Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
At this point, to be honest, all of the back and forth regarding “evidence” in the Zimmerman Case that has occurred here over a number of threads has been mere speculation that misses the salient issues raised by this case. The real (admissible) evidence will be presented at the trial and a hopefully an unbiased jury will make its decisions. The issues that we need to discuss from my perspective are:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence?
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly?
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many Stand Your Ground venues, had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested?
4. What are the purposes of a business oriented lobbying group, like ALEC, in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed?
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial?
The George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin has been marked by the typical aspects of what we have come to know as a media circus in American justice. Since this country began, when it comes to criminal justice, our free Press (Media) has found that sensationalism sells. Consequently, when a particular criminal case raises widespread public interest, the Press (Media) fans that interest beyond even the initial public interest. The process of leaking “new evidence” as the case plays out brings with it angry public debate over the significance of the leaked “evidence” and the guilt or innocence of the protagonist.
This creates an uneven public relations battle between the prosecution and the defense. I say uneven because in almost all instances the prosecution has the advantage in terms of media access and also the public’s presumption that the police/prosecution are their protectors. We have seen this occur in this particular case and quite frankly, save for the basic facts that are indisputable; none of us really know what evidence are public relations ploys to sway opinions and what facts will actually be admissible as evidence at trial. What makes this case somewhat different than others is that in this instance the original prosecutor and the Sanford P.D. actively were trying to justify their actions in releasing Zimmerman and not continuing to prosecute him. Their leaks were perhaps attempts to justify their actions. Now that the public uproar has brought in new prosecutors and investigators the leaks to the press may take on a different tone. What we don’t know, as the latest photo of the back of Zimmerman’s head illustrates, is whether the current prosecution is seeking true justice, or continuing to participate in a potential whitewash.
I would like to mention four cases that have occurred in my lifetime that show the problems encountered when sensational cases become prosecuted in the press. The first is the case of Dr. Sam Shepard, a Cleveland physician accused of murdering his wife in 1954, convicted he spent a decade in prison, only to be exonerated at a second trial:
Sheppard was brought to trial in the autumn of 1954. The case is notable for its extensive publicity and what the U.S. Supreme Court called a “carnival atmosphere.” Many have compared the O.J. Simpson trial to it, in terms of the often lurid press coverage it generated.
Some newspapers and other media in Ohio were accused of bias against Sheppard and inflammatory coverage of the case, and were criticized for immediately labeling Sheppard as the only viable suspect. Some believe that a specific headline from the Cleveland Press, “Why Isn’t Sam Sheppard in Jail?,” clearly indicated the bias of the media against Sheppard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard
The second case I’d like to mention is that of Caryl Chessman. Chessman was executed in 1960, having been convicted in a storm of lurid publicity. The issue wasn’t Chessman’s guilt per se, but whether California’s “Little Lindbergh” law should have been applied in a case where there was no murder. The publicity and antipathy towards Chessman, who was no doubt a low life criminal, obscure the fact that he hadn’t committed murder. In fact many proponents of his death lost sight of the fact that this was not a murder case:
“Born in St. Joseph, Michigan, Caryl Chessman was a criminal with a long record who spent most of his adult life behind bars. He had been paroled a short time from prison in California when he was arrested near Los Angeles and charged with being the notorious “Red Light Bandit.” The “Bandit” would follow people in their cars to secluded areas and flash a red light that tricked them into thinking he was a police officer. When they opened their windows or exited the vehicle, he would rob and, in the case of several young women, rape them. In July 1948, Chessman was convicted on 17 counts of robbery, kidnapping, and rape, and was condemned to death.
Part of the controversy surrounding the Chessman case stems from how the death penalty was applied. At the time, under California‘s version of the “Little Lindbergh Law”, any crime that involved kidnapping with bodily harm could be considered a capital offense. Two of the counts against Chessman alleged that he dragged a 17-year-old girl named Mary Alice Meza a short distance from her car demanding oral sex from her. Despite the short distance[citation needed] the woman was moved, the court considered it sufficient to qualify as kidnapping, thus making Chessman eligible for the death penalty.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
The last two cases I want to mention are much more familiar to everyone so I’ll just include the links to each one. O.J. Simpson’s murder trial was perhaps the most publicly viewed trial in our Nation’s history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_trial . Let me first say that I never liked Simpson, either as a football player, actor or celebrity. I thought he was an overrated runner and his public persona always seemed to me to be that of a complete phony and media whore. It was surprising to me then, when the case broke that I began to develop sympathy for someone I see as a loathsome man. What bothered me about this case was that from the beginning the prosecution waged a public relations war to convince the public of O.J.’s guilt, through strategic leaking and via officials making definitive statements about his guilt to the media, prior to even his arraignment.
I watched the entire arraignment and trial on TV at work because the City Agency I worked for was being split up and for literally months I had nothing to do but sit in my large office watching the trial on TV. At night my wife and I would watch the recaps at home. Based on what I saw I feel the verdict acquitting Simpson was the correct one because a credible case for “reasonable doubt” was made. He may well have been guilty, but to me the inept prosecution had botched their case. The reader may feel differently, but I think must admit that there was a firestorm of publicity on the case that made a serious trial into a circus.
Finally, last July prior to the verdict I wrote about “Should We Care About Casey Anthony” as a guest blog: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/#more-36728 . Afterwards, being retired, I watched the entire trial and truly believe that the correct verdict was also reached based on the evidence and the over charging of the case. The reader again may disagree with my judgment here, but also must admit that the media sensationalism that characterized this trial was way over the top.
In the latter two cases I think that there is some comfort to be take by the fact that the juries in each seemed to actually perform their duty and look at the evidence presented without bias. In the Sheppard Case the defendant was convicted due to the improper publicity and it took a Supreme Court verdict to help set him free. He left prison a broken ma and both his and his son’s lives were destroyed in their attempt to exonerate his name. This is somewhat less comforting. Caryl Chessman, bad human being that he was, should not have been convicted of kidnapping in the sense of the “Little Lindbergh” law, but deserved a possible life sentence for rape. The pre and post trial publicity made it impossible for California politicians to try to prevent execution.
The Zimmerman case has again raised the wrath of anger and injustice on all sides. Zimmerman has been demonized and his victim Trayvon Martin has also been demonized. Zimmerman’s trial, should he not take a plea, will be a circus raising hackles everywhere. Whatever decision that comes from it will be questioned by people whose minds have been made up via the information leaking out. In the end we will all be victims of yet another diminishment of our legal system via a process we must be very loath to rein in. Democracy and freedom cannot flourish without widespread information on public happenings. There is no one we can honestly give the power to make a decisions as to where the media crosses the line, because invariably all human decisions are ultimately self-serving.
At the outset I posed what I see to be the six salient issues to be drawn from this case, whatever the outcome at trial. I’ve avoided taking sides on these issues, though truthful disclosure by me would say that at this point I believe Zimmerman is probably guilty of some form of aggravated manslaughter, but truly what do I know more than anyone else?
As for the five questions I posed here are my own answers/opinions:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence? Yes. To me the Police should not ever make the decision as to whether “standing one’s ground” is a viable defense. They need to collect all the evidence and present it to the prosecution. The prosecution must then present it to the court. SYG is for the court/jury to decide.
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly? I believe that Zimmerman’s father played a role in trying to avoid charges against his son and that influence was used to try to make the case go away.
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many SYG venues had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested? My belief is that if the shooter had been a person of color and/or what is considered a foreign ethnicity, they would have been arrested in any of those venues with a reversed situation. The only caveat is that if they were someone of wealth or connections, then they might not have been arrested.
4. What is the purpose of a business oriented lobbying group like ALEC in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed? I think that ALEC has been pushing these particular laws because many large corporations employ security forces that are armed. With these laws many actions by these armed security forces would be held to be justified, thus blameless.
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial? Absolutely, as I made clear above.
What then is your opinion on these issues, taking out the guilt, or innocence of George Zimmerman?
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“Do you really think the FBI working in conjunction with the telcos (who got immunity for their role in warrantless wiretapping for the Bush administration) can’t come up with something better than what is availiable commercially?”
I don’t think the FBI can change the laws of physics.
A powered off cell phone is powered off and inert unless they got physical access to your device.
There are now enough Android phones out there and Android developers out there with source code to almost all of it, that I do not think it is possible that there are Android phones that actually never power off even though we all have turned them off with the “Power Off” menu option.
I suspect that is largely true of iPhones as well.
I think the absence of any articles since 2006 largely places this in snopes territory.
Come on. Make it snappy. Where’s your proof?
Again . . . “Do you really think the FBI working in conjunction with the telcos (who got immunity for their role in warrantless wiretapping for the Bush administration) can’t come up with something better than what is available commercially?”
If they could do it in 2006, they can do it now.
“What’s interesting about that is if the battery is bugged, then taking it out of your cell phone will do nothing to eliminate the bug”
So? Pointing to another flaw in cell phone security does not negate other holes in cell phone security. You haven’t proven me wrong. You’ve simply given a reason to take the battery out and put it some place secure and sound proof.
Come on. Keep flailing.
This link of yours http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/cell-phone-spying-software-leads-cyberstalking-nightmare/story?id=10020677
does nothing to back up your claim that a powered off cellphone can be a bug or track you.
Again more misdirection from a douchebag unable to admit he is bullshitting.
Do you really think the FBI working in conjunction with the telcos (who got immunity for their role in warrantless wiretapping for the Bush administration) can’t come up with something better than what is availiable commercially?
By the way, I’m not saying this is what the Government did in 2006, but it was suggested by a commenter on Bruce Schneier’s blog and it seems to fit the facts and answer the question of how the phone’s bug was installed so quickly:
http://www.surveillance-safety.com/surveillance-microphone-battery.htm
SPY-BA
SURVEILLANCE MICROPHONE HIDDEN IN CELL PHONE BATTERY
The SPY-BA is an innovative design where we have concealed a surveillance microphone inside the battery of commonly available cellphones. It is a UHF transmitter with a frequency range from 400 to 480MHz. it is extremely powerful and can transmit over 100m in open field (subject to environmental conditions). The device comes equipped with a state of the art anti annoyance filter. It would be best used with our range of sensitive receivers. It would also be better if you could specify the cellphone and battery type at the time of order
What’s interesting about that is if the battery is bugged, then taking it out of your cell phone will do nothing to eliminate the bug
And here’s an interesting page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_listening_device#Remotely_activated_mobile_phone_microphones
If you track down the 6 citations, you’ll find,
1. Most go to the Kaplan decision and more specifically to Declan’s write up of it.
2. the FT link goes to a UK case in which the handset had to be turned on
3. Lauren Weinstein has an interesting page that discusses how you can tell if your GSM phone is bugged (and using a voice not a data connection to transfer data.)
4. www wrc noaa gov/wrso/security_guide/cellular.htm#Cellular Phones has a page that says that if a diagnostic command is used to open up a voice connection, your phone can be used as a bug, but before you can use it as a phone you will need to turn on and off your phone. So it’s doubtful that this is the way.
Again there is nothing recent about these sorts of attacks, and most of the writeups go back to Declan’s write up.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cell+phone+spyware&hl=en
Speaking of proof, here’s a story from 2010 about commercially available phone spyware.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/cell-phone-spying-software-leads-cyberstalking-nightmare/story?id=10020677
Seems like it’s really pretty easy today. Probably more so than in 2006. And it’s a helluva lot easier than when I found out about it in 2000.
Whether you think it is a problem or not depends entirely on you.
But you’ve already expressed faith in your Android phone.
Now, you were going to get some proof that this is no longer a problem . . . .
Where is it?
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You have not met your burden of proof.
“Gene: THERE ARE EVENT LOGS ON THE PHONE.
Anon: Oh, so I guess now you are agreeing it doesn’t involve hacking the phone company youand ‘re just too much a cowardly pussy to admit you were wrong.”
Event logs that do what again? Time stamp with network time.
If you can’t prove that cell phones can be used to spy on you without your knowledge, why not go back to the dead horse and beat it some more?
Cowardly? I use my real name here unlike some anonymous candy asses who hide behind a lame as handle like “anon” and hurl insults like a brain damaged 6th grader.
Pussy? Awww. You’re such a charmer. Do you kiss your mother/sister with that mouth? Of course you do. Just don’t let your daddy/uncle catch you! You know how jealous he gets.
Gene: I READ AN ARTICLE ONCE IN 2006!!!!
Anon:
1. The actual opinion does not back up the article except … perhaps maybe. But Occam’s Razor’s reading of the opinion suggests a different, simpler answer.
2. The expert you depend on who was concerned about this in 2006 has a website that doesn’t mention this concern of his in 2012. Other experts than and now believe your expert was mistaken.
3. There are no sources more current than 2006 that discuss this.
Gene: I IZ EXPENZIVE LAWYER!
“So it is irrelevant that a phone’s event log is going to note the time and date of a picture taken by the phone and use network time to do so thus making actually hiding the time and date extremely difficult even if you do have a way to manipulate the EXIF information or it draws it’s time/date data from local user settings instead of directly from the network?
You sure do have a funny definition of irrelevant, anon.”
Gene to Malisha: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE TIME STAMP ON THE PHONE IT WOULD INVOLVE HACKING THE NETWORK AT THE PHONE COMPANY.
Anon: Um, actually you can just change the time setting on the phone, and then upload the photograph.
Gene: THERE ARE EVENT LOGS ON THE PHONE.
Anon: Oh, so I guess now you are agreeing it doesn’t involve hacking the phone company youand ‘re just too much a cowardly pussy to admit you were wrong.
Anon: In general if you find a photo on the network you cannot rely 100% on the EXIF information. It is possible if you can identify the original device that there may be log information there that will better identify when a specific photograph was taking.
HOWEVER THIS IS NOTHING LIKE HAVING TO HACK INTO THE PHONE COMPANY AND SCREWING UP EVERY PHONE CONNECTED TO THE TOWER.
“cell company’s NOC and resetting the time/date, but that would affect every phone on that segment of the network. It would also draw a lot of attention in the NOC. I’d say the chance of it being changed approaches zero. One of my jobs after I left law was for a major cell phone company. Synchronization is critical to making the phones and the GPS functions work properly. For that reason, it is as OS says; cellphone time and date information is generated by the network.”
Again Gene, you’re just a liar and too much of a pussy and unethical creep to admit you were wrong.
This is what you do on a daily basis here, and I assume this is how you treat your clients and the courts and your loved ones.
Orders? I don’t think you can afford my hourly rate, anon.
I made my burden of proof.
If you want to counter-claim that it isn’t a problem?
That burden of proof on the counter is yours to make.
Remember: an absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
Now do your own work.
Here is Bruce Schneier writing about it in December 2006.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
Has Schneier written anything about that since?
Gene:
1. Visit James Atkinson’s website: http://www.tscm.com/biojma.html
Read his website.
Read all of his website.
His website details his services in sweeping for bugs and eliminating bugs. His website contains FAQs and lots of useful information for you to help you realize when you’ve been bugged and how to act.
Tell me anywhere in his website where he warns people that their cellphones can monitor them even when they are turned off.
2. The article you are quoting from was written in 2006. This does not mean it is wrong or irrelevant today.
But find me any recent article from the EFF or ACLU or DEFCON or anyone that agrees this is a real problem.
You go on ahead believing your Android phone is secure though or that just because you don’t see any lights that the phone is completely powered down.
It’s really funny.
Wow, you are dense. And consistent. Attacking the author of the story?
Also, the composition fallacy rides again.
If a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump it’s ass when it hops.
“A phone when turned off without some other bug attached to it is a useless hunk of plastic and silicon that cannot do anything.”
Bullshit.
“An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can “remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner’s knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call.”
Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. “They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time,” he said. “You can do that without having physical access to the phone.”
Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone–all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.)
“If a phone has in fact been modified to act as a bug, the only way to counteract that is to either have a bugsweeper follow you around 24-7, which is not practical, or to peel the battery off the phone,” Atkinson said. Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones, he added. ”
Thanks for proving how far you’re willing to go to prove how wrong you can be though. It was really entertaining.
Mike
“Let’s get down to cases here because Malisha is smart enough to decide if her question was answered. However, your sidetrack of this thread had nothing to do with the discussion. You lurk here most times hoping to find some point, any point really to be able to attack someone using obscenity. You obviously derive some pleasure calling people obscene names.”
That Gene continuously spits out erroneous information is not a sidetrack.
The information he spits out is just wrong and a disservice to everyone here. As is his current bogus conceit we are all endanger unless we remove the batteries from our cell phones.
Gene has admitted to believing it is okay and proper to put in bogus scientific testimony at a trial and let the jury and judge sort it out.
I have given you plenty of links throughout my time here to indicate when Gene is wrong exactly why, and when OS is wrong, exactly why, and when mespo is wrong exactly why.
Once more you have only to ask yourself how it is that in the face of links to other scientists, to the wiki, to opinions, to other experts, why you would choose to believe these debunked lies told here.
Um, Otteray Scribe had no problem calling me a Nazi and a Stormfronter today, so fuck Otteray Scribe and fuck you Mike for your unwillingness to call Scribe out but your need to complain that I use bad language.
Gene, OS, rafflaw,
This is Kaplan’s opinion:
http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20061127_0000842.SNY.htm/qx
a. Ardito’s Cellular Telephone
Based on physical surveillance and the conversations previously intercepted, the FBI learned that Ardito’s crew no longer conducted meetings exclusively at the four restaurants, but met also in twelve additional restaurants, automobiles, Ardito’s home, an auto store, an insurance office, a jewelry store, a doctor’s office, a boat, and public streets.
The government applied for a “roving bug,” that is, the interception of Ardito’s conversations at locations that were “not practical” to specify, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(a). Judge Jones granted the application, authorizing continued interception at the four restaurants and the installation of a listening device in Ardito’s cellular telephone.*fn1 The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be.
Declan McCullagh has a long history of writing sketchy stories.
It is possible that Kaplan is describing a piece of software that could work on a phone like a Nokia or Treo that doesn’t have a real off switch, just a go to sleep switch.
But the plain language of the opinion suggests
1) It is a physical device, and
2) It is independent of the phone since
a) it works even if the phone is turned off and
b) it has its own range independent of that of the phone
There is nothing in this opinion to suggest that if your phone turns off completely, then it can be used as a roving microphone or to trace your location.
There is nothing to suggest that if this was a software device installed on the phone that the software will work on any random model of phone on any random carrier.
IF your handset powers down completely you are safe. PERIOD.
IF your handset does not power down completely then it is possible on certain phone models that Feds or Phone company can do malicious things to turn your phone on.
If you had a specific kind of Nokia phone or a Palm phone or perhaps some other phones they may not turn off completely.
I am aware of no Android phones that do not turn off completely.
A phone when turned off without some other bug attached to it is a useless hunk of plastic and silicon that cannot do anything.