What forensic evidence ties Tina Peters to the USB drives or images of election machines?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available reporting ties Tina Peters to copied images and USB drives through witness testimony that she authorized or participated in creating backups of Mesa County voting equipment, and through prosecutors’ claims about deleted hard drives and unauthorized photography; contemporaneous court testimony and local reporting describe discovery of images on her phone and statements that she helped make forensic images [1] [2] [3]. Supporters assert the images preserved evidence of vulnerabilities and that later reports vindicate her; official sources and critics say expert reviews and the district attorney found no proof the images show machine tampering [4] [5] [2].
1. Courtroom testimony links Peters to copied images and photos
At Peters’s trial, former Mesa County elections manager Sandra Brown testified she saw pictures on Peters’s phone “from the trusted build” and recounted conversations in which Peters asked a man if he knew how to make a forensic image — testimony used by prosecutors to connect Peters to the creation and dissemination of images of the county’s voting system [1]. Local trial coverage records witnesses describing Peters’ access and actions in the clerk’s office on the days images and passwords were subsequently posted online [1].
2. Prosecutors and local officials say evidence was altered or deleted
Reporting and commentary note prosecutors alleged deletion of hard drives and improper handling of election records; Peters’s critics and some official statements say her actions “put Mesa’s election systems at risk” and violated procedures by removing or copying files before the Secretary of State’s “Trusted Build” was applied [6] [2]. Published summaries and later accounts state county and state officials treated the behavior as unlawful and security-breaching [2].
3. Peters and allies claim the copies preserved exculpatory material
Peters and supporters maintain the forensic images she authorized preserved logs and adjudication records that, they say, show tampering or missing data — claims summarized in Peters’ own reports and in coverage sympathetic to her view that evidence was erased and that her backup preserved it [4]. Media sympathetic to Peters and her legal team have promoted later documents they say are “exculpatory” and argue authorities failed to provide Brady material [7].
4. Independent and county-level reviews challenged the forensic reports
Multiple sources report that technical reviews and county associations disputed the forensic claims based on Peters’s images. The Colorado County Clerks Association published analysis they called a “debunking” of the Mesa reports and state-level authorities and some technical commentators criticized the Mesa reports for lacking context or for misinterpreting normal system behavior as evidence of wrongdoing [5] [2]. Local reporting noted that the Mesa “forensic audit” relied on before-and-after images rather than direct examination of hardware, and the investigator stopped short of proving external exploitation [2].
5. Conflicting narratives — what the public record actually shows
The public record in the provided reporting does not present a single definitive forensic chain-of-custody from Peters to USB drives to demonstrable tampering of election results. Court testimony and local reporting connect Peters to phone photos and to authorizing or participating in making backups [1] [2]. At the same time, official reviews and county associations dispute the Mesa reports’ technical conclusions and say they found no evidence the images prove machine compromise [5] [2]. Supporters cite alleged withheld or new evidence and say the images matter; critics say the methodology and claims were flawed [7] [5].
6. Limits of current reporting and remaining questions
Available sources document testimony and partisan claims but do not provide—for public review here—a forensic lab report that definitively traces specific USB sticks or published chain-of-custody logs proving Peters moved particular drives containing images into public circulation; those specifics are not found in the cited pieces (not found in current reporting). Where reporting does assert hard-drive deletion or unauthorized copying, it cites trial evidence and official statements rather than a single neutral, independently verified forensic provenance that ties Peters to a particular USB device and proven alteration of voting machine software [1] [2].
7. Why this matters and what to watch next
This matter remains both legal and political: Peters’s defenders frame the images as whistleblower evidence and seek pardons or federal review [8] [9], while local officials and technical reviewers say the Mesa analyses were flawed and that proper procedures were violated [5] [2]. Future credible developments would include release of chain-of-custody documentation, a peer-reviewed independent forensic lab analysis of the actual physical media, or authoritative prosecutorial disclosures — none of which appear fully documented in the available sources (not found in current reporting).