The above statement alone taken with his earlier claims of

2/23/07

17) I will testify that based on the data recovered from the hard drive that this hard drive does not appear to be the same hard drive that was used to share copyrighted songs as shown by the MediaSentry materials. I will testify based on the forensics examination of the hard drive that was copied from the computer owned by the defendant that the computer had no evidence of the KaZaA program nor was there any evidence of the KaZaA program ever being installed on the computer, although the MediaSentry data showed the computer connected to the defendant’s Internet account was running the KaZaA program.

Its a well known and provable fact that if any program was installed on the machine in one of the local drives or on an external drive the path (including drive letter) to the application involved would show up in the windows registry, we have his own testimony stating he checked this and found no such thing, in short he is confirming that the defendants are innocent of the allegations laid against them, nice work undemining your own case dr doug.

What he seems to be doing in my opinion is trying to claim that MediaSentry saw “something” on their system so it must be correct, to take this non logical path and try to make a case “fit” by missing out important and relevant facts reveals this man to be no more than a security “fraudster”, shame on him.

In furtherance of refuting this guys claims it would perhaps be useful to introduce MediaDefenders stolen src code into the equation as that is a system specifically designed to flood a p2p network with fake paths to files and generate fake IP’s, who is to say these inocent folks are not a victim of the industries own attacks on p2p in general, an interesting question would be what where MediaDefender flooding on the days and times of the industries claims against theses ppl ?