X · Digital Timeline | Defense Argument

Argument · 10 of 17

X. The Digital Timeline Requires Explanation

Twiggs testified that he received no direct message from Mr. Robinson during the day on September 10. He said the first direct message arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. Agent Davis testified that the Cellebrite extraction likewise placed the first text at 11:00 p.m. Source: rev.com

The charging document quotes the alleged sender as saying at that time:

he was “still” in Orem;
he was stuck there;
he needed to retrieve the rifle;
police activity prevented recovery;
one vehicle was lingering;
and he remained near the drop point. Source: atty.utahcounty.gov

The same exchange later includes:

“OMW home 3.5 hours.” Source: rev.com

That chronology must be reconciled with every objective source of movement evidence:

UVU surveillance;
roadway-camera footage;
license-plate-reader records;
fuel or purchase records;
cellphone location information;
the Challenger’s departure time;
the approximately four-hour travel distance;
and Twiggs’s account of when Mr. Robinson returned home.

If surveillance shows the vehicle or Mr. Robinson elsewhere while the alleged author claims to be in Orem, that is not a minor discrepancy. The alleged messages are written as real-time location reporting. Their reliability therefore depends upon real-time location corroboration. The State cannot ask the Court to accept the messages as accurate confessions while disregarding any conflict between their claimed location and objective travel evidence.

📄

Charging Document — Message ExcerptsThe full quoted exchange, including the "OMW home 3.5 hours" message referenced above.