You said — “Without access to the prof’s online in box, assuming the email has not been deleted from the server, you may never have your evidence.”
It would involve the cooperation of the professor. If he did not want to cooperate, then no one is going to go anywhere with this. I mentioned this as a way to prove it, but the professor may not be interested in proving it. And really, why prove it, since, as I was saying up above, the goal has been acomplished, to get it out into some major media sources and *document* it, to use for future propaganda. That’s the nature of “leaks”, too. That’s the purpose of leaks, besides a few other purposes.
This is sort of akin to a leak, in the way it’s been presented to us. So, there’s no incentive and no need (in terms of the goal being accomplished) to cooperate with any requests for proof.
.
In terms of what I said about “in-house” was simply to say that it would be easier if it were in-house. And it’s more probable than not. Everyone has access to an in-house account at all the universities. Now, whether someone uses it or not, is another story. However, they have a lot of resources for students using “in-house” accounts, therefore you will find students doing that. For example, you’ll get Lexis/Nexis information for free (in a lot of cases) by signing into your university account. You have a lot of bonuses for doing that. And they had an in-house communication system going on with the student’s. I picked that up by reading a few of their blogs.
It’s definitely more likely than not likely.
Regards,
Star Traveler
“It would involve the cooperation of the professor. If he did not want to cooperate, ...”
Cooperate ... meaning breaking the confidence of anonymous ?
Tell me, just how would he prove it without allowing anonymous to be revealed ?