Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
For those watching the Casey A. trial.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donna723" data-source="post: 442868" data-attributes="member: 1883"><p><em>"oh, so you put a witness on the stand knowing she was going to testify to something that she couldnt have possibly done ..."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em>This whole thing was extremely dumb for <em>anyone</em> to think they could get away with it! Surely they'd know they could check up on this! The computer system where Cindy works sounds a lot like some of the ones we used in the Dept. of Correction and on the State computer systems for various functions. They're closed networks where everyone has their own distinct user ID and passwords. The IT people can go in at any time and tell exactly what activity there was on anyone's user ID and work station at any particular time. If she signed on to that computer at any time during the day in question, they could tell exactly when it was and what she did while signed in. The only way she could have possibly gotten away with claiming she wasn't there that day was if she never clocked in, never signed in to the computer that day, if she never signed or initialed any paperwork of any kind that day, if absolutely no one remembered her being there that day or had any interaction with her that day ... not very likely! Why were they so dumb as to think they could get away with that??????? Did they really think that the prosecution wouldn't check that out?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donna723, post: 442868, member: 1883"] [I]"oh, so you put a witness on the stand knowing she was going to testify to something that she couldnt have possibly done ..." [/I]This whole thing was extremely dumb for [I]anyone[/I] to think they could get away with it! Surely they'd know they could check up on this! The computer system where Cindy works sounds a lot like some of the ones we used in the Dept. of Correction and on the State computer systems for various functions. They're closed networks where everyone has their own distinct user ID and passwords. The IT people can go in at any time and tell exactly what activity there was on anyone's user ID and work station at any particular time. If she signed on to that computer at any time during the day in question, they could tell exactly when it was and what she did while signed in. The only way she could have possibly gotten away with claiming she wasn't there that day was if she never clocked in, never signed in to the computer that day, if she never signed or initialed any paperwork of any kind that day, if absolutely no one remembered her being there that day or had any interaction with her that day ... not very likely! Why were they so dumb as to think they could get away with that??????? Did they really think that the prosecution wouldn't check that out? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
For those watching the Casey A. trial.....
Top