Forensic Phone Extraction
Courtroom testimony clip on the phone extraction. Source: @realstewpeters on X, July 9, 2026.
According to a courtroom clip posted by Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) on July 9, 2026, a witness identified in the post as Agent Davis testified that a Cellebrite forensic extraction was performed on Lance Twiggs' phone as part of the investigation in State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson. The exchange is short and is reproduced below from the video.
Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. Everything on this page is reported testimony and citizen commentary, not a judicial finding.
What the testimony says
From the clip's audio (transcribed):
Prosecution: "As part of the investigation, was a Cellebrite extraction performed on Mr. Twiggs' phone?" Agent: "Yes, it was." Prosecution: "Did you personally review that extraction?" Agent: "Yes, I have." Prosecution: "And according to that extraction, did Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs exchange text messages on September tenth through eleventh, 2025?" Agent: "Yes, they did." Prosecution: "What time was that first text sent, according to the Cellebrite extraction?" Agent: "The first text was September tenth at eleven p.m."
The post's own caption states: "Investigators used an ISRAELI company to pull forensic data from Lance Twiggs' phone." Cellebrite is described in more detail on the Cellebrite page.
Why this matters
A forensic extraction copies the full contents of a phone — messages, timestamps, deleted data, and metadata — into a reviewable report. The testimony ties two things together: the existence of a completed extraction of Twiggs' device, and the claim that it shows Robinson–Twiggs text messages spanning September 10–11, 2025, with a first message reportedly at 11 p.m. on September 10.
The apparent tension with the prosecution's earlier position
Investigative commentary has repeatedly flagged a prosecution filing stating that "the state does not intend to offer evidence obtained through forensic extractions of electronics seized in this case." If accurate, that written position sits in tension with in-court testimony describing — and relying on — a Cellebrite extraction of Twiggs' phone. Citizen investigators frame this as a question worth resolving: which extractions the state will and will not put before the court, and why. This site does not claim any filing was false or that any official acted improperly; the point is the unresolved inconsistency between the filing language and the testimony.
Open questions
- Who conducted the extraction, and under what warrant or consent was Twiggs' phone accessed?
- How does a Cellebrite extraction of Twiggs' phone square with the timeline disputes over Robinson's phone and the Discord messages?
- Does the reported "11 p.m. September 10" first-message time align with, or contradict, other timeline evidence?
- Will the state actually offer this extraction at the preliminary hearing, given the earlier filing?