Day 37 - March 23, 2015

The court denied the motion in limine as to Matthew Levitt, permitting his testimony while leaving its application to other experts unresolved. It also granted the defense a continuing objection to background information. Kevin Swindon continued authenticating digital evidence. The court admitted exported text messages, a redacted exchange from Dias Kadyrbayev's phone, and a chart comparing matching files across devices over defense objections. Swindon distinguished recovered files from presentation material, including converted documents and changed file titles. The court agreed to corrections after questions about carved files and intact presentation versions of material he believed was corrupted. On cross-examination, Swindon said investigators selected 151 sub-exhibits from roughly half a million Sony VAIO files; he did not select them or know who selected every file. He could not resolve conflicting creation dates or determine from the spreadsheet whether a file had been opened. He distinguished hardware-attachment records from file-access artifacts and could not identify users of the shared Norfolk Street desktop. On redirect, he described MD5 and visual verification of selected exhibits, clarifying that he verified rather than extracted files. On recross, he still could not identify the Windows artifact underlying a disputed date column without consulting AD Labs and the software. Levitt then described his qualifications and offered historical and thematic context for extremist propaganda. He said he could not independently vet the supplied evidence, did not read or write Arabic, and had not reviewed all the evidence. The court maintained admissibility but declined blanket expert qualification and cautioned the prosecution about Rule 403. Levitt discussed Inspire and audio excerpts, then compared their themes with the boat writing, offering qualified reconstructions of damaged words. After a defense objection concerning radicalization measurement, the prosecution moved on without an express ruling. The court also required document redaction and later directed that unredacted material be removed from display. Levitt's direct examination remained unfinished.