Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!telecom-request From: dmr@research.att.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: MCI Telephone Records Produced in NY Trial Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 07:33:32 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 28 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 248, Message 7 of 13 There's a notorious trial going on now in suburban New York, often called the `Fatal Attraction' case from its resemblance to a certain movie plot. Man A, married to woman B, had an an affair with woman C; B was shot and killed, and C is being tried for murder. All the evidence is circumstantial. There is reason to believe that C bought a pistol at Ray's Sport Shop (oddly, just down route 22 from me in New Jersey); though the weapon has not been found, a recovered bullet corresponds with its type. Here's the Telecom connection. The prosecutor has summoned MCI, who brought records showing a telephone call from C to Ray's a day or so before before the weapon was purchased. C denies making the call. Moreover, she presented in evidence a paper MCI bill for the period, which not only fails to show the call to Ray's, but also shows a call to her mother at a time which, she argues, would make it impossible for her to be at the murder scene. MCI says it has no record of the call to C's mother. The prosecution objected to the introduction of the paper MCI bill, but the judge allowed it in evidence. So the jury has (among other things) to evaluate the trustworthiness of the MCI records as produced from their tapes, vs. the piece of paper produced by the defendant. Dennis Ritchie