Re: The Genetics of the British


"Peter Duncanson" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t1k1f1h6vm6e88atkltt6orrpgamoeona4@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:41:21 +0000 (UTC), "Pat Gardiner"
> <patgardiner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Duncanson" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:77gve150vrrdf003pu0dk2qhd1703oiq1s@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> Before you can start a legal action against Jim you need rock solid
>>> proof,
>>> or an admission, that the "Jim Webster" who posted every one of the
>>> "Defamatory" messages is the real live farmer of that name. (Do not sue
>>> the
>>> wrong Jim Webster in Cumbria.)
>>
>>I appreciate your efforts to defuse the situation.
>>
>>Yes, I was aware that there was more than one Jim Webster in Cumbria and
>>that evidence of indentification would be required if Jim denies the
>>postings.
>>
>>Jim would not allow an innocent party to be blamed even by accident. His
>>pride will not let him do that.
>>
>>If he does and is proved wrong, frankly he will draw the wrath of the
>>Court
>>and will probably lose on that point alone. What the CLA and the local
>>community will have to say is another matter.
>>
>>These things are not just sterile law, but also commonsense. Which
>>actually
>>has been my point all along.
>>
>>I ran honest, solvent and reliable businesses. I'm proud of an unblemished
>>record.
>>
>>There is no way that I will tolerate libel like this and I don't have to.
>>English Lw provides me with plenty of remedies and I have the cash and
>>confidence to invoke their protection.
>>>
>>> If flesh-and-blood Jim chooses not to admit that he posted the messages
>>> you
>>> would need the services of a Computer Forensics Investigator.
>>
>>Correct.
>>>
>>> There are various well established companies offering Computer Forensics
>>> such as Vogon International. However, the charges for their expert
>>> services
>>> might be out of your league.
>>> http://www.vogon.co.uk/computer-forensics/investigation-services.htm
>>
>>I doubt whether I will need them.
>>
>>You forget perhaps that I founded and ran a number of computer companies.
>>In
>>their day they were pretty high flying. The PLC is still very important,
>>profitable and a flagship for the industry.
>>
>>Although I have no talent in such matters, the companies specialised even
>>then in expert software. The staff are still about and some will recall me
>>with enough affection to help.
>
> Computer forensics is a highly specialised field. It requires a detailed
> knowledge of what the courts require in the form of technical evidence.
> This
> involves knowing what information to collect in such a way that it has,
> and
> does not lose, evidential value.
>
> The difference is the same as that between, on the one hand, the practice
> of
> medicine for curing people, and on the other, the practice of forensic
> medicine.
>
> The vast majority of computer experts have no training in computer
> forensics. I suspect that this is the case in the companies you founded.
>
> My knowledge of the subject is very limited. It started with a phone call
> (late 1970s?) from Detective Inspector John Austen of the Metropolitan
> Police Computer Crime Unit. He was on the track of a hacker. He had seen
> that the hacker had accessed our mainframe computer. He wanted us to
> collect
> evidence for his investigation. I passed the matter over to my computer
> networking and operations colleagues. They were given detailed
> instructions
> on the collection, labelling and storage of information, so that it would
> be
> usable in court as evidence. This was a simple business from our point of
> view.
> Eventually the suspect's home was raided, and more imcriminating material
> found. As it happened my colleagues did not need to go to court to give
> evidence regarding the data they had collected from our systems. There was
> plenty of evidence from other sources.
>
> It was quite clear to us that had we not collected, labelled and stored
> the
> data correctly it would have been unusable as evidence.
>
> Since then the technical aspects of computer use and misuse have become
> much
> more complicated. Naively collected and handled data for use in court
> would
> likely be of much less value than if it had been processed properly. And
> of
> course, the naive collection of data can result in important data not
> being
> collected, simply because no one thought of collecting it.
>
> I haven't heard of a case of anyone being sued for libel published in the
> form of messages in a Usenet newsgroup. This might be a legal first. Much
> education of lawyers and the judge would be required. Educating your
> lawyers
> would be costly enough; educating a judge in court would be even more
> costly.

I think you are going in far too deeply. Do you really think that Jim would
deny an actual posting? Whatever his faults, that does not sound his style.

I notice he has not denied the posting and I would be amazed if he did do.
His credibility would plummet.

If he did, and after initial advice and checks, I decided to proceed, I
would get an informal check by friends. If this came up positive, I would
know that an expert would find the same. There would be no question of
amateurs contaminating the evidence. You are right. It would be extremely
expensive, but of course, I would already know that the funds are available
to pay me. That investigation would take priority.

In the end, one way or another, it would not go that far. Very few of these
disputes end up in Court. That does not mean that they are not painful, but
so is being libelled.

All commercial cases, as against criminal, are a mixture of law and
practicality.

I would not be quite so dismissive of lawyers and judges. The last couple I
saw in action, were banging away at their portables. Do you think they don't
read newsgroups?

On the question of libel on a newsgroup. I'm not up to date on case law, but
there will be very little in an area usually associated with teenagers,
eccentrics and geeks.

There are some heavy weights here, most unusually. In a sense, that changes
the picture on the practical side.

That I was libelled is indisputable. The only real question is who did it,
which I have covered and its importance. That one of the parties is from the
CLA adds considerable interest.

As I say, the journalists are in action - and I think the last one said he
came via ukba.

Now, I think in the interests of the dignity of "our" Chairman, we should
quietly close this matter. For me to take it further, without a second
offence, would simply be vindictive.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com
>
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson
> UK (posting from uba)
>
> "In the beginning was The Tautology."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Genetics of the British
    ... >> wrong Jim Webster in Cumbria.) ... >If he does and is proved wrong, frankly he will draw the wrath of the Court ... >> There are various well established companies offering Computer Forensics ... knowledge of what the courts require in the form of technical evidence. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • [Full-disclosure] [Fwd: Returned post for forensics@securityfocus.com]
    ... prison for crimes they didn't commit based solely on digital evidence. ... the list moderators for the forensics list ... that was obtained through the involvement of 'computer forensics'. ... security was a UCMJ court martial where the DODCFL took care to locate ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • RE: Initial Machine login - Computer Forensics 101
    ... Many forensic analysts/experts who testify or examine evidence may not ... the analysis will be filed in the court. ... Initial Machine login - Computer Forensics 101 ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Professor Sir Roy Meadow wins court battle - MSP
    ... Professor Sir Roy Meadow today won his court battle over an order to ... have him struck off for giving mistaken evidence in the Sally Clark ... His findings were welcomed by Professor Meadow and professional bodies. ... He was acclaimed as an expert in the field of Sudden Infant Death ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Trotta, 2007 SCC 49. Date: 20071108 Docket: 30987
    ... Marco Trotta and Anisa Trotta ... reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. ... offences - Fresh expert evidence available after convictions upheld on ... Court of Appeal upheld their convictions. ...
    (soc.culture.canada)
Loading