AFAIK the legal idea was dropped because it would get nowhere.
I'll sue you for terminating me from a job I really no longer want to be in (catch my drift?).
Earnie the Eagle said:
As to your opinion that emails do not exist, then the ones that the SMH have copies of must relate to something else then and fyi the program used to scan the computers was called Encase, google it.
Used Encase before, no longer use it after we started using FTK (which is the best of the best out there).
Still not as fun as pulling apart hard drives and doing data recovery though
🙂
Daniel said:
It seems an expensive exercise for a complete waste of time. It's tough for those apps to recover emails though, they more target files.
The biggest problem about an email paper train, is that in court it is generally hard to prove that lets say John Doe, actually physically sent the email that John Doe did.
It could say John Doe, but perhaps Billy Blogg sent it from John Does computer. After all Billy Bloggs knows John Does password because John Does forgetful and left a PostIt Note on his monitor with his password, or went home and didn't log his computer out.
Heck we've been called in to investigate incidents where a cleaner from a company sent an email from a CEOs account under false pretence.
FTR I do not work in federal law enforcement just to clarify that above comment.
Cameron said:
1) There are emails alright, emails from Person A to Person B about Person C and so on all retrieved
2) Des Hasler wont be the Target of Legal action
3) The Legal action may not be taken by manly. (read between the lines)
I have 3 sources for this info who I will not will reveal because I promised them I would not reveal who they are but the owner of this website knows they are real people and know I have this info for atleast 4 weeks.
Vice versa I also have my contacts which have proven numerous times to be correct, and called the Hasler move well before it happened (verified on here with those who needed verification too).
The comment I got fed was that "the emails do not exist". It was not elaborated on as to if it was "they don't exist" or if they actually do not exist.
That said and as mentioned though, the burden of proof from what I've been told in court (and I don't get involved in the legal side of things) needs to be on the accusing parties side. I.E Those taking legal action would need to prove that the accussed actually physically sent the email, not that simply the email was sent from their account.
...........
Anywho we are getting rather off topic aren't we! One thing I agree with you about though, is all the cross club contract talk. NRL need to look into this because there is more in the papers in regards to contract talk, than actual footy it seems these days.
Couple that with idiotic childish commentary and shameless Coles/Ch9 show promotion, and there is really not that much of the actual game going on eh!
