Latest / Parsing the Truth: One Byte at a Time / Casey Anthony: Different tool - Different story

Transcript

Casey Anthony: Different tool - Different story · Parsing the Truth: One Byte at a Time

0:01
Join former FBI Senior Forensic Examiners Becky Passmore and
0:05
Stacey Eldridge as they dig into the world of digital forensics
0:08
one bite at a time. Now leading their own consulting
0:11
firms and educating the next generation of cyber sleuths,
0:14
these badass babes of digital forensics bring sharp insight,
0:18
real world case experience, and a dose of humor to the bits and
0:21
bites that filled today's investigations.
0:23
From deep dives into business e-mail compromise and ransomware
0:26
attacks, Becky Specialty to cracking the complexities of
0:29
iPhone forensics Stacy's obsession, this podcast delivers
0:33
insider knowledge for professionals, students, and
0:36
true crime techies alike. If you've ever wondered what
0:39
really happens when the digital trail is all that's left, TuneIn
0:42
and start parsing the truth. Welcome back to Parsing the
0:53
Truth One Bite at a Time and I'm Stacy and I have my brilliant Co
0:58
host Becky with me today as usual.
1:00
Yep. And in this episode of Parsing
1:02
the Truth One Bite at a Time, we are exploring the unusual
1:06
testimony of the digital forensic experts called by the
1:10
defense. Now remember, we found the way
1:14
the prosecution had John Bradley testify about the cash back
1:18
report. Bizarre as well, yes.
1:20
And we hinted to this in episodes from Season 1, episodes
1:24
11:00 and 12:00. So if you haven't listened to
1:27
those episodes, make sure to go back and listen to them now.
1:31
Becky, why are we calling this part unusual?
1:35
Well, the defense didn't call any of their own expert
1:39
witnesses to discuss the digital forensics or digital evidence in
1:43
this case. They called back or the defense
1:48
called the state's two experts. So Osborne and Stinger are the
1:55
prosecution and the state's experts, and they're called in
2:00
to testify for the defense. Right.
2:03
And we both thought this was odd immediately you have to remember
2:08
that you would not trial prep the state's experts that you are
2:13
now having to come and testify for you, the defense.
2:17
So the defense team has no idea what the state's experts are
2:23
going to say when they ask them the questions.
2:27
They have no idea. And the states, you know,
2:29
Stinger and Osbourne, have no idea what any of these questions
2:32
are going to be either. So it's totally the wild, Wild
2:35
West here as this testimony starts.
2:37
Right. And it seems a lot like a like a
2:40
risky move, but but we've got the inside knowledge about how
2:44
and why and how about the how and the why coming up in a
2:49
future episode where we speak to the defense's digital forensic
2:54
expert, Larry Daniel. So we will have that episode
2:58
coming up. Yep.
2:59
And it's just getting stranger and stranger.
3:02
Not only did the defense team have their own digital forensic
3:07
examiner, they chose to have him not.
3:11
Testify. It's also probably worth noting
3:14
that the rule was invoked and that meant no witnesses could
3:19
talk to each other about the case.
3:22
And sometimes they even keep expert witnesses out of the
3:25
courtroom. I know that every time I've ever
3:28
testified, I'm left out of the courtroom until I'm called in to
3:32
testify. And it's happened to me too.
3:35
I was in Tampa, FL, and I sat in the witness room waiting to
3:39
testify for three weeks. And so as long as this trial
3:44
went on and basically all of the Orange County Sheriff's Office
3:47
practically being involved, they had to be very careful.
3:50
Nobody could talk to anybody about this case.
3:53
And especially with Stinger and Osbourne being recalled to the
3:57
witness stand, they couldn't go back in the the courtroom
4:00
either. He do.
4:01
You want to reach let's dive into this testimony.
4:03
Jose Baez is the lead counsel for Casey Anthony and he calls
4:08
Sandra Osborne back to the stand.
4:11
But this time it's for the defense.
4:14
It's as an expert for him, even though he's the defend she she's
4:20
been called by the state as their expert witness.
4:24
Now he's calling her from the defense side of the house.
4:27
But I'm going to pretty much assume that there was number
4:31
preparation like you were talking about from the defense,
4:35
like, hey, we're going to talk about this.
4:38
So yeah. Right, because that would have
4:40
given their defense strategy away if they would have been
4:43
like, here's a list of questions we'd like to ask you when we
4:46
call you to the stand, you know? I'm sure they would have read
4:49
your report, right? And we read your report and you
4:53
read your report. And so these are some things
4:55
we're going to address on the stand.
4:57
That's probably not what happened.
4:59
That would have been even more bizarre in this case.
5:02
But. As far as we know, no tips were
5:06
given to the states witnesses as to what they would be asked
5:10
about when they got back on the stand.
5:12
This time for the defense. Now, Baez has some very specific
5:16
questions, and all of these questions center around the
5:20
Anthony family desktop computer that had those infamous
5:24
chloroform hits on them, and he's asking about how she found
5:28
it. And then he moves on to the
5:29
forensics tools. Now, we've already talked about
5:33
cash back because that was John Bradley's testimony, but now
5:37
he's asking her if she uses net analysis as well.
5:41
And she does me ask if cash back is a competitor and she says
5:46
that she uses both net analysis and cash back.
5:50
Yeah, yeah. And now remember again, John
5:53
Bradley had another unusual testimony regarding the
5:56
chloroform hits and the cash back reports.
6:00
So we discussed that in Season 1 episode 12.
6:03
So make sure you listen to that episode and hear all about the
6:07
ever important and controversial 84 chloroform or form hits
6:13
testimony. Now, Osborne shares that she
6:17
does not actually use the net analysis reporting function.
6:21
She only exports it to Excel and then filters and manipulates the
6:26
data and goes through it in there and then provides that
6:29
Excel file to the investigators. Now there.
6:32
Now here is where Osborne's testimony kind of gets wild.
6:35
The defense is trying to get an exhibit in through Osborne,
6:41
something unusual in this case. So just to be clear here, to
6:45
bring evidence in through someone, they have to have
6:48
direct knowledge of it. And in this case, the forensic
6:53
examiner would have examined the evidence and or created reports
6:58
regarding it. But here's the thing, it's not
7:02
in her handwriting. It's it's not her handwriting on
7:05
the disk, It's not in her handwriting on the disk.
7:08
It's not any evidence that's been through her hands.
7:11
That's right. And that's one of the things we
7:13
do when we handle evidence is market with our initials so that
7:17
we know that it's a piece of evidence that we've handled.
7:21
And we also do this with any derivative evidence that we
7:24
create, such as digital reports saved to ACD or in this a case,
7:29
what appears to be a net analysis report saved on ACD.
7:33
That's right, but it's not Osborne's net analysis report.
7:37
I think Baez is getting a little frustrated.
7:40
He's working backwards trying to figure out what derivative
7:45
evidence she created and what she did, to include discussing
7:51
any findings of the deleted morgue database and.
7:55
Baez continues to ask her about the net analysis report that she
7:59
created based on the details in her written report where she
8:04
talks about it. Now he's asking her again if she
8:07
recognizes the content from the disk the net analysis reports
8:11
and if it appears to be a fair and accurate representation of
8:15
the spreadsheet. And she says this.
8:17
That's as she can. Tell and Baez moves to get the
8:21
exhibits in and the state objects, and he tries again.
8:25
And then Osborne says this is Stinger's report.
8:28
He argues back that even though your written report says you did
8:35
this, you're saying Stinger did it.
8:38
And I kind of love her testimony here.
8:39
She repeats herself and she's like, my report specifically
8:43
indicates that I found the search hit, I identified the
8:46
Internet history file, and I copied it out to a different
8:49
location than the computer forensic software I was working
8:53
in so that it could be saved to a thumb drive and moved to a
8:57
different computer. That spreadsheet would have been
9:00
created, highlighted and manipulated from me, would have
9:03
been Sergeant Stinger's work and not my work.
9:06
And then she concludes with she's never seen it before in
9:10
her life. Yeah, interesting.
9:13
So let's let's take a dive into her testimony.
9:16
Yeah. What are your thoughts on it,
9:18
Becky? It's just again, very
9:20
interesting that the defense is trying to use this report to try
9:26
and get an exhibit in that is not clear.
9:31
And and I go back to this to say, and I think there's plenty
9:35
of examiners out there that it would agree with me on that when
9:38
attorneys don't understand digital evidence, they don't
9:43
understand digital reports, they don't understand the information
9:47
on the reports, they don't understand the articulation of
9:51
what artifacts are representative as evidence that
9:55
it gets lost in translation. And I think a lot of that is
9:59
getting lost in this translation where Baez is trying to use his
10:04
narrative to move information in that there's no clear
10:10
understanding of it. Yeah.
10:12
And he's like, well, it seems to me you've you found this
10:16
Internet hit with the chloroform and so surely this must be your
10:20
net analysis report. And I mean, I'm not surprised he
10:24
doesn't understand the significance of the handwriting.
10:27
And I assume it would have been her initials on there as well.
10:31
So he doesn't understand the significance of that.
10:34
But I think she did a good job trying to explain.
10:37
And then finally at the she's like, I've never even seen it
10:40
before. So she's very clear, you know,
10:43
this isn't her work, but you know, some of this stuff in
10:46
there before that. And again, she doesn't know
10:48
what's coming. I think she does a good job of
10:50
being like, I mean, it, you know, it seems like this is an
10:53
accurate representation, but then of information.
10:56
But this is also where the prosecution attorneys need to be
11:00
paying attention. And they are because they're
11:02
objecting and not letting this evidence in, because they've
11:05
picked up on the fact that this is an Osbourne.
11:08
So we don't know what it is. So we definitely don't want her
11:11
letting this evidence in. That's right.
11:13
That's right. Now I don't in my opinion, I
11:15
don't think there was anything special and exciting.
11:18
On a cross exam from the state, they did ask her about the
11:21
computer password, which was shared with everyone in the
11:26
court and who was watching on TV.
11:28
And the redirect form, the defense only asks when you might
11:33
have to enter that password. I mean, he doesn't ask a whole
11:37
lot on redirect. And the way it's working when
11:41
because there can be many, many redirects where they're going
11:44
back and forth, but it can only be about what was said in that
11:48
last little snippet. You can't go back to something
11:52
several things before. So eventually it whittles down
11:54
to nothing. And because nothing was brought
11:56
back up, there wasn't much to continue to go on.
11:59
In this case. Now we we wrap it up.
12:02
Miss Osborne is excused from the stand, and Next up, the defense
12:06
brings Stinger back up to the stand for direct on behalf of
12:10
the defense. And Baez, unsurprisingly,
12:13
immediately launches into the use of net analysis and cash
12:17
back. Yep, and Stinger says he used
12:19
net analysis first, maybe back in August of 2008.
12:25
But he can't confirm since he didn't do the recovery.
12:29
So he contradicts Osborne and says she did the recovery.
12:34
So I think it's appropriate to pause here.
12:36
And Becky, let's to discuss why there's confusion over who
12:40
actually recovered it, because I mean, Osborne started it.
12:44
She was doing the examination of that HP desktop in the Casey
12:49
Anthony home that all this chloroform search hits have come
12:53
from. Right, right.
12:54
And so again, it goes back to what we've said in multiple
12:59
episodes. Documentation is the key here,
13:02
being very clear and transparent as to what steps you're taking,
13:06
what tools you're using, who is, who is actually doing it.
13:11
If there's a team working on it, that's not a problem, but making
13:15
note of what everyone is and doing your best not to overlap
13:21
each other's work, but at the same time know and understand
13:26
what each other's doing. And I think that Osborne and
13:30
Stinger are working well as a as a team, But when it comes to
13:34
testifying and you have a a defense attorney that is very
13:38
strategically involved in his questioning, it can really bring
13:43
a lot of uncertainty and questions or concerns about
13:50
their testimony. And I find it curious that
13:54
there's just confusion over, well, who technically recovered
13:58
it. And we did this in the FBI when
14:01
we had to. You would do work under the
14:04
supervision under the direction of somebody else.
14:09
And this would happen like a lot where you go on a search
14:12
warrant, you are not Linux certified.
14:15
You run into a server running Linux.
14:17
And then, so you call up the Linux guy and then in your notes
14:20
you document that you were doing in this under the supervision of
14:24
that person and the direction of that person.
14:28
So I think that's where it's coming from.
14:30
Because like if I'm remembering correctly, I thought it sounded
14:34
like Stinger drove when they were doing the manual carving,
14:40
but it was on Osborne's computer evidence in a case assigned to
14:45
her, right? So I think.
14:46
That's just and again, confusing it goes back to you work as a
14:50
team. You can know, hey, I recovered
14:53
this. Stacey, will you take a look at
14:54
it? And at the same time I'm taking
14:56
a look at it and you come up with a different result than I
15:00
come up with. You use a different tool than I
15:02
use. The thing is, is that we come
15:05
back together, maybe we communicate.
15:07
OK, what did you find? OK, well, I found this and I use
15:10
this tool and you're like, OK, I found this and I use this tool.
15:13
And that is, I think the breakdown, right?
15:16
Maybe a misunderstanding of what BIOS is trying to ask versus
15:21
misunderstanding of what Osborne and Stinger did, because they
15:25
probably knew what each other did fine and well.
15:28
Except for now. Bioz is trying to muddy the
15:32
waters here. His strategic moves.
15:34
Yep. Yep.
15:35
And it's just, you know, it could be a whole terminology
15:38
issue right down. Exactly.
15:40
Yeah, a breakdown. I don't think it's anybody
15:42
trying to point the figure like, well, well, she did it and she's
15:45
to blame. And she's like, no, he did it
15:46
and he's to blame. I don't think it's anything like
15:48
that. It's just like, you know, we
15:50
were. They should.
15:51
Unfortunately, their answer was not.
15:53
We worked as a team and recovered it together and it's
15:57
super easy for us to sit here 14 years later, be like, that's how
16:00
they should have said it. Sure.
16:03
And it goes back to these. This is not the defense's
16:07
witnesses, right? He's never spoke to them before.
16:10
They have no idea, correct? They have no idea what this is
16:13
all about. This is the state prosecution.
16:17
It's their witnesses that now the defense is using his
16:22
benefit. So this time Buzz has a print
16:28
out. He's trying to get this print
16:30
out in and asks Stinger if this is the result of the program
16:36
when it's run. So we're assuming it's the
16:38
printed version of the net analysis report.
16:41
The court takes a break so Stinger can review it, and
16:45
ultimately tabbed relevant pages are let in as defense exhibit.
16:52
Interesting. Yeah.
16:54
So Stinger opines that net analysis, that analysis is a
16:59
competitor of cash back and that he ran the net analysis report
17:06
that they have there before they actually had cash back.
17:10
And so this leads to Baez asking Stinger if cash back had to be.
17:15
Fixed. So the prosecution keeps
17:17
objecting to this line of questioning and it's getting
17:21
sustained. Finally, Singer has shown the
17:24
net analysis report and is asked specifically about a hit at 1416
17:31
or on March 21st, 2008. And now this is where it's
17:36
getting spicy because this is the
17:40
www.si-spot.com/chemistry/chloroform dot HTM site.
17:48
So this is the infamous site that had the 84 hits that John
17:54
Bradley read in and. Stinger.
17:57
Reveals that net analysis reports that this site, the
18:02
chloroform site, only visited one time.
18:06
Yeah, and I could still hear the jaws dropping of every forensic
18:11
examiner, that's how shocked. We were.
18:14
And now the defense shows Stinger the cash back report
18:18
that Bradley testified about previously.
18:21
Not Stinger, not Osborne when they were testifying for the
18:24
state, but Bradley, the guy who didn't even generate that
18:28
report. And Stinger confirmed that Cash
18:31
back reported 84 visits to the chloroform site.
18:36
Stinger confirms that the results are different.
18:40
Next, they're comparing what the reports have for results during
18:43
the time of 1416. There are four websites during
18:47
that time and the 1st is Myspace with 84 visits.
18:53
Myspace has the 84 visits in the net analysis.
18:57
Report The cash back report doesn't even have a record for
19:02
Myspace at that time. The defense has singer confirmed
19:06
that the net analysis report that has Myspace reporting as
19:11
being visited 84 times. I has asked him about the my
19:16
Myspace visit count on March 20th and Stinger replies 83.
19:22
So that's the day before. Then Baez comments.
19:24
You understand that 83 becomes before 84 and Stinger replies
19:31
yes Sir. And then Baez continues and has
19:34
him reverse down the Myspace hits, demonstrating that they
19:38
decrease as they go backwards in time.
19:41
Personally, I think Baez was kind of a jerk with that
19:44
question about, you understand, 83 comes before 80.
19:47
Yeah. And sometimes I think when we
19:50
are dealing with that kind of attorney on the stand, that's
19:54
where it gets a little frustrating for someone like me.
19:59
So now they get into the fact that Stinger reported they were
20:02
having problems with the. Analysis report because the
20:06
times were off by one hour. And let's remember the one hour
20:12
time discrepancy was not relevant to the date with the
20:16
chloroform hit. So Baez asks if Stinger can see
20:20
that the net analysis report came up with more Internet
20:24
history than cash back is. Stinger replies matter of
20:28
factly. The reports are different.
20:30
Stinger next confirms that he created the cash back report and
20:33
this is the report that they made Bradley testify about.
20:37
We're just going to keep beating this drum.
20:39
Bradley testified about the cash back report, and so Baez even
20:44
has Stinger confirm he didn't testify about the report that
20:49
he. Created, right?
20:51
And so now the defense's direct examination ends with Baez
20:56
trying to ask if Stinger knows why Bradley had to testify about
21:03
his report, Which again goes back to this isn't even the
21:08
report created by Bradley, and the state objects because
21:13
Stinger isn't competent to answer.
21:16
So then the state also objects to Stinger being asked if he's
21:21
ever had another computer expert testify about his report, and
21:27
both objections were sustained. Now the cross begins by the
21:32
prosecution. Remember, Finger was originally
21:35
a state's witness. So the prosecution is going to
21:37
try to recover. It's it's a little different
21:40
because of that. And so the state wants to keep
21:43
getting this expert to answer questions that supports the
21:46
evidence and narrative that they've previously laid out.
21:50
So the prosecution is asking about how he created the cash
21:55
back report and he states that the program cash back generates
22:00
the information and he asked Bradley to look at the data
22:05
since Bradley created the software.
22:08
So Stinger also stated he's asked Steve Jobs about an Apple
22:13
computer if he could. You go to the source of the
22:17
program, You go to the source of the problem, and it's not even
22:21
necessarily a problem, but you want answers.
22:23
How many times have you or myself messaged magnet forensics
22:28
about a question about their tool or their product or some
22:31
other company? Right.
22:32
You go to the source when you need the answers.
22:35
Absolutely. And I think this part of the
22:38
testimony is making the state look better about having Bradley
22:42
testify about the report since it was Bradley's software.
22:45
But as forensic examiners, we can't just lay down and say the
22:49
software did it. And this is the part that we're
22:52
going to talk about later in detail when we discuss lessons
22:55
learned. Yeah.
22:56
So the State asks about some Googled search searches that
23:00
appear above Myspace visits. And the words how to make
23:05
chloroform were typed in. And the state makes of a point
23:10
of asking if how to make chloroform would appear if
23:14
someone searched for chlorophyll, which are spelled
23:18
completely different. And the answer is no.
23:21
Now, this chlorophyll question is going somewhere, and it's
23:26
going to come up later when Cindy Anthony, Casey's mom,
23:30
testifies. Now when?
23:32
Asked about the dates and times of the two reports.
23:36
Cash back versus net analysis and what he's relied on.
23:40
Stinger states that both of the dates and times appear to be
23:43
accurate, but he also adds that he can't speak to how the dates
23:47
and times were interpreted by the program since he didn't
23:50
write the code. Yeah.
23:51
And on the redirect by the defense, Baez again, Stinger
23:55
pointed out again that the cash back report is missing the
24:00
Myspace entry, the 84 hits and that the problem and that's the
24:07
problem Stinger had and that's the problem that Stinger had
24:11
with net analysis was at those times.
24:14
So there's a few more questions and then Stinger is excused and.
24:19
We're just going to quickly summarize Sandy Anthony's
24:23
testimony. This is Casey Anthony's mom
24:26
testimony and the defense calls her as a witness.
24:29
And they use Cindy to establish that everyone in the house had
24:34
access to this desktop computer in question with the 84 or turns
24:39
out maybe just the one chloroform hit.
24:41
And during her testimony, she shares that she was looking for
24:44
answers as to why her small puppy was tired all the time and
24:50
what it could possibly be eating in the backyard.
24:52
You know, could it have been bamboo which led her searching
24:56
to chlorophyll? And she remembers, according to
24:59
her testimony, that she remembers chloroform was
25:02
suggested to her when she was doing the searching.
25:05
So they're also getting into dates and times and Cindy's time
25:09
card to establish that if it was Cindy sitting there doing the
25:15
searches, she also states that her time card is inaccurate
25:20
since she's salaried. The implication being that even
25:26
she said she was gone for the day, she could still be working
25:31
there working since she didn't log over 8 hours a day.
25:36
Now, during the cross, the state is working to show doubt on her
25:40
timing of these searches and imply that her statements about
25:42
the searches are are a recent development.
25:45
And she says this isn't new. She learned about the chloroform
25:48
search in 2008 and told detectives then about her
25:53
searches. And then she also stated that
25:55
she said the same in her deposition back in 2009.
25:57
Yeah. So but here's the thing.
25:59
This computer had a bad CMOS battery, so when the computer
26:04
was powered off, it was not holding the time that it should
26:10
be. So we go some inside knowledge
26:13
on that because this was never introduced into court.
26:18
But the key take away is we have no idea how reliable those dates
26:23
and times actually are. And I'm kind of surprised Baez
26:27
didn't bring this up during Cindy's testimony.
26:30
But if I'm remembering correctly, I think he had the
26:33
report and Larry didn't see it until much later.
26:37
So he didn't get to point this specifically out.
26:40
So I think that's why it didn't come up at any point when the
26:44
defense was making their case. Now we're going to move on
26:47
quickly to win. The state calls Osborne and
26:51
Stinger back to the stand to testify for a third time in a
26:54
case in this case. Oh my, that's great.
26:57
So the state calls Osborne back to the stand for the third time.
27:01
The whole purpose of her testimony is to cast doubt on
27:05
everything that Cindy said about her bamboo and chlorophyll
27:13
searches. As part of that, she details how
27:16
she searched for chloroform and chlorophyll to account for
27:21
misspellings. And in summary, Osborne states
27:25
she found nothing to support Cindy's testimony that she was
27:29
searching for information to find out what was wrong with her
27:34
dog. Osborne's excused and now
27:36
Stinger is back to the stand for 1/3 time.
27:38
I don't know what the record is for number of testimonies in a
27:41
single case, but I don't know three.
27:43
Seems like a lot. But anyways, the purpose of
27:46
Stinger's testimony is to also cast doubt on everything that
27:50
Cindy said about the bamboo and the chlorophyll searches.
27:54
They're having Stinger review the net analysis report in
27:57
court. This time he reviews a bunch of
27:59
keyword searches he conducted and the point is that they none
28:03
of those keyword searches resulted in anything to support
28:06
Cindy's testimony. He also testifies that cash back
28:09
would have had the same results. And then on the cross, the
28:13
defense has Stinger revealed that he only conducted these
28:16
searches recently and that was after Cindy testified and that
28:20
was because the state wanted to impeach her.
28:22
Basically, they didn't believe her testimony.
28:24
And Stinger's testimony ends that he didn't have to search
28:29
for the keywords of alcohol and peroxide because he already knew
28:35
that they had existed, and that was also something Cindy
28:39
discussed searching for as well during her testimony.
28:42
All very interesting. Multiple testimonies, multiple
28:46
presentations of different evidence.
28:48
The defense trying to bring in exhibits through these
28:51
witnesses. The conflictions between what
28:55
Osbourne and Stinger have come, you know, research defined,
28:59
articulated versus the comparison to Cindy's testimony,
29:03
which seems very contradictory to theirs.
29:07
So this is going to wrap up the Casey Anthony trial testimony
29:10
related to the digital evidence and digital forensic examiners
29:13
that we wanted to bring to you guys for discussion.
29:16
Yep. And don't worry, in addition to
29:19
the lessons learned as we already hiddened out, we've got
29:21
2 guests coming to the podcast that were directly involved in
29:24
this Casey Anthony case. We've got John Bradley and Larry
29:27
Daniel both coming, so make sure to follow us to get notified
29:31
when those episodes drop. Yes, it's very exciting that we
29:34
have those two coming to our podcast to lay out some more
29:38
facts and information. So until then, stay safe, stay
29:42
sharp, and as always, keep parsing the truth one bite at a
29:45
time. If you enjoyed this episode,
29:49
make sure to follow us to get notified the next time a new
29:53
episode drops. If you can do more, head on over
29:56
to parsingthetruth.com and donate by clicking on the donate
30:00
button. Parsing the Truth is a nonprofit
30:03
organization and we are raising money to send a new digital
30:06
forensic examiner to I Asus training next year in Orlando.
30:10
Thanks.