SBF’s attorneys have punched holes in some witness testimonies.

The defense cross-examined two key prosecution witnesses.

Both witnesses could not confirm certain assertions. For the first time, lawyers representing Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) in his criminal trial have managed to punch holes in two witness testimonies.While cross-examining former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh on October 17, the defense team tried to weaken his anecdotal account of events leading to Alameda Research using funds from the now-bankrupt FTX exchange.Singh Didn’t Remember “A Lot”Singh, a member of Bankman-Fried’s executive team, might have established discrepancies between what he told the court (jury) on October 16 and 17 and the testimony he supposedly gave the prosecution in the months leading up to the trial.

Starting with calm and steady questions, Bankman-Fried’s attorney, Cohen, walked Singh through his testimony from the days before, seemingly to question Singh’s memory of what transpired in June and July 2022, when the former director allegedly learned about a software bug that exaggerated Alameda’s liabilities.After having Singh elaborate on the sequence of events during that period, Cohen asked, “You told the prosecutors that you had a surprising amount of haziness when trying to recall events in June and July 2022?” Singh responded, “There was a lot I didn’t remember.”Cohen then presented a document to Singh, presumably containing the notes prosecutors took while meeting with the former director before the trial, to which Singh reacted, “This doesn’t refresh my recollection.”

Following two breaks and the end of Sigh’s cross-examination, the defense moved on to FBI Agent Richard Busick’s testimony.Busick’s Cell Site Analysis Fails to Pin Down SBFDuring his earlier testimony, Busick agreed to several findings the prosecution pointed out from the AT&T cell phone data analysis report he had prepared, among them specific locations where Bankman-Fried’s phone could be retraced around Manhattan.On Busick’s cross-examination, the defense countered the whole analysis report with a straightforward argument.

Despite Busick’s report establishing that the analyzed number belonged to SBF, the agent’s analysis cannot confirm who was with the phone at the time, dates, and locations the phone pinged nearby cell towers.The FBI agent agreed, and the defense hastily wrapped up their cross.Read about the latest development in SBF’s trial:SBF’s Dad in Crossfire as Defense Tries To Blame Ex-LawyersStay updated on how FTX debtors plan to indemnify customers:FTX Debtors to Return 90% of Creditor Holdings to Customers