But isn't the issue really that *advertiser censored* was on the computer when prosecution expert testified there was no *advertiser censored* found?
JM will have a chance to bring his own expert in to testify and clear it up but I think we have to be clear on what the actual problem is...and it is not that TA might have looked at *advertiser censored*. Maybe JM will call Dworkin as well...didn't he also testify he found nothing?
Sorry if I have anything confused here....the guilt phase was such a long time ago it is sometimes hard to recall details.
That is the issue. But they have not proven that's what happened.
The state cannot verify or analyze what happened until he gets the copy from BN. They can't fully refute or figure out what happened until they get it. The hard drive is destroyed so the state can't look at it. And BN failed to analyze the original copy and compare to the hard drive post deletions. His testimony and findings are just lacking. If you want to accuse the state of this kind of thing, I feel like your evidence should be way, way more clear and obvious. Right now, it seems all they can really do is suggest it. There could be a reason why Dworkin and Melendez missed this stuff.