I think Kurtz just shot down everything the prosecution just tried to lay out for the past 2 hours.
How so? By Young hypothesizing the scenario to him?
OT - Cummings looks passed out in the chair.
I think Kurtz just shot down everything the prosecution just tried to lay out for the past 2 hours.
I understand that. But if the VM was from someone that said they can't access the conferencing server, a test call like this to verify the service was running wouldn't be anything more than a quick call. Again, I'm just making suggestions based on my role, which is similar to what this guy said BC was in.
Regardless, these calls don't make any sense except for work related activities.
I think Kurtz just shot down everything the prosecution just tried to lay out for the past 2 hours.
How so? By Young hypothesizing the scenario to him?
The witness just said that all of the equipment they just discussed was not capable of generating the calls.
The witness just said that all of the equipment they just discussed was not capable of generating the calls.
Witness is not familiar with 'seizure time'. ???
Witness is not familiar with 'seizure time'. ???
Correct, but does that eliminate the possibility that BC did not have such capable gear in his house on 7/12? Does this eliminate possibility that BC did not have access to such type of gear?
Correct, but does that eliminate the possibility that BC did not have such capable gear in his house on 7/12? Does this eliminate possibility that BC did not have access to such type of gear?
I am interested in the box that this witness described (can't remember the name) as allowing the end user complete access to the Cisco network - he made it sound like there was no softtoken required - and wonder if this allows such a high level of access that nothing would look like he was doing this remotely.