Salleyport thoughts

I have a thought and I hope the defense has the same thought(or better, they are so smart).

The videos that were given to the defense at trial, we have now been told, we videos that were ripped from the police security camera server and saved to some detectives Icloud.

Ok. I buy that. I can work with that.

Now, this detective either did 1 of two things.

Either he:

1.) Downloaded some length of time from some start time to some end time for a given camera.

Or

2.) Downloaded certain time segments of a given camera. In other words, 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there, and so on.

Now, if he did method 1, the fact that the defense has been given these files piecemeal years later, seems like it should absolutely match the definition of brady violation.

If he did method 2, then when the defense goes to view/download the data off of that icloud, there better be a file of the salleyport that is identical to the one shown at trial with a creation date before the date it was shown on trial. (Ditto for all other videos as well). If the one on his cloud is not equivalent in every way to the one shown at trial, it proves 100% someone manipulated it somewhere.

The only way the prosecution could remotely be not guilty is if for whatever reason they have already turned over every file that was moved to this guys account and no manipulation was done after receiving these files.

And I hope there is some way to prove every time a file was accessed or manipulated, or a deleted history. Or whatever.

Lastly, when they go to his cloud account, there better be no missing videos, aka the salleyport video that was supposed to be from his account, better be there.