[Ryan]

(Fyi at work on my lunch break, so expect grammar and spelling errors)

To answer, #1 and #2, on 4/21 it was brough up that a small portion of the evidence appeared to be missing extra context aside for the exhcange of messes in it. (That being context outside the 10 or so messages in that singular piece of evidenece) on 7/8 it was found thaf much more, if not nearly all of the evidence from that person was null and void.  Leaving just the evidence of a different person that was mentioned in the original post here.

Thank you. That clears up quite a bit, actually.

Follow-up question 1) Was it immediately apparent on 4/21 that the context was intentionally omitted? If so, what was the reasoning for trusting the rest of the evidence brought forth by this person and still not giving the accused a chance to provide context to the matter? Was the remaining evidence really that damning to the point where it was unfathomable that there could be any explanation for it?

Follow-up question 2) Was the person that changed the context of the evidence they provided someone that was approached by the admin team, or did they come forward all on their own without any prompting? If they were approached by the admin team, how did the miscommunication stated in Tdawg's original post happen? Did they simply fail to understand the use of what they were sharing, or were they misled, not told at all?