JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ohio

After a hearing that lasted more than six hours on Friday, a special judge found probable cause to pursue rape charges against two Steubenville High School athletes who have been incarcerated in the Jefferson County Juvenile Detention Center since August.

However, Judge Thomas Lipps did not find probable cause on kidnapping charges and those charges have been dismissed.

Lipps also said there was clear evidence one of the defendants transmitted sexually-oriented pictures of a minor.

The state called five witnesses, who who were also cross-examined by the attorneys representing each of the teen defendants.

Although NEWS9 cameras were permitted in the courtroom, all witnesses had the right to deny any video or audio recording of their testimony.

The first witness called was Joann Gibb, a computer forensic specialist for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation.

Gibb testified that:

• BCI's Youngstown office analyzed 15 cell phones and two iPods.

• More than half of the phones analyzed were Apple iPhones.

• It is impossible to retrieve deleted evidence from an iPhone because the devices are encrypted in such a way that when data is deleted, it is scrambled and overwritten

•  All retrievable data was forwarded to the Steubenville Police Department so their detectives could search for evidence.

• Two pictures one of the defendant's phone had not been deleted.

• Those pictures were attached to sent text messages, however Gibb said it was impossible to determine if those pictures originated from that particular phone.

The second witness (Witness #2) is a juvenile male student at Steubenville High School.

Witness #2 testified that:

• He was with the two defendants on the night of the alleged rape in August.

• He was with the alleged victim and the two defendants and another juvenile for most of the night.

• The group of teens were at a party at a Steubenville home at which there was underage drinking in the absence of adults.

• When the group left that home, he claimed the alleged victim went willingly to a second house in Steubenville, but that she did appear to be drunk.

• They hung out with a smaller group of people at the second home before Witness #2 went to his own home with the defendants, another juvenile and the alleged victim. His parents were not at the home.

• He had recorded video of one of the defendants using his fingers to sexually assault the girl during the car ride to his house.

• He did not share that video.

• The state said the video had been deleted, could not be retrieved and that because of that, Witness #2 was not facing charges.

• The alleged victim vomited several times throughout the night and had to be carried at times to get from place to place.

• While at his house, Witness #2 said the alleged victim hardly spoke and was not moving.

• The alleged victim was able to give them the pass code pass code for her cell phone.

The third witness (Witness #3) is a juvenile male student at Steubenville High School.

Witness #3 testified that:

• He was present at the first party and drove to the second party, but not in the same car as the other witnesses and the defendants.

• He saw the victim throw up a couple of times throughout the night and said at the second party, he saw both defendants carry the alleged victim out of the house by her hands and feet.

• While at Witness #2's home in the early morning hours, he saw the alleged victim naked and unresponsive on the floor in the basement where the group was hanging out.

• He took a picture of both defendants with the alleged victim and showed it to others when he left the house that night before deleting the photo the following day.

• Prosecutors were unable to retrieve that picture.

The fourth witness, Steubenville police detective J.P. Riegaud, was the only witness to allow his testimony to be recorded.

Riegaud testified that during his investigation, he gathered witness statements and collected information he had located on the Internet. Riegaud specified that information was not the basis for the arrests of the two defendants.

When police initially seized several cell phones, Riegaud said "I was expecting to find pictures and video in regards to what actually happened to (the alleged victim) that night. I also expected to find things like the pictures found on the Internet as well as some video that was posted as well."

Riegaud testified that of the 15 cell phones analyzed by BCI, he only found nude photos of the alleged victim on the phone of one of the two defendants.

Riegaud testified that he reviewed a video clip posted on YouTube of a conversation about the alleged assault. Those comments included a description of one of the defendants engaged in anal sex with the alleged victim.

"We reviewed that video many times to listen to the conversation that was heard in that video," said Riegaud. "Throughout it you hear statements made. There were specific comments, statements made in that, that served not to arrest, but to look into and to dive deeper into it and that helped to guide us. They weren't the only guide. They were part of it."

The fifth witness (Witness #5) is a juvenile male student at Steubenville High School.

Witness #5 testified that:

• He saw the alleged victim lying naked in the basement of Witness #2's home.

• He saw one of the defendants, fully clothed, lying behind her and used his fingers to sexually assault her while the other defendant pulled down his pants and hit her in the hip with his genital area.

• When asked why he did not stop them, Witness #5 answered "I wanted to get out of there. I didn't know what to do. I was stunned."

During cross-examination, Witness #5 testified that he never heard the alleged victim say "No."

Attorneys for the state and for the defense gave closing statements following the fifth witness' testimony. "

She (the alleged victim) voluntarily got herself intoxicated," said Walter Madison, attorney for one of the teen defendants. "She voluntarily got into this vehicle. She voluntarily gave up the pass code after the allegations of these sex crimes that she could not consent to. Not once did you hear her say or any state witness today say she didn't want to do it."

The second defense attorney, Adam Nemann referred back to Witness #1's testimony. "What he said that really struck me as unusual," said Nemann, "Right at the end of his testimony, unusual in that he's the state's witness, is that he indicated that he said, 'We didn't know or think that what we were doing was wrong.'"

"We don't have to prove she said no," argued Special Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter. "We don't have to prove she said 'bring it on.' All we have to prove is that she's being penetrated either digitally in the car or digitally in that basement that she was unresponsive and not in a position of consent and they know about it. And let's be clear: they knew she was drunk."

The judge continued the case until Nov. 1 and the teens will remain in juvenile detention until then.

They have been incarcerated since August, when the allegations were first made to police.

Friday's probable cause hearing was delayed for several hours when Madison made a motion to restrict who could be present in the courtroom and what could be reported about this and future hearings.

"Many details discussed in court have been erroneously reported on various blogs and social websites," wrote Madison in the motion.

Nemann and the two special prosecutors objected to the motion.

The judge gave the local media, including WTOV9, an hour to consult with their attorneys about how to proceed. At 3pm, the judge held a brief hearing on Madison's motion, ultimately deciding that the public interest outweighed the privacy interest of the defendant.