Yeah, even assuming the document to be legitimate—which props because if fake, it is a high-effort and pretty convincing fake—I would guess that the child got exposed to cocaine powder by interacting with objects contaminated with cocaine, but did not actually take it.
The crappy quality lends credence to an office device, they're generally poorly maintained, never cleaned and never repaired until they fail totally. If it produces readable output and is not on fire then the office staff likely won't call to get it fixed.
It wouldn't probably be a random lawyer, if it was one. If you were a lawyer you wouldn't be able to see documents like this from a case you're not on. They'd have a protective order at the very least. That's why if it's real, I would lean towards either court staff or attorney firm staff.
Either way, he's fucked.
I wouldn't call that trivial, most people know images have metadata nowadays but PDF scans? I'm going to bet it's new to a bunch of you.
They are swingers, I wouldn't be shocked if they brought some unsavory motherfuckers over that were into that shit. Especially from a club called "gay 90s"Honestly the worst case scenario is that they were actually abusing that child and giving her drugs and alcohol in order to make her pliable.
No way did she accidentally come in contact with it while the other children didn't to test for medium use. With the high amount she must have taken (remember those numbers are for adults and she's 9) there's no way this was a "mom confused the pill" or "she found it and tasted it" situation.
Whoever leaked this committed a crime.
Don’t forget about Kayla. This explains the child abuse charge she caught.
Its likely been accumulated over the course of weeks, if not months, and is not 'active' so to speak unlike testing positive in urine or blood. I'm sure we've got a chemist autist who can explain it better, but what you put into you actively affects the bits of you that grow like hair and nails and leaves traces behind. You could scrub, bleach, do whatever you want to the hair; the chemical traces would still remain.
Whoever leaked this hates Nick:
In the town’s square at the gazebo. #Rope4Pope
People frequently use legal research/couriers to make records requests. And, though uncommon, even a protected record does occasionally slip through the cracks. If its real, however, I imagine they'll check to see who made the request in the first place (many places keep records of that) and then it could get back traced and consequences will never be the same.
It's not even close to impossible. There are named attorneys representing Mr and Ms Balldo. That's not public information are far as I am aware, and if that's correct, we can assume the document is as well. No one has to confirm anything other than representation and anyone could ring these people up and ask. You could even do it in a roundabout way if they're not inclined to answer.
According to OP:
Wasn’t it previously established to be CeciliaJayne, though?
There's a digital signature on it as well. Which could mean, if it's real, it was taken from a printed out packet of documents related to the case. There's a lot of theory-crafting that could go into explaining the reasons a document with a digital signature would need to end up printed out as well. It might also be the easiest vector for something leaking as well. As hard duplicate of the documents kept for some reason might not be soo tightly tracked.
