I doubt the judge will be less of a boomer or more accepting of technical arguments. Do we really expect then to understand 'metadata' and the like?
If they get to that. The main current argument is that Pomplun deliberately tried to mislead the judge - even if there is no difference between what he watched and what what was on Nick's channel - they've made a characterization of a?/ the?/ all? restream(s) being somehow meaningfully different from a recording published by the original channel and characterize a restream as an "altered" video.
"Altered," of course, could mean anything, but rather than being precise (bc they don't know; or know but consider it someone else's burden to prove now; or just don't care bc "alter" sounds like something big maybe even possibly shady, and their game is creating an impression that nothing is real/ "what if"/ you literally can't believe your eyes...and
POMPLUN KNEW).
Guarantee they'll have some pixel-parser on the stand if this ever gets that far.
But for now they're trying to say, specifically, that Pomplun lied* and more generally to impugn him to cast doubt on his personal/ professional ethics and his integrity (can hardly believe they felt they needed to say it directly; guess they thought the judge would be too dim to get the point, being only the third-smartest person in the room and all). Couldn't resist impugning Fischer, either, which was a nice touch.
Funny, for all the "look at the logo -
LOOK AT IT" noise, they've provided nothing to support the contention that anything was done deliberately. Just, "those are two different sources" and "when things are shown on different channels they are "altered,"" and "Pomplun did not state in his page and a half affidavit that he watched it (solely? Also? Unclear.) on a channel other than one owned by Nick." It's calling for 1 + 1 + x = 3, when x could be anything.
The argument about KCHHS having passed on the mandated reporter report as sufficient to show negligence/ endangerment is deliberately obtuse. What was KCHHS looking at? Just the one report? (Maybe I missed this.) The PC affidavit was based on the mandated reporter report, plus the video, plus additional observation of videos, plus additional investigation.
If KCHHS made a decision prior to awareness of all that, then it's irrelevant what they originally decided. The warrant was for drugs. That there were children there wasn't irrelevant, but the warrant had a different primary purpose than what KCHHS would have been focusing on. Once drugs were confirmed, the KCHHS had additional info to evaluate the situation from a child protection standpoint. Nick would have two different agencies with two different purposes and two different sets of information be trapped in some infinite loop of inability to act.
KCHHS's assessment appears to have had no bearing on the police's assessment that they had probable cause for a warrant for drugs, and was not relevant to the judge's evaluation of that request. Different agencies have different abilities to act.
)
