Recently eForensix was retained by a public defender in Pennsylvania to establish the where abouts of his client, Ray Wooden, on specific dates and times. According to Mr. Wooden, he provided information to the police about the location of a woman he knew was involved in a home invasion. This led to the arrest of both the woman and her boyfriend.At the time of the woman’s arrest, her boyfriend was also present and found to be in possession of a firearm, which he was legally prohibited from having due to his criminal record. Mr. Wooden stated that the boyfriend was released on bail in late January 2024. Shortly after, the man accused Mr. Wooden of firing shots at his home on January 27, 2024.
Mr. Wooden was arrested in connection with the incident and was later released on bail. Then, on April 28, 2024, the same individual made a second accusation, claiming that Mr. Wooden again opened fire at his residence following an argument between the two earlier that day.
This second accusation led to Mr. Wooden being arrested again. This time, he was held without bail and remained in custody for over a year. The court appointed eForensix as a cellphone location expert on behalf of the public defender. Mr. Wooden consistently declared his innocence, claiming that the complainant’s allegations were fabricated in retaliation for his earlier arrest.
eForensix was tasked with reviewing cellphone location data obtained from Mr. Wooden’s wireless carrier. While the preliminary analysis of the records provided useful information, it did not yield conclusive results.
The court then ordered the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to turn over the actual cellphone Mr. Wooden had possessed on the dates of the alleged incidents. The public defender transferred custody of the device to eForensix, which was forensically imaged and analyzed in detail.After completing the examination, eForensix submitted a certified report to the court, verifying that cellphone data clearly showed Mr. Wooden’s cellphone was not near the victim’s residence on one or more of the specified dates and times. Additionally, the recovered data confirmed that Mr. Wooden had his cellphone in his possession during the critical timeline.
Based on this evidence, the court ordered Mr. Wooden’s release from jail and placed him under home confinement. After reviewing the findings, the
Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges and Mr. Wooden was subsequently released from home confinement. According to Mr. Wooden, the police have initiated an investigation into the false allegations that led to his unjust incarceration.