- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 5,393
- Reaction score
- 59,807
OK, I'm confused. State said it found no porn but Defense say they did. Then they talk about searches and website URLs typed into address line etc. Are they both talking about "actual" downloads of porn? Did State mean it didn't find any actual porn downloads and Defense found only searches etc.? Are they talking about the same thing or are they both correct? Is it possible this Motion could fly?
Both sides stipulate that the names of pornographic URLs (website addresses) were written to the hard disk drive (HDD).
Neither side claimed that porn images and/or videos were ever found on that Toshiba HDD from the Compaq Presario in evidence.
Defense claims that a human clicked through to one porn site using Amazon's "Alexa" website rankings portal. Prosecution does not cede the point.
The motion should not fly, but I'm not JSKS' biggest fan, so I'm skeptical -- especially about Monday as her self-imposed deadline.