Mesa County Colorado - Belinda and Tina's big adventure

[RVInit]

I just read through your ThreadReader for today, these are really great, Luke! I thought Dallas Schroeder didn't get to answer a single question, but then thought I must have missed it. Nope. You confirmed it on your feed.

I really like all the links you put into your Twitter feed on the trial, Luke, they really help give context to all the loonies that are testifying. This trial was a wild ride.

[RVInit]

Tina is not going to testify because she wanted to tell the jury things that were not allowed during this trial and since she can't do that she is going to decline. She says that "I am not being allowed to put on a defense". I agree that the judge did everything he could to prevent this from becoming a complete politicized shit show.

How poot-y. Political prisoner, not allowed to put on a defense...

Yup. Same old same old.

[p0rtia]

Judge Barrett reading jury instructions way way way waaaay too fast. That's gotta chill the jurors. Plenty of high-falutin' language he does not define, too. Yikes.

Shapiro giving closing. 45 min ea.

[p0rtia]

Shapiro awful (too many names, no through-line). But speaking slowly. *sigh*

Not sure I'll blame him, though. 45 minutes not enough to effectively frame this tangle of worms. He's just giving the timeline.

But seriously, Tina's lies are legion.

[p0rtia]

Meh.

Case up for closing. Folksy, setting his framing.

Three minutes, Prosecutor up three times to object (misstates law and facts, exhibit not in evidence); sustained as to exhibit; jury to follow law as explained (incomprehensively) by judge.

Case: "Yr Honor, do I get additional time when Mr. Shapiro interrupts me?"

When did Tina Peters become a target of the gov't? Etc.

[p0rtia]

Too the surprise of no one in the court room, except for the jury, Case says about Conan Hayes, "Who was he? Maybe he was a CIA agent?"

Exasperated objection. Judge Barrett says he will not comment--now.

This, of course, makes a mockery of the battle that went on, and the hours of argument, that went on pre-trial and during trial to make it clear as crystal that the defense was not to bring up the fact* that Tina thought that Hayes was a gov't informant.

Of course, Case was just asking questions....

He won't be sanctioned, but he damn well should be.

[RVInit]

Too the surprise of no one in the court room, except for the jury, Case says about Conan Hayes, "Who was he? Maybe he was a CIA agent?"

Exasperated objection. Judge Barrett says he will not comment--now.

This, of course, makes a mockery of the battle that went on, and the hours of argument, that went on pre-trial and during trial to make it clear as crystal that the defense was not to bring up the fact* that Tina thought that Hayes was a gov't informant.

Of course, Case was just asking questions....

He won't be sanctioned, but he damn well should be.

I am way behind today, just now listening to the prosecution closing.

But, based on what I've seen of this judge I believe he WILL do some kind of sanction of Case. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't give the jury a special instruction regarding this. I haven't heard it myself, but I'm sure you are describing it accurately, it seems an outright deliberate ignoring of the judge's rulings. So, I believe he will do 'something'.

[p0rtia]

Hope you're right, RV!

Case is overplaying his case. Not dealing with 3/4 of the evidence. Just attacking the prosecution ("Why didn't they show you THAT!").

Judge Barrett now sustaining prosecution's objections, with his super-pissed off voice. Prosecution continues to rise to say "misstates the law;" Judge B now backing him up by saying "follow the law as I told you," which may sound tame, but it is clear, in context, what he's saying.

Case uses the "lie" word, which they spoke about literally two hours ago, with the judge admonishing defense not to use it.

The jury can see and hear what is happening.

[p0rtia]

Judge Barrett looking daggers as att. Case faux apologizes (with a bow) for using the L word.

Case apologizes for using the L word.jpg (229.56 KiB) Viewed 960 times

[Rolodex]

Case was doing his best to allude to the whole crazy Dominion vote fraud conspiracy. He says Peters didn't break the law (on things she not charged for, like turning off cameras) but hints that even if she did it was for the greater good. Absolutely trying to nudge a jury nullification. It happens, rarely, but in this case I don't think anyone but the nut factory sees "exposing Dominion" as a greater good of any kind, especially compared to an elected official going completely off the reservation.

Case in convo with judge. He ran right up there in a hurry; wonder what he's complaining/begging about/for.

He's thoroughly unlikable and any jurors with high level emotional IQ will see any "evidence" of not guilty through that lens or even turned Case off completely.

[RVInit]

I really wish the state had done a simple Google search for how names can be displayed in the Signal app. The jury can very well assume that Wood was the "Trebuchet' on that chat.

However, here is what Google says when asked if you have an option of showing either the username or profile name

Yes, in the Signal app, you can choose to share your profile name or username with people you want to connect with:

Profile name
Your profile name is displayed in chats alongside your phone number, depending on your settings. It can include a name, picture, and about section. You can set or edit a custom nickname and note for each contact, which are end-to-end encrypted and protected by your Signal PIN. You can also change how others see your name in their chat view.

Username
Your username is optional and is not displayed in your profile details or in chats with other people. It's a quick way to connect with others without sharing your phone number, and it prevents others from finding you by searching for your phone number. To create a username, go to Settings > Profile and type in a unique name that ends with at least two numbers. You can change or delete your username at any time. If you share your username or QR code with someone, they can see it, but if you start a chat using someone else's username, they won't see yours unless they accept your message request and share their profile name with you.

Also, the profile name is not unique, but the username must be unique. So, only one user with the username of "Trebuchet' but there could be many people with Profilename = 'Trebuchet'.

I think the prosecution made a bad mistake on not at least considering to Google how Signal works. I had never used Signal before but after hearing Wood say he was username Trebuchet and he did NOT engage in any chat where he gave permission to use his keycard I did some googling about how Signal works. They are basically allowing the defense to 'prove' that he was lying.

This is probably going to be fatal to at least some of the counts.

[Rolodex]

Wow RV I didn't pick up on that at all. I was confused about Wood from the time he testified. He was definitely teamdenier, and was fine with poking around in the server to find "evidence" of Dominion shenanigans. But then it looked like his friends underbussed him by saying yes he knew his credentials were being used by someone else. He said on the stand he didn't know.

I don't remember that exact signal thread. I do remember the prosecution asking if there could be more than one person on signal called Trebuchet; I guess this is why. I thought the conspiracy thread was Peters, Olsen, Hayes, Bishop, as in the slide Drake showed in the prosecution rebuttal.

Is the thread with Trebuchet the one he said he didn't recognize - that might have been faked up by the defense? I was a bit confused by several people who said they'd never seen a thread before when shown by the defense (and they were on that thread, supposedly).

[RVInit]

Wow RV I didn't pick up on that at all. I was confused about Wood from the time he testified. He was definitely teamdenier, and was fine with poking around in the server to find "evidence" of Dominion shenanigans. But then it looked like his friends underbussed him by saying yes he knew his credentials were being used by someone else. He said on the stand he didn't know.

I don't remember that exact signal thread. I do remember the prosecution asking if there could be more than one person on signal called Trebuchet; I guess this is why. I thought the conspiracy thread was Peters, Olsen, Hayes, Bishop, as in the slide Drake showed in the prosecution rebuttal.

Is the thread with Trebuchet the one he said he didn't recognize - that might have been faked up by the defense? I was a bit confused by several people who said they'd never seen a thread before when shown by the defense (and they were on that thread, supposedly).

Yes, exactly. There is a Signal thread that includes someone using 'Trebuchet'. He claims it wasn't him, and Sharronna says it was him. Judging by demeanor I thought it more likely that he was telling the truth than her. And then I started wondering if it was possible that someone else could use the name Trebuchet where it wasn't Wood. And it turns out that yes, someone can set up Trebuchet as their profile name and then set their app to display their profile name instead of displaying their username.

I found that particular Signal thread very odd in one respect. It seemed like the ONLY thing that was discussed in that thread was "Trebuchet' acknowledging that someone else would be using his identity. But nothing else of substance was discussed and it just seemed kind of weird. Belinda seemed to think Wood had no idea taht she would be asking him for his keycard. And she also lied to him about why she needed him to give her his keycard. So, I don't think that really was him on that thread. The tech guy they hired to impersonate him was a serious tech guy. Hell, I never used Signal before and I had no problem finding out you can impersonate a user by setting up a profile name with that username and then have your profile name be the name that is displayed on the screen of anyone that chats with you.

I can't say that is what happened, but I believe Wood more than I believe Bishop, and what I described CAN be done, so...

[Rolodex]

Great explanation! I couldn't remember the topic of that signal thread (the one were the defense says trebuchet is in it but no one recognized that conversation except Bishop). I hope someone in the jury knows a little about Signal and they come to the same conclusion as we have. That Trebuchet's knowledge/approval of the hijacking his key card is the only topic of that thread makes it highly suspect.

Was there ever mention of a device from which this convo was supposedly pulled? Was the prosecution ever able to grab this thread off a device themselves? Or was this only ever printed out computer sheets and presented by the defense? As a juror I'd want to know that.

[Rolodex]

Great explanation! I couldn't remember the topic of that signal thread (the one were the defense says trebuchet is in it but no one recognized that conversation except Bishop). I hope someone in the jury knows a little about Signal and they come to the same conclusion as we have. That Trebuchet's knowledge/approval of the hijacking his key card is the only topic of that thread makes it highly suspect.

Was there ever mention of a device from which this convo was supposedly pulled? Was the prosecution ever able to grab this thread off a device themselves? Or was this only ever printed out computer sheets and presented by the defense? As a juror I'd want to know that.

ETA: For any number of reasons I believe Wood over Bishop. I remember him testifying about how surprised and upset he was when he was at the cyper symposium and heard that LE had "raided" his home via a warrant. He thought it was the SoS coming after him for working with the denier crowd/right wingers, targeting "enemies" of the deep state.

Later he learned it was because his credentials were used to access restricted spaces at the Mesa Co elections office. He was satisfied to believe it was the SoS at first; he "knew" they didn't like him or that crowd. But...he KNEW he had not accessed those rooms at the Mesa Co office and figured out what happened - he'd been used by Peters and company.
I can only hope he's realized how nutty that crowd is and that they'll turn on each other in their mission to "out" Dominion and the evil election fraud cabal.

[RVInit]

Was there ever mention of a device from which this convo was supposedly pulled? Was the prosecution ever able to grab this thread off a device themselves? Or was this only ever printed out computer sheets and presented by the defense? As a juror I'd want to know that.

Yes, there was testimony from the prosecution expert that none of the phones that were collected, which included Wood's phone, had that conversion on it. None of them.

The defense did not offer up an actual phone that this conversation supposedly came from. Bishop was asked where it came from and her response was that it came from Tina's lawyer. I hope someone on the jury took notes about that, the defense never even tried to present a phone or any explanation beyond "Tina's lawyer" as the source of the printouts. In all honesty, you could probably use Word or PowerPoint to create a document that looks like what was shown to the jury. There wasn't even claim that it came from an actual phone. Just "Tina's lawyer".

[Rolodex]

Thanks. I didn't hear every word of the trial. Surely at least one juror will bring up the question of where that "screenshot" print out came from. Someone will remember what you just said. I think the ladies were believable when they seemed baffled at seeing a conversation they supposedly were a part of but didn't remember at all. I think it was Sandy who said she didn't even get Signal till like August and these messages were supposed on Signal in May (ish). That's pretty much a smoking gun (h/t to Luke!).

[RVInit]

[neonzx]

Is this turned over to the jury yet?

[Rolodex]

Is this turned over to the jury yet?

Yes. They got it about 1pm mountain time. They had not had lunch yet, so they may start deliberating while waiting for a lunch to be delivered. They judge told them they could work as long as they wanted. Apparently there's one jury that has to "leave tomorrow." I'm not sure if that means that person can work all day tomorrow will not be available after today. There are 2 alternates left (one had to go in today bc another person was out sick). If you have to put in an alternate after deliberations start, you're supposed to start over again. I bet they work hard to get it done before the person has to leave; they will know that schedule and hopefully they know they have to start over if they get another alternate. I'd be so ready to be done after all this.

[Luke]

Thank you thank you RV! I like putting the links in since many folks don't know the history or local (in this case, Mesa County) background. Huge hug.

8/12/24 Day 9 of #TinaPetersTrial. JUDGMENT DAY! CLOSING ARGUMENTS & JURY INSTRUCTIONS today! Jury will receive Tina's case soon. How long until VERDICT? Judge Matthew Barrett presides. Ex-@MesaElections Clerk Tina Peters faces 10 charges, 7 FELONIES.


X:


ThreadReaderApp: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1822 ... 50302.html

This is the continuing thread during deliberations:

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 15m
8/12/24 Day 9 of #TinaPetersTrial JUDGMENT! CLOSING ARGUMENTS & JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Jury deliberating. How long until the VERDICT? Ex-@MesaElections Clerk Tina Peters faces 10 charges, including 7 FELONIES.

For smoking guns fans

[p0rtia]

ETA: For any number of reasons I believe Wood over Bishop. I remember him testifying about how surprised and upset he was when he was at the cyper symposium and heard that LE had "raided" his home via a warrant. He thought it was the SoS coming after him for working with the denier crowd/right wingers, targeting "enemies" of the deep state.

Me too--even beyond my desire for him to be telling the truth. Bishop wriggled on the stand and played the "I don't recall" card from the bottom of the deck whenever needed. Her favorite dodge was to say "That's above my head". She meant "above my pay grade," but either way she used the expression incorrectly, because she was not in fact working for the the Colorado SoS office or the board of elections. Too also, she spouted endless stolen election crap. Whereas Wood has realized that the Lindell crowd is a pack of liars, whom he openly despises.

[Rolodex]

I really do hope Wood has seen the light. These fanatics will underbus anyone who gets in the way of their fever dream of election denial and the evilness of Dominion. Mesa Co went strong for Trump so I'm not even really sure what they'd think they'd find on their servers. Changed votes? Certainly not enough to affect the outcome in their county. Why would anyone tamper in a place that's already a slam dunk? (I don't think Dominion tampered at all, btw).

I watched Wood and I agree; he just was more believable than Bishop. She was angry and arrogant. I don't think that's particularly a good quality in a defense witness. In a normal world, I don't even know what she was a witness to in this situation. She's a co-conspirator, IMO, who has not flipped.

[p0rtia]

FTR, Att. Drake's closing rebuttal (sorry, don't know what it's called) was much better than Shapiro's. And that's saying something, since by its nature, rebuttal is likely to be disjointed. She made all the points about Tina's lies and behaviors--the secrecy and asking her colleagues to be silent and lying to them--that should have been made up front (and repeated as much as possible in rebuttal).

Shapiro: C
Case: A- descending to D-
Drake: B+

[Rolodex]

Luke just posted that the jury came into the court room a few minutes ago. They wanted to ask a question: can they leave some verdicts blank if they can't agree. Judge sent them back (honestly, it feels like sufficient time/lots of time when you're deliberating in a jury room - and you wonder if anyone will ever change their mind).

I hope it's just one or 2 things they're struggling with; seems like they came back fast with that question. Just say guilty and call it a day!