"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no evidence
is
found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
computer
activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
he
visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

True.

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
"consultant". If the expert finds useful evidence he will be converted to a
"witness". If he does not find useful evidence there will never be any
record of his work. If they are smart there will not even be a written
report.

Michael