Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the cell phone records will only show a radius of where the phone could be pinged. For those asking where else he could have at those hours... google ATL strip clubs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the cell phone records will only show a radius of where the phone could be pinged. For those asking where else he could have at those hours... google ATL strip clubs.

It will be interesting if they use this as a defense, given the following.....

In court proceedings, Fulton County DA Fani Willis argues that the Atlanta Police Department's cell phone tracking software, in use since 2017, cannot "prove anything relevant" and provides "little evidentiary value."

Under DA Fani Willis' jurisdiction, the Atlanta Police Department has utilized Hawk Analytics' "CellHawk" software since 2017.

This very software documented Nathan Wade's alleged visits to Fani Willis' home 35 times before the purported beginning of their affair.

In a recent court filing, Willis argues that CellHawk's software fails to establish "anything relevant" and provides "little evidentiary value."

She further contends that CellHawk does not confirm "Special Prosecutor Wade's presence at any particular location or address."

According to Willis, CellHawk merely indicates that "Special Prosecutor Wade's telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located."

Does Fulton County DA Fani Willis maintain that the cellphone tracking software used by the Atlanta Police Department fails to "prove anything relevant" and offers "little evidentiary value"?

Since the adoption of CellHawk by the Atlanta Police Department in 2017, has the Fulton County District Attorney's office utilized this software to prosecute any cases?

In this particular instance, the cell phone information provided 2 cell phone towers for location triangulation - accurate triangulation requires 3 cell phone towers. So it is likely that he was somewhere in a large geographic zone - that includes both Willis's apartment and many other places including bars that are open late.

In other words, little evidentiary value.

Ok then. Thousands of defendants convicted by Fulton Co. DA's office using CellHawk system since 2017 must be freed!

DA and Fani (since 2021) used cellphone records that is of "little evidentiary value" for all those convictions according to Fani.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the cell phone records will only show a radius of where the phone could be pinged. For those asking where else he could have at those hours... google ATL strip clubs.

It will be interesting if they use this as a defense, given the following.....

In court proceedings, Fulton County DA Fani Willis argues that the Atlanta Police Department's cell phone tracking software, in use since 2017, cannot "prove anything relevant" and provides "little evidentiary value."

Under DA Fani Willis' jurisdiction, the Atlanta Police Department has utilized Hawk Analytics' "CellHawk" software since 2017.

This very software documented Nathan Wade's alleged visits to Fani Willis' home 35 times before the purported beginning of their affair.

In a recent court filing, Willis argues that CellHawk's software fails to establish "anything relevant" and provides "little evidentiary value."

She further contends that CellHawk does not confirm "Special Prosecutor Wade's presence at any particular location or address."

According to Willis, CellHawk merely indicates that "Special Prosecutor Wade's telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located."

Does Fulton County DA Fani Willis maintain that the cellphone tracking software used by the Atlanta Police Department fails to "prove anything relevant" and offers "little evidentiary value"?

Since the adoption of CellHawk by the Atlanta Police Department in 2017, has the Fulton County District Attorney's office utilized this software to prosecute any cases?

In this particular instance, the cell phone information provided 2 cell phone towers for location triangulation - accurate triangulation requires 3 cell phone towers. So it is likely that he was somewhere in a large geographic zone - that includes both Willis's apartment and many other places including bars that are open late.

In other words, little evidentiary value.

Anonymous wrote:When will Georgia decide whether or not Willis is disqualified?

It would be preferable to get beyond this side circus Trump has created and proceed with his prosecution.

“All I need is for you to help me find 11,780 votes”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the cell phone records will only show a radius of where the phone could be pinged. For those asking where else he could have at those hours... google ATL strip clubs.

It will be interesting if they use this as a defense, given the following.....

In court proceedings, Fulton County DA Fani Willis argues that the Atlanta Police Department's cell phone tracking software, in use since 2017, cannot "prove anything relevant" and provides "little evidentiary value."

Under DA Fani Willis' jurisdiction, the Atlanta Police Department has utilized Hawk Analytics' "CellHawk" software since 2017.

This very software documented Nathan Wade's alleged visits to Fani Willis' home 35 times before the purported beginning of their affair.

In a recent court filing, Willis argues that CellHawk's software fails to establish "anything relevant" and provides "little evidentiary value."

She further contends that CellHawk does not confirm "Special Prosecutor Wade's presence at any particular location or address."

According to Willis, CellHawk merely indicates that "Special Prosecutor Wade's telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located."

Does Fulton County DA Fani Willis maintain that the cellphone tracking software used by the Atlanta Police Department fails to "prove anything relevant" and offers "little evidentiary value"?

Since the adoption of CellHawk by the Atlanta Police Department in 2017, has the Fulton County District Attorney's office utilized this software to prosecute any cases?

Anonymous wrote:The US legal system is based upon the presumption of innocence. Courts are not supposed to use circumstantial evidence to convict. In this case, Ashley Merchant, lawyer representing Michael Roman, would need to present actual evidence of the inappropriate use of funds. So far, the evidence is circumstantial. Nathan Wade purchased tickets for a trip that Fani Willis went on. Willis has countered that she reimbursed him in cash using funds leftover from her last campaign where she loaned her campaign $50K and then kept leftover unused money in cash at home. There is documented evidence that she took out the $50K to loan to her campaign, which suggests she would have the cash at home to pay for the travel tickets. A vendor in Napa Valley, one of the places that she traveled with Wade, has said in the news that she purchased $400 of wine at the vineyard and he expected her, like most of his clients, to pay by card, but she pulled out $400 in cash and clearly had more on her at the time, to pay for the wine. When he commented that it was unusual, she said that she always pays cash. She has also said she reimburses her dates for expenses because she does not want to be beholden to any man.

In any event, for her to be taken off the case, the defense attorney would need to prove, not circumstantially, but with actual evidence, that she actually benefitted from the money that was paid to Nathan Wade. The timeline of when they began their romance is a red herring, while it is a conflict of interest, it does not show an actual benefit that Fani Willis received from hiring Nathan Wade.

So, unless Ashley Merchant can show actual evidence and not circumstantial evidence of a financial benefit, there is insufficient grounds to remove either of them from the case.

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the cell phone records will only show a radius of where the phone could be pinged. For those asking where else he could have at those hours... google ATL strip clubs.

Anonymous wrote:The US legal system is based upon the presumption of innocence. Courts are not supposed to use circumstantial evidence to convict. In this case, Ashley Merchant, lawyer representing Michael Roman, would need to present actual evidence of the inappropriate use of funds. So far, the evidence is circumstantial. Nathan Wade purchased tickets for a trip that Fani Willis went on. Willis has countered that she reimbursed him in cash using funds leftover from her last campaign where she loaned her campaign $50K and then kept leftover unused money in cash at home. There is documented evidence that she took out the $50K to loan to her campaign, which suggests she would have the cash at home to pay for the travel tickets. A vendor in Napa Valley, one of the places that she traveled with Wade, has said in the news that she purchased $400 of wine at the vineyard and he expected her, like most of his clients, to pay by card, but she pulled out $400 in cash and clearly had more on her at the time, to pay for the wine. When he commented that it was unusual, she said that she always pays cash. She has also said she reimburses her dates for expenses because she does not want to be beholden to any man.

In any event, for her to be taken off the case, the defense attorney would need to prove, not circumstantially, but with actual evidence, that she actually benefitted from the money that was paid to Nathan Wade. The timeline of when they began their romance is a red herring, while it is a conflict of interest, it does not show an actual benefit that Fani Willis received from hiring Nathan Wade.

So, unless Ashley Merchant can show actual evidence and not circumstantial evidence of a financial benefit, there is insufficient grounds to remove either of them from the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US legal system is based upon the presumption of innocence. Courts are not supposed to use circumstantial evidence to convict. In this case, Ashley Merchant, lawyer representing Michael Roman, would need to present actual evidence of the inappropriate use of funds. So far, the evidence is circumstantial. Nathan Wade purchased tickets for a trip that Fani Willis went on. Willis has countered that she reimbursed him in cash using funds leftover from her last campaign where she loaned her campaign $50K and then kept leftover unused money in cash at home. There is documented evidence that she took out the $50K to loan to her campaign, which suggests she would have the cash at home to pay for the travel tickets. A vendor in Napa Valley, one of the places that she traveled with Wade, has said in the news that she purchased $400 of wine at the vineyard and he expected her, like most of his clients, to pay by card, but she pulled out $400 in cash and clearly had more on her at the time, to pay for the wine. When he commented that it was unusual, she said that she always pays cash. She has also said she reimburses her dates for expenses because she does not want to be beholden to any man.

In any event, for her to be taken off the case, the defense attorney would need to prove, not circumstantially, but with actual evidence, that she actually benefitted from the money that was paid to Nathan Wade. The timeline of when they began their romance is a red herring, while it is a conflict of interest, it does not show an actual benefit that Fani Willis received from hiring Nathan Wade.

So, unless Ashley Merchant can show actual evidence and not circumstantial evidence of a financial benefit, there is insufficient grounds to remove either of them from the case.

If the factual evidence, cell phone records, contradicts the testimony given by Willis and Wade then nothing more needs to be proven. In that case not only will they be disqualified from the case they will most likely be removed from the Georgia bar.

Anonymous wrote:The US legal system is based upon the presumption of innocence. Courts are not supposed to use circumstantial evidence to convict. In this case, Ashley Merchant, lawyer representing Michael Roman, would need to present actual evidence of the inappropriate use of funds. So far, the evidence is circumstantial. Nathan Wade purchased tickets for a trip that Fani Willis went on. Willis has countered that she reimbursed him in cash using funds leftover from her last campaign where she loaned her campaign $50K and then kept leftover unused money in cash at home. There is documented evidence that she took out the $50K to loan to her campaign, which suggests she would have the cash at home to pay for the travel tickets. A vendor in Napa Valley, one of the places that she traveled with Wade, has said in the news that she purchased $400 of wine at the vineyard and he expected her, like most of his clients, to pay by card, but she pulled out $400 in cash and clearly had more on her at the time, to pay for the wine. When he commented that it was unusual, she said that she always pays cash. She has also said she reimburses her dates for expenses because she does not want to be beholden to any man.

In any event, for her to be taken off the case, the defense attorney would need to prove, not circumstantially, but with actual evidence, that she actually benefitted from the money that was paid to Nathan Wade. The timeline of when they began their romance is a red herring, while it is a conflict of interest, it does not show an actual benefit that Fani Willis received from hiring Nathan Wade.

So, unless Ashley Merchant can show actual evidence and not circumstantial evidence of a financial benefit, there is insufficient grounds to remove either of them from the case.