Forum Overview :: Still Life :: Re: Confirmation of the log's validity would likely come from the accused.

[quote name="I need clarification"][quote name="Jerry Whorebach"]First, the cops would ask about the conversation before the suspect knew how they were privy to it, hoping he would admit to typing those words. Later, provided the log was allowed into evidence (by that one incompetent/sexist judge?), the prosecutor would ask the defendant - under oath - if those were his words, and it would come down to the jury to decide if he's lying. At least, that's how it works on Law & Order.[/quote] But the guy would be convicted at the half hour mark and we'd be like, "Well, is the rest of the episode Jack McCoy begging everyone to drink whiskey with him?" But Jack would feel equally cheated and then Serena or whoever would say, "So Jerry Whorebach goes to jail, but AOL just keeps making money off AIM. hardly seems fair." Jack would look at Arthur and raise his eyebrows all the way off his head and say (while shaking his head in a Parkinsony way), "Maybe it isn't. Maybe we're treating the symptom instead of the disease?" Arthur would look down, then look back up and say in a jowl-wiggly way, "AOL's board sits by while crimes are committed on their property. Seems to me if you do nothing it's the same as aiding and abetting." That's all Jack the Junkyard Dog needs to hear and he's already snapping at Serena, "Get me all of AOL's AIM logs from the past three years. AOL thinks they're above reproach. Let's tell them they have mail... a subpoena."[/quote]