Comments on: Evidence Eliminator™: Not as good as advertised

By: Bill W.

Bill W. — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:03:36 +0000

I have nothing to hide on my computer. I just use Evidence Eliminator occasionally to get rid of the junk that accumulates on my hard drive and slows down the computer. Then I uninstall it afterward because I don’t want to keep anything on my computer that I’m not going to use and to minimize clutter, the whole idea to get rid of stuff that slows down a computer. Besides, I don’t want to prolong startup by having Evidence Eliminator announce itself before allowing Desktop to fall into place.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:36:23 +0000

How is this an article about “Evidence Eliminator not being as good as advertised?” EE does what it’s supposed to do, if you use it to destroy evidence in a trial then you get what you deserve. That’s like saying “Matches not as good as advertised” because someone got into trouble for burning evidence in a court room.

By: Seth

Seth — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:27:47 +0000

Not sure why Kucala didn’t change the date on the computer, install EE, let it do its work, and reset the date, and tweak the log files. EE is a legal program that has legit uses such as protecting data from identity thieves.

By: BubbaCheese

BubbaCheese — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:30:45 +0000

I think the title is misleading. It actually does work quite well and did indeed delete the files in question to a point it was unrecoverable. But it’s not a full disk wipe and if he was any part smart he would have pulled the drive and mounted it to something else, installed it on that and wiped the drive. Or the upcoming next best thing, full disk encryption…

By: Katherine Sparks

Katherine Sparks — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:03:25 +0000

While this appears to be a rather extreme scenario, it is an important reminder of an attorney’s duty to explain the reqiured data preservation and litigation hold to a client.

The remaining question for lawyers is how to work with a client who refuses to adhere to the required preservation in anticipation of litigation.

By: Katherine Sparks

Katherine Sparks — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:03:25 +0000

While this appears to be a rather extreme scenario, it is an important reminder of an attorney’s duty to explain the reqiured data preservation and litigation hold to a client.

The remaining question for lawyers is how to work with a client who refuses to adhere to the required preservation in anticipation of litigation.

By: Tanya Basu

Tanya Basu — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:49:09 +0000

Evidence Eliminator? Seriously? Considering that Kucala prevented an inspection for over 2 months, I wonder if the opposing party could have seized the hard drive through court order.

By: Liza Montesano

Liza Montesano — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:01:04 +0000

This case presents an interesting issue from the perspective of the lawyer involved. Even though Kucala’s lawyer was well-versed in the rules of data preservation and communicated those rules to Kucala, the lawyer could not stop Kucala’s independent refusal to follow those rules. I wonder the lengths to which some attorneys go to try to ensure client compliance with e-discovery rules.