final You have shared no technical details. You shared a highly unreliable and frequently conflicting anecdote and a document of your rights talking to the police which showed no indication of any device being accessed. That is not technical. You confused not GrapheneOS features with GrapheneOS.
Every time you made an excuse about something being incorrect or inconsistent you provided technically impossible happenings or changed the story, up to three times, like with the duress PIN. A lot of "key details" you also never said at the beginning. Why? They're pretty important and you left them out.
You also claimed the device was used very infrequently and locked indoors. If you weren't ever seen with it, it's unlikely it's even key evidence in this accusation. And don't say it being seized is the indicator, because you were charged with premeditated m
To clarify one point: after the initial handling, the device was transferred to the Specialized Research Service (DGO) | Digital Research & Analysis (DRA). Whatever findings they made were based on data that was present on the device itself, according to what I was later informed. That’s the only indication I have regarding where the information came from, since nothing outside the device was referenced to me.
I’m not making technical claims beyond my own observations — only that the device showed no reaction when the duress PIN was entered, and later the data was accessed once DGO/DRA had possession of it. Everything beyond that remains unclear until more documentation becomes available.