Tweet
If those email doesn't exist then someone must be lied on it. If those email really exist all they have to do is to get a court order to legally extract those email from the source. This how it works.Your recieved an email. You read then delete and it's gone. NOPE! They still there! This is what happen when you deleted an email. The email was still in there lying somewhere in your hard drive unless some file overwrites on it but then even if it was permanently gone. You can still recover it from the mail server where it was downloaded/uploaded. Let us say you used Yahoo mail and you already deleted the mail from their website. Now you think is gone! sorry no it's not. All deleted email in the yahoo mail servers they still keep a copy of it for about 2 years I think before it finally trashed it for good. Company policy. With proper court order, now you can have the email you want. Now what you don't see in your email, it keep records of the mac address of the computer you used, ip address and the ISP. Basically these informations will tell the investigator the exact address of the sender and which computer in the house he used to send the email. Hopefully Floyd or any member of his team is not dumb enough to email it from his house. LOL! Basic computer forensic baby.
-
Last edited by straightleft; 03-31-2011, 03:55 AM. -
lawsuits are ******
Pac's team wasting their time with that
they need to just ignore him until he signs to get in the ringComment
-
Actually, that's not true. If you argue too many issues rather than choosing only those that are relevant and winnable, it becomes harder to focus the attention of the jury to the point you are trying to make. Worse, you also give the opposing counsel the opportunity to pick apart the weaker issues and give the jury the impression that they are dismantling your arguments.
A good lawyer knows that the jury cannot digest every single argument. Thus, he will focus on making a few strong arguments and keep hammering at them to create the impression that his case is strong.
Just review the OJ case and you will see that the strategy of the defense was to nitpick just one or two of the prosecution's arguments, like the small size of the gloves. In the end, that's all that the jury focused on and all the rest of the prosecution's arguments, testimonies and evidence were disregarded.Comment
-
LMAO!
You are indeed ******!
A bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, please don't hold on that belief of yours and if you have indeed studied law, then what a waste of money it is.
Looks like this is where he is getting his education on lawsuits.
Oh dear, *****s...oxygen robbers.Comment
-
You start wide then narrow it down, this may not even come up in court and they could still win.
Before the trial you throw in every possible arguement because that is the time to get them in and depending on how the trial goes something might turn out that you didn't even really intend on using.
Once you get to trial though you do go with your strongest stuff butit is always good to have back up plans.
We are still before the trial.Last edited by The Gambler1981; 03-31-2011, 12:45 PM.Comment
-
Well anything can happen in court, I don't think this would be the focal point though because how can you prove one to the defendants sent the e-mail, they can prove where it came from but not who was in front of the computer and we all know Floyd has an entourage. They would then have to prove it was sent on order from Floyd (or one of the other on trial).
To me that is getting away from their main point, which is why I don't find it very meaningful, maybe it will turn out to be meaningful though.Comment
Comment