Tesla said it didn't have key data in a fatal crash, then a hacker found it

The hacker is named and you can see his work in the page. Read TFA

Tesla said the data recorded during the crash had been lost or deleted. The hacker produced the data. The data was used in court. The verification is the data. What's your suggestion? That they fabricated the data recovered from the car?

It's paywalled.

I'm not accusing anyone of fabricating anything.

I'm saying we do not have any way to verify the details.

Where is the court document?

Isn't this a forensics expert that testified in court? Why aren't they named? Wouldn't most forensics "hackers" be elated to be quoted?

From the article:

> The hacker, known online by his X handle @greentheonly, did not testify in the case.

It seems like a strange grey zone to have a hacker that uncovers all the information but will not testify in court, etc. I don't see how this wouldn't introduce chain of custody problems, etc. for the evidence which is why he would ultimately be testifying. Perplexing.

EDIT - Meh, whatever. If you guys want to read articles that have zero proof and believe whatever they say because some anonymous hacker is quoted, etc. go for it. I don't get paid to educate anyone here.

From the article:

> The hacker, known online by his X handle @greentheonly, did not testify in the case.

The article is paywalled, but it also only calls the person "the hacker" and then says this:

> The hacker, known online by his X handle @greentheonly, did not testify in the case.

So, we have information that we cannot prove being given by a person who won't testify in court? How is this proper chain of evidence, etc.?