Uncle Sam outlines evidence against British security whiz Hutchins Court documents filed Wednesday in the trial of British security expert and accused malware writer Marcus Hutchins have outlined the very limited evidence the US government is willing to throw at the case. Hutchins came into the limelight after crippling the WannaCry ransomware attack earlier this year. He came over to the US …
This post has been deleted by its author
Here be an observation allegedly noted by Stephen Fry ..... "A cut glass English accent can fool unsuspecting Americans into detecting a brilliance that isn't there."
I can't see it being of any great help to the defence team though, no matter how true it might be, or not.
Evil villain no, Austin Powers or Monty Python, yeah...
CANADA would like to apologize to any British person who believes that Austin Powers's accent is intended to be a British accent. Our agent was instructed to make it sound like a Canadian in the television rec room annoying his friends and family with a bit of OTT.
If any American person thinks that Austin Powers's accent is intended to be a British accent, well, that's the point, innit?
That their only evidence seems to be based upon statements extracted without representation and a chat log from someone who clearly had an axe to grind. Except for the chat log the rest was obtained after arrest under questionable conditions.
Is is possible that the Wannacry writer and the unknown chat donator are the same person who may or may not be on uncle Sam's payroll.
Do they FBI do any "I" at all now or is everything they do now based upon "anonymous" tip offs and using bullying tactics to extract confessions.
Erm ... where's the source for the chat logs being from someone? I read this story as referring to chat that had been public, and either archived somewhere public or eavesdropped. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Yes, the chat log appears to be the only evidence to pre-date his arrest, so one might expect it contains real substance! I expect El Reg will keep us up-to-date with what incriminating evidence emerges. And whether it's Hutchins or just the Spooks that it incriminates.
If he provided statements without counsel it's because he agreed to do so after his Miranda Rights were provided to him. He has the power at any time to end questioning/interview.
You making the statement over and over and screaming how he answered questions without representation is a lot like saying a bank robber didn't have representation when he went into the bank and committed a crime; so there is no way he is guilty. Yeeesh.
This method of questioning is allowed in most western countries (without representation) with answers/statements to be used as evidence in court.
Instead of degrading the justice system, you might want to at least know the basic 101 facts.
It's seems you didn't read the court documents displaying evidence provided so far during the discovery process, because there is A LOT more evidence than just interview answers. Such as business statements, and evidence from a 3rd party arrest. Not to mention there is still more to come from multiple sources.
Given the evidence provided so far, it's likely the prosecutor asked him a lot of questions he already knew the truthful answers to. If Hutchins lied on a lot of these questions it obviously will not be favorable for him.
Because the arrest warrant was issued after a grand jury investigation and not just a normal police investigation... along with the fact there are multiple sources pointing to the defendant in this case... you may want to rethink your off the cuff, uneducated and ignorant arguments and thoughts.
You may also want to take note, the British Foreign Secretary isn't making any outcry about this situation. This in no way proves Hutchins is guilty at this point, but his innocence isn't a sure thing either.
If he provided statements without counsel it's because he agreed to do so after his Miranda Rights were provided to him. He has the power at any time to end questioning/interview.
You've never been through a police/fbi interview have you? For a start, they will do everything they can to not have you get a lawyer, from outright lies about what your rights are, to charging you under terrorism or other acts (no rights to counsel in a lot of this stuff), to use of psychology (yes, strangely some cops are capable of such levels of intelligence!). I've read transcripts of interviews where a young family member kept asking for his mother or a lawyer or someone to be present, and the pigs kept questioning him and telling him that he would not be allowed to see them till he told them the truth1. Now admittedly this case is in the US and the accused is not quite so young, but they use whatever tricks they can and a person who still lives at home with his parents, spending time abroad for whatever, could have all sorts of insecurities those scum will play on.
And as Domquark said, they may not apply since he's foreign.
Given the evidence provided so far, it's likely the prosecutor asked him a lot of questions he already knew the truthful answers to. If Hutchins lied on a lot of these questions it obviously will not be favorable for him.
No. They claim to know, they badger people with "we know what really happened so you just need to confirm it". But in many cases stuff is made up. It's something you have to actually experience first-hand, or see someone you love go through it, to understand just how nasty these scum are and the sort of stuff they do. Very seldom do they have any real clue about what has happened, though they can sometimes employ logic about an event. Of course they have to have the right person as well, often they have someone who loosely fits the description (wrong height, weight, age, skin colour, sex, hair style, hair colour - but they're human and breathing so it's close enough).
I've even seen the pigs produce what they call "statements of facts" in court that can be very easily proven to contain a lot of false material (eg "the accused was driving his blue Toyota Camino"2 when they have a green Mondeo and don't know anyone who has a blue car), but the courts don't seem to care that if you can prove even 10% of it to be wrong with independent 3rd party stuff (eg traffic camera footage, or bus timetables ("He was on the #15 from Taranaki St to Port Rd at 12:15am" when a) there is no bus at that time, b) no bus on that route and c) no #15 bus anyway) then it's clear the rest should be in doubt, especially the stuff that can't be proven externally.
I used to believe that in NZ probably at most 1 in 1,000 accused were innocent, maybe a few more were "guilty but not necessarily fully as charged". Today, after it happened in my own family, I would suggest it may be as much as 20% not guilty and as much as 50% are over charged. I am not alone in this belief in NZ, anyone who has had it happen to a family member they know is innocent (eg was a kid at home, sick and in pyjamas in the lounge under blankets in front of family when they were supposedly out joyriding in stolen cars) knows just how much the scumbag pigs will lie to get a conviction. They're not interested in solving crimes, they're not interested even remotely in justice, they're only after convictions. That's what pays their wages, and if they can badger some poor teenager into confessing to something they didn't do, then they don't have to get off their arses and do real work.
1 Many such cases in NZ despite it being an illegal practice. When the family cannot afford a good lawyer, they can't easily get anything done about it. The police are happy to present the kid confessing to the courts, but will not present the "totally irrelevant" rest of the transcript and can make it difficult for the family/lawyers to get hold of the entire item. Sometimes they'll redact large parts under either our privacy act or another act that lets them do to "to aid in the discovery of crimes" or "to prevent covering up/hiding of crimes" (ie "we're claiming that something he said here might tip the family off to cover up other stuff by other people, so you cannot see it ever". If it can be proved that the kid was there without representation then the case may be thrown out of court, but "the honest cops would never ever consider that and the nasty parents of the even nastier little criminal are just making up stories to keep their kid out of jail where he rightfully belongs".
2 Yes, non-existant vehicle brands - they just plan to sound good, they don't have to have it match reality or even possibility.
TL:DR; Cops lie, don't trust their evidence, ever.
When part of your evidence is based on audio recordings from court or an interrogation that basically ignored his fundamental rights, you know the case is weak.
Added to that transcripts of online chats, weak again. Unless they can prove chain of evidence with metadata, logins and timings, it wont take much for the defence to have that thrown out either.
Overall if this was in good ol' OZ you'd expect an absolute grilling from the magistrate for such as sloppy investigation even the possibility of costs being awarded back. But considering it's the US. convicted and 25+ years seems quite likely
But considering it's the US. convicted and 25+ years seems quite likely
Nope, he'll be offered a "deal" to work for the government and create spyware for them. It's the only thing that would make this thing add up. They're frontloading charges so they can squeeze him for a "deal" - I hope he has a good defence fund because this case seems weak enough for them to try every bullying tactic known to man.
"an interrogation that basically ignored his fundamental rights"
The trouble with fundamental rights in the USA is that if you're not from the USA, you don't have them. There are a few parts of the constitution that have been successfully argued to apply to everyone in the country (hence places like Guantanamo, which aren't in the country), but most of the protections only apply to US citizens. So while such treatment may breach what you think his rights should be or the rights an American would have in the same situation, it's entirely possible that it was all entirely legal and will easily hold up in court. It's not a sloppy investigation, they just know exactly what they're able to get away with while obeying the letter of the law.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Constitution of the US and each individual state applies to anyone who is in the United States (and respective state), not just citizens. Even those in the US illegally are afforded the same constitutional rights and due process.
At any time Hutchins could have ended questioning.
Given the evidence provided so far, it's likely he was originally held because there was evidence provided from multiple sources which provides contrary information to the answers Hutchins provided. Lying during questioning isn't a good thing.
I'm also betting, that even in the country you live in, statements made without an attorney present can be used as evidence in court.
I love the ignorance about Guantanamo. First of all, Guantanamo is legally a sovereign part of Cuba. The USA is leasing the land there. Also, you would be quite wrong if you think the respective intelligence agency of most NATO countries don't have a location outside their own country to detain/question [whatever] foreigners/terrorists. You think all the individuals being held on terror plots which have halted before the act by MI5 within the UK are sitting in British jails? LOL
The authorities obviously don't understand any of this cyber security business and are going to hold Hutchins until he explains it to them.
Anyone who knows more than the average plod is suspicious. But they can always arrest the better fellow and force him to explain how things work until they can find the truly guilty.
It's a type of forced labor.
Aha! So this story is really just our own government doing the same thing more humanely?
At this point the FBI must know that their case is literally hanging on a piece of evidence suspended only by a wet piece of toilet paper. The only reason they aren't releasing the guy now is little more than pride, they don't wanna admit they got it so terribly wrong after the case has attracted attention but failing to admit their mistakes just makes it ever so more clear that they really do not know what they are doing.
Also I do not understand why he is being prosecuted in the US to begin with, if he really committed these crimes, it would stand to reason that he would have performed them while still in the UK and thus should be prosecuted in the UK, this seems like a horrendous abuse of power on all levels and one of the reasons why to this day, I have zero interest in ever visiting the US of A.
I'm willing to bet your country prosecutes the same way the USA does.
If a crime is committed by a gang in the UK, but the master mind and recruiter of the crime never left his home country of BangGangAstan... you think this master mind can't be extradited to the UK to charged and tried?
I already know the answer to this... YES HE CAN. Same answer for nearly all western countries.
You can still violate the laws of another country if the victim is in another country. You can also be tried on similar charges in the country you are physically located for the same crime without being protected by double-jeopardy laws.
This is seen a lot involving the crimes with the black market, drugs, etc. ...and more so now with computer crimes.
I'm willing to bet you'd be pissed if someone broke into your house and damaged a lot of your things. I'll even go out on the limb here, and think you'd want this person thrown in jail. Maybe have 10 minutes alone with him in a room to show his nose the bottom of your shoe with a bit of force?
Even the fact there are many criminals out there, all using tools and knowledge gained from other people. You may even want to go after those who knowingly purchased the goods stolen from your house.
Just a guess tho.
I'm willing to bet you'd be pissed if someone broke into your house and damaged a lot of your things.
He didn't "break into their house". A more appropriate analogy would be a friend asked you to look at their car (computer, TV, cat, whatever) because it wasn't working right, and you found someone had tampered with it and added an extra bit of hardware (software/transceiver/DNA etc) for some unknown purpose. Knowing that "thing" didn't belong, you removed it.
You then let others know there's someone wandering around the neighbourhood interfering with pussies, and you tell people how they can stop their pussy from becoming infected.
His 6th amendment rights weren't violated.
In this case, Hutchins was given his Miranda Rights and he decided to answer questions without a lawyer present. All legal. It's also legal to use his answers in court, as long as he was provided Miranda. Again, he chose to answer questions without his lawyer present.
He wasn't questioned for 24 straight hours. He was never under duress. Good grief, do you dream this crap up? If this was the case, the US media would be all over it because he would be screaming about it.
He can refuse to answer any questions and end questioning at any time so he can consult a lawyer.
He's being afforded a quick and speedy trial; however, Hutchins' lawyer asked for a 60 day continuance. He will have a jury in court and only has to convince one of them he is not guilty.
In court, he has every opportunity to call witnesses. It's likely his attorney will ask for more time in order to gather them.
...so I don't want people yelling about Hutchins not being afforded a speedy trial, when it's his lawyer who will likely draw it out.
Spot the Yank...
So, a man is arrested at an airport and questioned repeatedly by Police. And he's not under any duress? Are Americans suffering some form of collective stupidity or is it desperation to deflect from the realisation that the rest of the world increasingly views America as an aggressive bully?
"the realisation that the rest of the world increasingly views America as an aggressive bully?"Some are slow on the uptake... The United States accused Habib of many crimes that he confessed to under torture over a period of three years. There was never any evidence to support US claims and Habib was eventually released without charges in January 2005.
Law enforcement seem to be the same all round the world. I found some unpleasant porn on a school principal's PC and reported it. Turns out is was nastier than the image that I saw as the wallopers came and server a Search Warrant on me and they were quite nasty for some time. There was a distinct change in attitude and tone and I assume that was when they came to the conclusion that I didn't possess any child porn in my electronic devices. The bastards still took my laptop, PC and plethora of storage sticks away and told me I could pick them up in 3 to 4 months. Phone their building the following week and was told they weren't going to forensics and I could come and pick them up. Shame the PC wouldn't work but hey, "that's not our responsibility".
You are deemed guilty by them until you prove yourself innocent. I fear for Marcus.
hum, you must have missed the part where the OP was the one who found the image. no need to call him lucky.
seems like common sense not to unduly screw over people reporting child porn, no? if you want to keep on getting infractions reported, that is.
maybe a quick forensic imaging of their electronics to make sure they're not setting someone up, but definitely make it painless as possible.
glad Hutchins didn't follow advice, cited here, to roll over and plead guilty to lesser charges. he's either proved guilty of Kronos (and should burn if so). or he should walk entirely free. this trial deserves all the sunlight it can get - both for his sake and the FBIs behavior and reputation. best of luck to him.
From the actual document (hey, am I the only one who actually read it?):
"To date, the defendant has provided the defense with the following:
- 1 CD with post arrest statements
- CD with 2 audio recordings from the county jail in Nevada. (The government is awaiting a written transcript from the FBI.)"
Is that a typo or was it really the defendant that requested these be included in the evidence?
In which case I'd assume that they consist of him trying to tell them they got the wrong guy... Like, for example, explaining why his code ended up in the trojan in question.
Even if not and it's actually a typo (quite a critical one in the wrong context!) interrogations generally end up in the case evidence/discovery regardless of whether they are incriminating or not (or even if they consist of responding "No comment" to everything, in countries where you don't have the right to refuse questioning outright).
Or maybe they think they can prove his answers wrong at a latter time, etc.
Even if not and it's actually a typo (quite a critical one in the wrong context!) interrogations generally end up in the case evidence/discovery regardless of whether they are incriminating or not
They also love to play with "soundbites" during hearings. "We asked the client if he stole the cars, and you can hear him clearly say he did [plays tape] {victim} 'Yes, I did' [stops tape] So you can see the defendant is clearly guilty".
Whereas the full tape would be "Yes, I did attend secondary school".
(Ok, this is starting to sound like I have a bit of a grudge against lying scumbagscoppers!)
"Ok, this is starting to sound like I have a bit of a grudge against lyingQuite understandable. I wish I could say otherwise, but my son was treated by them very badly. Never charged with anything after I was told by a detective that I would be utterly disgusted by what he'd done when he was charged. Eventually I received an abject apology from the chief detective who told me there was no evidence that The Gitling had been anything other than an exemplary citizen.scumbagscoppers!"
I am afraid it isn't just in the US. I was speaking to a member here that doesn't have a member. That memberless member told me that Shawnigan Lake is south of here. It is 30 kilometres north northwest of the station. South that far is 26 kilometres in the ocean. Then I spoke to the Watch Commander about how I could possibly pin down the IP address actual location address of a criminal with a fair degree of accuracy. He gave me a virtual blank stare.
My IP is intentionally difficult to pin down but I can still get it to about 7 km. It is in the same jurisdiction.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
