Discussion on showing

From the minutes last week, on whether showing evidence to be tampered with should be cause for contempt and such:

Mr. Rizzo said it seemed to be vague, "evidence that was shown to have been tampered with." He thought "proven" was much different than "shown."

Ms. Cuevas said she believed "shown" was the same as "proven," but she could see how some people might feel it wasn't strong enough. They have to be "shown" something was true all the time, and that was how they made their decisions.

Mr. Wasserman said that to be "shown" that something was tampered with required that it be proven that it was tampered with. Otherwise it wasn't "shown" to have been tampered with.

Mr. Chen said that when they get an e-mail, the format might be different. If someone showed one e-mail from one server, and compared the same e-mail from another server, they would look different.

And with Brandon Chen's stunning argument, the clause was struck.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 2/28/2007 04:53:00 PM #
Comments (0)

. . .