Zainab Abdirahman-Khalif trial: Computer expert can’t prove student intentionally downloaded Islamic State propaganda
A COMPUTER expert cannot determine whether a nursing student accused of joining IS intentionally downloaded the terrorist group’s propaganda onto her phone, a court has heard.
- Judge’s warning: Expect ‘gruesome, graphic’ evidence in IS trial
- Day one: Student ‘left home with $170 cash to join IS’
- Day two: Accused told friend ‘they caught me red-handed’
A COMPUTER expert cannot determine whether a nursing student accused of joining IS intentionally downloaded the terrorist group’s propaganda on to her phone, a court has heard.
On Wednesday, the trial of Zainab Abdirahman-Khalif explored the digital origins and storage of key evidence in the case.
Abdirahman-Khalif, 23, has pleaded not guilty to intentionally being a member of IS, knowing it to be a terrorist organisation.
It is alleged that, between July 14, 2016 and May 23, 2017, at Mansfield Park, she was intentionally a member of IS, knowing it to be a terrorist organisation.
Prosecutors have alleged her membership can be proven by photos and videos on her computer and phone of executions and suicide bombings.
They also allege she sang pro-IS songs and swore an oath to the group, and was advised by a three-woman terror cell that later died in an attack on a Kenyan police station.
They further allege Abdirahman-Khalif tried to leave Adelaide – without telling her family and carrying just $170 – for Turkey, bound for IS-controlled regions.
At the start of the trial, Justice David Peek warned jurors the photos and videos were “graphic and gruesome”, as they included executions, suicide bombings and dead bodies.
On Wednesday, the court heard evidence from Australian Federal Police digital forensic examiner Keith Fell.
He told jurors he had been tasked to analyse Abdirahman-Khalif’s phone and her use of the “Telegram” instant messaging app.
Previously, the court heard “Telegram” was IS’ preferred method of communicating.
Bill Boucaut SC, for Abdirahman-Khalif, suggested the presence of the material on his client’s phone did not mean she was responsible for it.
He said “Telegram” allowed for both automatic and manual downloading of material.
“You were unable to determine whether any of the videos were accessed,” he said.
“You cannot say if they were viewed, how long they were viewed.
“You cannot say whether the data producing the videos came on to the phone automatically or by virtue of a manual download.”
Mr Fell agreed.
“Yes, that’s correct, I cannot,” he said.
The trial continues.