Jerome Baum jerome at
Wed Mar 23 03:29:24 CET 2011

"Robert J. Hansen" <rjh at> writes:

> To repeat what I told you earlier: *there was no such trial*.

When did you tell me this?

> 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.

"We find that evidence of  appellant's Internet use and the existence of
an encryption program on his  computer was at least somewhat relevant to
the state's case against him,"

The Internet use  might be, but "the existence  of an encryption program
on  his computer",  considering there  was absolutely  _no_  evidence of
encrypted imagery, was certainly not relevant to the case.

The guy  was convicted,  and for the  right reasons, but  the encryption
software shouldn't have been allowed.

PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110323/75f253dc/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list