Madeleine,
Yours is an excellent analysis, and points to exactly why JW was chosen for the defense. Bear with me, and let's see if I can articulate this thought:
JW the Network Security "expert" at first blush seems like a strange choice, rather than a genuine hired gun civilian Computer Forensic expert. The defense I believe postulated that they could not refute the analysis done by the FBI.
So rather than have dueling analysts, and confounding the jury completely, they devised a "red herring" to bluff the prosecution. Put on JW and hope that the prosecution bites, and tries to both discredit and suppress the defense expert.
Kurtz was smart enough to get in just enough testimony to plant the inference with the jury (or hope to) that BC's computer was tampered with. The Pros bite at it, and because they were afraid of what might be reviled.
If they called Kurtz's bluff, what would have been disclosed is a whole lot of nothing, that could not stand up to cross examination.
But the Pros blinked while playing chicken with JW, cause their case is generally weak (it is what it is), and the most compelling evidence in their hand is the computer stuff that points right at BC and only BC.
Damn if that's what Kurtz did, it is a clever and risky maneuver. He took the risk cause maybe his client is as guilty as sin.
There are games within games being played, and the jury is the audience.
I now think BC is not only guilty, but very calculating.......and stone cold
