Norfolk police give indications that Climategate investigation is (effectively) closed

Maybe they are waiting for a grant application

The trail has gone cold…

So, what does the response actually mean, that the Norfolk Police Department is no longer keeping records of investigative hours? I see nothing that says that the investigation is closed, just that the Department is now using shoddy accounting practices.
Did I miss something?

hmm, it’s a 3 pipe puzzle Watson

Doesn’t really matter. Horses are already out of the stable. (Well, except for the giant encrypted horse, who is apparently waiting for just the right carrot….)
Best of all, governments in UK and Germany are actually responding to the horses, starting to pull back on Green nonsense. Their response isn’t going to increase or decrease if the identity of Mr FOIA is known. They know the game’s over in either case.

Makes me wonder if they found out it was an ‘inside’ job and bringing the perp to the public would be worse than the original data dump. I’ve seen this as an inside job from day one because of how the emails were selected (i.e.vetted). No hacker could have done it I firmly believe but that’s just me 🙂
later and keep up the good work!
Vincent Werber

ZT says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:37 am
“…which the UEA do not want. Hence the police are left hiding the evidence for the establishment or George Soros.”
There, fixed it for you!

I’m not sure how it is in the UK, but I would think there would be some law protecting whistleblowers. If “climategate” was an inside job, in my mind it would be a whistleblower releasing the information and thus granted some protection.
In any event, the evidence of an illegal hack seems to be about as true as the evidence that the weather today has never occurred in all of earth’s history.

Politicians double-down in Scotland…
‘The leaders of Scotland’s political parties have unite to reaffirm their commitment to tackling climate change and cutting emissions’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17498776
Not a single party to vote for to rid us of this blight. I weep for my once-great nation.

Latimer Alder says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:05 am
My best guess is that they know who did it and how it was done. But to save huge institutional embarrassment, UEA have decided not to press charges against their own staff/collaborators

Add to that the fact the “FOIA” holds a Sword of Damocles. Make him mad and the password for all the remaining emails will suddenly emerge.

This case can’t be “closed” if FOIA keeps releasing bundled sets of emails. That would like having an unknown bank robber drop bags of big bills on the market on occasion–the authorities would want to know who was doing it, to say the least.

That was a very foolish response from the Constabulary, because it makes them look rather poorly managed.
Better to have said:
“We conducted an investigation into the matter from [date 1] to [date 2], which materially established all facts known to date. As no additional information has come to light and the results of our investigation did not lead to the identity of the perpetrator, we have since [date 2] invested only a nominal numbers of police hours in the matter, but hold the investigation open should additional information become availabe.”

Interesting information hunt.
At the response are links to the Norfolk Constabulary’s response letter, which contains this:

This response will be published on the Norfolk Constabulary’s web-site http://www.norfolk.police.uk
under the Freedom of Information pages at Publication Scheme – Disclosure Logs.

The second link is 404 Not Found. After searching the site, and having to use the Site Map, I finally found the FOI disclosure logs:
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/aboutus/yourrighttoinformation/freedomofinformation/disclosurelog.aspx
The reply to Montford has yet to published there. Maybe someday when they get the time…
The UEA work is under the heading “Investigations” and there are requests that yielded amounts spent on the investigation, and many requests yielding nothing based on their wording.
June 2010:
123/10/11 “Cost , and number of Officers working, on the investigation of the publication of emails belonging to the University of East Anglia – Jun 2010”

…
I write in connection with your request for information received by the Norfolk Constabulary on the 14th of June 2010, in which you sought access to the following information:
I understand that Norfolk Constabulary was asked to investigate the leaking/hacking of data from the servers of the University of East Anglia at the end of 2009 – the so-called “Climategate” affair.
1. I would like to know the cost to date of the investigation and
2. The number of officers currently working on the case.
…
The Norfolk Constabulary’s investigation has been allocated a specific cost code. At the time of receiving your request, the total recorded cost against that cost code stood at £54,691.
The number of officers working on the case fluctuates depending upon workloads at any given time. Currently, one officer is working full time with management being provided on a part-time basis by two senior officers (as required). Other officers and staff will undertake work on the case when required but this is managed in line with the demands of other investigations.

March 2011:
566/10/11 “The monthly cost for the period November 2010 to February 2011 of the University of East Anglia (UEA) e-mails disclosure investigation”

…
I write in connection with your request for information received by the Norfolk Constabulary on the 10th March 2011 in which you sought access to the following information:
• The total cost expended by month on the UEA emails investigation between November 2009 and February 2010.
Response to your Request
[table]
Month Expenditure
November 2009 £0
December 2009 £3,117.30
January 2010 £6,435.89
February 2010 £1,779.66
Total £11,332.85
…

Strange how they can figure expenditures down to the pence when they “do not record the time spent by officers and police staff on a specific investigation” according to the response to Montford.
Whoops, found this May 2011 one:
595/11/12 “Total cost expended per month on the University Of East Anglia emails investigation, March 2010 to February 2011.”
They actually give a table from November 2009 to February 2011. October and December 2010 and January 2011, £0.00. That’s right, nothing. But November 2010 is the highest monthly total, £38,454.61. Paying off an outside investigator for computer forensics?
There is also a note to add £23,309 to the June 2010 FOI requested figure noted above, “… which was known expenditure but had not been paid out at the time the response was issued.” No mention of making a correction to or amending that FOI response. Guess the information is accurate at the time when they tell you, and they tell you only what they think you can know at the time.
It seems the wording is the issue. State it right and they’ll tell you what was spent, but can’t tell you specific amounts of hours. If you really want to see if the investigation is technically dead, request info on the current financial expenditures.
Although going by the 2011 FOI requests, that could have been requested a half dozen times this year already. Just wait for it, it’ll show up when they get around to updating their FOI disclosure list again. Someday. Most likely.
Bonus Item from September 2011:
248/11/12 “Copies of any correspondence between Norfolk Constabulary and central government relating to enquiry into leak of emails from the UEA.”

Norfolk Constabulary holds no records of any correspondence with anyone from central government relating to the investigation into the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia.

Wouldn’t the police have to retain any such correspondence as it may be subject to FOI requests? With this being true, are we to believe that NO ONE higher up the food chain in “central government” has asked in writing, not even a quick email, about ANYTHING? The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry, that gave its report on March 31, 2010, never asked about the investigation, any opinions as to hack or leak, if emails were doctored or untainted? No one higher up had ever cared enough to ask anything?

At one time I naively believed that if one filed an FOI request that you would get the requested information unless there was a compelling reason why it couldn’t be supplied. Such reasons would be the exception. It seems that FOI requests are in fact little more than a joke. Those who hold the information fight every FOI request as if national security was at stake, trying to contort the law in every way possible to prevent release. I’m not a conspiracy theory type but it’s hard not to think that resistance to releasing requested information is because the information would make people look bad or worse. I guess the FOI laws need to be tightened and public employees need to understand that any work they do on the job is subject to public scrutiny and that they need to perform their jobs believing that what they did today might end up on the nightly national news.

I get the names Tisdale and Tallblock mixed up. Who’s computers were taken and did you get them back? Do they still work?

Well, I guess the old WUWT saw is true….”Nothing to see here, move along!”

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/107693/response/267740/attach/html/3/Response%20Letter.pdf.html
———
According to this they don’t know how many hours. Which of course tells you nothing one way or the other.
And Andrew Montford thought this was news?