Like I stated I am no Kratz fan. But now we are question a person's expertise because they do not have personal access to phone records. Even when he testified that he regularly reviews Cingular records.
He was an expert in the voicemail platform and that is what is was in question.
"fancy title" so anyone that is a network engineer is just a normal person with a fancy title?
Even thought it take years of schooling and education as well as updating to do this job.
If Kratz faked these records (which were subpoenaed from Cingular) why would the records show that voicemail was deleted. The Defence used these same documents to show that voicemail was deleted and accessed. The Judge stopped the defence from further questioning because of the Denny Rule.
There are many network engineers that have testified in court. They have used voicemail information to verify computer pings etc. So if you say this person was not able to testify then all other that have been used in cases would not be able to either.
with only the information handed to him, not general information about the account itself..
He was answering questions about the account's voicemail between the dates of October 31 - Early November. I am sure a Network engineer would from Sprint would not comment on the protocols or documents from another company. If you pulled some from their company they would because they are an expert in their field.
This is the general information that he was questioned about.
She states that Kratz forged document or made up phone records but that is not the full truth he did give the defence these documents which omit many of the calls she received as well as calls that Steven made and they should not have been admitted into court which the defence did argue about while the jury was dismissed.
On page 2 and 3
Look I believe that there was unprofessional conduct by Kratz and should be held accountable but her premise would never hold up in a court of law or bring Kratz down on legal ethical standards.