Russ Faria found NO...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Russ Faria found NOT GUILTY on re-trial  

  RSS
gchatten
(@gchatten)
New Member

Without elaborating the entire story, which could take days, I am pleased that we were a part of proving a man's innocence - although it took a new trial granted by the appellate Court.

This is a twisted, bizarre case which, after the first trial, was on DateLine NBC.

The Judge in the first trial refused to allow evidence of a third party (Pam Hupp) into evidence which our mapping put her cell phone at the murder location and the last person to see Mr. Faria's wife alive.

Not only did the Judge in his second trial find him not guilty, he went on and said he found the investigation by the Lincoln County Prosecutor's office "disturbing".

I'm proud to be a data and cell phone forensic expert that changed a man's life forever. The data speaks for itself - albeit the St. Charles MO. Cybercrime unit didn't do their job; so we did.

It's a very interesting case which is going to be on DateLine NBC again for sure.

Google up Russ Faria, Troy, MO. and you will find a wealth bizarre material. The facts remain that eye-witnesses were with him during the period she was murdered; and cell phone mapping plus meta-data I found clearly prove Mr. Faria's innocence.

Quote
Posted : 18/11/2015 11:32 am
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Community Legend

I'm proud to be a data and cell phone forensic expert that changed a man's life forever. The data speaks for itself - albeit the St. Charles MO. Cybercrime unit didn't do their job; so we did.

Well, not to put you down in any way or minimize the (I am sure excellent) work you have done, but at least from what appeared on the press there were several reasons why the original verdict has been overturned, and not just the phone data.
Happy that you contributed to restore the truth, however. )

At least from here
http//www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/russell-faria-s-wife-was-stabbed-times-but-was-he/article_dd93f262-594e-5b88-b53f-097fc10033c8.html

Cellphone records showed that Hupp was still in the Farias’ neighborhood at 727 p.m., according to a defense expert who was consulted but was not allowed by the judge to testify in front of jurors. Mennemeyer ruled both before the trial and throughout the proceedings that there was not the “direct connection” required in Missouri law to introduce an alternative suspect.

it seems like the issue was more a question of admissibility of "alternative suspect" per the Judge's interpretation of local Law.

As a side note (same source) prosecutor in the first process had a (good ? 😯 ) theory about cell phone data of the husband

His cellphone records comport with the movements he claimed, although the prosecutor suggested in court that he might have entrusted his phone with friends to deliver later.

and probably he could have used a similar theory of "separation from phone" to Mrs. Hupp cellphone data.

From what I read overall the original case was flaky (to say the least) in many aspects and there were a lot of inconsistencies.

Here is a (hopefully) detailed article
http//www.thetroublewithjustice.com/russ-faria-found-not-guilty-when-pigs-really-fly/
that mentions your other contribution to the case about the "planted letter"

Askey had brought up a note found on the Faria’s laptop that was addressed to Pam Hupp and read in part, ‘’If something happens to me, please show police.’’

The problem with this other gem from Hupp is that defense expert Greg Chatten showed evidence the letter was planted and saved on a Wi-Fi called “The Club” – five days before the murder.

He said it was the only file on the computer indicating “author unknown.” He added that it was drafted in Word ‘97 format, but Word ‘97 was not on the Faria computer. Ooops!

Chatten declared unequivocally “It would be impossible for that file to be created on that computer.”

jaclaz

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/11/2015 4:08 pm
gchatten
(@gchatten)
New Member

I in no way "won" the trial by forensics nor would I ever take credit that way. I'm aware of what you pointed out and I testified in the first trial.

I didn't want to fill the post with every other detail given it is, as you pointed out, on the 'net. Most of what I've seen published is correct but some is open to wrong interpretation.

The "win" was a defense team effort. The prosecutor's "golden gun" (the letter found on the computer) was trial day three news and I smashed that on day four. Note the government had the hard drive evidence for four years and dumped the letter to us about 1.5 weeks before trial 2….

All it took was some very simple forensics to demolish the letter's value to zero.

I remain most perplexed there was even a first trial.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/11/2015 1:10 am
Share: