KP

The TechStream data isn’t “junk.” A second chip-off conducted by the Commonwealth recovered an SD card that had been overlooked during the first chip-off, which was performed by defense experts with the Commonwealth present. That’s additional data, not proof that anyone manipulated evidence to fit a theory. The phone’s location data also needs to be described accurately. The location encompassed only a corner of the front of the house, during a 5–8 second window but the phone’s latitude and longitude remained unchanged. There is no evidence John entered the home. Waze data places the SUV at: • 12:20:43 — Maplecroft Road, traveling 10–20 mph 
• 12:22:43 — Oakdale, turning onto Cedarcrest, traveling 10–30 mph 
• 12:24:18 — SUV turns onto Fairview after the three-point turn, traveling 20 mph 
• 12:24:38 — SUV comes to its first complete stop in front of the home near the flagpole. The “flights climbed” activity occurred while John was in the SUV with location and speed tracked by Waze. Additionally, the battery-temperature argument leaves out a significant detail: when John was moved to the stretcher, his phone’s temperature dropped to its lowest reading of the morning, 37°F. The argument that the phone must have died outside or reached a lower temperature assumes facts that the data itself does not establish. A phone’s battery temperature is not a direct measurement of a person’s body temperature. You can dispute the Commonwealth’s reconstruction, but calling the data junk, treating a brief location association as proof John entered the house, and asserting what the phone’s temperature must have been are interpretations, not definitive scientific findings. The evidence needs to be evaluated as a whole, not dismissed whenever it conflicts with a preferred narrative.