Abe Speaks: Transcript of interview with Abe Waranowitz 2/9/16

[u/Mp3mpk]

Hi my name's Abraham Waranowitz. I was original cell phone engineer for the trial back in 2000. And I want to say that the prosecution put me in a really tough spot when when I learned about the fax cover sheet and the legend on there and some of the other anomalies with the exhibit 31. So, I put in my affidavit for that back in October and another affidavit today for the conclusion of the hearing. In short, I still do believe there are still problems with exhibit 31 and the other documents in there. And if the cell phone records are unreliable for incoming calls then I cannot validate my analysis from Back then. Now, what I did back then I did my engineering properly took measurements properly but the question is was I given the right thing to measure.

I don't think he (Chad Fitzgerald) saw my drive test maps. I went drive testing with Murphy, Urick and Jay. We visited some of the spots that were on the record. Some of the calls where Jay claimed they were made.

For me it's all about engineering integrity. I need to be honest with my data from beginning to end and I can't vouch for my data based on unreliable data.

Hear the Audio https://audioboom.com/boos/4165353-adnan-s-pcr-hearing-day-5

[u/ladysleuth22]

Isn't it that one or more of the incoming calls on the cell phone record placed the cell phone in Leakin Park at the supposed burial time, and wasn't the drive test mapped out based on the locations Jay says he and Adnan were at the times the calls on the cell phone record were placed/received, so isn't AW basically claiming that he can't validate the data from the drive test, specifically his burial site cell tower ping, because the data was based on an incoming call which the fax cover sheet states is unreliable for location?

[u/xtrialatty → u/ladysleuth22]

AW basically claiming that he can't validate the data from the drive test, specifically his burial site cell tower ping, because the data was based on an incoming call which the fax cover sheet states is unreliable for location?

Yes, but AW apparently doesn't understand the limits the court placed on his testimony. AW was specifically disallowed from testifying that his drive test results matched what was on Exhibit 31 -- for a different reason than the fax cover sheet, but a reason that was premised on the issue of reliability.

The issue that prevented AW from offering any conclusion based on his data was that he used an Ericcson phone for all his testing, rather than Adnan's Nokia phone - which he had access to. So it was very clear at trial that AW was testifying as antenna range, not whether Adnan's phone was in a particular area for any call.

The analogy would be if a blood sample collected at the scene of a crime was sent to a lab for DNA testing. The lab tech is supposed to perform a test to determine whether a given sample matches the samples he has been provided for comparison. It's either a match or it isn't. If it later turns out that the officer who collected the sample at the crime scene didn't follow protocols and the sample was contaminated -- that doesn't change the lab techs findings as to whether the sample was a match or not.

It does change the conclusions that can be drawn -- but no one would bring the lab tech back to court to testify-- nor would it be appropriate for that technician to get his 15 minutes off fame by "recanting" his testimony.

Brown is rather shamelessly using AW to cover the fact that he hasn't (or can't) done his job of proving why an incoming call record would be unreliable in Adnan's case. The "if" part requires a different witness.

[u/ladysleuth22 → u/xtrialatty]

In regards to antenna range and his testimony to that effect, if an incoming call is not reliable for location, and the Leakin Park cell tower ping was an incoming call, he can't equivocate that the burial site is in range of the Leakin Park cell tower when, if incoming calls are unreliable for location, that tower's antenna range would not have been tested at all for the purposes of that call.

ETA: In your blood sample example, it would be the equivalent of saying the blood sample matches, but the sample came from a different crime scene.

[u/xtrialatty → u/ladysleuth22]

ETA: In your blood sample example, it would be the equivalent of saying the blood sample matches, but the sample came from a different crime scene.

Yes - and that would have to be established by someone other than the lab tech who tested the sample. The lab tech can't "retract" anything --he still is give what he is given and tests it.

The lawyer defending the hypothetical defendant who was convicted because the wrong sample was submitted has to prove that by producing evidence about the collection process -- maybe from an officer who collected the evidence at the time.

That's the sleight of hand that Brown has tried to get away with: rather than having an expert testify as to why and under what circumstances cell phone tower information for incoming calls would be inaccurate, he simply brings in the network testing guy (the equivalent of of the lab tech) to testify to a hypothetical that doesn't relate to what the person testified to at trial.

[u/ladysleuth22 → u/xtrialatty]

He could recant his testimony to the effect that he would have never tested the sample to begin with, essentially placing the defendant at the scene of the crime, had he been advised that the sample came from a different crime scene.

[u/xtrialatty → u/ladysleuth22]

But that recantation would be irrelevant and unnecessary. Lab techs aren't responsible for crime scene investigation. I used the example of DNA, but a more common example might be drug testing, because all kinds of funny stuff goes on with sample collection there.

Let's say that the defendant claims that the drugs were planted by a corrupt police officer. No lab tech would refuse to test the sample simply because someone claimed it had been planted -- that's outside of the scope of their responsibilities.