Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,084
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.
And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.
Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.
The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.
And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.
Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.
The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.