On Friday 28 July 2006 09:38, Tim Churches wrote: > Good idea, but from an evidentiary point of view, you need to send us the > screenshots as well so that we can collectively or individually attest to > the fact that the MD5 digests correspond to unaltered screenshots. > Otherwise (playing Devil's advocate here and anticipating the argument > which might be put in court by AMH's legal counsel), we have no way of > knowing whether these MD5 digests are for screenshots which have already > altered to suit your devious needs.
If I claim I have seen something and cannot provide any more evidence than my memory, the judge is more likely to put the onus of proof onto me I presume. If I bring forth some evidence that at least at face value does not appear dodgy, I would presume that the onus of proof might shift towards the other side, which would leave them red faced. In any case, I doubt it would be an issue. I still think they made a simple mistake,and maybe one person in their management seemed to think for a (wrong) moment that it is more important to save his own face (fat chance he can) rather than admitting the mistake and correcting the cause. I wouldn't think such a silly but reasonably harmless situation could escalate to people actually lying in court. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
