The Epstein Conspiracy Boomerang
Government investigators ruled years ago that the sex offender killed himself in prison, but many on the political right don't want to believe it. The skeptics included Kash Patel and Dan Bongino before President Trump chose them to run the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But after what DOJ calls an 'exhaustive review,' they turned up no evidence of murder or a coverup to protect Epstein's clients.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
CNN speaks with father of American citizen killed by settlers in West Bank
Saif Musallet was just weeks away from celebrating his 21st birthday before the American citizen became one of two men killed on Friday by settlers in the West Bank, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. CNN's Jeremy Diamond spoke with Saif's father who is demanding an American investigation into his son's death.
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
CNN speaks with father of American citizen killed by settlers in West Bank
Saif Musallet was just weeks away from celebrating his 21st birthday before the American citizen became one of two men killed on Friday by settlers in the West Bank, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. CNN's Jeremy Diamond spoke with Saif's father who is demanding an American investigation into his son's death.
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
Cell Phone Forensics—Proving Distracted Driving In Trucking Accident Cases
Cell phone forensics in trucking accident cases For decades, proving phone use in commercial trucking accidents meant working with incomplete information. Attorneys would examine basic phone bills and argue over whether a text message received thirty seconds before impact meant the driver was actually using their device. Defense lawyers could only speculate: "Maybe he didn't read it" or "Perhaps his phone was on silent." Without definitive proof, juries often sided with the most compelling narrative rather than hard evidence. That era is over. Modern cell phone forensics has fundamentally changed what we can prove about device usage in the moments leading up to an accident. Instead of guessing whether a driver was using their phone, we can now demonstrate with scientific certainty exactly what happened on their device. The technology exists to prove whether fingers touched the screen, which apps were actively used, and whether incoming notifications were even seen. This evidence has and is transforming how trucking accident cases are argued, moving from speculation to undeniable proof of device usage. The Three Levels of Phone Evidence Understanding phone evidence is like looking at a pyramid. At the bottom are basic phone bills that many still rely on. In the middle are carrier call detail records, or CDRs, that provide more information but still leave critical gaps. At the top sits cell phone forensics, which can definitively prove or disprove device interaction. Phone bills are essentially invoices that summarize charges for a billing period. They show basic information like call times and text message timestamps, but they're designed for billing, not evidence. Short calls might not appear at all, and phone bills provide no information about app usage like social media, navigation apps, or streaming services. The problem? If no calls or texts appear during the relevant timeframe, many conclude the driver wasn't distracted. But this overlooks that most smartphone usage today involves data-based apps that don't appear on phone bills. Call detail records are more comprehensive, generated by cellular carriers for network management. They include precise timing information, location data based on cell tower connections, and data usage details. However, they were designed for network management, not evidence. They do show more data than a phone bill, such as data transmissions at a more granular level, but they cannot tell you which specific apps were used or whether the activity was user initiated or an automated function. Cell phone forensics accesses the internal memory of the phone itself, recovering information that phone and carrier records cannot provide. This includes precise user interactions like taps and swipes, app usage history, message content from communication platforms, deleted content that may still exist in device memory and system logs showing device state and activity. This forensic data comes directly from the device, allowing experts to see exactly what was happening on the phone screen at critical moments and whether the user was actively manipulating the device. The Critical Difference: Correlation vs. Causation Here's where the revolution becomes clear. Traditional evidence like phone records is often treated as proof of device use and potential distraction. But correlation is not causation. Consider this scenario: Carrier records show data transmission thirty seconds before a crash. A plaintiff's expert concludes the truck driver was "actively using social media" based on this data activity. Without cell phone forensics, there's no way to definitively prove this claim wrong. But forensic examination might reveal that the data transmission was actually an automatic email sync that occurred without any user interaction. The driver's screen remained locked, no notifications appeared, and the phone sat untouched in its mount. What looked like evidence of device manipulation becomes proof of no user interaction with the device. What Phone Records Cannot Tell You Traditional phone records leave enormous gaps: These gaps have led to misinterpretation and speculation in countless cases. The Power of Complete Cell Phone Evidence Cell phone forensics can now answer questions that were once impossible to resolve with phone and call detail records: Cell Phone Evidence: A Case Study in Truth The plaintiff claimed the truck driver was texting at the time of the collision. The truck driver's phone records showed no activity during the critical period. Further, a cell phone examination of the truck driver's phone showed no user activity in the relevant time period. However, the plaintiff's phone records showed they had received a call that ended three minutes before the accident, but they insisted they had put their phone away after hanging up and didn't touch it again. A forensic examination of the plaintiff's smartphone revealed the truth. While the call had indeed concluded three minutes earlier, the plaintiff had subsequently opened a texting app and was actively typing a message when the collision occurred. The device's touch logs showed screen interaction at the precise moment of impact, and the half-completed text was preserved in the phone's memory. This evidence transformed the case from one focused on truck driver negligence to one revealing plaintiff phone use through manual texting while driving. When Cell Phone Forensics Exonerates Drivers Not all forensic examinations reveal device manipulation. Comprehensive cell phone analysis can be just as powerful in clearing innocent drivers by proving no user interaction occurred. In a high-profile wrongful death case, the plaintiff alleged that a truck driver was using his phone during the fatal accident. The plaintiff's expert pointed to data records showing data transmission at the time of the collision, claiming this proved the driver was streaming video content while driving. Forensic examination told a different story. The data transmission was an automatic app update that required no user interaction. The phone's screen lock data showed the screen had been locked for thirty-four minutes prior to the accident. Voice command logs showed the driver had used voice activation to make a call earlier but had properly ended that call well before the accident. The forensic evidence was so conclusive that the case settled for a fraction of the initial demand, saving millions in potential damages. Cell Phone Forensics: The Strategic Advantage This level of detail transforms how phone use cases are argued, moving from inference and speculation to undeniable proof of device interaction. When you can show that a driver's phone was locked, that no notifications were received, and that no user interaction occurred for thirty minutes before an accident, you're not asking anyone to believe a theory. You're presenting scientific evidence that eliminates device manipulation as a factor. Conversely, when cell phone forensic evidence shows that someone was actively engaged with their device in the moments leading up to and at the time of impact, it shifts the entire narrative of the case from speculation to scientific evidence. The technology exists today to definitively answer the question that drives many trucking verdicts: "Was the driver using their phone?" The only question is whether legal teams will have access to that evidence when they need it most. Case examples are based on real cases but details have been modified to protect client confidentiality. The investigative methods and technical capabilities described are accurate representations. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
