What the RIAA really said.

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 12:41 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > I would surmise (I didn't see the consultant's report - was it
> > Jacobson?) that he has only a listing of the 'virtual' folder
> 
> I don't know if it was Jacobson but it's probably in the record  
> somewhere.
> 
> I don't claim to be an expert on Windows but if it is possible to take  
> a "screenshot" of a virtual folder then it isn't documented anywhere  
> obvious for Windows XP. A quick Google search seems to indicate that  
> this may be easy to do in Vista. Was Howell running Vista?
> 
> If Howell can indeed show that Exhibit B is in any sense not what it  
> purports to be, it will be a tremendous blow to the RIAAs credibility.
----
I wholeheartedly expect that any listing or illustration of the 'kazaa
shared' directory presented by the investigator for the plaintiff was
not a direct representation of the defendant's computer but rather
something that could have only been remotely compiled/acquired. Hence my
continuing reference to the 'virtual folder' and why I keep insisting
that you are struggling to absorb the reference.

The RIAA's credibility on the other hand is assumed to be the work
product of aggressive litigation, often referred to as good 'lawyering'.
When the plaintiff is litigating with benefit of substantial and
educated team of researchers and lawyers running roughshod over someone
appearing pro se, there's little doubt on the outcome...the only left to
determine is the final score.

Craig