So are they digital files that can be accessed today? I realize when they were created they were digital but today are only hard copy?
Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
"in their original form". I used those words for a reason. Archived emails are not necessarily "in their original form". Printouts are definitely not. Emails saved off to a local system aren't. Etc.
When PSU was given the "preservation notice", many of the original emails were likely no longer in their original form (in their original location on the email server, etc). Many were likely at that point already only available in an archive (either a backup, or an individual user's archive, or saved off as files, or even printed off).
Yes. The AG's IT expert testified he received a copy of Schultz's "network file share" that contained all of his 1998 and 2001 emails.
What you don't get is that all of the points relate to the authenticity of the emails in question -- that is, a proper chain of custody was not established and the AG's actions in the case don't make sense if the February 2001 email said in July 2011 what it said in July 2012.
Or are you really that dense?
The location of storage has nothing to do with the contents of an email -- the point of the discussion at hand. A phrase doesn't get inserted in an email when it is archived.
Again, all PSU has to do is provide the files from the (Schultz) archive and the questions about authenticity/alteration can be can be settled.
Yes, they do. Archiving an email, moving it from one system to another, downloading it to one client versus another before printing, all of these things can change the apparent content of the email - at least, things like   or timestamps. Easily.
None of those other points PROVE that the emails AREN'T authentic, which is what you've tried to claim. They are efforts to establish reasonable doubt that they might not be, but they are entirely unconvincing. Dealing with emails from 1998 or 2001 is inherently problematic. If the defendants honestly want to assert that they did not say the words in these emails, I posit that they should be willing to testify to that effect in their trials. Otherwise, I'm going to file this with a lot of your stuff into "stuff thrown against the wall in the hopes some of it sticks".
If doing those things changes either the metadata or the actual content of the email messages, then whatever you're doing has big, big problems.
Emails might DISPLAY differently depending on the interface that's used, but those other things should not change.
As seen just yesterday, even Ray himself had to admit that the 'timestamp' (not really, but that's what he's calling it) of the message can change based on just which client is being used to display it (i.e. adjusted for local timezone).
It all depends on what, precisely, you're talking about. My entire point from the beginning is that email is not and never has been the kind of technology where one could look at an extra space after a period, or a time difference, and conclude it means anything.
How about Rashard Casey or the Hoboken police department? As a matter of fact, I will let you make such a judgment with perfect hindsight. Now be insane.
And to date, I have not concluded anything from that information alone. I have said that it, combined with the chain of custody issue, and lack of appropriate action by the OAG if the email was authentic in July 2011, provide reasonable doubt to its authenticity. And I have said, since August 8, 2012 that the solution is to pull the original file. After having it reviewed by five independent experts, none of whom I knew prior to the scandal, they agreed that the email in question -- and a few others -- should be compared to the originals to ensure they are authentic.
Penn State has the original files -- and refuses to let anyone access them. They have paid out millions to one victim to keep him from getting his hands on the original Freeh Source Materials.
I've never claimed that -- ever.
Perhaps they are unconvincing to you, but only because you are being unreasonable.
At a trial, if the prosecutors attempted to admit a piece of fingerprint evidence that they admitted went missing from the evidence room and then was found and returned, do you honestly believe that evidence doesn't have an authenticity problem? Well, that's what the prosecution's forensic expert testified to in this case. That those files were MISSING, then returned.
Last edited:
And again, that is not the issue. The issue is content..
..and it is clear that you have not examined the evidence in this case.
BYE
It was only a matter of time....... The circle jerk from TOS is now infiltrating in full force
Hey! Joe! Lol. Can you please pull this guy back over to TOS?
as an IT professional, I'll make 2 observations that go hand in hand
the emails are, in my opinion, unquestionably altered
and dahmus doesn't know jack sh*t about SMTP or archiving emails
the emails are, in my opinion, unquestionably altered
and dahmus doesn't know jack sh*t about SMTP or archiving emails
Bill Levinson has done a lot of investigative work as well and has presented some interesting documentation.
You're either a liar or an idiot - since you said nothing about Ray's cringe-worthy claim recently that a (precisely) 4 hour difference between 2 views of the same email from 2 different inboxes indicated another 'alternation'.
Hope this helps.
First, this isn't about me, it's about the evidence. So, I admitted that I slipped up -- as I was evaluating the 4,900 documents from the Corman case - and noting interesting things on twitter. But if you want to make it about me, then I invite you to compare my record for accuracy against, say Louis Freeh's or Sara Ganim's.
Second, your argument all along that I said the html tags was "proof" of alteration was a lie -- a straw man argument. I have based the suspicion of alteration on myriad evidence, not an html tag.
Finally, I understand that you and the rest of your NAMBLA buddies want to discredit me because you don't want the child protection system to be fixed. Well, your little campaign against me isn't going to matter a whit because those failures are being exposed again in the Tutko case. And the Tutko case reveals the systemic problem of CYS ignoring repeat complaints (e.g., Sandusky 1998,then 2001).
http://fox43.com/2015/06/04/dauphin...rray-missed-referrals-to-help-tutko-children/
Last edited:
It shows your mindset. Whenever you see something, you're evaluating it through the lens that the emails MUST be invalid. That's all. As for "NAMBLA buddies", you are treading on thin ice. My motivation here is to stop you and the truthers from making our alumni look even worse than we already do.
mdahmus. You have already admitted that Penn State is hiding something bad. You've said that what they are hiding is "damaging and incriminating". But yet you keep coming up with lame excuses to keep that "damaging and incriminating stuff" hidden. Why???
One thing you have convinced me of in this thread is that whatever Email Freeh used isn't worth the paper or media it is written on. When you tell me phrases can be mistakenly inserted on transfer, that right there tells me he could have doctored anything he wanted and used the same pathetic excuses you are to try to explain it.
Who the heck are you trying to protect?
You're delusional.
I said it's possible they are preventing the release of more information because there's stuff in there which is more damaging. This is not an extraordinary claim. I have no visibility into what that damaging information might be, or how much of it there might be, or who it might or might not implicate. I have said it's a guess. It's also a plausible explanation, just like the explanations I provided as possible reasons the emails look funny to some of you are more plausible than Ray's claims that nefarious activity has definitely been shown.
I said Ray's comments, at BEST, indicate that one can't use the precise formatting of, and timestamps of (compared to each other, anyways), emails to prove they were altered. The content of the emails (the words in them, not the formatting; not which time zone the timestamp is displayed in; not how many HTML space characters were inserted as a result of a transition activity) is what's important.
Finally, Freeh was not operating under the standard of a criminal trial. If a defense team, rather than an investigator, wants to use logic like Ray's to establish reasonable doubt, it might work IF AND ONLY IF the formatting and timestamp stuff was critical to the claims being made. In this case I don't think that's true.
I'm trying to protect the image of our school as "not completely full of lunatics".
Hope this helps.
"My motivation here is to stop you and the truthers from making our alumni look even worse than we already do.".........I'll take you at your word here mdahmus.
I believe that may very well be your motivation.....because you likely are well aware that the TRUTH will make a lot of folks (many of whom may be Alumni) look a LOT worse than they already do.
Once the smokescreens, the lies, the diversions, the deceptions, are all blown away - it is very likely that some very "powerful" people (or - at least people who view themselves as powerful) will be left with their pants around their ankles.
Oh.....and I was asked to pass this message along to you:
The circle-jerkers on TOS miss you and want you back. Truth be told - I think they are a tad bit jealous that you seem to have been smitten by another suitor. They had the impression that they had an "exclusive" with you.
I don't want to get in the middle of a lover's triangle.......but I thought you would want to know.
Again, I NEVER said those formatting issues were PROOF of anything...so please quit repeating this false argument. And again, the defense teams will use the totality of the evidence, especially the chain of custody issue - which you flatly refuse to even address!!!
Again, I have repeatedly stated that there is a suspected content change in the email that can only be proven by comparing the known version to the original file. Yet, you somehow keep missing that - even though I have said it every time I have addressed this issue since August 2012.
And it shows your mindset that you are calling the many thousands of alumni who reject the Freeh Report, lunatics.
Freeh's last four investigations have been discredited, yet you want to take the Ken Frazier approach and give him a pass that he wasn't using a criminal, beyond reasonable doubt standard. Well, I got news for you -- the public believed he was -- and PSU has paid out nearly $200 million because of it.
You're not trying to protect PSU from anything but the TRUTH being revealed about what was really going on inside Old Main. In the end, those of us "lunatics" will be the ones who are proven correct.
PSU is a repeat of the Duke Lax, UVa, and Hillsborough cases.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/altered-e-mail-found-in-freeh-report.html
"
Altered E-mail Found in Freeh Report Contains Damaging Info About DPW's Role in 1998 Investigation"
I don't even have to go past the title! You are presuming that you have proven that the e-mails are altered when it serves your purposes but denying it now. Pretty bush league stuff.
Oh, I know what Ray's doing and have for a long time. The amazing thing is people here who think he's proven ANYthing.
Again,
Wow. That article HAS NOTHING to do with the 2001 email -- the topic at hand -- which I said needs to be verified through a comparison.
Now, the 1998 email in that blog -- YES -- I am on the record that it has been altered. There are dates out of order and there are two address blocks in it. In addition, there is a large amount of text missing from it that is present in the full email.
Wow. That article HAS NOTHING to do with the 2001 email -- the topic at hand -- which I said needs to be verified through a comparison.
Now, the 1998 email in that blog -- YES -- I am on the record that it has been altered. There are dates out of order and there are two address blocks in it. In addition, there is a large amount of text missing from it that is present in the full email.
You really have no idea what I'm doing...and after last week, you still haven't caught on?
You're as dumb as the BOT.
Same story, different email. You used the same logic there and have proven nothing, except in your own mind.
You're trying to throw up every single thing you can to establish a cloud which you hope somebody will view as close enough to 'reasonable doubt' to either drop charges or exonerate CSS. Or you're a crackpot lunatic. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Potential addition to Penn State's recruiting staff- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
Football Penn State Football Welcomes four More Enrollees to Campus- Latest: Marty Leap
-
