I thought you said it was??
Quote:
Originally Posted by m00c0w
He was called to testify as to what was on the computer. He was never asked what the video was, until cross. That is the point of cross. Martinez clarified what it was. I don't understand why the witness is taking the beating for what the defense is attempting to do.
The individual was hired to examine an image of Alexander's computer and obtain a full history, probably any pictures he found, and other criteria the defense specified. He was not hired to look at YouTube videos.
To put it in another way, he analyzed the computer and came up with over
1,500 pages of web browsing information. He did not pick out which four pages the defense was going to use - the defense did. Is it honestly believed that the witness should have gone through all 1,500 pages and became an expert on every website visited? Is that even in the purview of his job, which is only to forensically analyze the computer, hard drive, and camera?
It's not like
he decided to only bring this one thing up in court. In fact, that was only one video out of a few pages of information cherry-picked by the defense.
Hey Chester - I think what some of us are getting at is that the DT asked him last week about what came up for the computer on June 4. It was the youtube video. Would have been a good idea for him to know what video it was since the DT kinda threw him under the bus!!
IMO if he's an "expert" he should know that what he testified to Thursday would come up again and it that case he could have looked it up himself. I bet he won't EVER make that mistake again!! GULP!!
BBM
Aren't witnesses disallowed from poking around at the case while serving as a witness? Furthermore, it's simply not within the scope of his expertise. He was hired to forensically examine a computer and provide the information retrieved, not vet all of the websites in the logs.
Does anyone clearly remember if he answered the question about what Free Web Proxy was? Did he take it upon himself to further define that or did he also claim to not know what it was? I can't remember his specific answer.
Because if he addressed that answer then he is contradicting himself in saying its not his job to research the items on the report.
Was there a question about what it was today?
The proxy thing was a
video on YouTube. This has already been addressed earlier. If he gave a general definition of what a proxy is, that falls within him knowing what a proxy is by the trade he works in.
:twocents: :moo: