Defendant was charged with embezzling money from county-owned utility. Even though former supervisor had been criminally charged for similar activities, law enforcement thought defendant was also involved. Careful analysis of the “in out” records with the questioned transactions, as well as defendant’s sick and vacation time, was productive. The defense was able to show that her computer was used when she was not at work, at lunch or on bank errands. Her supervisor is only person who had access codes for defendant’s computer when she was not there. Also, some of questioned transactions occurred remotely when the office was closed. The defendant did not have these capabilities. The trail led back to the fired supervisor who, apparently, was trying to reduce her restitution.