tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post4259725985760835594..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Witnesses: Lay and ExpertSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-72228137190735474192009-08-13T00:37:05.208-04:002009-08-13T00:37:05.208-04:00Now suppose that a lay witness "observes"...Now suppose that a lay witness "observes" child pornography on a defendant's work computer, and "observes" that the date stamps match the periods when the defendant was on the clock, and "rationally infers" that the defendant downloaded the images. Same everyday process of reasoning, no real technical knowledge required, but this seems like the kind of question that would demand more stringent proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-65812803062676005662009-08-12T20:06:07.793-04:002009-08-12T20:06:07.793-04:00Assuming you objected prior to the testimony, it s...Assuming you objected prior to the testimony, it should not have been admitted. If he objected after, and raised reasonable argument, the jury should have been instructed to disregard the testimony.<br /><br />It is simply not rational to infer that because the sent mail folder does not contain mail to which replies were received, that mail was deleted.<br /><br />There are so many reasons why this might not be the case. The most obvious is that the mail was sent from someplace other than where it was received.<br /><br />An email message is only placed in 'sent mail' at the point from which it is sent. But, generally, all email to the same address winds up at the same destination.<br /><br />It is equally rational to infer that for that time period, he sent his outgoing email from someplace else. (This is more common than you might think, as some ISPs requires you to use their outbound email servers but you cannot use their email servers to collect inbound email not address to those servers.)<br /><br />Clayton should have testified to what he observed, and an expert should have testified to what that means.JoelKatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09840865938897877532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-87867505849843695442009-08-12T09:44:05.497-04:002009-08-12T09:44:05.497-04:00The "Reply-To:" header wasn't brough...The "Reply-To:" header wasn't brought up by anyone?<br /><br />"Reply-To:" is a well-known header on sent email, and curiously enough, directs replies to another address.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com