Hacker News Reader

>his report claims that MIT was “neutral” — but MIT’s lawyers gave prosecutors total access to witnesses and evidence, while refusing access to Aaron’s lawyers to the exact same witnesses and evidence.

I'm sorry, but where exactly did this report, or any other literature on the case, indicate that MIT refused access to the defense's lawyers?

View on HN

Page 76: "MIT did not, reciprocally, voluntarily provide to the defense the same documents that it provided to the government. Similarly, MIT did not produce to the defense, even though requested by subpoena, documents that the defense sought from MIT but that MIT had already provided to the government."

Well yes, but they mention that the reason for this was because the defense could reasonably expect to obtain these documents from the prosecution, and that they didn't want to duplicate their efforts by re-compiling all the evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com