What specific evidence and witnesses tied Tina Peters to the data extraction operation in Mesa County?

1. The core eyewitnesses: county election staff who testified prosecutors say implicated Peters

Multiple current and former Mesa County election employees testified that Peters was involved in meetings and operational decisions immediately preceding the “trusted build” where data was copied; Elections Manager Stephanie Wenholz secretly recorded a meeting prosecutors say kicked off the conspiracy, and witnesses including deputy clerk Brenda Knisley and election manager Sandra Brown were charged and later entered plea deals to testify about those interactions ^{[5] [1] [5]}.

2. The “mystery consultant” and the badge: how identity and access were alleged to be misused

Prosecutors presented testimony alleging an unauthorized outsider — sometimes identified in reporting as Conan Hayes or described as a “mystery consultant” — attended the trusted build using the access badge issued to employee Gerald Wood, with Wood’s identity allegedly used to gain entry; prosecutors claimed Peters facilitated the badge’s use and the outsider’s presence during the upgrade ^{[6] [2] [5]}.

3. Physical and digital corroboration: cameras, location data and the public leak

Witnesses testified that surveillance cameras were turned off shortly before the trusted build, that cell‑phone location data placed the outside consultant in Grand Junction ahead of the operation, and that months later forensic images and internal files from Mesa County voting machines — including partial passwords — were posted online by out‑of‑state actors, tying the local breach to a broader, public leak ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

4. Communications and behavior prosecutors say show intent and coordination

Prosecutors introduced evidence that Peters instructed staff to buy disposable phones with cash, to use Signal and non‑county e‑mail addresses, and they played Signal chat content and other communications at trial to show coordination and secrecy around the operation; those communications were cited at closing as evidence of a willful scheme rather than a benign investigation ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Forensic reports, public postings and the indictment: documentary evidence used by prosecutors

An 83‑page forensic examination Peters supplied to county officials became part of the record she invoked, while independent discoveries — including the publication of forensic images by Ron Watkins and later federal and state investigations — formed documentary strands in the indictment that framed the unauthorized copying and public dissemination of election‑system data ^{[8] [7] [9] [4]}.

6. Trial outcomes and contested points: convictions, acquittals and defense claims

A jury found Peters guilty on seven counts related to the breach after prosecutors presented the combined witness testimony and corroborating evidence described above, though she was acquitted on a handful of identity‑theft and impersonation counts and her defense contested key elements — including whether an uncalled witness was an informant and how much direct proof tied Peters to specific acts — points the defense used to challenge the prosecution narrative ^{[3] [10] [4]}.

7. Limits of the public record and open questions

Reporting and court documents establish the core fabric of evidence — witness testimony about meetings and access, surveillance and location data, secretive communications and the online publication of machine images — but public sources do not uniformly disclose every piece of raw forensic data, the full content of all Signal messages entered at trial, or contemporaneous payments and contracts that might further clarify relationships, so some forensic and motive details remain confined to trial exhibits and sealed filings ^{[8] [9] [3]}.