That whole area of testimony confused me and I'm in the software biz. I wanted the State's computer witnesses to explain the site counter worked. Was it a count of the visits to the actual webpage itself, i.e.
www.scispot.com OR a count of visits to the domain name, i.e.
www.scispot.com
AND all of the pages accessed from the main page.
www.scispot.com
www.scispot.com/chloroform
www.scispot.com/chloroform/ingredients
etc
Irregardless, if I'm sitting on that jury ... ONE visit to the the chloroform page coupled with someone typing 'How to Make Chloroform" into Google and someone deleting the search history would've been enough for me. I know software programs are not always perfect, but the fact CA perjured herself about the seaches obviously to protect FCA would have told me that SOME incriminating searches had been done.
And who was the only one home at the time to do the seaches ?
Did the prosecution intend on misleading the jury with the counts ? I think not ...