Eight supplied images are preserved with hashes and summarized captions. This review distinguishes a record of what someone said from independent corroboration of what happened. The court papers contain competing assertions; none of the comparisons below resolves identity or admissibility.
1. Parking location and return trips
Documented allegation: ECF 50 pp. 20–21 places the car on D Street SE between Second and Third Streets, between Folger and Providence Parks. It describes a return for the second device and a later return before leaving. This is the government's account of the interview, not a parked-car camera fix.
New primary source recovered: ECF 102-1, the filed 161-page interview transcript. Pages 108–114 were visually reviewed because the PDF text layer contains only docket headers. Exact excerpts and review scope are in the transcription note.
- p. 108 lines 19–25: an agent introduces the one-device/second-device sequence and asks where Cole parked.
- p. 109 lines 1–5: Cole says “At Fol --”; an agent asks “Folger?” and then says “Yeah, Folger Park.” This exchange names the park but does not independently establish the precise curb or parking time.
- p. 112 lines 21–25: after an agent asks about walking away from the DNC, Cole says, “Right back to my car and get the other one.” On p. 113 lines 1–4, the agent restates the retrieval and walk to the RNC; Cole answers “Yep.”
- p. 114 lines 5–8: after a question about leaving the alley, Cole says he got in his car, went to Capitol Ale House, and went home.
ECF 102, printed p. 11 / PDF p. 12 argues that agents supplied narrative details, including parking, and seeks suppression. The exchanges above show both prompting and answers in Cole's own words. The motion is a defense argument, not a ruling. This targeted review does not establish whether the detailed street segment appears elsewhere in the full interview.
| Time / interval, EST | Comparison | What remains to be established |
|---|---|---|
| ~19:10 → ~19:34 | Reported LPR observation to first reported pedestrian sighting: approximately 24 minutes. ECF 50 p. 3. | Actual drive, parking time, exit from vehicle and walking link. The LPR alone does not supply them. First-sighting intersection differs between affidavit p. 7 and ECF 50 p. 3. |
| ~19:54 → ~20:16 | Approximately 22 minutes between alleged placements; the prosecution's account includes retrieving the second device in this interval. ECF 50 pp. 3, 21. | Time of car arrival/departure and the complete intervening route. |
| 19:59:38 → 20:14:15 | 14m 37s between the reported New Jersey/E Street movement and the reported Rumsey/First Street movement. ECF 50 pp. 5–6. | A useful search window for a return-to-car comparison, not proof that the whole interval is unobserved or available for travel. Review intermediate video and clock offsets. |
| ~20:18 → 20:23:59 / 20:24:06 | Last affirmative Rumsey sighting in the filing followed by two site-5 transactions. ECF 50 pp. 6–7. | Whether and when anyone reached a car. Cell transactions at a serving site do not establish that trip. |
No precise car coordinate, travel speed or timed return waypoint is inferred. A feasibility test needs a reconciled street route, intermediate observations and camera-clock calibration; elapsed-time subtraction alone cannot prove or disprove the account.
2. Site coordinates, sectors and drive tests
| Question | Record currently available | Decisive comparison needed |
|---|---|---|
| Was site 1 shifted east? | Affidavit pp. 5–6 gives ID 59323, 103 G Street SW, 120°. The supplied mcI image draws a different origin; neither is a surveyed mount record. | January 2021 antenna latitude/longitude and datum, mount/height records, and the GIS layer coordinates underlying ECF 50 p. 7. No measured displacement has been established. |
| Did map rotation change azimuth? | The supplied image annotates 1.0°. No GIS project/projection metadata recovered. | Georeference the original figure to multiple control points, inspect aspect-ratio distortion and grid/true north, then calculate each ray bearing in geographic coordinates. Rotation of an entire map is not necessarily sector rotation relative to geography. |
| Should the white route use blue? | Open-ground rectangles and illustrative sector fans. The caption says sector depths were shortened. | Historical antenna patterns, frequency, height/tilt, network priorities and measurements at the relevant streets. Nearest-site distance or a drawn sector boundary is not a measured selection rule. |
| What do the drive tests support? | ECF 50 p. 4 n. 1 cites January/February 2021 tests for the disputed north/east sector. The underlying logs were not recovered. | Test date, route, scanner/handset, channels and sector IDs, measured signal data, settings and network changes. The footnote does not establish that site 1 was tested. |
| Does the sequence show movement away from good service? | Seven transactions, not a continuous handover log. Sites 2 and 3 share an address; treating them as separate destinations overstates what changed. | Raw session definitions, cell identities, network technology, available measurements and handover records. A cell change does not itself prove movement toward its antenna. |
The current interactive-map coordinates remain address references, with editorial sector fans. No new antenna coordinates or measured RF coverage were recovered in this review. These evidence gaps prevent a reliable numerical exclusion of the proposed route.
3. Camera and footage inventory
42 entries, not 42 distinct cameras: 14 numbered business/residential annotations, 14 wide-map red-circle annotations, six close-map red annotations, and eight camera IDs already represented by hosted renditions in the workspace. Overlap between annotations and known IDs is unresolved. Image-pixel positions identify marks only; they are not surveyed geographic coordinates.
Each entry separately tracks workspace footage, public release scope, defense disclosure, recording window, view direction, clock calibration and vehicle result. Unknown does not mean withheld or nonexistent. A negative vehicle finding needs the actual complete recording, suitable view and a calibrated search window.
Download camera inventory CSV · JSON · Existing camera provenance
| Entry / location label | Source / marker | Footage status | Unresolved |
|---|
Public docket lead: ECF 12 is a discovery protective order. The December 30, 2025 minute entry records denial without prejudice of the defense's ECF 22 Brady/discovery motion. These docket entries identify discovery proceedings; they do not identify which red-marked cameras were withheld from the public or defense. A camera-specific claim needs the request, response/order and recording identifiers.
4. Vehicle approach and parking-payment claims
The Y4g and 1o1 images propose routes, not a recovered vehicle track. The reviewed record supports the reported South Capitol exit LPR event and an interview-based parking allegation. Historical ramp/turn restrictions, complete footage of the proposed corridors, and the scope of the LPR search remain necessary to assess an exclusion. Historical parking signs, enforcement hours and payment options are needed before treating an absent phone payment as evidence against parking.
Reviewed images and caption summaries
The 00:41 and 00:46 matches are based on visible content, not verified filesystem save times. Captions are summarized as user-supplied claims. Original post URLs/authorship are not independently established by filenames. Source paths, acquisition URL and SHA-256 manifest.
Loading image manifest and inventory…