Footage of dept. store security videos presented as evidence of shoplifting.

[1ancientfuture1]

The defendent recieved a memorex CD-RW disc containing the security footage; which is not read by defendent's computer. The defendent did briefly view the content of the disc at the prosecuters office; which might signify the defendents computer is not equipped to read such a disc, as none of the 12 or so media players the computer contains were able to read the disc. Also failing in the task are the defendents two distinct DVD players; five or more separate computer systems at the public library; at the high school library; and at the community college aswell. The defendent could continue playing musical chair lotto, trying to find a computer compatible to read the disc the prosecution provided as their evidence against the defendent; or commons sense would indicate to go use the system that was and probably is able to read the disc, in which the prosecutors assistants and the defendent could share a desk for as long as it would take the defense to examine the evidence. This matter is an obvious violation to the rights of evidence (which I do not know about) or I am obvously a moron. But somewhere in between--filing a motion to dismiss the case, and sitting idle awaiting the interpretor that will never arrive--there is sustance to serve the defensive tactics. Question being to this extent, what, if anything, may be done to: terminate proceedings; inadmissable evidence; or too at least have them provide; no scratch that, I do not know the law, but how many opportunities does the defense have when it provided a paper its counterpart was not able to examine within reasonable reasources; and when informed there-of, basically said-that's your problem to figure out. Well, Thank You for your attentiveness.

 

[shrinkmaster]

You say you viewed tape? What is on tape you feel will aid your defense and does Prosecution list it as evidence?

 

[disagreeable]

You have the evidence. You know it is there. Why is it their fault you cannot watch it? Try looking at the file type and obtaining a viewer that will allow you to see it. Try a Mac.

 

[shrinkmaster]

In the past I have used intellex videos for some of my investigations. I have even taken these disc home to work on. When I load the disc it gives me the option to download the software needed to view video footage. This might be case here as well. Load the disc and see if such an option comes up. If so download the software you can always remove it later

 

[1ancientfuture1]

I ask that my caveman mentality bears understanding; mac-big mac, mac & cheese, macintosh- yes, amongst the various computers used throughout the city, macintosh was one of the various models used aswell, and for each computer there were at least ten media players utilized. Windows Media Player is what it played on at the office. The defendent is aware of the option to go speak with the prosecutors assistants and maybe they could demonstrate a step-by-step...common steps stepped commonly; heeding to their advice to figure it out yourself, leads to pursuit the other resources. e.g. geek squad and law jocks... As to calling it evidence, I am making that assumption, that it is presented with that purpose. The defendent briefly viewed the content that was shown in the computer on the desk of the prosecutors assitant at the office of the prosecutor. I am neither knowledgable to a great extent with high tech or law sense, or for that matter in anything. I am one that will summon all of what I am knowledgable of to declare, or give an account of the proceedings. How does one know what is listed as evidence? Is their a list? You see, I do not know of the formalities with the practice of law; I do know well, according to my understanding, how the events unfold. So according to my comprehension-or what has happened concearning this case-I call the video evidence in that it came in the manilla folder via mail along with not more than 15 sheets of paper. I do not have a lawful status to represent the defendent; I do not have the knowledge to represent the defendent in legal matters. Somehow, I am involved this much--whether it is little to none or way too much, and causing more harm than just getting in the way--my involvement in a matter that is not mine will define the essential attribute of an attorney, but without the fees, like the members of this site, but without the caring. ancientfuture lives to ownwonnow with a know purpose profit or nonsense type of doctrine. That being said, concides to disagree that in fact I do have the evidence to install sight of the doubt that they themselves have toward what they are trying to prove to be without. If it is said the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable dought, then it is said the defense must install reasonable doubt. Now, I, will say again, make visable the doubt of the accusor. Enlighten the audience (jury) with the silence of violence a.k.a. plea bargaining, since the right to a speedy trial is for all. I have not veiwed the content of the tape; I do know I will serve with aggression to shine light on the doubts, or how about this, their will be proof to the doubt the prosecution extends beyond the courtroom, as they think amonst themselves, yeah, I doubt they'll get that video to play, in an attempt to obstruct a diligent examination by the defense (who to begin with is without appointed or afforded council) but with the amount of time they have had to pick and choose what to use, and with which words and how to associate them to present their case, and will again speak thereafter what will sufiece as a rebuttall; that which only leaves the defense the extend a Thank You for your attentiveness.

 

[mightymoose]

It may work in a DVD player.

 

[disagreeable]

If they played it in media player, you need the correct codex file for media player. Look at the file on the disc and google the file type, such as "mp3 media player" or "mp3 play file".