At 04:26 PM 5/29/2001 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> My name came up several times during the Bell trial,
>with the connection being that it was "in a message to Ray
>Dillinger" that Bell hatched an idea for using PCB's to
>destroy the value of seized automobiles, and that this letter
>"to Ray Dillinger" was found on the seized computer.
>
> The fact is, that message was not written to me. It
>was written to the cypherpunks list. The message was not in
>response to anything I wrote, either. The only thing that
>connects me to that message is that I responded to it, suggesting
>putrescene instead and pointing out that it, unlike PCB's, is
>perfectly legal to apply to your own property prior to seizure.
What about this later message, which was in response to your message re PCB's?
<http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.10.16-2000.10.22/msg00416.html>
The archive doesn't keep all of the header information, so it's not clear
from that record whether or not you also appeared on a To: or CC: or Bcc:
line.
> I have not been accused of anything, nor yet charged,
>subpeona'd, or detained. But this error in the record worries
>me. And in the future it could worry potential employers, etc.
>I believe that there is a substantial risk that this erroneous
>information in the public record will do me harm.
According to Declan's summary of testimony, it's possible that the computer
forensics guy was describing a message which was in fact never sent - he
said he saw a message which was attributed to Jim that was addressed to you
on the subject "judges needed killing".
He didn't say whether or not the message was sent to you, nor did he
describe your reaction to it - perhaps you agreed, perhaps you didn't.
> Is there any procedure for correcting the record?
No, because there is no "record", per se, of true facts - there's a record
of what people's testimony was, but nobody thinks all testimony is true. It
can't be - it's often contradictory, even within the statements of a single
witness on a single day.
> Are there any consequences to the prosecution for making
>such an error in their case?
There was no error, and there will be no "consequences". Your remedy lies
at the ballot box - don't vote for the president who appointed the Attorney
General (or the senators who confirmed the appointment) who appointed the
person who hired Robb London.
> I don't believe the identity of
>the presumed "person the message was written to" is germane to
>the case, so on the one hand I don't think the error affects
>their case at all and on the other, I don't know why a name had
>to be trotted out in court in the first place.
If there was no name, someone (shit, probably me) would be complaining that
the government was using secret, perhaps fabricated, evidence to convict
Jim. Using your name forces them into one version of their story which can
be investigated, refuted, or confirmed - if they were permitted to testify
about unnamed co-conspirators, their story would be unimpeachable and
uncontradictable, because every question raised would be answered with
"Well, that's not the message/person, it was someone else."
Your complaints about factual inaccuracy, while a few weeks late to be
helpful in this case, are exactly what are supposed to keep witnesses and
trials honest, and exactly what open trials are supposed to produce. If you
(or the prosecution, or the defense) were permitted to keep potentially
embarrassing or erroneous information out of public view, the risk of
perjury would be much lower, and the accuracy of trials' already dubious
results would degrade further.
> The fact that it
>was my own name (false information) and that there is a risk
>that it will do me harm is upsetting.
When you started talking about tainting about-to-be-seized cars with PCB's
with Jim Bell, what did you think was going to happen? Jim deliberately
seeks law enforcement attention and conflict - if you correspond with him
on those topics, you should expect to find your correspondence entered into
evidence sooner or later, and yourself called as a witness.
--
Greg Broiles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Organized crime is the price we pay for organization." -- Raymond Chandler
