Did forensic analysis of election equipment play a role in the prosecution of Tina Peters?

1. The forensic images that started the cascade

Peters arranged for a consultant to make a digital copy of Mesa County’s Dominion voting equipment hard drive in May 2021; those images, and later “before and after” images cited in a report by consultant Doug Gould, are the core artifacts Peters and her supporters have relied on to allege vulnerabilities ^{[1] [5]}. Gould’s work, according to reporting, was based on those images rather than the original hardware — a detail state officials and many election experts highlighted when dismissing the findings ^[5].

2. Prosecutors’ use of the breach as criminal evidence

Colorado prosecutors charged and later convicted Peters of participating in a scheme that allowed unauthorized access to voting equipment and records; court findings and reporting state Peters “helped breach” Mesa County’s election systems and enabled an outside individual to access them — the creation and possession of the forensic images are central facts in those charges ^{[3] [4]}. The indictment and trial focused on her role in facilitating the copying and the circumstances — including disabled cameras and timing during a software update — surrounding that copying ^{[1] [4]}.

3. Official response: decertification, “trusted build,” and forensic critique

Following the breach and the images’ release, Colorado’s Secretary of State decertified Mesa County’s voting equipment and ordered remediation; state staff also inspected equipment and reported security vulnerabilities in servers and boot settings ^[2]. State officials and independent election officials criticized the Gould report’s methodology — noting it relied on images, not hardware — and said the county’s equipment had wireless capacity disabled during the 2020–21 period in question ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Peters’ narrative: preservation vs. tampering

Peters and her legal team have portrayed the imaging as lawful preservation of records and as evidence of systemic vulnerabilities, framing her actions as whistleblowing; court filings and her federal lawsuit assert that state officials called the images “unauthorized” and sought her prosecution despite her claim she was preserving election records ^{[1] [2]}. Supporters in media and some commentators amplify reports that the images show material differences between backups and system files, arguing that forensic analysis demonstrates problems ^{[6] [7]}. Available sources do not mention independent validation that the images proved fraud.

5. Conflicting expert perspectives and evidentiary limits

Reporting shows a split between forensic claims advanced by Peters’ allies and the assessments of election officials and many cybersecurity experts. Gould’s report and later expert testimony were relied on by Peters; election authorities and other reviewers dismissed those reports for methodological weaknesses, primarily the lack of examination of the original hardware ^[5]. The public record in these sources shows disagreement about whether the images alone can demonstrate manipulation or broader systemic failure ^{[5] [6]}.

6. How forensic work intersected with prosecution and politics

Forensic images and the surrounding narrative fed both legal and political responses: they were evidence discussed in prosecutors’ cases and the justification for state remediation, and they became a rallying point for Peters’ supporters and national political figures pressing for her release ^{[1] [8]}. Peters was convicted and sentenced in state court for tampering-related crimes connected to the breach; subsequent pleas for federal intervention and pardons have leaned heavily on the contention that forensic materials show important vulnerabilities — a contention contested by state officials ^{[3] [8]}.

7. What the available reporting does and does not say

Available reporting documents that forensic images exist, that Peters arranged their creation, and that those images and accompanying reports played a central role in public claims of vulnerabilities and in the criminal case against her ^{[1] [5] [3]}. Available sources do not establish that independent, widely accepted forensic validation of those images proved vote manipulation or altered outcomes; sources note methodological criticisms and official denials of the broader allegations ^{[5] [2]}.

Limitations: this account relies solely on the provided sources and reflects their focus on the images, official responses, and legal proceedings; wider technical forensic detail or independent third‑party validation beyond what these sources report is not included because it is not found in the current reporting ^{[5] [1]}.