Discussion:
Former Mayor Cleared of Computer Child Indecency Charges
(too old to reply)
Anon.
2004-09-07 10:07:14 UTC
Permalink
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953

Former Mayor Cleared of Computer Child Indecency Charges

By Tom Wilkinson, PA News

A former elected mayor who was accused of holding indecent images of boys on
his computer was cleared off all charges in court today.

Conservative Chris Morgan, 35, stood down as Mayor of North Tyneside last
year as he vowed to clear his name.

The married former accountant, of Tynedale Avenue, Whitley Bay, was cleared
at Hull Crown Court of five sample charges of making an indecent photograph
of a child under 16 between March 26, 1999 and March 4, 2003.

On the third day of the trial, before the defence began, the judge
instructed the jury to clear Mr Morgan of all charges.

During the trial, the court heard 59 deleted images of boys were found on Mr
Morgan's home computer.

But a computer forensic expert, who appeared for the prosecution, said it
was "unlikely" the former mayor had downloaded the images himself.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr Morgan claimed he had been framed.

Mr Morgan stepped down from his £50,000-a-year post in Easter last year,
forcing a by-election which was won by fellow Conservative Linda Arkley.

In a statement, the former mayor's solicitor Mark Harrison said the
prosecution had admitted the allegations were "unsustainable and wrong".

He said: "Mr Morgan always denied, absolutely, any knowledge of the
existence of child pornography on his computer system.

"He was horrified to learn of its presence and as keen as the police to
resolve how the material came to be there."

Mr Harrison said it had been demonstrated that his client was not
responsible for making the indecent images, and "that he could not have
accessed the material found on his computer in any event".

The ex-mayor now "feels naturally vindicated" by the ruling, Mr Harrison
said, but his relief was "tempered by feelings of anger and frustration at
the charges being levelled against him in the first place".

The statement continued: "Mr Morgan considers it staggering that these
proceedings were brought and pursued to trial given that no evidence was
produced at trial linking the images to him at all."

Mr Harrison said the trial was a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

The statement concluded: "In particular, Mr Morgan wishes to stress his
thanks and appreciation to his wife Nikki, without whom he could not have
coped with the pressure and stress of these proceedings.

"Mr Morgan looks forward now to spending some time with his family without
the burden of the allegations hanging over him and to start re-building his
life."
zztop
2004-09-07 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953
Interesting how none of the papers who reported this with big
headlines at the time have even mentioned it now.

And it looks like the police may have tried to fit this guy up.
Paul Robson
2004-09-08 07:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by zztop
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953
Interesting how none of the papers who reported this with big
headlines at the time have even mentioned it now.
And it looks like the police may have tried to fit this guy up.
They probably didn't. They are just incompetent and lazy.

My local plod wants to set up at great expense with lots of staff a
computer/hi tech crime unit.

Meanwhile the dodgy half of Norwich is patrolled by TWO coppers (their
figures) and they want their budget to go up 24%.

I can't help thinking these statements are related.
Gaz
2004-09-08 14:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by zztop
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953
Interesting how none of the papers who reported this with big
headlines at the time have even mentioned it now.
And it looks like the police may have tried to fit this guy up.
To be accused of this is quite awful, he was a young succesful politician,
whose political life is now ruined. Who would take a risk on him now?

Gaz
The Todal
2004-09-07 16:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
Did anyone pillory him? I always think it extremely unfair that people are
prosecuted for downloaded images unless they are making a profit from them
or passing them onto others.
Post by Anon.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953
Former Mayor Cleared of Computer Child Indecency Charges
snip
Post by Anon.
Mr Harrison said it had been demonstrated that his client was not
responsible for making the indecent images, and "that he could not have
accessed the material found on his computer in any event".
All a bit vague, that. It might mean that the time when some of the images
were downloaded was a time for which he had an alibi. It probably also means
that the images were in a cache on the HD where the technically
inexperienced would not think to look and had not been deliberatedly saved
to a specific directory.
Nugget
2004-09-07 16:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
All a bit vague, that. It might mean that the time when some of the images
were downloaded was a time for which he had an alibi. It probably also means
that the images were in a cache on the HD where the technically
inexperienced would not think to look and had not been deliberatedly saved
to a specific directory.
"Mr Graham Reeds, prosecuting, said: “The evidence will centre around
those 59 picture files which had once been usable on that computer’s
hard disk but which had been deleted and then were recovered by police.”

Mr Reeds said the photographs were downloaded in one session and almost
certainly on the evening on April 7, 2002, when Morgan was at his
computer at home and sending emails to colleagues regarding political
matters.

He added: “It is an overwhelming inference therefore that if this
material appeared on his computer, in his office, at his home, on the
same evening when he was using the Internet that it could only have been
him who was responsible for the material getting there.

“The prosecution say that the only sensible conclusion bearing in mind
all this evidence is that the person who was viewing the indecent
photographs on April 7, 2002, was the defendant.

He added: “And so it follows that the prosecution present this case as a
compelling account of the defendant voluntarily downloading this
material into his own computer, viewing it and then deleting it and now
trying to avoid responsibility for what he has done by suggesting it was
someone else.”

The court heard that the person looking at the website showing the
images of children was logged on as Dave 6805. In interview, the
defendant admitted that he used that username, but denied he had done so
on this occasion to look at the material.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3444527

AND...



"But the case took an unexpected twist when international computer
expert Terence (Jim) Bates, appearing as a prosecution witness, said it
was "unlikely to highly unlikely" the ex-North Tyneside Mayor had ever
visited the original website.

Mr Bates, who recently gave evidence relating to the police officer in
the Soham inquiry, said a computer could keep up to 168 records of a
person visiting a page on the internet - but he had found nothing.

He said: "The computer did not have any record of this period of
activity other than the group of files them selves.

"I would conclude that it is unlikely to highly unlikely this computer
went to that site."

Morgan, of Tynedale Avenue, Whitley Bay, denies the charges at Hull
Crown Court, where the trial was moved to because of his high profile.

Defence barrister Christopher Prince said: "Somebody has gone on to a
computer and downloaded these images on to a DVD or a floppy disc or a
CD-ROM and inserted it into the defendant's computer."

But the prosecution claim he must have downloaded the images because
records show he had been using his computer just minutes before the
files were created on his hard drive.

The indecent pictures were found in the same area of the hard disc as a
deleted file timed at 8.24pm on April 7, 2002.

The photographs had a creation time of 8.34pm on the same day.

The court heard how the pictures had been downloaded from a website
under the username Dave6805, a username Morgan admitted was his.

Opening the case yesterday Graham Reeds QC, prosecuting, said: "The
prosecution case is that it was the defendant who downloaded the
indecent photographs on the basis that they were found on his computer
situated in his office at his home.

"The material was downloaded between 8.30-8pm and 8.53pm on April 7 and
he was using that computer that evening between 7.16pm and 8.24pm to
send emails about politics.

"Most of the material accompanied webpages which displayed a member name
he agrees he set up on his computer and used as a profile."

But Mr Bates told the jury the pictures could have been created on a
different computer and then transferred at a later time and date on to
Morgan's machine.
"

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/
tm_objectid=14601483%26
method=full%26siteid=50081%26
headline=child%2dporn%2dplot%2dagainst%2dmayor%2d%2dcourt%2dtold%2d
images%2dplanted-name_page.html
Cynic
2004-09-07 20:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nugget
"But the case took an unexpected twist when international computer
expert Terence (Jim) Bates, appearing as a prosecution witness, said it
was "unlikely to highly unlikely" the ex-North Tyneside Mayor had ever
visited the original website.
Jim Bates has acted as expert witness for both the defence and the
prosecution in many cases. Even his competitors (notably the MD of
Vogon) have stood up for him publically. His web site is at
www.computer-forensics.com where he lists some interesting case
histories.

Given that in this instance he acted for the prosecution, and did not
agree with their case, I wonder why the CPS did not drop it as soon as
they received his report. It would have saved a huge amount of upset
for the defendant, as well as quite a bit of money.

Given that Windows stores web-browsing histories in many places, at
least one of which is totally hidden and inaccessible to a normal
user, I would think that Jim is right about this case. A person who
has sufficient knowlege to wipe out *all* traces of web access would
be hardly likely to simply delete the files in question (rather than
using a simple wiping utility).

I should think either the files were planted by someone with physical
access to the computer, or they got uploaded by a trojan that wiped
itself after doing so.

The report does not indicate whether the computer had "PC Anywhere" or
similar installed, which would be another way that a person could have
been busily downloading material remotely whilst the defendant was
using the computer legitimately. Use the target computer to download
onto its own HDD, then transfer the files to the remote machine, then
delete the files from the target computer. Most users would be
blissfully unaware that it was happening in the background.
--
Cynic
Paul Robson
2004-09-08 07:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
The report does not indicate whether the computer had "PC Anywhere" or
similar installed, which would be another way that a person could have
been busily downloading material remotely whilst the defendant was
using the computer legitimately.  Use the target computer to download
onto its own HDD, then transfer the files to the remote machine, then
delete the files from the target computer.  Most users would be
blissfully unaware that it was happening in the background.
It is irrelevant. The files were uploaded on some date, apparently. You
*CANNOT* show this by looking at the owners computer, because it's possible
to reset all the dates. The only evidence that would show this is analysis
of the data traffic from the source ISP, almost impossible.

Of course, files do have an associated date. Which you can change with a
command line utility....
Cynic
2004-09-08 07:02:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:32:35 +0000, Paul Robson
Post by Paul Robson
It is irrelevant. The files were uploaded on some date, apparently. You
*CANNOT* show this by looking at the owners computer, because it's possible
to reset all the dates. The only evidence that would show this is analysis
of the data traffic from the source ISP, almost impossible.
Of course, files do have an associated date. Which you can change with a
command line utility....
The HDD analysis apparently showed that the physical sectors on the
HDD used to store the files were consistent with files saved on that
date (by comparison with the physical area used to store other files
known to have been created on that date). There are also varioius
forensic techniques that can usually give a strong indication as to
the *order* that files have been created. Provided that the drive has
not been defragged.

In this case, my guess would be that someone uploaded and deleted the
files to his computer whilst he was online using it for emails etc.
He would not have known it was happening. Quite possibly his computer
was set up for file sharing, and someone who knew or guessed his
password simply logged on to it. That theory could be tested by
seeing whether his computer *was* set up for file sharing, and if so
whether the images in question had been originally stored in a shared
folder.
--
Cynic
Paul Robson
2004-09-08 11:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:32:35 +0000, Paul Robson
Post by Paul Robson
It is irrelevant. The files were uploaded on some date, apparently. You
*CANNOT* show this by looking at the owners computer, because it's
possible to reset all the dates. The only evidence that would show this is
analysis of the data traffic from the source ISP, almost impossible.
Of course, files do have an associated date. Which you can change with a
command line utility....
The HDD analysis apparently showed that the physical sectors on the
HDD used to store the files were consistent with files saved on that
date (by comparison with the physical area used to store other files
known to have been created on that date). There are also varioius
forensic techniques that can usually give a strong indication as to
the order that files have been created.  Provided that the drive has
not been defragged.
I know that, but the police 'experts' don't appear to function at that
sort of level, and even then I think it is highly questionable that it
is proof anyway.

Given that some twat expert said that someone's newsgroup list was
evidence of child porn (see Bates) I doubt they know much. It would
be interesting to see what they'd make of my ReiserFS partitions...
"DUUHHHH where is Windows then....."
Post by Cynic
In this case, my guess would be that someone uploaded and deleted the
files to his computer whilst he was online using it for emails etc.
He would not have known it was happening.  Quite possibly his computer
was set up for file sharing, and someone who knew or guessed his
password simply logged on to it.  
Actually I wonder if it is simply thumbnails. A lot of these seem to be
thumbs. It kind of begs the question as to where the images are. If you
download a thumb to ogle naked children, why didn't you download the
main picture - and if it's deleted (as they invariably are) where's the
evidence of that ?

They cheat ; they'll say "he had child porn and 700 images" which implies
700 CP images but is actually the count of JPG GIF PNG BMP etc. files on
the disk.....
Post by Cynic
That theory could be tested by
seeing whether his computer was set up for file sharing, and if so
whether the images in question had been originally stored in a shared
folder.
I think the solution is to not view it as a skive source of convictions but
to go after then genuine collectors (a real CP fan will have 150 images
not four !) and the actual abusers.

Unfortunately the latter requires work and is not such an easy success so
they don't bother.
Cynic
2004-09-08 21:08:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:38:42 +0000, Paul Robson
Post by Paul Robson
Given that some twat expert said that someone's newsgroup list was
evidence of child porn (see Bates) I doubt they know much.
I'm glad you read about that case.

That prosecution "expert" managed to secure a conviction (once the
defence explained to him which HDD image he was supposed to be
examining) based upon a *single* image of a naked child on a beach (no
sexual context whatsoever), and a whole heap of cock-and-bull related
to "intent" based upon things such as an automatically downloaded list
of newsgroups that (unsurprisingly) included the "alt" hierarchy.

Everyone reading this will have a similar file on their computer right
now (frightening). The case came to trial at the time that the media
was full of the Sarah Payne story. Social services used the
conviction to obtain a Court Order prohibiting contact with his
family, and thus effectively forcing him to live apart from his wife.

It was also reported that there were over 5000 image files on the HDD.
Quite true. None of the others were in any way pornographic or
depicted children, or in any other way untoward. Most were small GIFs
of headers and mail icons etc., in the web browser cache ...

If you'd like any other details of that case, drop me an email.
--
Cynic
Anon.
2004-09-08 08:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Nugget
"But the case took an unexpected twist when international computer
expert Terence (Jim) Bates, appearing as a prosecution witness, said it
was "unlikely to highly unlikely" the ex-North Tyneside Mayor had ever
visited the original website.
Jim Bates has acted as expert witness for both the defence and the
prosecution in many cases. Even his competitors (notably the MD of
Vogon) have stood up for him publically. His web site is at
www.computer-forensics.com where he lists some interesting case
histories.
Given that in this instance he acted for the prosecution, and did not
agree with their case, I wonder why the CPS did not drop it as soon as
they received his report. It would have saved a huge amount of upset
for the defendant, as well as quite a bit of money.
Presumably because the police had already jumped in with both feet, had
forced him to resign his job in a blaze of publicity, and were too
embarrassed to admit they'd got it wrong.

It seems to me this sort of behaviour is common with the police/CPS. Rather
than admit their mistake and give in gracefully, they put their heads in the
sand and keep on going in the hope that "something will come up" to save
their case.
Cynic
2004-09-08 08:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
Post by Cynic
Given that in this instance he acted for the prosecution, and did not
agree with their case, I wonder why the CPS did not drop it as soon as
they received his report. It would have saved a huge amount of upset
for the defendant, as well as quite a bit of money.
Presumably because the police had already jumped in with both feet, had
forced him to resign his job in a blaze of publicity, and were too
embarrassed to admit they'd got it wrong.
It seems to me this sort of behaviour is common with the police/CPS. Rather
than admit their mistake and give in gracefully, they put their heads in the
sand and keep on going in the hope that "something will come up" to save
their case.
I think that there is a lot of such wishful thinking that goes on, but
that it is also not uncommon that individual policemen actually
genuinely believe that their suspect is guilty, and so are also driven
by a misplaced sense of justice.

Letting it go to trial actually makes it worse for the police. If
they drop it before, they can state that charges have been dropped due
to "lack of evidence". A phrase that has most people believing that
the suspect is as guilty as sin, but has "got off" because of a "legal
loophole".
--
Cynic
zztop
2004-09-08 10:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
Presumably because the police had already jumped in with both feet, had
forced him to resign his job in a blaze of publicity, and were too
embarrassed to admit they'd got it wrong.
It seems to me this sort of behaviour is common with the police/CPS. Rather
than admit their mistake and give in gracefully, they put their heads in the
sand and keep on going in the hope that "something will come up" to save
their case.
And of course they know that it really doesn't matter what the
evidence is, if it gets to the jury they will more than likely give a
guilty verdict becasue the word 'paedophile' has been mentioned.

I doubt the jury in this trial would have been able to make head nor
tail of the forensic evidence and would have gone with a guilty
verdict.

Just like in the recent 'incitement' trial and, it could be argued,
the Brian Stevens PCJ trial where the jury obviously allowed the
publicity surrounding Stevens to alter their judgement.
Anon.
2004-09-08 08:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Nugget
"But the case took an unexpected twist when international computer
expert Terence (Jim) Bates, appearing as a prosecution witness, said it
was "unlikely to highly unlikely" the ex-North Tyneside Mayor had ever
visited the original website.
Jim Bates has acted as expert witness for both the defence and the
prosecution in many cases. Even his competitors (notably the MD of
Vogon) have stood up for him publically. His web site is at
www.computer-forensics.com where he lists some interesting case
histories.
Given that in this instance he acted for the prosecution, and did not
agree with their case, I wonder why the CPS did not drop it as soon as
they received his report. It would have saved a huge amount of upset
for the defendant, as well as quite a bit of money.
Given that Windows stores web-browsing histories in many places, at
least one of which is totally hidden and inaccessible to a normal
user, I would think that Jim is right about this case. A person who
has sufficient knowlege to wipe out *all* traces of web access would
be hardly likely to simply delete the files in question (rather than
using a simple wiping utility).
I should think either the files were planted by someone with physical
access to the computer, or they got uploaded by a trojan that wiped
itself after doing so.
Further commentary here:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/page.cfm?objectid=14614600&method=full&siteid=50081

which includes this comment, pointing towards a trojan:

'"Prosecution barrister Graham Reeds said Mr Morgan could have simply
transferred the pictures from a compact disc.

But when Mr Bates was recalled to give evidence yesterday he said the new
scenario was also unlikely, adding that the images were most probably
brought in through a Trojan - a malicious program hidden inside
seemingly-harmless software.

Judge Bentley said the prosecution's case had been a "complete shambles" and
directed the jury to clear Mr Morgan.'
Gaz
2004-09-08 14:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
All a bit vague, that. It might mean that the time when some of the images
were downloaded was a time for which he had an alibi. It probably also means
that the images were in a cache on the HD where the technically
inexperienced would not think to look and had not been deliberatedly saved
to a specific directory.
"Mr Graham Reeds, prosecuting, said: “The evidence will centre around
those 59 picture files which had once been usable on that computer’s hard
disk but which had been deleted and then were recovered by police.”
Mr Reeds said the photographs were downloaded in one session and almost
certainly on the evening on April 7, 2002, when Morgan was at his computer
at home and sending emails to colleagues regarding political matters.
One session? Can we ruin a mans life for that? 57 pictures? Hardly a
library. But, then we dont know how sensitive the pictures are, considering
the fact that it would take a novice many many hours to find genuine child
porn on the net, and would have hundreds of pictures of some old nag dressed
up to look 15.
He added: “It is an overwhelming inference therefore that if this material
appeared on his computer, in his office, at his home, on the same evening
when he was using the Internet that it could only have been him who was
responsible for the material getting there.
And, how would they have been alerted to this one act?
He added: “And so it follows that the prosecution present this case as a
compelling account of the defendant voluntarily downloading this material
into his own computer, viewing it and then deleting it and now trying to
avoid responsibility for what he has done by suggesting it was someone
else.”
The court heard that the person looking at the website showing the images
of children was logged on as Dave 6805. In interview, the defendant
admitted that he used that username, but denied he had done so on this
occasion to look at the material.
One has to wonder what this website was that had his logon. A porn site with
genuine kiddie porn with a login, but not credit card/means of payment just
doesnt make sense.

Gaz
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3444527
AND...
"But the case took an unexpected twist when international computer expert
Terence (Jim) Bates, appearing as a prosecution witness, said it was
"unlikely to highly unlikely" the ex-North Tyneside Mayor had ever visited
the original website.
Mr Bates, who recently gave evidence relating to the police officer in the
Soham inquiry, said a computer could keep up to 168 records of a person
visiting a page on the internet - but he had found nothing.
He said: "The computer did not have any record of this period of activity
other than the group of files them selves.
"I would conclude that it is unlikely to highly unlikely this computer
went to that site."
Morgan, of Tynedale Avenue, Whitley Bay, denies the charges at Hull Crown
Court, where the trial was moved to because of his high profile.
Defence barrister Christopher Prince said: "Somebody has gone on to a
computer and downloaded these images on to a DVD or a floppy disc or a
CD-ROM and inserted it into the defendant's computer."
But the prosecution claim he must have downloaded the images because
records show he had been using his computer just minutes before the files
were created on his hard drive.
The indecent pictures were found in the same area of the hard disc as a
deleted file timed at 8.24pm on April 7, 2002.
The photographs had a creation time of 8.34pm on the same day.
The court heard how the pictures had been downloaded from a website under
the username Dave6805, a username Morgan admitted was his.
Opening the case yesterday Graham Reeds QC, prosecuting, said: "The
prosecution case is that it was the defendant who downloaded the indecent
photographs on the basis that they were found on his computer situated in
his office at his home.
"The material was downloaded between 8.30-8pm and 8.53pm on April 7 and he
was using that computer that evening between 7.16pm and 8.24pm to send
emails about politics.
"Most of the material accompanied webpages which displayed a member name
he agrees he set up on his computer and used as a profile."
But Mr Bates told the jury the pictures could have been created on a
different computer and then transferred at a later time and date on to
Morgan's machine.
"
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/
tm_objectid=14601483%26
method=full%26siteid=50081%26
headline=child%2dporn%2dplot%2dagainst%2dmayor%2d%2dcourt%2dtold%2d
images%2dplanted-name_page.html
Nugget
2004-09-08 15:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
And, how would they have been alerted to this one act?
He was originally investigated for indecent assault. This case was later
dropped and appeared to have been related to an affair he had with one
of the staff in his office.
Post by Gaz
Post by Gaz
One has to wonder what this website was that had his logon.
I think this was simple misreporting. I suspect that dave6805 was his
windows User login and that the images were in one of the user pofile
sub folders.
Paul Robson
2004-09-08 17:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nugget
 And, how would they have been alerted to this one act?
He was originally investigated for indecent assault. This case was later
dropped and appeared to have been related to an affair he had with one
of the staff in his office.
One has to wonder what this website was that had his logon.
I think this was simple misreporting. I suspect that dave6805 was his
windows User login and that the images were in one of the user pofile
sub folders.
Well, in that case the argument is nil, rather like Windows security.
I've got a floppy somewhere that boots a tiny linux distro and allows you
to blat the passwords out...
Gaz
2004-09-08 16:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nugget
Post by Gaz
And, how would they have been alerted to this one act?
He was originally investigated for indecent assault. This case was later
dropped and appeared to have been related to an affair he had with one of
the staff in his office.
Post by Gaz
Post by Gaz
One has to wonder what this website was that had his logon.
I think this was simple misreporting. I suspect that dave6805 was his
windows User login and that the images were in one of the user pofile sub
folders.
And any half baked bafoon can crack a userprofile on an install of Win XP
that has not been locked down. And, other versions of windows are even
easier..........

Gaz
Anon.
2004-09-08 19:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Nugget
Post by Gaz
And, how would they have been alerted to this one act?
He was originally investigated for indecent assault. This case was later
dropped and appeared to have been related to an affair he had with one of
the staff in his office.
Post by Gaz
Post by Gaz
One has to wonder what this website was that had his logon.
I think this was simple misreporting. I suspect that dave6805 was his
windows User login and that the images were in one of the user pofile sub
folders.
And any half baked bafoon can crack a userprofile on an install of Win XP
that has not been locked down. And, other versions of windows are even
easier..........
AIUI, the final blow to the prosecution case was the evidence of their own
expert who said that a trojan was most likely to be responsible. It would be
pathetically easy to write a trojan that simply picked up any user name on
the computer.
Paul Robson
2004-09-08 07:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now
have the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
Did anyone pillory him? I always think it extremely unfair that people are
prosecuted for downloaded images unless they are making a profit from them
or passing them onto others.
Unfortunately the forces of Law and Order deem copying onto your computer as
passing it on to others, and there is no money in CP, as any transaction
beyond cash is traceable ; there are virtually no CP sites.

Of course he has been pillioried ; he has had his name plastered all over
the press as "Kiddie Porn Counsellor" and people will think there is no
smoke without fire. That is why the cops do it ; to bully people into
not going to trial.
Ancient One
2004-09-07 18:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953
Former Mayor Cleared of Computer Child Indecency Charges
By Tom Wilkinson, PA News
A former elected mayor who was accused of holding indecent images of boys on
his computer was cleared off all charges in court today.
Conservative Chris Morgan, 35, stood down as Mayor of North Tyneside last
year as he vowed to clear his name.
The married former accountant, of Tynedale Avenue, Whitley Bay, was cleared
at Hull Crown Court of five sample charges of making an indecent photograph
of a child under 16 between March 26, 1999 and March 4, 2003.
On the third day of the trial, before the defence began, the judge
instructed the jury to clear Mr Morgan of all charges.
During the trial, the court heard 59 deleted images of boys were found on Mr
Morgan's home computer.
But a computer forensic expert, who appeared for the prosecution, said it
was "unlikely" the former mayor had downloaded the images himself.
Throughout the proceedings, Mr Morgan claimed he had been framed.
Mr Morgan stepped down from his £50,000-a-year post in Easter last year,
forcing a by-election which was won by fellow Conservative Linda Arkley.
In a statement, the former mayor's solicitor Mark Harrison said the
prosecution had admitted the allegations were "unsustainable and wrong".
He said: "Mr Morgan always denied, absolutely, any knowledge of the
existence of child pornography on his computer system.
"He was horrified to learn of its presence and as keen as the police to
resolve how the material came to be there."
Mr Harrison said it had been demonstrated that his client was not
responsible for making the indecent images, and "that he could not have
accessed the material found on his computer in any event".
The ex-mayor now "feels naturally vindicated" by the ruling, Mr Harrison
said, but his relief was "tempered by feelings of anger and frustration at
the charges being levelled against him in the first place".
The statement continued: "Mr Morgan considers it staggering that these
proceedings were brought and pursued to trial given that no evidence was
produced at trial linking the images to him at all."
Mr Harrison said the trial was a huge waste of taxpayers' money.
The statement concluded: "In particular, Mr Morgan wishes to stress his
thanks and appreciation to his wife Nikki, without whom he could not have
coped with the pressure and stress of these proceedings.
"Mr Morgan looks forward now to spending some time with his family without
the burden of the allegations hanging over him and to start re-building his
life."
I wouldn't be too hasty in celebrating his escape, he wasn't convicted and
wasn't so rightfully on thr evidence presented

BUT

There are many people who are claiming some very serious stuff about North
Tyneside and I am myself in contact with one person who alleges being
assaulted by a councillor for that council as a child in a care home but due
to its ancient origins the police won't be able to investigate it.

Or more than likely as the person in question is very friendly with the
Police Liaison officer for NT council

If he was on his own then I would be able to dismiss it but he is not,
something not very nice going on up there, just watch and see

AO
RPSSUK
Nugget
2004-09-07 18:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ancient One
I wouldn't be too hasty in celebrating his escape, he wasn't convicted and
wasn't so rightfully on thr evidence presented
BUT ...
I fail to see what any of your allegations about things that went on (or
not) in the mists of time in NT care homes have anything to do with this
chap.
Anon.
2004-09-07 18:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nugget
Post by Ancient One
I wouldn't be too hasty in celebrating his escape, he wasn't convicted and
wasn't so rightfully on thr evidence presented
BUT ...
I fail to see what any of your allegations about things that went on (or
not) in the mists of time in NT care homes have anything to do with this
chap.
Exactly! Especially as he's only 34, and will not have been around in North
Tyneside Council years ago......
Ancient One
2004-09-08 01:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nugget
Post by Ancient One
I wouldn't be too hasty in celebrating his escape, he wasn't convicted and
wasn't so rightfully on thr evidence presented
BUT ...
I fail to see what any of your allegations about things that went on (or
not) in the mists of time in NT care homes have anything to do with this
chap.
I didn't link this bloke to my contact, that was your surmisation

However, what I was trying to say was that NT has many people claiming some
pretty damned bad things, one theme being that there is an active ring of
paedophiles in the area and some members of it are establishment. However I
am not going to divulge my sources although they have spoken to the right
people in this matter and its a matter for the right people to take it from
there.

The other point was that if the courts did not convict him then the evidence
against him was not enough to convict him, it is something though and a
division of justice that other people, ordinary people who have supposedly
had images implanted on their drive, are convicted and punished just for the
mere possession of it which is a crime in itself, the division is that a
blind eye was turned to his possession of these images when in reality with
Joe Public, he would face the music, same as anyone

And when I come across a council that is totally free from corruption let
alone anything else, then I'll hang up my keyboard but until that day I will
continue to write and expose corruption in LA's, SSD's and other similar
places.

You would be amazed at what I knew of what really goes on, people like to
talk

AO
RPSSUK
Paul Robson
2004-09-08 07:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ancient One
Post by Ancient One
I wouldn't be too hasty in celebrating his escape, he wasn't convicted
and
Post by Ancient One
wasn't so rightfully on thr evidence presented
BUT ...
I fail to see what any of your allegations about things that went on (or
not) in the mists of time in NT care homes have anything to do with this
chap.
I didn't link this bloke to my contact, that was your surmisation
However, what I was trying to say was that NT has many people claiming
some pretty damned bad things, one theme being that there is an active
ring of paedophiles in the area and some members of it are establishment. 
However I am not going to divulge my sources although they have spoken to
the right people in this matter and its a matter for the right people to
take it from there.
Clue: there are very very few "paedophile rings". There are some, but
as close to none as makes no odds.

What is happening is that people are making up complaints to get money. The
best example is the trial of David Jones, manager of Wolves. Three of the
Five people who had "complained" about him admitted they were doing it for
the money, that's why the trial stopped.
IanAl
2004-09-08 11:37:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:28:43 +0000, Paul Robson
Post by Paul Robson
Clue: there are very very few "paedophile rings". There are some, but
as close to none as makes no odds.
How many paedophiles does it take to make a 'ring'?

Is a group of police officers/politicians/stamp collectors a 'ring'?
Nugget
2004-09-08 11:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by IanAl
How many paedophiles does it take to make a 'ring'?
Easy = 2
Post by IanAl
Is a group of police officers/politicians/stamp collectors a 'ring'?
No that is a circle

Good = circle
Bad = ring
Benedict White
2004-09-08 13:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nugget
Post by IanAl
How many paedophiles does it take to make a 'ring'?
Easy = 2
Post by IanAl
Is a group of police officers/politicians/stamp collectors a 'ring'?
No that is a circle
Good = circle
Bad = ring
Ah, I see. So it would be a circle of stamp collectors, but a ring of
lawyers? <smile>
--
Kind regards



Benedict White

I am not a lawyer.

Please note that my email address is not checked regularly and will
be used for harvesting UCE. If you want to email me work out my address
from the following, my first name at law 4 free daht org daht uk.
If this cause accessibility problems to those who are blind etc., please
post a follow up, and I will try and improve the situation.
Gaz
2004-09-08 14:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ancient One
I wouldn't be too hasty in celebrating his escape, he wasn't convicted and
wasn't so rightfully on thr evidence presented
BUT
There are many people who are claiming some very serious stuff about North
Tyneside and I am myself in contact with one person who alleges being
assaulted by a councillor for that council as a child in a care home but due
to its ancient origins the police won't be able to investigate it.
Well, it is hardly likely to be Mr Morgan he is only 35. 35 years, pulling
off an enormous political gain of becoming one of the first Tory elected
mayors in the UK, set up with a long political carear ahead of him,
parliament by 40, frontbench by 45.

I do hope he can rekindle his political carear.

Gaz
Post by Ancient One
Or more than likely as the person in question is very friendly with the
Police Liaison officer for NT council
If he was on his own then I would be able to dismiss it but he is not,
something not very nice going on up there, just watch and see
AO
RPSSUK
Anon.
2004-09-12 09:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
I remember this case being discussed on here when this guy was first
charged. Perhaps some of those who pilloried him at the time will now have
the good grace to apologise. Or maybe not....
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3461953
Some more commentary on this case......

http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=15

The right to remain silent

On Monday 6 September 2004, the case against an ex-mayor, Christopher
Morgan, collapsed in a UK court. Important lessons for all accused.

On Monday 6 September 2004, the case against an ex-mayor, Christopher
Morgan, collapsed in a UK court. Newspapers mention the evidence of a
'prosecution expert', but fail to add that this expert had been instructed
by the defence and that the prosecution decided to put him on the stand as
their witness when their own expert witness was shown to be incompetent. The
reason the defence barrister did not object to the prosecution calling his
expert was that he anticipated the consequences. Had the defence expert been
instructed by the prosecution originally he would have advised them that
they had no case.

There are three main points of interest in this case.

The original prosecution 'expert' was Professor Brian Jenkinson. This is an
ex-policeman, who not only claims to be a computer expert but is deeply
involved in training police officers at the Royal Military College at
Shrivenham. Police officers testifying against sex offenders list their
training by Jenkinson as proof of their competence. At the end of the Morgan
trial, Judge David Bentley, a man not known for kindness, took time out to
compliment the 'replacement expert' and to castigate Jenkinson. This was the
same judge that threw out the case against Dr Paul Grout at Hull Crown Court
recently, in one of the notorious Operation ORE 'incitement' cases where the
prosecution, having found no evidence of child porn on any of the seized
computers, still attempted to prosecute on the sole evidence of identity
from the Landslide computers in America.

During the course of the Morgan trial, information about serious
incompetence in police handling of the evidence emerged. For example, they
had not properly investigated the over 150 disks and CDs which they had
seized, apparently through lack of training. These were given back to the
defendant despite being relevant to one particular line of argument by the
prosecution. It seems that Jenkinson not only acted as trainer and expert
witness for the prosecution, but advised the CPS to proceed at great expense
to the taxpayer with this case that was bound to fail.

The second point of interest is that central to the case was the possibility
of identity theft and the case highlighted this as an obvious possibility.
This is extremely important for all those individuals whose cases are
pending and where identity theft is a possibility or a probability. There
are a number of such cases pending which will cost huge sums of money. If
the defendant can find a good defence lawyer and one of the very few defence
expert witnesses available, these cases have little chance of success, even
though they have already had major repercussions for the defendants
involved, including the destruction of their lives and reputations.

The third point is reflected in the title of this story. When Morgan was
first arrested, he and his solicitor drafted a prepared statement for the
police indicating that he denied all the charges and was not prepared to
answer questions in an interview until he and an appointed expert had time
to fully consider the evidence against him. As a result of this statement,
he engaged in a 'no comment' interview. He thus exercised his right to
remain silent.

So why is this important? There are now numerous stories of innocent and
naïve people who tried to be frank and honest with the police, for example
admitting that they had browsed a few adult porn sites but never thought
that any of the images might have been of under-age girls. Instead of the
police treating this as honesty, they used it to prosecute, and the
seemingly innocent admissions were given extremely prejudicial and damaging
interpretation by the prosecutor at trial.

Readers should be aware that exercising their right to silence in this way
does not reflect badly upon them and it gives them time to allow others with
more experience to examine the evidence and give them proper advice. Once
the prosecution has clearly stated what the charges are and an independent
technical report is available, then and only then is the time to decide how
best to handle questions and even then only with a solicitor present.

After the Morgan case collapsed, the police resorted to their usual weasel
language, saying that were 'not looking for anyone else'. This was to sow
the seed of suspicion in the public mind that it was not identity theft but
that the defendant got off on a technicality. What it may more accurately
mean is that such an investigation is beyond the capabilities of the police
officers involved, or simply that they were wrong.
Cynic
2004-09-12 12:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anon.
Some more commentary on this case......
http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=15
The right to remain silent
On Monday 6 September 2004, the case against an ex-mayor, Christopher
Morgan, collapsed in a UK court. Important lessons for all accused.
On Monday 6 September 2004, the case against an ex-mayor, Christopher
Morgan, collapsed in a UK court. Newspapers mention the evidence of a
'prosecution expert', but fail to add that this expert had been instructed
by the defence and that the prosecution decided to put him on the stand as
their witness when their own expert witness was shown to be incompetent. The
reason the defence barrister did not object to the prosecution calling his
expert was that he anticipated the consequences. Had the defence expert been
instructed by the prosecution originally he would have advised them that
they had no case.
<snip>

Thanks for posting that. It indeed explains why the CPS did not drop
the case earlier.

IMO the set of prosecution computer "experts" should be assessed on
their past performance and those who have shown obvious incompetance
should be officially discredited and their status as expert witnesses
revoked. It would also be nice if all convictions attained by the use
of those "experts" were to be reviewed, though that is perhaps wishful
thinking.
--
Cynic
Paul Robson
2004-09-12 16:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
IMO the set of prosecution computer "experts" should be assessed on
their past performance and those who have shown obvious incompetance
should be officially discredited and their status as expert witnesses
revoked.  It would also be nice if all convictions attained by the use
of those "experts" were to be reviewed, though that is perhaps wishful
thinking.
Have you read that horrific case on Jim Bates site ?
Cynic
2004-09-13 20:16:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:16:06 +0000, Paul Robson
Post by Paul Robson
Post by Cynic
IMO the set of prosecution computer "experts" should be assessed on
their past performance and those who have shown obvious incompetance
should be officially discredited and their status as expert witnesses
revoked.  It would also be nice if all convictions attained by the use
of those "experts" were to be reviewed, though that is perhaps wishful
thinking.
Have you read that horrific case on Jim Bates site ?
Which one? There are several.
--
Cynic
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...