4 ms·
As I read it, his forensics was unsophisticated (who trusts file modified dates on files that have clearly been copied?), but his analysis was enough to give hi
by paulgb 3y ago
As I read it, his forensics was unsophisticated (who trusts file modified dates on files that have clearly been copied?), but his analysis was enough to give him the confidence to call Lindell’s bluff, which none of the others did.
The author thought that Lindell was sending everyone on a wild goose chase with irrelevant data, and Lindell couldn’t defend against that claim in arbitration.
- HaroldBolt78 3y ago[flagged]
- paulgb 3y agoDue to a history of dishonest promotional contests, contest law in the US is actually pretty strict. It doesn’t surprise me at all that if you put on a contest and misrepresent some aspect of it, the court will not be happy. > his witnesses gave conflicting answers to critical questions like “What exactly was in the data you provided to the experts and how was it related to the November 2020 U.S. presidential election?” (As to “his lawyers must have really screwed up”, given what I know about Lindell, my priors on that are high)