How David Weiss Plans to Prove the Gun Case against Hunter Biden

In addition to their ham-handed attempt to cover up that the gun shop at which Hunter Biden purchased a gun fluffs gun purchase documents for “celebrity” purchasers, David Weiss’ team submitted their trial brief for the gun case yesterday. That, taken in conjunction with their Motions in Limine, provides a good sense of the gimmicks they plan to use to win the case against Hunter Biden. (You can find all these filings at my Hunter Biden page, which for the Delaware case is up to date.)

Ignore the Gun Shop’s Celebrity Treatment

As noted, David Weiss’ crack prosecutors only discovered that the gun shop had altered the Hunter Biden gun form after the fact when Abbe Lowell told them that at a status hearing last week.

They quickly reinterviewed gun shop employees, only to discover their testimony conflicts about whether they got that second form of ID in real time, or instead blew off doing so because Hunter was a “celebrity” purchaser and everyone knew his father.

In their belated motion in limine trying to prevent Hunter Biden from revealing that the gun shop altered this very form after the fact, prosecutors argue that relying on evidence about alterations made three years after the fact would amount to putting the gun shop owner on trial.

Except it’s not that simple. Both the 302 of the gun shop owner and the guy who sold the gun make it clear that someone in a back room is responsible for ensuring that the paperwork is in order, along with a clerk who handles the documents a third time. “He would not have paid attention to the paperwork side of the sale,” sales guy Gordon Cleveland told the FBI, “because he had already done his part by working with the customer and making the sale.” That is, the only guy in contact with the customer is not in charge of ensuring that the paperwork is in order — some guy in a back room, who submits the form to the authorities, is in charge of that.

Gun shop owner Ronald Palimere explained that his shop bifurcates the roles that way to “prevent errors.” Except even the tracking number did not get added to this form until after it was submitted to ATF; they appear to have added it after it was clear there was an investigation into the gun. The bifurcated role did the opposite of ensuring compliance.

In other words, if Judge Maryellen Noreika allows Hunter Biden to present this scandalous detail, it provides one way to sow doubt: if the gun shop was willing to alter the form three years after submission to belatedly comply with requirements, who’s to say they weren’t the ones who asserted that Hunter Biden wasn’t an addict?

Continue to Misrepresent Hunter Biden’s Memoir

When this is all said and done, I’m going to count the number of times that David Weiss and the two Trump-appointed judges justified this prosecution with a claim that everything they needed for the prosecution appeared in Hunter Biden’s memoir, with prosecutors and Judge Noreika all making false claims about what’s actually in the memoir, in the prosecutors’ case, repeatedly.

The problem is that Hunter actually didn’t say much about what happened between the time he returned to Delaware in October 2018 and when he went to Massachusetts for Ketamine treatment at the hands of Fox News pundit Keith Ablow that November. All those claims that the memoir provided abundant evidence to prove the gun case against Hunter? Nope.

And, as I’ve laid out repeatedly, what prosecutors once claimed showed the state of Hunter Biden’s addiction in October 2018, when he bought the gun, and still claim presents his continued state of addiction from October 2018, is actually his description of his addiction after (Hunter describes) the Ketamine treatment made it worse.

The therapy’s results were disastrous. I was in no way ready to process the feelings it unloosed or prompted by reliving past physical and emotional traumas. So I backslid. I did exactly what I’d come to Massachusetts to stop doing. I’d stay clean for a week, break away from the center to meet a connection I found in Rhode Island, smoke up, then return.


Finally, the therapist in Newburyport said there was little point in our continuing.

“Hunter,” he told me, with all the exasperated, empathetic sincerity he could muster, “this is not working.”

I headed back toward Delaware, in no shape to face anyone or anything. To ensure that I wouldn’t have to do either, I took an exit at New Haven. For the next three or four weeks, I lived in a series of low-budget, low-expectations motels up and down Interstate 95, between New Haven and Bridgeport.

I exchanged L.A.’s $400-a-night bungalows and their endless parade of blingy degenerates for the underbelly of Connecticut’s $59-a-night motel rooms and the dealers, hookers, and hard-core addicts—like me—who favored them. I no longer had one foot in polite society and one foot out. I avoided polite society altogether. I hardly went anywhere now, except to buy. It was me and a crack pipe in a Super 8, not knowing which the fuck way was up. [my emphasis]

And they keep massaging this timeline. In their latest iteration in the trial brief, prosecutors try to minimize how long Hunter was in Ablow’s treatment (which, in any case, is inaccurate in Hunter’s book).

In his book, the defendant describes that he had a short stint at a therapistrun wellness center in Newburyport, Massachusetts, where the defendant says he sought drug addiction therapy.

By “brief,” these prosecutors mean Hunter claimed he spent 8 weeks in Newburyport, but the available evidence shows his follow-up trip started in mid-January, weeks earlier than he claimed in the book.

I would make two trips up there, staying for about six weeks on the first visit, returning to Maryland, then heading back for a couple weeks of follow-up in February of the new year.

As noted here, prosecutors are trying to edit the memoir to say what they want it to say, cherry picking pages and presenting them out of context. After I noted that they had excluded the part that shows Hunter arriving back in Delaware, they’ve added it belatedly in their trial brief.

7 Page 203 was inadvertently omitted from the government’s excerpts at Doc. No. 119-1. The government includes this single page in Exhibit 1 to this filing (it is the only page added to the submission at 119-1).

Abbe Lowell unsurprisingly objected to this cherry picking.

Lastly, setting aside the admissibility of additional statements from Mr. Biden’s memoir, equally concerning is the Special Counsel’s selective redaction to statements contained in the pages in Exhibit 1, without regard to the completeness of those proffered pages. For example, on page 219 (Chapter 11 title page, “Saved”), the Special Counsel included the opening sentence, “By the time my plane touched down in Los Angeles in March 2019, I had no plan beyond the momentto-moment demands of the crack pipe.” Ex. 1 at 219. However, the very next sentence on the page is redacted: “I was committed to one thing: vanishing for good.” Such a statement—whether Mr. Biden was in such despair or depression that he wanted to disappear, or worse, relent to suicidal thoughts—again goes to Mr. Biden’s then-existing state of mind, and should Mr. Biden seek its admission at trial, it ought to be admissible subject to its relevance and probative value.


Just as importantly, these redacted pages ignore the common-law doctrine of completeness codified in Rule 106—limited to writings or recorded statements. Fed. R. Evid. 106, Adv. n.1. The rule’s purpose is to prevent a party from misleading the jury by allowing into the record relevant portions of the excluded testimony which clarify or explain the part already received. United States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885, 893 (4th Cir. 1989). But that is exactly what the Special Counsel has asked to do here—determining what it deems relevant, without regard to the complete context and conditions as Mr. Biden described it in his memoir.

This is one of just a few key decisions before Judge Noreika that may determine the outcome of the trial: whether she lets prosecutors effectively rewrite Hunter’s memoir so it tells a story that it really doesn’t.

Virgin Birth the Laptop

The other is what to do about the laptop.

Last August, prosecutors brashly told Abbe Lowell they didn’t need any laptop evidence to prove their case, that all of it also existed in Hunter’s iCloud data. That was, of course, over three months before they obtained the first warrant to search Hunter’s digital evidence for gun crimes, so they should not — and may not — have known how wrong they were.

Prosecutors now submitted what they bill as a summary chart of the communications they say support their case. Even more of the comms they’re relying on come from the laptop than when Derek Hines admitted they were relying on laptop comms in February.

Fully half — 148 out of 294 messages or videos — are sourced to the laptop (I’ve split out some of the laptop messages to highlight ones that are temporal outliers, which I may return to). And, as was true of Hines’ earlier filing, Weiss is relying on communications that only exist on the laptop to show Hunter’s state of mind in the period he owned the gun.


In a motion in limine, Weiss’ team tried to argue that because two FBI guys have certified that what they’ve shared is what they got from Apple and John Paul Mac Isaac, they don’t need to further validate these communications. They’re claiming this summary table is sufficient.

The government moves for a preliminary determination, as authorized by Federal Rule of Evidence 104, that a 1006 summary chart that summarizes the electronic evidence is admissible in evidence during trial, and the underlying evidence it summarizes is authentic pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 902(14). The summary chart satisfies the requirements of Rule 1006. The chart accurately summarizes electronic evidence derived from search warrants of the defendant’s Apple iCloud account and the defendant’s laptop and hard drive.

This ploy attempts to substitute the act of summarizing for the act of proving technical admissibility.

Unsurprisingly, the trial brief does not describe any plan to call the two technical experts — Robert Gearhart and Michael Waski — to describe the technical validity of the laptop. Weiss similarly is not calling Boyd Pritchard, the FBI agent who made a show of searching the laptop for gun crime evidence after Weiss finally got a warrant to do so.

In fact, Erika Jensen — the same woman who did interviews of the gun shop employees, at least one by herself — may be the only FBI employee (the forensic expert who tested the powder in the pouch that once held the gun may be the other) Weiss definitely plans to call to testify. And Jensen’s summary chart claims to rely on the original December 2019 laptop warrant rather than the December 2023 one as authority to have seized gun-related content.

This testimony will likely make or break any ongoing career at the FBI, because prosecutors are hanging this entire prosecution on her testimony (though I guess if Trump wins the election, she can expect a fat promotion). Particularly given that she’s the sole Agent to be involved in those key gun shop interviews, this could be more difficult than originally imagined.

It is common for prosecutors to try to “clean team” damning parts of the investigation — ensuring that investigative personnel privy to inconvenient facts never take the stand. Weiss has largely clean-teamed the entire underlying investigation.

This is, unsurprisingly, the topic about which Abbe Lowell had the most to say.

The Special Counsel seeks to exclude any authenticity challenge to six iCloud backup files included in its summary chart are self-authenticating pursuant to Rule 902(14). 1 That data, obtained in 2019 and 2020 from a search warrant to Apple, Inc. and, by subpoena and later a search warrant for The Mac Shop in Delaware, consists of more than 18,000 pages from various sources, including four iCloud backup files from Apple, Inc. and two backup files from a MacBook laptop and external hard drive subpoenaed from The Mac Shop in December 2019. (D.E.120 (“Mot.”) at 1, 3.) Defense counsel has numerous reasons to believe the data had been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material from Apple Inc. and The Mac Shop, such that the Special Counsel’s claim that the underlying data is “authentic” (id. at 4) and accurately reflects “defendant’s Apple Macbook Pro and [] hard drive” (id. at 2) is mistaken.


Mr. Biden’s counsel told the Special Counsel on May 10, 2024 it agrees not to challenge the authenticity of the electronic data the Special Counsel intends to use with respect to it being what law enforcement received on December 9, 2019 from John Paul Mac Isaac (owner of The Mac Shop), and from Apple on August 29, 2019 and in a follow-up search on July 10, 2020. (Mot. at n.3.) However, Mr. Biden cannot agree this electronic data is “authentic” as to being his data as he used and stored it prior to Mac Issac [sic] obtaining it. Mac Issac [sic] claims he received an Apple MacBook laptop from a customer on April 12, 2019. FBI investigators did not obtain that data until December 9, 2019 through a grand jury subpoena, or gain lawful permission to access it until December 13, 2019 through a search warrant (No. 19-309M), some eight months after the Mac Isaac acquired the laptop. 2

2 The prosecution only received Office of Enforcement Operations approval to seek a search warrant for the laptop and hard drive on December 12, 2019, with the warrant issued the following day. See Gary Shapley, Laptop and Hard Drive Timeline (Oct. 22, 2020), Ex. 6 to Test. before H. Comm. on Ways & Means (May 26, 2023). Any access by FBI CART agents prior to December 12, 2019 was unauthorized, and Mr. Biden’s counsel objects to the any unlawful access of the laptop or hard drive prior to December 13, 2019.

Lowell only cites John Paul Mac Isaac’s claims about accessing the laptop (which Lowell presumably has gotten in sworn fashion as part of the lawsuit), media reviews of the laptop (which probably reflect the data post-dating the FBI’s receipt of the laptop), and Lev Parnas’ description of being offered the laptop as part of Rudy’s information operation.

I’ve shown repeatedly (for example, one, two, three, four, five) that there are more indices of compromise throughout this data — indices that Weiss tries to brush away with a frankly stupid explanation that Hallie Biden will testify Hunter often “lost” phones.

Witness 3 observed that the defendant frequently lost phones and changed phones, which explains gaps in time where there are no messages.

Given the way Hunter backed up his data except on the laptop that ended up being delivered to John Paul Mac Isaac, this should not create the gaps Weiss has identified. He may have even more problems explaining why there are isolated comms in particular places where — given the temporal patterns here — they shouldn’t be.

In any case, in the five pages Lowell had, I’m not sure he has made this case. Plus, Judge Noreika is vulnerable on this point herself, having ruled that there’s no proof Rudy Giuliani influenced this case even while claiming data that is publicly available because of Rudy instead derived to Hunter’s memoir.

David Weiss’ case should be far more solid than it is. The gun shop’s alterations of gun form data provides Hunter a way to question whether he asserted he was not an addict or whether gun shop employees did. Only through shameless cherry picking have prosecutors made the memoir say what they need it to say. And Lowell should be able to raise real questions about the provenance of all the data derived from the laptop which, as I noted, includes the most important communications.

The success of what Weiss obviously thought was going to be a slam dunk may depend on Weiss’ success at getting Noreika to buy off on his gimmicks to shore up weak parts of the case.

Update: Derek Hines — he of the sawdust as cocaine — has filed a table-thumping reply accusing Hunter’s team of not understanding the laptop. He describes that Hallie will validate the comms between her and Hunter during the days after he purchased the gun.

Messages between the defendant and Witness 3, beginning in row 88 because the defendant began using his ex-wife’s phone in October 2018 and her old phone was not synced to his iCloud account. Witness 3 will testify to the authenticity of these messages at trial.

These are, without exception, the most important pieces of evidence in the case.

But then he admits he doesn’t have validation for around 83 other messages (about 21% of the total), including a bunch of videos that have mixed metadata (for example, one taken on an iPhone 8 on October 22 but saved onto the iPhone XS, another captured on October 16 but first saved on November 27, during the period when Ablow was involved).

Messages in Row 85-86 (a message where the defendant says “I need more chore boy,” which is used consistently in the message with how the defendant described “chore boy” in his book), Rows 87 and 135-137 (messages where the defendant says he in Delaware, which is consistent with his ATM withdrawal activity, location information on photographs on his phone, and his admissions in his book), Row 214 (a photograph of the defendant with a crack pipe in his hand), and 216-292 (videos and photographs of the defendant with a crack pipe and drug messages from December to March 2019, consistent with the defendant’s characterization of his activity in his book).

Hines — he of the sawdust as cocaine — is demanding that Hunter prove absence of chain of custody rather than prosecutors proving it affirmatively.

The crazier complaint comes in the way Hines — he of the sawdust as cocaine — claims that because Hunter cited Lev Parnas’ description of Vitaly Pruss’ offer of the laptop in this time period, Hunter is “asking people to believe Russian intelligence when it suits his interests.”

The defendant also relies on an allegation that a Russian businessman told a third-party that Biden’s devices were compromised by FSB during his 2014 trip to Kazakhstan. This is yet another example of the defendant asking people to believe Russian intelligence when it suits his interests, but not to believe Russian intelligence when it doesn’t suit his interests.

I get that Rudy Giuliani’s role in all this is particularly sensitive — particularly given his role in the Brady back channel that David Weiss chased credulously. But I’m not aware of any time when Hunter has chased Russian intelligence. David Weiss did that, not Hunter.

I asked Weiss’ spox for clarification, but he nodded only to court filings.

33 replies
  1. klynn says:

    With Weiss’ gimmicks having similar scent to Durham’s gimmicks, if someone professed they were brothers, or had the same mentor, I would believe it. When I read your updates on Weiss antics regarding HB charges, it reads eerily like Durham antics all over again.

    Thank you for your shining light on this.

  2. Peterr says:

    This ploy attempts to substitute the act of summarizing for the act of proving technical admissibility.

    Awww, Marcy. They worked so hard to come up with a nifty summary, and in mere moments you puncture the balloon they spent so much time inflating.

  3. zscoreUSA says:

    As far as Hunter quoting Ablow, as I am reading this, I am getting the impression, that this conversation occurred towards the end of his stay at the early January – early February.

    But, in context with other stuff from the laptop, there is reason to suspect it would have occurred at the end of the first stint in 2018. Hunter’s timeline is often vague or inaccurate as well.

    Finally, the therapist in Newburyport said there was little point in our continuing.

    “Hunter,” he told me, with all the exasperated, empathetic sincerity he could muster, “this is not working.”

    • emptywheel says:

      If it was indeed the reason Hunter left Ablow’s treatment, it’d be around February 6, correct?

      But you’re saying it could have happened earlier, in December?

      • zscoreUSA says:

        Hunter was scheduled to leave the Cottage on Feb 5, but remain in Newburyport, and in Ablow’s sphere through a business relationship, possibly as a patient as well.

        Based on texts and emails released, when he left Ablow’s treatment in December, it was under different circumstances, a different vibe. The traditional therapy combined with wellness treatments wasn’t working and Ablow referred Hunter to be in an in patient rehab facility.

        So I believe that’s more likely when a “this is not working” conversation would have occurred.

        Something I keep in mind here is the Adam Entous NY Times December article about the ski accident. Entous claims he is corroborating the Bidens comments through the emails and texts, but then writes that Hunter was continuously with Ablow in Massachusetts, and not 2 different stints.

        In contrast, the texts and emails show that Hunter was physically in New York when the ski accident occurred. And possibly literally communicating with Ablow to negotiate the second round of treatment the exact same time as the ski accident occuring in Wyoming.

        Unclear why Entous printed that and that it has not been corrected. But is coloring how I view the timeline and chain of events.

      • zscoreUSA says:

        Feb 5 was when he was scheduled to check out. But he physically left late Feb 3/early Feb 4, with the plans to return late Feb 4, so would be present to physically check out.

        Per the texts from Marco Polo, Ablow and staff collected his stuff, which would include laptop and journals, the morning of Feb 4, Hunter’s birthday, for some reason, before they knew he would not return.

        From their point of view, they had about 24 hours Hunter would be gone, then he would return, check out, stay in a hotel until he purchased or rented a permanent address.

        And, per the texts released by Marco Polo, Ablow returned Feb 3 from Miami-Ft Lauderdale, where I would bet the farm he met with Roger Stone.

        • emptywheel says:

          What’s interesting abt the table of comms is that the iMessages don’t start up on the laptop on February 25, which is just after Hunter is definitely paying attention to his texts with Katie Dodge again.

        • zscoreUSA says:

          reply to EW: I’m not understanding the implications of your comment.

          What do you mean by “the iMessages don’t start up on the laptop on February 25”?

          Are you suggesting that it’s weird that those messages from 2/25/19 to 3/7/19 were sourced to Laptop Messages and not to iCloud (03) which was able to capture messages from 11/3/18 to 1/28/19?

  4. NYsportsfanSufferer says:

    Abbe Lowell was the one that called out the altered gun form? Did they seriously think he wouldn’t notice?

    • emptywheel says:

      I asserted that in my last post based on what prosecutors claimed in the MIL. But I’ve since read the transcript and it might be that Lowell only asked prosecutors about it 10 days or so ago, and they informred him they were from different periods.

      I now think it could be something prosecutors generally knew all allong — it could explain why Lesley Wolf didn’t include false statements in the diversion, because it’s insane to charge that when the document integrity is problematic.

      • NYsportsfanSufferer says:

        Wow. Your Wolf theory makes sense.

        Bringing in an altered document could blow the entire case. Honestly, diversion makes the most sense in this case. Hunter should not own a gun and diversion would guarantee that. Bringing in altered forms puts that in jeopardy.

  5. Tech Support says:

    It’s been a hot minute since I’ve done any serious reading on psychedelic research, but fwiw my understanding is that the use of ketamine in addiction treatment is primarily indicated for alcoholism or opioids, not amphetamines.

    Misuse/overuse of ketamine in theraputic scenarios where there is little to no research support is not terribly surprising however since it has been Schedule 3 for a long time due to it’s application as an anesthetic. Making it much easier for clinicians to take out for an off-label spin.

    • coalesced says:

      There is no indicated use for ketamine in the treatment of any substance use disorder. In the medical world, the use of the word “indicated” denotes a treatment/medication as having undergone and attained FDA approval and all that entails. This has different levels depending on accumulated research/data/etc ie “first-line”, “primary”, “secondary”, “adjuvent” and so on. Physicians can and do prescribe things “off-label” for a variety of reasons (no one wants to fund research on medications that are off patent because there is no profit….but some that we know work damn well despite a lack of research).

      Ketamine as a treatment for any substance use disorder is currently at only 16-21 completed studies ever/worldwide (some listed as completed but haven’t yet published results.) Of these, only 3 are randomized controlled studies. From a theoretical/neuropharmacological standpoint, ketamine is seen as “potentially promising” for use in substance disorders but we are currently in the pre-infancy stage of having any actual research to claim anything beyond “potentially promising.”

      [Moderator’s note: this comment and a subsequent second attempt were auto-moderated by both WordPress and Askimet; suspect the issue is references to pharmaceutical. /~Rayne]

      • Tech Support says:

        Ty for putting this into a more detailed context & for catching me on the mis-application of the terminology. As supportive as I am generally of investigating the therapeutic applications of psychedelics, this whole ketamine thing seems like it’s getting ahead of itself a bit.

  6. freebird says:

    This thing is crazy. If one thing was filled in at a later date an argument can be made that Biden signed a blank form and everything was filled in later.

  7. The Old Redneck says:

    This trial run-up is always an interesting time in the life of the case. You start to see the prosecution and defense strategies being revealed. Lowell has been disciplined in his approach so far, not showing his hand more than necessary. Weiss is looking more and more like Durham.

    Hunter is likely guilty as hell. For a long time, one could have reasonably assumed this really was a slam dunk (especially if you don’t read this site, which was way ahead in spotting potential problems). But some key evidence probably isn’t coming in, and the stuff which does might be questionable enough to create reasonable doubt. A lot will depend on Norieka as gatekeeper.

    It will certainly be fascinating to see how it goes.

  8. dopefish says:

    One thing I don’t understand about this:

    This is one of just a few key decisions before Judge Noreika that may determine the outcome of the trial: whether she lets prosecutors effectively rewrite Hunter’s memoir so it tells a story that it really doesn’t.

    After prosecutors present these cherry-picked pages from Hunter’s memoir to the jury, can’t Hunter’s lawyers point out all of these misrepresentations on cross? And then can’t Hunter’s lawyers just put him on the stand and ask him if the prosecutors described them accurately? Can’t they read the specific sentences the prosecutors picked on and just ask Hunter about the time frames and context?

    I mean, they shouldn’t have to, but how could the judge possibly prevent it? And why would the prosecutors risk that blow to their credibility, unless they only care about prosecuting this case and not about actually winning in front of the jury.

    • Dan Riley says:

      Calling HB as witness would open him to cross, which is very often a bad idea. On the other hand, I really don’t understand how the prosecution can cherry-pick HB’s memoir without letting the defense enter whatever they like from it.

  9. Desidero says:

    If Supreme Court sides with expanded gun rights today in US.vs Rahimi, will that gut the pile-on gun charges for Hunter’s trial?

  10. zscoreUSA says:

    About the phones and which is which, during the relevant time period. Here’s some notes, hopefully relevant background for people.

    3 phone numbers:
    DC Number 1: appears on the Mac Isaac invoice, used for many years, most likely used in iPhone 8 Plus, likely intended to be primary work phone number, doesn’t appear to be used from early January – early February

    DC Number 2: previously used by ex-wife and a daughter, replaced a shortly used LA Number after losing a phone, likely intended to be used for personal contacts, most commonly used phone number during the time period, and appears to be sole number used from early January to early February, cited by prosecutors in Trial Brief and comms attachment

    Joe’s Phone: DE area code, people receiving call would see Joe in caller ID, used less frequently than the other 2, starts using as Joe leaves office as VP

    3 New Devices- roughly Oct 12-Oct 15
    2 of the phones replaced through insurance are:
    iPhone 8 Plus: associated with DC Number 1, the lost phone is literally red, replacement is literally gray but named HB rediPhone, the literal red phone starts appearing in photos in late November and was possibly the phone lost to Joey (per emails) who is possibly in Virginia (or at least the phone reappears after round trip Lyft rides from DC to Dulles and a text from a VA phone number about a phone in safe keeping)

    iPhone X: associated with Joe’s Number, not as many photos from this phone

    The 3rd phone appears to be new as well:
    XS: associated with DC NUMBER 2, unclear to me if brand new and Hunter just installed the SIM card, or if the phone itself was used by ex-wife/daughter and number carried with it, only 1 XS is listed by Dimitrelos beginning Mid January (that listed phone is the one that will be extracted onto the Mac Isaac laptop early February but has a purchase date of October 2018)

    • zscoreUSA says:

      And some anomalies that may or may not be easily explained by someone with technical abilities:
      1) It seems logical that extracted XS is the XS same phone that Hunter begins using on 10/13/18 with DC Number 2: there is only 1 XS listed by Dimitrelos, and 4 Chan leak from July 2022 associates that specific XS serial number with that specific phone number

      2) But, in the text pdf file on Marco Polo, from the extracted XS, there appears conversations with DC Number 2 on the left side of the conversation, ie not the source of the phone. I’m not sure what could explain, if SIM cards are being swapped or something else can explain

      3) The phone planted in Hallie’s car to monitor GPS: likely the phone named HB rediPhone, likely planted early January and found by Hallie & returned to Hunter early February around same time the XS is extracted

      4) The photos from iPhone 8 Plus appear intermingled in the album Live Photos from the extracted XS (how does that happen? SD cards? Devices are synced to iCloud? But the XS doesn’t sync to iCloud until mid January); some of them in late November are taken from the literal Red phone based on mirror selfies

      • ShallMustMay08 says:

        For now just throwing this out there with your mention of possible sim swaps.The X models were dual and eSim. The XR was the first into eSIM. Apple support has info regarding dual and eSIM uses and the subsequent models. Popular purchase with even the apple haters at the time.

        Their site isn’t the greatest “help desk” but here is a quick link that might give some insight into the 8 Model configuration and the photos. He seems to have relied solely on iCloud and I have personally found in my usage that updating older software and (into) hardware is always a pain unless it is all cloud based and even then as this link states, that does not always work.

        After that it’s a black hole (on sims) for me so I am not sure if this adds or detracts here but has nagged me in the past so thought I’d mention it.

    • originalK says:

      Is there any indication of why HB went to Ablow for treatment? (Like upon whose recommendation?) There are reputable psychiatrists in every major city.

      • zscoreUSA says:

        I’m not certain, I’m curious what Emptywheel’s theory is.

        Ablow told Tucker Hunter received a referral but wouldn’t elaborate. Hunter indicates that he was seeking out ketamine treatment, or repairing his relationship with Hallie, who went there with him for the initial visit.

        My best guess is it may have been a referral that occurred in early October.

        However that referral came about, there was a perfect storm of factors converging together to influence the result from their relationship. Unclear whether there were deliberate plans designed to cause Hunter to end up where he did, or whether it was the invisible hand of fate and chance bringing about the inevitable.

        • originalK says:

          Thank you for filling in the details that you have – you are acting as my psychological “filter team” – I only want to go so deep because reading the texts and the court proceedings blows my mind. (Not to mention thinking about the folks who have made it a federal case.)

          To the extent that they as a couple would go to Ablow, the gun incident could clearly be a precipitating factor.

  11. havaheart says:

    The prosecution can get these statements in as admissions of a party opponent. If the defense wants to bring in statements from the book, though, they will have to find an exception to the rule against hearsay. Maybe Rule 106 is the solution?

    Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
    If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection.

    • Dan Riley says:

      Ok, thanks, that looks somewhat reasonable? If HB wrote that he dreamed of being a koala bear, that’s hearsay. If the SCO then claims that HB wrote that he dreamed of being a hamster, what he dreamed is still hearsay, but what he actually wrote is a matter of fact that should be disputable.

    • zscoreUSA says:

      Looking closer at some of the dates relevant to the table, and phone numbers/devices used, here are some notes

      1) 11/3/18 vs 11/8/18 stood out as I suspect that Hunter retrieves one of the lost phones 11/5, which would likely be the literal Red iPhone 8 Plus, so possibly relevant to iCloud (03)

      2) The Dec 2023 warrant refers to Apple Backup 3 associated with an iPhone 6s, and Apple Backup 4 tied to an iPad Pro, so possibly relevant here. I don’t know if Apple Backup 3 from the 2023 warrant is the same device here listed as iCloud (03), same for Apple Backup 4 being the same as iCloud (04)
      [Correction note: this article has an error, the underlying warrant says the 6s is Apple Backup 3, and the EW article says Apple Backup 2]

      3) In early April 2018, an iPhone X seems to be broken, and that one likely associated with DC Number 1. That leaves an iPhone X that is likely associated with Joe’s Number. DC Number 1 is removed as the Apple trusted number, and Joe’s Number is added as the trusted number, and is the most commonly used number up until the fall. Possibly DC Number 1 isnt even used again until late summer or fall. There is also an email that his Apple recovery data is ready per a request from Joe’s Number

      4) In January 2018 he begins using 2 identical iPhone X and 1 iPad (5th generation) Wi-Fi + Cellular 32GB Space Gray A1823 [note the cellular capability and that it’s not an iPad Pro]

      5) The iCloud (04) is not cited by the prosecutors here past 7/25/18. If that backup is indeed an iPad Pro, and Hunter continues to use it, why would the prosecutors not include it in later date ranges? The stolen device was allegedly stolen 8/5/18. Is that further evidence that the stolen device was an iPad Pro and not a laptop, as first printed by Daily Mail, then propagated into an accepted truth?

Comments are closed.