Margaret Banks reports on the latest investigation into the leak of the RMA report and Allen Johnson blogs about it.
Here is my response/comment I posted to Allen's observations:
Allen,
I can assure you this latest "leak identification" effort is not in any way detracting from the ongoing investigation into the main issues involving the police department. The main goal still is to get to the truth of what happened/did not happen within the Greensboro Police Department; the pursuit of the leaker is secondary. Besides, these investigations are totally independent of each other with GPD issues being investigated by the SBI and internally with the department and the leak investigation being done by RMA.
I don't consider this secondary investigation as an "obsession" or a witch-hunt. For all intensive purposes, this effort had ended until a gift-wrapped package with a big bow dropped right into the city's lap -- the posting of the RMA report on line -- which gave forensic experts the ability to determine which original copy of the report had been copied and pictured there.
I can cite two reasons for resuming the leak pursuit: 1) Liability coverage for the city -- if one of the parties injured by the public release of private personnel information decides to sue the city for personal damages caused by the leak, the city would have the option of countersuing the leaker and passing those costs on to the responsible person, not city taxpayers. 2) How would the public react (and the N&R, for that matter) if they found out the city had the ability to identify the leaked copy but chose not to follow through with it. I can already hear the cries of "cronyism!" "cover-up!" and "circling the wagons to protect one of your own!" -- another crisis in the making.
I too am eager for ALL these investigations and rampant speculations to end so the healing can begin.
Two additional thoughts: First, we have been cautioned that this investigation could reveal WHICH/WHOSE COPY OF THE RMA REPORT was copied and then leaked, but would not necessarily identify the person or persons who actually did it.
Second, back on October 15-16 when the report appeared first on CDs and then online, I lamented about the negative consequences of publicly posting it but acknowledged one positive result of that action. I guess now I can add a second positive -- potential identification of the leaker.
I wonder if the person who posted it on the Internet thought about that possibility -- he/she may have actually aided the investigation and helped to identify the leaker! Sweet irony!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
So Roch is an unwitting undercover investigator for RMA. Interesting!
I don't understand something. If each copying machine, each printer and each scanner left their own mark on the RMA copy posted on G101, how can forensics trace it to the original source.
To me, it seems like taking a shell casing fired by several different guns and tracking it back to the first. They will have to compare layers on the document with the signature of each printer/copier/fax/scanner in question.
That seems like a lot of search warrants to me.
Jeffrey,
I am not a forensics expert, but my understanding of the document examination is this:
Each legitimate copy of the RMA report has its own unique pattern of random black dots and other markings scattered across the pages caused by, among other things, minute particles of dust, dirt, etc. in the copy machine used to make those original copies. Or, if anyone had made any marks or notations, staple removal, hole punches, etc. on their personal copies, those marks would show up on any copies made from that original.
While subsequent copies made from the leaked copy would likely have additional spots and marks added to them by other copy machines, the "splatter pattern" from the original should still be detectable by an expert.
I would compare it to a DNA test. A DNA comparsion does not say "this is definitely your suspect," but the conclusions is something along the line of "there's a high probability this is the one due to 'X' number of matches between the two samples/documents. Once you reach a certain high percentage of matches, the liklihood that those random matches are coincidental is greatly reduced.
Heh. I never thought about going all CSI on the actual report. I'm assuming that the forensics people have already collected all of the original reports back. Should be an easy match with just staple placement.
The dots stuff doesn't make any sense scientifically since it would require RMA to actually watermark each copy, which somehow I doubt (I could be wrong, but if they're that good on security, bravo to them).
I suppose you could try to trace copies of dust patterns, but that gets obscured pretty much by if the originals were copies and wouldn't tell which copy it was.
If anything, I would probably rather match placement of rips/tears/staples/extra markings that were caused after the fact. You might even be able to pull prints from the copies depending on how much residue is on the fingers and if the copy machine picked it up every so faintly.
Who knows what method these experts are using though. Forensics is such fun.
Darkmoon,
Thanks for a much more informed scientific explanation of the possibilities.
For the record, all those original reports were collected and locked up securely "way back when" the original leak was discovered.
It does not make sense to me that it was the internet copy that provides this new information or direction. Why would the city not confisicate some of the copies that existed prior to the "101" release?
Subpoena some of the folks said they had it ahead of time and work back to the original source. Does this make sense? It should make for some interesting blogs... :-)
What would stop the defense from being...not a clue how my copy wound up on the streets...?
I think it was great and helpful to Greensboro for it to be released..."if" no innocent folks were hurt as a result of same. Ben made an excellent point along these lines.
meblogin,
Confiscate copies of the report from whom?
All of the legal copies were retrieved and secured shortly after the leak was discovered, but there was no way of knowing who had illegal copies. From public statements made by a number of groups and individuals, it's clear to me that quite a few people had access to it early on.
Besides, if I correctly understand various legal explanations I have heard, while it was breaking the law for someone to RELEASE/LEAK that confidential information, it is not illegal for someone else to POSSESS a copy of it once it is out there. If that is indeed the case, there would be no basis for obtaining a subpoena since the "receivers" would not be in violation of the law.
I'll explain the best I can about the evidentiary significance of the internet copy of the RMA report. The only thing city officials knew prior to its internet appearance is that the INFORMATION itself was floating around out there. No one from the city had seen the actual copy that was in the hands of the News & Record (or in anyone else's hands). Thus there was no physical, visual evidence to be examined and compared with the original legal copies of the report.
The report that appeared on the internet was a PDF file -- essentially a photograph of the document. Voila! It provided a clear snapshot of each page of the illicit copy with every ink spot, staple hole, etc. clearly visible -- easily enabling the forensic investigation and comparison that is now underway.
There's nothing I know of that could stop the defense strategy you cited -- "I don't have a clue how my copy wound up..." Ah, ignorance is bliss, right? {smile}
I still firmly believe that innocent people have been and continue to be harmed by the illegal release of the report. One point that Mitchell Johnson keeps stressing that no one seems to be picking up on -- all the information in that report was obtained under the Garrity Rule that basically forces an officer to provide truthful information or face disciplinary action. The protection that is given that officer in return for that forced cooperation is that the information will remain strictly confidential and the officer cannot be criminally prosecuted with any testimony or evidence obtained through this process. Even the SBI agents cannot have access to this protected information for use in their investigation. For the city to now throw up its hands and say "Oh well, since the information is already out there, we might as well officially release the report" would shatter that confidentiality provision and destroy all trust in the process in the future.
Post a Comment