Shows what happens when you take your eye off the ball.
What could be clearer evidence of guilt than that? As their solicitors told them, it did not matter that their computers had been examined and found to be free of child pornography, or that they could produce alibis to show they could not have been at their keyboards when they were supposed to have signed up for the child porn. Judges and juries found the electronic data irrefutable.
But the electronic data wasn\’t irrefutable. One simple possibility appears not to have occurred to the police or any of the lawyers assigned to the accused: that they had been the victims of identity theft. Someone had got hold of their credit card details and identified the perfect way to rack up charges: create a subscription service child-porn web site (it need not actually have any child porn on it, just a suitably disgusting name), then charge a subscription to the stolen card.
I thought everyone knew that Operation Ore was hopelessly compromised by identity theft? I can\’t remember who it was that was blogging about it ages ago. Possibly Alex at Yorkshire Ranter, maybe Unity? But certainly they left me with the clear conclusion that no weight at all could be put on the simple existence of the credit cards details being found.
So I proceeded merrily on, assuming that this was all sorted. Clearly not though.
I\’m not quite sure what it shows. That I simply don\’t pay enough attention? That solving things on blogs isn\’t the same as solving them in the real world? That certain prosecutions can involve the police being lying scumbags?
Any other ideas?