- 13 -
Petitioner contends that some of the computer records were
fabricated because a witness at his criminal trial said that the
type of computer that Seth Wapnick used was first sold to the
public on December 9, 1985, which is after most of the first year
in issue. We disagree. First, there is no evidence in our
record to support petitioner’s contention. Second, even if the
December 9, 1985, date is correct, after Seth Wapnick obtained
the computer he could have entered data relating to periods
before he obtained the computer.
Petitioner contends Rosenblatt and Gold’s testimony about
the computer records was not credible. We disagree. Rosenblatt
and Gold testified credibly and in detail. In contrast,
petitioner’s testimony was vague and unconvincing on this point.
Petitioner points out that a document entitled “Declaration
of Andrew Rosenblatt”, an exhibit in his criminal case and
attached as part of Exhibit 44-P in this case, had many
handwritten markings on it. We admitted another copy of the
document without markings as Exhibit 30-R. Rosenblatt did not
know who made the handwritten markings on the attachment to
Exhibit 44-P, and he could not explain why they were made.
Petitioner contends that Rosenblatt’s testimony on these points
shows that his testimony is not credible. We disagree.
Rosenblatt’s inability to explain handwritten markings on
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011