Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Wed Mar 23 03:23:06 CET 2011

On 3/22/2011 7:34 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> Let's rephrase what you said: "From the government alleging 'this person
> used a  OpenPGP to hide evidence of  his crime' it was  clear that there
> was, in fact, evidence of his crime."

Yes: it's a tautology.  A prosecutor is not allowed to make an
allegation in court for which they do not have evidence.  If the
prosecutor says, "this person used OpenPGP to hide evidence of his
crime," the prosecutor must be able to present the spoiled evidence and
demonstrate it was connected to a crime: otherwise that allegation is
barred from the courtroom.

How that evidence should be interpreted, how much weight it should be
given, etc., is solely the purview of the jury.  But if the government
says, "this person used a bloody knife to murder someone," then yes,
that's evidence there's a dead body that was killed with a knife,
because otherwise no judge would allow the prosecutor to make that claim.

> Where were  you involved? Quoting ad hominem:
> "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

It's everything-the-government-does-is-evil claptrap that I have no
patience for.  I am no particular fan of the government, but to think
that it would so nakedly act in such a way is ridiculous.

> I guess  we are  talking about  different trials. I  am talking  about a
> trial pertaining to the original crime (child abuse), into which "he has
> gpg  installed" was  entered as  evidence

To repeat what I told you earlier: *there was no such trial*.  This is
an urban legend in the community.  No one has ever been able to produce
a citation for me.  I've asked, quite a lot of times, and I've done my
own digging in Westlaw trying to find it.  To the best of my knowledge,
it doesn't exist.  What exist instead are different trials for evidence
spoilation and related charges, in which the defendant's possession of
those tools is directly related to the charge.

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list