Interesting decision, but who should take the credit?

From a brief reading, it appears that neither can claim that the Court's decision, re an adverse inference direction, is a victory for the software. The issue was whether the defendant had acted in bad faith with respect to the operations on his computer undertaken after he had been instructed to preserve evidence.

I don't see, anywhere, where the software, itself, was an issue, except for a misrepresentation of the capabilities of the Consecutive Sectors EnScript.

Greetings,

Craig Ball had some interesting things to say, here

http//www.eddupdate.com/2009/04/every-film-fan-knows-the-scene-in-the-godfather-where-three-sons-brash-heir-apparent-sonny-law-abiding-war-hero-michael-an.html

Basically, neither company's software was validated and they should both stop blowing smoke.

-David

The software is never as important as having an experienced and properly trained examiner using it.

EDIT From the Craig Ball article from the previous post

"EnCase Enterprise is not “court validated.” FTK Enterprise is not “court validated.” And they never have been. In competent hands, computer forensics is not a black box, pushbutton art, so the integrity of process hinges on the carpenter, not on the hammer."

Glad you guys came to that conclusion too, i skim read those docs (no way am i going to bore myself to death reading them thoroughly p), and was struggling to spot anything of relevance to either Guidance's or AccessData's statements. roll