by charles the moderator
I received the following this morning,
Dear Mr Rotter
I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.
Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.
Kind regards
Sean Baker
Sean Baker
Detective Constable
Joint Major Investigation Team
Norfolk Constabulary
Lowestoft Police Station
Old Nelson Street
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 1PE
Tel: xxx
Mobile: xxxx
This e-mail carries a disclaimer [this was a dead link. Put here for reference. ~ ctm]
Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer
I responded within a few hours with this:
I can be reached at xxx. I work nights so please don’t call before noon PST. I’m in San Francisco. Between noon and 1 PM is the best time to contact me.
I have previously posted my entire involvement with the CRU leaked emails and files online here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/climategate%E2%80%94the-ctm-story/
I’m not sure what else you would like to know. I’ll see if I can cover it in advance.
1. I have never received any money for my volunteer services at wattsupwiththat.com
2. I met Steve McIntyre once for dinner two years ago when he was in town for AGU. I paid for the dinner.
3. I read Climate Audit.
4. [personal info]
5. [personal info]
6. [personal info]
7. I am 51, turning 52 next month.
I understand that you are diligently performing your investigation, and I’m not sure how well you understand the perspective from this side of the fence.
The multiple FOI’s were submitted in response to Phil Jones’s obstruction of the scientific process of verification and replication. Had he behaved as any scientist should, no FOI requests would have been required and it would have been ten minutes work to respond to the original request. The CRU began moving the goal posts, making up more and more unbelievable reasons why they should not give data to perceived critics, thus causing the subsequent FOI’s and escalation, in which I participated. It seems likely that soon after Steve McIntyre’s appeal was denied, someone at the University of East Anglia, disgusted by what he or she witnessed, subsequently leaked the files. I have no knowledge or direct evidence that this is the case, but it is the explanation that makes the most sense.
If you would like more information on the escalation of FOI requests and the obstruction by CRU, as confirmed by your own ICO, I can dig up the relevant threads.
It’d save them a lot of time if you’d just ‘fess up, ctm ;o)
Let me see…
If I’ve been following the story correctly…
1. The janitor did it
2. in the cafeteria
3. with a Dell computer.
Everybody else get the same answer?
All that FOI-requesting evidently works wonders for the complexion! I would never have put you a day over 35.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.
Kind regards
That does *not* sound like the wording a LE professional would use when making initial contact with a prospective witness.
Don’t you worry, they’ve got no CCTV photage, that’s why they’re fumbling about.
If they’d been on to you you’d gotten an email shouting STOP or I shout STOP again!
I have received a friendly reply from the Detective Constable.
He may or may not call me next week. I may or may not publish his replies. It’s 3:30 am and I’m indecisive…I think.
CTM the nightshift,
For me 3:30 am would not be a good time for decision. I have found it is always good to take my mind off something for a while and sleep on it before making a decision.
John at 7:45 pm Taipei time
I was also contacted by the Norfolk Constabulary, and asked to fill out a detailed questionnaire. Here is a quote from my last e-mail to Detective Constable Sean Baker (January 31), which sums up my position.
I declined to fill out the questionnaire.
(CTM: if you let me know your e-mail address, I can send you the questionnaire.)
You created quite the **** storm that complaints were filed to the police (probrably by discret politicians).
They really have no clue what to do as it would be the crown that would be after any charges.
So now they are quietly letting you know that they are around in case this type of incident should happen again.
If you were being “busted” they would not be announcing their precence to you but would be knocking your door down for evidence.
What the Police should be investigating is Jones’ criminal act in trying to destroy data. That IS a criminal offence under the FOIA.
For all you people fretting about the response, I’m pretty sure the Norfolk Police have no jurisdiction over somene in San Francisco. I wouldn’t be too worried.
As for the polite tone of the email – if all you’ve ever seen the police about is traffic fines or property crime, then you’d get used to a less polite way of doing things. The fact is your average English policeman is quite a polite fellow, particularly once you get a rank above street plod. I’m sure there are many exceptions, but I see nothing wrong with a polite request for information.
I think some people have been watching too much crime on TV.
Don’t worry, be happy !
CTM,
I (the above) have contacted my dear friend Dr. Watson, who, has his ex-wife running a bakers shop in Beach Road Lowestoft, (a short tri-cycle ride away from the prison ) She ( a really wonderful, homely soul ) has confirmed that she will visit and bake for you during your encasement in this cold, wet, and windy, and very mundane coastal town/prison colony.
PS.
Anthony, any thoughts on a replacement ? CTM looks to be indisposed for quite a long time looking at the turmoil in the British government.
Perhaps someone on the investigation team has been reading the blogs. The recent comments by Steve McIntyre that no-one had talked to him about any of the Mann allegations might have rang an alarm bell and reminded them that not asking some questions raises questions.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are descriptions of all the events as they happened posted on line, what kind of investigator would take the blog posts as evidence and not try to corroborate with the actual persons involved.
If the Domestic Extremism unit links this data theft with eco-terrorism, (how about trying to undermine the consensus on global warming and thus endangering the planet, don’t laugh, it could happen) we could soon have some extradition warrants issued.
Except Norfolk Police probably haven’t got any budget for that. And there’s an 8 hour time difference, so he won’t be at work when you’re available, so don’t expect a call.
Typical of bureaucratized law enforcement.
Excellent answer.
I think the advice not to tell him anything is spot on. How do you know that he is really a policeman, and if he is, use your right to remain silent! This may be part of Gordon Brown and Ed Millibands “War on Climate Change Deniers”.
First, identify who we can make guilty.
Then change the law so “Climate Change Denial” is a crime.
Finally catch and lock up the “criminals”.
I live in the UK and believe me when i say that unlike you Americans, we do not live in a free country. So don’t incriminate yourself and keep quiet.
Don you worry, that’s jus a lot o squit.
Someone back there asked the question, is this legit? Then I saw several other comments from people saying they were contacted too. But the fact is that this is NOT normal procedure for investigating a crime where evidence needs to be gathered from outside the investigating country’s jurisdiction. The “best practice” if you will is for the investigating jurisdiction to secure the assistance of the local jurisdiction to investigate, or at a minimum to secure permission from the local jurisdiction to communicate, with the local jurisdiction advising the witness that they are aware and involved before communication takes place.
I don’t think CTM is at any particular risk, but a call to local authorities advising of the contact and asking if the source is legit or not might be in order. I know if I got such a call (being important enough to warrant one being a fond dream) I would be placing a call to the RCMP first.
Hiding behind Yahoo or Hotmail, etc.
Someone made that suggestion, and CTM pretty muched nixed his need for it, but just FYI, this wouldn’t work. Without going into the gory details, you would have to do much more than that to make your trail impossible to follow, and both Hotmail and Yahoo etc can be compelled by court order to produce the information required in the case of a criminal matter should they not cooperate.
I once had hatemail being sent to me from a Hotmail account. I tracked through Hotmail to the ISP, contacted the ISP and secured their cooperation. The source was an ex business partner I was sueing. Made the next discovery session in front of the judge OH so much fun.
for the record: personally, I agree with Copner’s hypothesis that this file was probably acacidentally left on an unguarded, open server in which case it was no crime for anyone to access it.
Re: Sleepalot and what constitutes “unauthorized access” – I think it would be very difficult to make “unauthorized access” stick even in your hypothetical case; interfering with an official investigation and some other, non electronic based criminal laws would come into play instead.
“unauthorized access” generally means that the person had no right whatsoever to log into that computer at all. If someone has authorization to access a database and does not have to break any security protocols to get to it, he is out from under the scope of that law. As I said, when criminal activity results from this there will be plenty of other statutes that come into play. The problem for those wishing to criminalize this incident is that there is no follow-on criminal activity, so none of those are available. Therefore they must argue that the copying itself is criminal – but that is a much more problematic proposition than they realize.
Copying data for commercial or economic purposes can clearly be punished; for instance copying music so that the copier and his friends don’t have to pay for the download. But copying non-commercial data with no follow-on criminal activity and no commercial or financial losses resulting is a legal grey area where no current laws apply.
Charles, as a law enforcment officer (financial “malfeasance”) in a commonwealth legal system (not Britain), I can only advise you three things:
Be civil,
Be co-operative,
Be quiet.
The Norfolk Constabulary are investigating an allegation of a criminal offense -theft, and it appears, by the wording of his email, that they are looking to confirm a suspect. Never, ever respond to requests for information by email in a police matter. Never, ever disclose information by telephone without independent confirmation of the caller. Do not assume nationality is a shield – its really only a limit on the extent to which funds will be allocated…(as mentioned, libertarians need to think about that…)
Ask the emailer to frame his questions in writing on the letterhead of the agency, containing a verifiable return address, rather than an email. Written communications of any kind can surface anywhere in an investigation (this is where we came in, remember?), irrespective of its admissibility or its constitutionality.
Know that telephone conversations may be recorded with or without notification to you.
I can carry out a conversation with you and ask you questions that will lead you to believe I’m heading in one direction or just being casual, but all structured to find out information I’m looking for, which, on the surface may appear innocous or irrelevant, and about things you might never suspect.
Beyond the obvious liabilities that exist in being caught up in a police matter, there is also the consideration of any role you may play that puts you at risk in the “simpler” court of civil action. “loose lips sink ships” – don’t let it be yours. Your civic duty is to answer truthfully the questions put forward to you, no more. If you feel there is a bigger issue that needs addressing, file your own complaint (this last comment is directed more to others than Charles).
Lowestoft is a former port town on the north coast of Suffolk, close to Norfolk. Very little happens there now that that the north sea herring fleet has been all but eradicated (by EU fishing quotas), so the plod there probably have time on their hands and have been asked to help out by Norfolk who are no doubt under max pressure to find the ‘hacker’ fast (ie before the forthcoming general erection gets under way).
It might also be that they wanted to find a plod with the specific expertise / training required to look into this, and DC Sean Baker was the closest based. They might also have wanted to use a plod unit with no personal attachments (eg social or family) to anyone at CRU – which might have been difficult in a close knit and quite small city like Norwich
I agree that the best course for all approached by DC Baker is to emphasise the wrongdoing at CRU with respect to FOI requests, and the corner into which those understanding what was going on were pushed.
The plod over here may have had their heads stuffed increasingly with PC rubbish at Hendon (Police College) but they are only human. Here in East Anglia (I live in Suffolk) people don’t much fall for all that stuff: they are pretty down to earth and pour scorn on ‘received wisdom’, inc AGW. I would guess DC Baker will keep an open mind, whatever his brief from on high, esp if he is responded to with politeness and openess. It’s important though imo to keep pointing out that no ‘theft’ has taken place
As for Phildot, he seems to be very keen to support the UEA/CRU line.
His arguments smack both of PR and legalise – has been coached? – and of desperation that someone should be ‘got’ for the publishing of the files (of which surely the Harry_read_me sets revealing the worthlessness of the data are the most important scientifically, and the emails for evidence of scientific manipulation by the Team)
I wonder if ‘dot’ is short for Jones?
I think the evil deed was done by someone impersonating a Detective Constable from the Norfolk Constabulary.
Regharding John Whitman’s comment:
If they have no other way of contacting Charles except via WUWT, then of course they will use WUWT to contact him. They don’t know his full name.
Regarding cedarhill and others:
There’s a good deal of paranoia here. Charles is unlikely to get done over by the Plods. They are just “eliminating people from their enquiries”.
My only advice to Charles here would be:
1. Verify this guy is kosher before you agree to speak to him – probably best to contact the police station in question by phone and check. Could be a mad warmista journo on the prowl. Try Suffolk police on http://www.suffolk.police.uk/Useful+Information/Contact+Us/
Their number is +44 1473 613500
2. Don’t assume anything – let them tell YOU what they want to talk about.
3. Keep a record of the conversation – tape it or at least keep copious notes while you are talking.
4. Tell them what you know.
I filed a FOI for 5 of the T countries and got approximately the same Emails and a phone call from Sean. I declined to answer any questions of what I considered to be private information and unrelated to the inquiry.
The conversation centered around which websites organized the FOI requests and when. It was a nice conversational phone call all in all. Sean normally works homicide and I got the impression he was simply doing due diligence.
>>Antique dealers with insecure loads on their roof racks
>>is pretty much the extent of law breaking in this corner
>>of the Queen’s realm. 🙂
You forgot the new trend in Norfolk.
Half the population is now Polish, so we have a rash of drunkenness, prostitution and motoring offences (driving on the wrong side of the road while consuming a bottle of vodka is standard.)
Crime levels have gone through the roof.
.
My advice? As much as I hate to be that guy, I would never, ever, ever speak to the police about something like this. You don’t have to, first off, and the only thing – THE ONLY THING – that can come of it is that you say something that piques their interest and they start an investigation of you. Think about it – what else could come of it? And by “say something” I mean, something very innocent and non-suspicious to your ears that comes across as a tad suspicious to them. Your response that you already sent has already drawn a line in the sand and proven to them that you could be a likely suspect – you were at odds with the CRU, you didn’t agree with them not releasing the data, and you were obviously (by the tone I read into the e-mail) incensed about it.
Tell them that if they want to question you, to get a warrant for your arrest or a subpeona for your testimony (which they will not be able to do) and until then, you don’t want to speak with them. Nothing good can come of you speaking with them. Nothing.