MiMi

AIDAN KEARNEY "REPORTED" THE 2:27 SEARCH AS FACT BUT PRIVATELY ADMITTED HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT On May 1, 2023, almost two weeks after Aidan Kearney published his first blog on John O'Keefe's death and after repeatedly proclaiming in both written blogs and on his live show that Jennifer McCabe, without question, googled "hos long to die in the cold" at 2:27, Aidan Kearney confided in a friend that he "didn't know" what any of the "Cellebrite shit means" and was unable to distinguish "what's legit and what's not." This is a devastating admission for Kearney because the foundation for his defamatory accusations against all of the witnesses heavily hinged on the defense misinterpretation of the Cellebrite data Kearney presented as fact to his audience. This admission decimates his claim that he "believed" his false and defamatory allegations. It also effectively destroys his claims that he was acting in the capacity of an "investigative journalist" as no true journalist would publish a claim and declare it as factual without thoroughly verifying, vetting, and understanding the claims he was making. Oopsie.

Explain this without the name-calling, because no one has actually addressed the mechanics. You’re saying based on the testimony from these so called experts that the 2:27 a.m. entry didn’t reflect a real search and instead came from a tab that was opened earlier, with the actual searches happening at 6:23–6:24 a.m. But that explanation doesn’t hold up against the data in the report. First, the entries at 6:23:51 and 6:23:57 are spelled differently from the 2:27 entry, while the 6:24 entry does match it. If the 6:24 search is supposedly tied to that earlier 2:27 tab or input, why isn’t the 6:24 entry also marked as deleted the same way the 2:27 entry is? Second, the 2:27 source file is a Safari WAL file. That matters because a WAL file captures transient input, meaning text that was actually typed into the search bar, even if the search was never completed. So at a minimum, that data shows that at 2:27 a.m., that phrase was physically entered into the device and then deleted. So now you have two separate things….. At 2:27 a.m., text matching that phrase was typed and deleted. At 6:23–6:24 a.m., similar or identical searches were actively recorded across multiple artifacts. If the State’s explanation is that everything stems from a single 2:27 tab or session, then the artifacts should behave consistently. They don’t. The deletion flag appears only on the 2:27 entry, not on the later matching 6:24 entry. So the question is simple and not one person who claims to believe what these so-called experts said at trial will explain this How do you reconcile a deleted WAL entry at 2:27 showing typed input, with a later matching search at 6:24 that is not marked deleted, if both are supposedly the same underlying event?