4 ms·
> It was fairly unique. Wrong. And in any case, if they had looked at the message history of the account name that they used to track him down and that was en
by jibal 3mo ago
> It was fairly unique.
Wrong.
And in any case, if they had looked at the message history of the account name that they used to track him down and that was entered into evidence at the trial, they would not have found any criminal messages.
> The lack of digital evidence is not proof of innocence.
Misplaced burden of proof.
> Lawyers aren't generally known for their grasp of computer technology.
Good lawyers are known for mastering the relevant details of a wide range of subjects.
- gamblor956 3mo agoMisplaced burden of proof. The defendant does not have a burden of proof. My point was that the lack of incriminating messages doesn't prove anything either way, which addresses your previous paragraph about not finding criminal messages. Good lawyers are known for mastering the relevant details of a wide range of subjects. LOL. Some of the best lawyers don't even know how to turn on their computers and still dictate their notes to their human secretaries. At any rate, your statement is quite false. The issue here was not that the lawyer failed to master a minute technical detail that everyone missed the first time around, its that such a minute technical detail ended up being material because there were no technical safeguards to catch the typo. This is another horrific situation that can be directly traced to the programmers being lazy and not wanting to burden themselves with "unnecessary" features.
- jibal 2mo agoWeird HN bozos who respond to a discussion 4 days later and expect someone to see it other than purely by chance. > At any rate, your statement is quite false. No it isn't, of course.