And onto some other news of interest – because this case relies heavily on computer evidence (or lack thereof as it currently stands), Bill requested that a computer expert be brought in to explain a few issues involving the spurious nature of events. This request was denied on the grounds that the prosecution wasn’t going to use a computer expert to present its evidence.
In effect this means that there is no one qualified to comment on the evidence involved, despite it all revolving around computers and internet communications. As such, none of it can be adequately proven nor disproven.
Apparently the prosecution doesn’t feel the need to be able to verify its evidence, and therefore Bill isn’t allowed to either. Interesting logic, and rather odd that a case revolving so much around internet communications doesn’t seem to want a computer expert to examine the evidence.