Idaho 4 | Sy Ray | Timing Advance and Conspiracy Theorist |

Описание: LIVE: AT&T Timing Advance, Sy Ray, and the Idaho 4 Case

Did the State Have the Data — or Didn’t It?

In today's livestream, we are taking a deep dive into one of the most confusing and controversial evidentiary issues in the Idaho 4 / Bryan Kohberger case: AT&T Timing Advance records and the prosecution’s shifting explanations about whether that data existed, was collected, or was ever available at all.

For months, the State maintained that AT&T Timing Advance location data did not exist for this case. Then the explanation changed. Suddenly, the argument was no longer that the data didn’t exist — but that it did not exist beyond seven days. That distinction matters, and it raises serious questions about preservation, disclosure, and transparency.

We will examine whether this data is routinely retained, when it can be obtained without a geofence or GLDC request, and why the State’s timeline matters legally.

A major focus of this livestream is Sy Ray, his testimony, and his role in shaping how courts and juries understand cell phone location evidence. Sy Ray’s credibility has been directly challenged in other courtrooms, including the Christopher Russell Jones case in Colorado, where a judge rejected his methodology and described his analysis as a “sea of unreliability.” We will explore how that ruling impacts ongoing cases like Idaho 4 and whether similar evidentiary weaknesses are present here.

Key questions we will explore tonight include:
Did the State ever have access to AT&T Timing Advance data in the Idaho 4 case?
Was the data collected and not preserved, or was it never requested?
Why did the explanation shift from “it does not exist” to “it does not exist after seven days”?
Does that change suggest earlier availability?
And how does this impact the reliability of the State’s cell phone location narrative?

This livestream is not about guilt or innocence. It is about evidence standards, expert testimony, and whether juries are being shown conclusions that rest on assumptions rather than verifiable data. If cell phone evidence is going to be used to suggest movement, proximity, or intent, the science behind it must withstand scrutiny — especially in a case of this magnitude.

Join the live discussion, ask questions in the chat, and weigh in on whether the prosecution’s explanations about Timing Advance data pass the smell test.

🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://streamyard.com/pal/d/59312404...