* Posts by Bill99

17 publicly visible posts • joined 18 May 2011

Home Office doc 'not qualified' to assess McKinnon suicide risk

Bill99

Re: I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.

Well now, this is where your argument is a bit wrong. He left many messages on the systems, stating he was a friend to the American people, and asking the government to please increase their security. The prosecutors (and members of the British government, it should be added) then leapt upon an unrepresentative quote, and took it out of context to make it look like his aim was to make threats. It wasn't. And there's nothing incompatible about his position at all, when you consider WHY he was looking for evidence of UFOs. Which you don't seem to have troubled yourself with.

Back on topic, like you say. It is the job of medical professionals to state the facts accurately. And yes, to state their opinions. The thing is, 6 such clinicians (highly qualified in the relevant fields) have already done so, and there was no conflict between any of their views. On the prosecution side, they have chosen (against the advice of NAS) to instruct a clinician who is not qualified to pass comment, but yet who has chosen to do so without having even seen the patient. He's entitled to his opinion, but you've got to ask, what is it based on? And following your argument, if the prosecution believe the only way they can get evidence that he's fit for trial is to use someone that doesn't really know what they're talking about, doesn't that tell you something about the strength of their case?

But anyway, it is actually Theresa May's job, not the court's, to weigh up and decide, which is the more convincing set of evidence: a single, flimsy, in absentia report from a non-expert, or 6 unanimous in depth face-to-face assessments from the most eminent autism specialists in the land if not the world (including independently appointed ones, if I'm not mistaken). Hmm, it's a tough one isn't it? That must be why she's spent two years dithering.

Bill99

Re: Yes I committed a crime but I should not be punished

Well this is the thing. Technically, he has to be let off, because the Summary Offence that happened ten years ago - the only offence for which any evidence exists - can only be prosecuted within 6 months of the offence. It would actually be unlawful to prosecute now.

Having said that, I think you misunderstand Janis Sharp. She's repeatedly stated that she wants him to be tried here. Even though that in itself would be unjust in comparison to the law that every other member of the population is subject to.

Bill99

Re: Yes I committed a crime but I should not be punished

You mean like the bankers? Like the MPs with their expenses-fiddling (aka fraud)? Like Andrew Lansley, Jeremy Hunt et al. with their blatant profiteering (aka tax-payer theft)? Like Vodafone and Jimmy Car et al.? Like the police eg in Ian Tomlinson & Jean-Charles cases to name but two?

You see, that's the difference between real criminals on the one hand, and Gary McKinnon on the other. He's never tried to avoid justice, or being held to account for his actions. He just doesn't want to be extradited to America on what are now known to be false allegations. What exactly is unreasonable about that?

Bill99

Re: When I was young

Like Gary McKinnon was, you mean?

Bill99

Except for the fact that the numerous experts saying he's unfit for trial have actually assessed him personally. The home office are relying solely a single in absentia report (flawed in a number of ways), which conflicts with the *entirety* of the other evidence.

I think we all know which view has the greater credibility - which is most likely why the Home Office, having initially intended to rely on their in absentia report, now realising it would never carry weight, suddenly decided to try again to force an assessment from their hand-picked non-expert. It's so painfully transparent, it would be funny if it weren't so sinister.

Bill99

Re: Equador

He does. His own medical evidence from world-renowned clinicians, and an extensive family medical history attest to this. If you also knew much about AS, you'd know the tests for it are extremely reliable, and it's virtually impossible to get a false-positive. And this much has been acknowledged by the courts - the diagnosis is not in any doubt. As for protesting his innocence, the devastating psychological injury arising from this prolonged trauma has made him incapable of doing so. Your argument is full of holes, I'm afraid.

Bill99

Peter2 Doesn't Know Very Much About Asperger's

Of course there are doctors qualified to assess suicide risk in Asperger's - including the three who have already assessed Gary (with compelling and unanimous results). If you knew anything about the condition and the empirical findings on the subject, you would know this. The NAS even provided a list of suggested experts who have the training and experience to be able to carry out such an assessment - yet for reasons unknown the Home Office chose to ignore this.

It's a shame that you have entirely missed the point here - assessing suicide risk is *different* when the patient is on the Autistic Spectrum as compared to the signs and signifiers of suicide risk typically observed in a 'neuro-typical' patient. As an extensive literature exists to testify. Your post just goes to underline the dangers in this case of allowing comment from non-experts!

Judges set timetable for McKinnon case resolution

Bill99

What 'damage'?

No, he didn't cause any damage, that's the whole point! He didn't delete anything (bar his own logfiles- hardly system-critical, according to expert testimony) and he didn't shut anything down. The sums quoted neither represent 'damage', nor can they be attributed to McKinnon's activity. All amply illustrated in 2009. The extradition request relies on the now-disproved allegations of damage - hence extradition would not be legal, as there remains no reasonable suspicion that there is any case to answer.

Bill99

What rubbish!

Ten years ago when charges were brought, the CPS decided not to prosecute because, according to the head of the High Tech Crime Unit, they had been told 'from the top' to 'stand aside, because America wanted him'. Charges were dropped. A further three years then passed, and it was only after the new extradition act came into force, removing the requirement for prima facie evidence, that the extradition request was issued.

And then in May 2010, the Home Secretary herself adjourned the Judicial Review in order to consider the evidence. The submissions requested by the Home Secretary were then received by the 8th June deadline as requested, and since then, she has sat on her proverbial, scraping the barrel for lame excuses not to act on her Section 6 obligations. It's been 18 months.

You can hardly say it's >Gary< who has been holding everything up.

Bill99

Did Jack of Kent also include the Judge's response to the suggestion of trying McKinnon under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act? The response was, and I quote: "and pigs might fly".

Did the oh-so unbiassed Jack of Kent mention that? No, I thought not.

Bill99

I could make an allegation that you'd raped, murdered and dismembered someone, if I wanted to. But that wouldn't make it true though, would it? Wouldn't mean you had a case to answer. lol

You're wrong to assume Jack of Kent is unbiased, when you clearly have no idea of the information and factual detail he's selectively leaving out, in favour of repeating ludicrous allegations that have been publicly shown to have no basis in fact. The reason some of these allegations are not mentioned elsewhere anymore is because proper journalists who check their facts know that these allegations are false and that repeating them amounts to defamation, not to mention prejudicing a fair outcome. Jack of Kent is an incompetent at best, as far as this case is concerned.

Bill99

Number One - the only admission was Computer Misuse Level1 - a Summary Offence and not extraditable, hence not material to the extradition request. That admission was made without an Appropriate Adult present in any case, which renders it inadmissable as evidence. The extradition allegations have always been denied. His solicitors made an offer to admit Level3, but this was laughed out of court as so blatantly contrary to the evidence.

Number Two - the forensic IT report (which Jack of Kent for some reason omits to mention) shows that McKinnon caused no damage at all.

Number Three - without 'reasonable suspicion' that he caused the threshhold amount of damage, it is not an extraditable offence. That 'reasonable suspicion' was ruled out by the evidence presented to the High Court in 09.

Number Four - Why Jack of Kent fails to grasp any of this is anybody's guess. He had a very good reputation before he threw it away on this hatchet job on an innocent and vulnerable man....

Bill99

Jack of Kent unbiased? Don't make me laugh

The whole reason why people are opposed to this extradition is that the wild allegations made by the US prosecutors are without foundation, and the current legislation affords no protection from such false allegations. The extradition request relies upon the allegation of $5000 of damage caused per machine accessed. This allegation was shown in the High Court in July 09 to be unsubstantiated, and most likely false [cf the CPS Review Note Three and the forensic IT report of Prof. Peter Summer]. The 'critical files' McKinnon is accused of deleting turned out to be his own log files, the 'vital military installations' he's supposed to have shut down were not in fact shut down by him, and in any case were only responsible for ceremonial and administrative activities. The information he accessed was so 'top secret' that it was put on the internet without any protection. The $5000 of 'damage' turned out to be the cost of installing the firewalls and passwords that the US military were legally obliged to have installed in the first place! If you doubt how the government have exaggerated the allegations, never mind Jack of Kent, who clearly has his own axe to grind, and is highly selective in his analysis. Have a look at Mark Ballard's award-winning article for Computer Weekly.

McKinnon battles renewed Obama-era extradition push

Bill99
Alert

Unconvincing

Oh, come on! The guy said very clearly and unequivocally that Gary McKinnon committed serious crimes. The context doesn't change that. It's a presumption of guilt, pure and simple, and quite incompatible with any possibility of a fair trial (not to mention incompatible with the evidence).

Up until Holder's pronouncement, the only issue presently being decided was whether the atypically disastrous effect of extradition on McKinnon due to his Asperger's amounts to an unlawful breach of his human rights. That's laying aside for a moment the fact that the extradition allegations against him have already shown to be false. Now, though, there is another very compelling reason not to extradite, namely the fact that he's unlikely to receive a fair trial in the US. Would you want to send your son for trial in a country that had already pronounced him guilty?

As for a 'plea deal', such things are looked upon with distaste in Britain's legal system, as being improper and counter to the interests of justice. Especially when those offering them decline to guarantee that any deal will be honoured, and instead make equally distasteful threats to 'fry' a person.

Bill99

Umm...

Nose around your stuff? Stuff that was so secret you chose to put it online and not secure it? Really?

I'm not sure what the rest of your argument is saying. If his condition prevented him from stopping himself, then he can't hardly be held responsible for it, can he?

Bill99
Alert

Seriously?

This intelligent blogger, who actually couldn't be bothered to mention the CPS disclosure indicating 'no evidence' for the extradition allegations, or the forensic IT report indicating the same? The evidence that was presented to a packed courtroom in 2009, including reporters from just about every national newspaper? That Jack of Kent, is it? Mister Bandwagon? Mister Selective? Mister Blatant Agenda?

Bill99
Alert

You've got the wrong end of the stick, mate

So? Asperger's wasn't recognised by WHO until the 90's. People of his age didn't get the chance to be diagnosed in childhood, as people are today. In addition, the tests for autism (the ADOS etc) are very robust and pretty much impossible to get a false positive.

On your second point, the argument is not about whether he should be put on trial, but whether he should be extradited. And the Asperger's does speak to the question of the lawful limit of the article 8 human rights violation that extradition necessarily entails.