Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:3 comp.org.eff.talk:1788
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!asylum!langz
From: langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: CASE: softcopy vs. harcopy records
Summary: MCI softcopy differs from paper record
Message-ID: <13801@asylum.SF.CA.US>
Date: 28 Mar 91 22:09:48 GMT
Organization: The Asylum, Belmont, CA
Lines: 34

In an article in the comp.dcom.telecom Usenet newsgroup,
dmr@research.att.com (Dennis Ritchie) writes:

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

-- 
langz@asylum.sf.ca.us         "Karma means `getting caught.'  The secret to
not creating karma is getting even without getting caught." --Rodent Kapoor