On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:53:34 +0000 (UTC), William Black
 wrote:

>>>'Strong possibility' and 'reasons to believe' are not enough. The
>>>criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Even is the
>>>prosecution produced both pieces of evidence which you suggest there
>>>would still be room for reasonable doubt that you have a hidden file.
 
>> OK, how's this:
 
>> 1) Large container, but only small amount of data using the key the
>> suspect provided.
>> 2) ISP logs show many visits to "iffy" sites and Google searches using
>> "iffy" search terms.
>> 3) Recent files list of certain applications shows that files with
>> suggestive names were opened on volumes that are not physically present
>> on the PC or the container offered by the defendent.
 
>> Are you confident a jury would not convict on that evidence?

>Intercept evidence is not yet acceptable in an an English court.

I believe it now is accepted - but that point is irrelevant, as all of
the things I mentioned were obtained following a forensic examination
of the seized computer or normal ISP logs, not intercept evidence.

-- 
Cynic