The defendant does not have a burden of proof. My point was that the lack of incriminating messages doesn't prove anything either way, which addresses your previous paragraph about not finding criminal messages.
Good lawyers are known for mastering the relevant details of a wide range of subjects.
LOL. Some of the best lawyers don't even know how to turn on their computers and still dictate their notes to their human secretaries. At any rate, your statement is quite false. The issue here was not that the lawyer failed to master a minute technical detail that everyone missed the first time around, its that such a minute technical detail ended up being material because there were no technical safeguards to catch the typo. This is another horrific situation that can be directly traced to the programmers being lazy and not wanting to burden themselves with "unnecessary" features.
The defendant does not have a burden of proof. My point was that the lack of incriminating messages doesn't prove anything either way, which addresses your previous paragraph about not finding criminal messages.
Good lawyers are known for mastering the relevant details of a wide range of subjects.
LOL. Some of the best lawyers don't even know how to turn on their computers and still dictate their notes to their human secretaries. At any rate, your statement is quite false. The issue here was not that the lawyer failed to master a minute technical detail that everyone missed the first time around, its that such a minute technical detail ended up being material because there were no technical safeguards to catch the typo. This is another horrific situation that can be directly traced to the programmers being lazy and not wanting to burden themselves with "unnecessary" features.