Right now I am running spybot because errorsafe did a pop up.

I close it straight away.. it’s annoying.

I have a feeling these **** are being investigated by the FBI.

if you put together a case that laypeople can understand- well that is 90% of the battle.

I am sure Sandi would like to see justice served,and like me one gets tired of what is tolerated, but forensics seems to fail in the real world- you need the “human proof”.

Somewhere up or down the line- people have information. If it looks the legal barrell is pointed their way- they might change their tune and talk.

-wayne

“Forensics is everything,” she said.

“This is very very true.”

Nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true.

Example: In a murder case, the prosecution might try to establish the identity of the shooter by analyzing the lethal bullet, connecting it with the murder weapon, and showing the defendant’s fingerprints on the weapon.

Compare such forensics with an eyewitness who testifies that she saw the defendant kill the victim in cold blood. She tells the human story: who, what, when, how, and why.

Now, which is the stronger case?

With WinFixer, I plan to prove liability largely through the human story, including “admissions against interest” by the perpetrators themselves (one of the best possible forms of proof). My presentation will avoid unnecessary techno-speak. Forensics is a minor part of the story. This isn’t weakness: it’s strength.

It’s natural, perhaps, for an IT person to take Sandi’s perspective. (As Maslow famously observed, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.) However, Sandi is not a lawyer—let alone an American lawyer—and I doubt she knows much about California juries, let alone California substantive law or procedure.

WinFixer’s days are numbered.