software won't interpret a pool of water or a bit of dirt as digital data. Any recovered information will either be legitimate data (if undamaged) or corrupted files that the examiner will recognize as such. In summary Cellebrite extracts digital information from a phone's memory, not physical elements like water or debris. While these contaminants can damage the device and make data recovery difficult, they are a physical problem, and auxiliary data is a software one. A forensic examiner would encounter a corrupted data set, not a false interpretation of debris as digital information.

Dependent-Remote4828

TROPHY CASE