Inquisition21

I checked it out, and have a clue to his identity..

Be aware that this guy seems to moitor this forum, your post is already quoted on his website
http//www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=189

Thanks, whilst Mr Editor thinks this is a secret it isn't otherwise I wouldn't have posted it in a public forum. It is no wonder his site has little credibilty when he feels it necessary to flower the facts with his own inane commentary.

Inquisition 21 appears to be just a few guys with a web site. Guys who can't accept the fact the rest of us are disgusted by CP and associated crimes, however much they try to intellectualise it. Guys who can't handle the fact some of them got found out.

If their editor is reading this Yes, sometimes the authorities mess up, but the evidence in most cases is indisputable, verified, established and put before a jury. Some people have learned that the hard way. If someone is daft enough to assault a child (or animal), film it and exchange it with others, they deserve to get caught and face the consequences of that.

So, my message to 'Inquisition 21' What goes around comes around.

I came in to forensics as operation Ore was winding down and I had a number of cases from that operation (about 6 actually). In every case the suspect was prosecuted on the evidence found on their computer and the traceability of that evidence was pretty much irrefutable.

Now it may be that the original intelligence was flawed (and reading some of the material I'm on the fence on that one). In the UK that makes no difference, if a magistrate (who is a free thinking individual who can explore the information laid before them at the time) issues a warrant, then the police executing that warrant are lawfully on the premises. If the evidence seized from that warrant shows unlawful activity then it matters not that the underlying information proved to be wrong (provided it was given in good faith). The appeal court recognised this principle in the case of operation ORE and reinforced it.

My experience from the few cases I dealt with at the f*g-end of ORE is that they were rampant paedophiles and I'm glad I helped put them away.

Like harryparsonage though, I have an innate sense of fair play and I feel the need to highlight any poor interpretation of intelligence masquerading as evidence. Should we really be going to war based on poor grade intelligence? (don't mention Iraq, I think I got away with it!).

Anyone in LE that is applying for a warrant based on sledgehammer intelligence would be well advised to read the Nottinghamshire report.

Paul

N.B. To the Inquisition 21 member, please quote the whole of my posting rather than selected sections otherwise it may be taken out of context and you wouldn't want that would you?

http//www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/04/ore_errors_covered_up/
http//www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/04/operation_ore_suspect_wins_damages/

Poisonous.

patboddy, do you have interest/connection to either Inquisition21 or a law enforcement agency which was involved in Operation Ore?

Poisonous.

patboddy, do you have interest/connection to either Inquisition21 or a law enforcement agency which was involved in Operation Ore?

I might be young and inexperienced but I am not stupid. I see that inquisition are a pedophile supporters club and I am not a member.

If you have taken an enormous leap into deducing that I am involved with the article on register then you are completely wrong. I am nothing to do with those articles. I asked a question about sledgehammer not ore and as far as I can see they are two different cases and are unrelated.

I suppose the only link is that from that register article there seems to be information that has been known to the police that has not been made public and it appears from what has been said here that that there is information about sledghammer that has not been made public but it seems that it might be important for the defence to see that justice is done.

Mr Parsonage has been asked to provide the details but has hidden behind an excuse of disclosure. I guess that there are a lot of police in here that know the contents and have not said anything about it. Are they hiding something or is it they think Mr Parsonage has made a report which is wrong or does not help the defence?

I'm not sure what you think is poisinous is it someone in authority releasing some information that the public should know about or is it hiding information that concerns you? Surely the police work on behalf of the public and we should know what they do so they are accountable. I am disturbed that no police officer here is willing to talk about this sledghammer report or feels unable to talk about it.

I would be intersted to hear from other non police what they think, and police too.

Pat

Its not that the information has not been made public, the information is available to the defense and has obviously been disclosed to the defense at trials previously.

I haven't seen the report but am guessing it only applies to specific circumstances as opposed to the entirety of OP Sledgehammer.

Reading theregister articles appears to say that the intelligence was flawed, however regardless of if it was flawed, if you seize a computer with 1000+ IIC, arguing that you found someone based on flawed intelligence is a moot point really.

Mr Parsonage has been asked to provide the details but has hidden behind an excuse of disclosure.

I'm non-LE. In my humble opinion, Harry's response has been entirely appropriate.

Its not that the information has not been made public, the information is available to the defense and has obviously been disclosed to the defense at trials previously.

I haven't seen the report but am guessing it only applies to specific circumstances as opposed to the entirety of OP Sledgehammer.

Reading theregister articles appears to say that the intelligence was flawed, however regardless of if it was flawed, if you seize a computer with 1000+ IIC, arguing that you found someone based on flawed intelligence is a moot point really.

If you seize a computer with no IIC it isn't a moot point.

I don't think the poor sods who get their lives turned upside down on the basis of a very ropey fishing expedition would agree with you.

Read both Register articles.

If you seize a computer with no IIC it isn't a moot point.

I don't think the poor sods who get their lives turned upside down on the basis of a very ropey fishing expedition would agree with you.

Read both Register articles.

I take it you are referring to the guy awarded damages?
That's not as a result of bad intelligence, he was charged and convicted, that would have to be a flaw in the evidence, you cant convict someone purely on intelligence.
Without actually examining the computer it would be impossible to know whether they were right or wrong to convict him.

Also looking at the flaw in the intelligence which from the article appears to be that a user could enter the site without choosing to look for CP or knowing that CP was there, you couldn't not investigate because some may not have, you need to clear them as much as find the guilty.

At the end of the day all intelligence would get you is a warrant, after that its the responsibility of the investigator to find evidence of or against the case with fairness and impartiality.