Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Each pinpoint on the map created by the police are a towers connected at different times. The prosecution's contention is that it shows a path over time of the cell phone. So it stands to reason that if one cell phone connects to certain towers over time, and there is no overlap with my cell phone in the same time period and within the parameters given by the prosecutions' witness, that they were not in position by a single individual. I hope I explained that better.
  2. Of course I see problems with that. I never said I didn't. What I am trying to say, is that if an expert claims that the cell towers are accurate to within 1/2 mile and the phones are moving at a distance of 1.8 miles apart, then there is no way they could have been in my possession without discounting the very theory presented by the expert. If the expert states that it is accurate to within 1/2 mile and it shows clearly that I am close to 2 miles from it, either the theory is flawed and not allowed, or I was not in possession of the phone. My phone in the general vicinity does not make me the perpetrator without additional evidence. If that were the case, any individual who was in that general vicinity could be considered a suspect. The only thing this "evidence" proves, is that my phone was in the area. It does not show who made the call and my exact location.
  3. I completely agree with you and that statement. It's a part of my life that I am not proud of and I am hoping to move past after this case is resolved.
  4. The phone was charging in my car. The case has yet to go to trial. We are only at the preliminary phase. These are the facts. I was intoxicated. A witness will testify that they saw me around 1:30 am extremely inebriated and about to go smoke marijuana with 2 strangers. They will testify that I was too inebriated to drive and entered the passenger side of my vehicle and was driven off. There is another witness that can testify that I was asleep, still drunk with those same clothes on that morning around 8:30 am. The maps which were created by the police and not by an expert witness are misleading because while they are labeled Suspect and Victim Phone Locations, what they really show are the cell phone towers which were pinged or connected to by both phones. I could not have had both phones in my possession if they show that at certain times, the two phones were a great distance apart and moving (up to 2.9 km). Further, the pinpoints are misleading because they infer that the pinpoints are the exact location of the phone, when in fact given the terrain and power of the towers, they only have a range of half a mile. Thus the map should show circles or radius, signifying the most likely locations the handsets were in. Thoughts? Here are the maps: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/ub2t.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/gqjc.jpg/
  5. This was a pretty messed up time in my life. I was going through a heartbreaking divorce to a woman I had been with for close to 14 years. Not only was I drinking in excess, but I was also smoking marijuana that evening. I also worked as a bouncer at club that was on the beach where there are a lot of stoners. So I probably went with these two random individuals (who the witness states were Brazilian students who were pot heads) to go smoke weed. I know that being drunk and high is not an excuse. But I am certain that I did not commit these acts, not just based on what I feel, but also how I interpret the evidence.
  6. Thank you all for your input! It was actually hugely beneficial. I actually do have an attorney, but as I am adamant about my innocence, especially in light of the evidence being presented by the prosecution, I feel I have a good chance. I have witness willing to testify that around 1:45 AM, I was seriously intoxicated but wearing my red polo, black shirts and no glasses, when I entered my vehicle as a passenger to be driven by 2 other unknown persons. The crime occurred sometime around 3:30am. I have a witness willing to testify that I was passed out drunk in the morning (8:30am), on top of my bed wearing all of the same clothes. (Suspect wore white shirt, plaid shorts with glasses). No matching fingerprints, DNA, footprints. The only thing similar is that we both have a goatee. The more powerful circumstantial evidence, is that the suspect(s) called people from my phone's contact list on the victim's stolen phone. However, there are points in the evidence of cell phone data mapping, that show that the phones are separated by as much as 2.9 miles at certain times, thus I could not have been moving with both phones at the same time. Thanks again.
  7. I have been charged with burglary and indecent exposure in California. While I did not commit the crime, I have no alibi witnesses for the time during the commission of the crime, I was passed out drunk while being driven around by two other possible suspects (I do have witnesses who saw the other suspects). My question is this: Can I be found guilty of Indecent Exposure, if there is no possible way of getting a guilty verdict for the Burglary charge? My question is grounded in logic. If there is no possible way that I broke into that home, then there is no possible way I could have been inside the home to expose myself. I do not match the physical description of the suspect (I am 170 lbs 5'5", Hispanic, Black Hair Dark Brown eyes), nor was I wearing or do I own any of the clothes worn by the suspect (I was wearing a uniform of red t shirt, black shorts and contact lenses). The suspect was described as fat or stocky between 5'7"-5'9" between 180-200 lbs, with blonde to medium brown hair and wire rimmed glasses. Further, there were shoe impressions they took which did not match any shoes I own, and the DNA and fingerprints they lifted did not match me as well. So to reiterate, can I be taken to trial and found guilty for indecent exposure inside a person's home, if they cannot prove at all beyond a reasonable doubt and have no physical evidence to support that I broke into that home? Thanks!
  • Create New...