Comments on: More Spurious East Anglia Arguments Rejected

By: Dyspeptic Curmudgeon

Dyspeptic Curmudgeon — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:13:16 +0000

I think there is now *another* wedge point: an FOIA request for a simple answer to three questions, 1) were the Norfolk Police ever asked to provide to UEA complete clone copies of the server hard disks which were seized (apart from any particular extractions which were requested) and 2) whether the Norfolk Police ever provided complete clone copies of the disks and 3) whether the Norfolk Police ever *offered* to provide clone copies of the disks (whether free or to be paid for).

Seems to me these three questions could provide some strong insight into UEA’s position. The cynic in me suspects that the answer to ’3′ is ‘yes’, but UEA declined (or more likely, declined to answer at that time) so as to avoid having possession, so that the answers to ’1′ and ’2′ would be ‘No’ (in the hope that no-one would even *think* of question ’3′).

By: scott

scott — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:23:07 +0000

Rules of evidence and chain of custody rules would preclude returning the server until the investigation of the leak has concluded (either via dismissal or court proceeding).

By: ianl8888

ianl8888 — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:48:28 +0000

Don K

OK, excellent !! Seems to avoid the Police issue, so no excuse for the Court in about 4 weeks

A fascinating and quite wonderful episode. It would be absolutely lovely (almost beyond words) if this eventually resulted in Jones being cross-examined under oath. Do UK Courts allow televised proceedings ?

By: Don Keiller

Don Keiller — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:54:22 +0000

Ian, the emails I posted are not “Climategate” emails, rather discussions about accessing the full set of emails, held on the backup server” for the Muir Russell enquiry. i.e. post-Climategate.
As you can see UEA “owns” them via the Data Protection Act.

By: KnR

KnR — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:51:08 +0000

and this is good point ,does UEA not just do what this person has so they can get the information back ?

By: ianl8888

ianl8888 — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:52:11 +0000

Thanks Don

I genuinely appreciate your risk and effort here, greatly appreciate

But the two emails you’ve quoted are (I think) after Jones may have deleted anything pertinent from his PC, although he ignored (or was unaware of) the back-up server that is the target of your successful appeal

This seems to me then to leave the Police in the position (judging from Clause 1 a) of being able to decide to be NOT prepared to supply UEA with … etc. Perhaps they can claim “on-going forensic investigation” (after all, they have the backup server to examine for evidence of the alleged criminal activities of FOIA), or perhaps they may claim it comes under some Counter Terrorism umbrella (as with Tallbloke).

As I said previously, I really do hope I’m wrong. We’ll know in about 4 weeks anyway. To put it succinctly, in my quite long experience when Authority loses, they simply change the rules. I’ve observed this to happen countless times

By: Duster

Duster — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:17:30 +0000

In the US one might suspect that a Fifth Amendment defense was being set up. No “open doors” left in easy view. Heh, the CRU-gate emails may be simply some one who detests Jones personally.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:30:29 +0000

Will anyone be FOI-ing EUA to find out just how much money they have wasted / are wasting on this rather useless round of PR blunders ?

First it was taking Delingpole to the PCC and now this with highly expensive counsel involved.

All at my expense.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:27:16 +0000

The police did clone and return the laptops taken when they “raided” Tallbloke – it is no different for a server.

By: Don Keiller

Don Keiller — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:41:35 +0000

Ian
It has already been done- see correspondence below.
I also have the copy of the invoice for £10,469.25, for “Extraction of Emails” sent to and paid for by UEA.

On 14/04/2010 17:16, “XXXXXX” wrote:
Dear Greg,

Just a heads up. The Review Team discussed this yesterday and we have made a
recommendation to the UEA Vice‐Chancellor (who in DPA terms owns this
information on behalf of the University) that Qinetiq should be asked to
proceed but just for three machines (those of Prof Jones, Prof Briffa and Dr
Osborn). We have also suggested hiring a (highly reputable) independent
forensic analyst to carry out a targeted search of this limited set of e‐mails
on behalf both of the University and the Review Team We await a response from
UEA…

From: XXXXX
Sent: 20 April 2010 13:50
To: XXXXXX
CC: ALASTAIRMUIRRUSSELL;
Subject: Qinetiq contract
Dear Greg,
Further to the e‐mail below, UEA have just confirmed that they would like to go
ahead, but only subject to the information being made available quickly to the
independent analyst. They would need to have the information from Qinetiq
(presumably on a portable hard disk) no later than next Monday 26th April.
As I suggested below, we would want Qinetiq to make available all of the e‐mails
held (sent, received, or otherwise stored) in the backups held of the PCs of just
three individuals. Those three individuals to be: Prof.
Phillip Jones, Prof. Keith Briffa and Dr. Tim Osbourn. These three are the
significant focus for the e‐mails already in the public domain.
Could you please confirm with Qinetiq that they can meet these requirements and the
timescale?