Infantino - FIFA President

*proving not probing

comment by Thor (U22388)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 39 minutes ago
I think part of the thinking is that if an email can be hacked then it can certainly be doctored which is why it's not admissable evidence in most courts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough but usually the onus of probing something is non the one who alleges. If it's doctored as City may claim, they would have to demonstrate that, no? Probably by opening their servers to investigators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If City claim the emails were doctored, then they would provide the originals. But that's not the point here. What is being discussed is whether hacked emails can be used as hard evidence.

Hence, if the court throws out the case against the FIFA president, then that provides a precedent for other cases.

If City claim the emails were doctored, then they would provide the originals. But that's not the point here. What is being discussed is whether hacked emails can be used as hard evidence.
----
Aaah. I get it now. I think they will be admissible. Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible only when the illegal act was actually done by law enforcement of the prosecuting authority.

If the evidence ends up with the prosecution whereas the prosecution have not broken any laws, then it is admissible.

Its no different to when a person is robbed, the robber arrested and evidence of a crime of discovered within the material that had been stolen.

Police won't say they cant use the evidence because it was discovered among stolen items. Many times evidence is sent to prosecutors or law enforcement vial the mail or even by e-mail.

As far as I know, so long as the prosecution themselves did not break any laws in obtaining the evidence then it will be valid.

This is just what I know, not to say its correct in this particular circumstance BTW.

Fair enough but usually the onus of probing something is non the one who alleges. If it's doctored as City may claim, they would have to demonstrate that, no? Probably by opening their servers to investigators.
-----------------------------------------------------
City reckon the emails have been taken out of context and the incriminating ones have been taken out of a chain of emails.

If that's the case then maybe they would allow access to their servers.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
Fair enough but usually the onus of probing something is non the one who alleges. If it's doctored as City may claim, they would have to demonstrate that, no? Probably by opening their servers to investigators.
-----------------------------------------------------
City reckon the emails have been taken out of context and the incriminating ones have been taken out of a chain of emails.

If that's the case then maybe they would allow access to their servers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Easy enough to be honest and would be a bullet to UEFA head for the most part.

Also bear in mind City haven't actually committed a criminal offence here even if CAS decide they have broken the rules.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
Also bear in mind City haven't actually committed a criminal offence here even if CAS decide they have broken the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I know, but similar rules apply, no?

It's a bit hard to follow rules when they change any time it suits favoured teams.

Boycott the Bundesliga. People are dying. We must not let BT send out the message that football is more important than health

comment by Dubbed the new Arteta (U21076)
posted 9 hours, 25 minutes ago
Boycott the Bundesliga. People are dying. We must not let BT send out the message that football is more important than health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?