- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,622
- Reaction score
- 124,312
I'm surprised because now he has said it. I understood his trial comments to be "anyone" could have planted the evidence, even the "real killer". That was the purpose of showing that the wifi connection was not secure.
To actually come out and say the police did it could land him in hot water if he doesn't have evidence to back that up.
He answers questions in such an honest way that I believe him when he says that he has proof that was not easy to find, but once found was very obvious. I don't think he would risk his career and accuse the police of tampering with evidence if he didn't believe it to be true. He would only believe that if Brad told it to him straight and the evidence supported the claim. I think it was Brad that was able to assist with identifying the tampering, something that would be very important to Brad to identify, something that would be difficult to identify and something that would reflect very negatively on investigators.
I found Kurtz's remarks about having a technology-qualified Judge very relevant. If the presiding Judge doesn't even know what an MP3 player is, then he was really in no position to disqualify technology and electronic evidence.