Chapter 14 - The recorder becomes contested
Isolde’s attorney moved to exclude portions of the recorder.
Privacy.
Authenticity.
Incomplete context.
Potential statutory recording issues.
Reasonable.
The device belonged to me.
But Tamsin had activated it.
Did a seven-year-old understand consent law?
No.
Could unlawfully obtained evidence still be used in some civil proceedings?
Depends.
The court avoided broad ruling initially.
Instead:
Digital forensic examiner authenticated original files.
No edits.
Creation dates consistent.
No evidence I instructed Tamsin to record.
That mattered.
Then admissibility handled conversation by conversation.
Some recordings used for child-welfare context.
Some excluded from direct evidentiary use.
Some statements corroborated independently by:
Emails.
Texts.
Logs.
Nora Beckett.
Maribel.
Paul Avery.
That was enough.
The case did not depend on one magic recorder.
Then Tamsin asked:
“Did I do something illegal?”
My stomach turned.
“No.”
“Grandma’s lawyer says bad recording.”
“You are not responsible for adult evidence rules.”
“Can I use recorder again?”
“For what?”
“School play.”
She wanted to practice lines.
I laughed.
“Yes.”
Then stopped.
Maybe not that recorder.
I bought her a cheap child-friendly audio device.
May you like
The original remained preserved with counsel.
I did not want one black box to become the object our whole family orbited forever.
