OK, techy members - what is this juror after?
IMO, what they're going for was either a juror with some computer knowledge testing to see if he knew the answer & answer honestly or if he'd fib, to blame a program or try be confusing (he answered honestly), or a juror who was confused (and probably still is).
So, I've read three different' versions of this question, all worded slightly differently -
Jen's made the most sense, and was something like:
Q 'Can Spybot or any other software add cookies to history?"
Brown: No.
Which would mean a juror was asking could or would SpyBot add a site to the history, if someone had never been there? No, it couldn't (because history doesn't exist till something happens).
I'll add that sounds correct, and tho SpyBot does add site urls to other areas, as a type of immunization - Brown said this earlier (and I'll add that has been my experience, I've used SpyBot - many times, years ago, but with WindowsXP - which is what TA had, and that's how it worked)
If I had to guess, I'd guess it was a juror testing his honesty, to see if he'd try to blame a program for something it could not possibly have done (which is actually a pretty smart question, and I hope I'm right) - he didn't do that (which is good).
But since I'm not certain exactly what the question was, (none of the tweets sounded verbatim, as all were slightly different - which also makes me tend to believe the ? was hard to repeat, and hence maybe from a tech savvy juror) - but because trial by tweet stinks, it's just a guess - IMO, JMO, and totally MOO (and I know, totally TMI
![Smile :) :)]()