yeah.

i need to keep pushing for the release, but i should assume, in the end, that i end up more likely to prove that the files have been altered - and are not useful for future court purposes - than i am to actual recover any original files.

see, now i have a problem i have to push to the end point that i can push it - i have stated that certain things happened in the court room, then purchased a transcript and received audio in order to demonstrate it, only to have it suggest otherwise. i claim i'm being given altered audio; it must be assumed that the transcriptionist was given the same thing. but, on it's face, this harms my credibility as a witness. and, it doesn't help that there are - unfounded - accusations of mental illness.

if they're going to change the audio, they're going to change the file stamps, and there's hacks to do it, so that's not even really what i'm looking for. i'm going to be looking for local computer logs - or network traffic, potentially. i don' know how or where this data is stored, and am probably unlikely to get access to that information, directly. but, if i show up in a court and make these accusations, they're going to have to take me seriously - and i'm going to have little choice but to push the point fairly aggressively, to maintain my own credibility.

this is why you shouldn't lie, kids.

should i be posting this here? well, i may be giving them a heads up, but i think i'm better off documenting the point as best i can than i am holding my cards closely. i can make arguments for future purposes, but, in the end, i have little control over decisions made by the court, so there's not a lot of use in hiding my tactics - i will need to expose any plan before i can carry through with it. rather, i'm an advocate of open source software, and trust that the truth comes out in the end, if the process is as transparent as possible.