What the RIAA really said.

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Craig White wrote:

> 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.

As I said in  response to the previous post, this must be the case if  
Howell erased the program and all its files. I am still mystified to  
the reference to the audio files being visible through a shortcut to  
the 'shared' directory if that isn't an actual  directory.
>
>
> 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.

If Howell did indeed destroy  evidence after he was notified to  
preserve it, he's screwed no matter how well he is represented. If he  
destroyed evidence that might have exonerated him, it's really ironic.
--
In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.
-Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965)