In documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been learned that the US Department of Justice investigated Barack Hussein Obama and in particular looked at his whereabouts around 1961.
Details appear on page 7 of the 182-page report. Following is an excerpt from the report (click to enlarge).
This US Department of Justice investigation shows Barack Hussein Obama (President Obama’s father) last entered the United States on August 9, 1959. The investigation conducted in 1964 demonstrated that Mr. Obama, Sr. was in the United States continuously between 1959 and 1964, precluding a trip to Kenya in 1961. While this does not prove that Stanley Ann Obama herself did not travel to Kenya, it makes this scenario even more wildly impossible.
In an interesting side note, we see that the route traveled by Obama from Kenya to the United States in 1959 included a London to New York leg, where Obama Sr. entered the United States (see Page 10).
“‘Kenya’? There was no such place as Kenya then!”
I note in passing that (per page 10), Obama senior’s Kenyan passport number is “8476.” Not a lot of Kenyan international travelers back then, it would appear.
It has believed, Stanley Ann Dunham went alone to Kenya to give birth. This would suggest why Dunham’s passport records have been destroyed. Cdmr. Kerchner has developed a plausible scenario of Obama’s birth in Kenya and how it was done that ties up much of the loose ends in this case.
A Suggested Narrative – How Obama is physically Born in Kenya but still Obtains Hawaiian Birth Registration Record
Wildly implausible. Thousands of words compared to the truth: “she stayed home.”
Kerchner claims to be an experienced genealogical researcher. He should know that the primary documents (contemporary records like birth certificates and newspapers) are the most reliable.
Kerchner uses the conventional birther tactic of the “convenient lie” (James, you’re the expert here) when he says that Hawaiian registration laws were “lax.” And of course the long form completely precludes the fraudulent home birth scenario.
I’m not so sure. The only to know for certain is get into the Hawaii DOH’s vault and see what is actually in there. And even that may no be enough as Mark Zullo has said. The document will have to forensically testing to eliminate the possibility of tampering.
Narrative for the Suggestable / Susceptible
Surely you’ve been in the birther business long enough to know that “enough” is not in the birther vocabulary.
please forgive john, he’s a bit upset that Sheriff Joe’s pony show flopped,so far 22 of his OMG moments have failed, so give him a break, at least until his next OMG moment.
I want to acknowledge and thank Northland10 for mentioning the fact that the immigration file contains this information.
I’m really don’t spend much effort looking for more evidence that the birthers are wrong. They haven’t established a case to begin with, so a defense is unnecessary. All I spend time on is demonstrating that their evidence is faulty and inadmissible.
However, it’s certainly worth mentioning these bits of evidence on the other side.
You are too polite. The only thing he left out are the flying pigs that might have gotten mother and baby from Kenya to Hawaii.
Why would a woman make such a trek so late in a pregnancy just to give birth in Kenya without her husband? Is this some super secret uber conspiracy to insure that a man not born in America would become president some day?
Really, to even suggest such a stupid idea does not pass the “rolling on the floor laughing my butt” off test.
I should mention that the Kerchner scenario allows for Stanley Ann to travel to Kenya alone, but it is based on two essential lies:
1) Stanley Ann had problems that would preclude her giving birth at home, for which no support exists. Just look at the warm family photos of the Dunhams with young Obama.
2) It is documented that Obama Sr.’s father was extremely angry over his son’s marriage to a white woman.
That is instead of traveling from trouble to safety as Kerchner suggests, a flight to Africa would be the exact opposite.
In 2008 it was “Show us the Birth Certificate”, so he did. Then it became “no no no, not THAT birth certificate, show us a certified copy of the LONG FORM birth certificate, so he did, then it became “SHOW US THE MICROFICHE”.
So now it’s “Open up the vault and show us what’s in there.
Not that such a stupid suggestion would happen, but I’m sure should it ever happen the birthers will come up wiht yet another way to move the goalposts.
Perhaps hell froze over (including the oceans) and she ice skated.
Here is a 16 minute interview to listen to with an author of a serious book about Obama Sr:
When teenage girls have trouble with their parents, the first place they turn is their girlfriends. If she absolutley had to “get out of town” (and there is not the slightest reason to think she did), she would have gone to Seattle, where she had lots of friends, having graduated high school there not that long before.
Kerchner’s story is dumber than a box of rocks and John is even dumber for believing it.
Might I suggest that you alter the title to reflect the investigation was of the father of the President not the President himself..?
There is enough Birfoon Bufoonery as is without confusing the children even more than usual…. 😎
a rare gem, a speech by Obama while he was president of Harvard Law Review, amazing
But what if Stanley Ann Dunham DID travel to Kenya and give birth there in a rural village where no records of the birth were created and what if she then returned to Hawaii but the family convinced an Ob/Gyn at Kapi’olani Hospital to create a birth certificate for their new son and Dr. David A Sinclair was willing to do just that. There would be no evidence of “tampering,” there would only be a real 1961 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth with falsified data on it showing a 7:24 p.m., August 4, 1961 birth in Honolulu.
And to add to this Hollywood movie script scenario, what if the Dunhams never told the child that he was really born in Kenya and all his life he has believed that he was born in Hawaii?
The most absurd thing I have every read. Besides the fact that it is total fantasy, without a shred of any evidence to support it, and contradicts the evidence that actually exists, it doesn’t even attempt to answer the most obvious issues. First off, would an airline even let a heavily pregnant woman fly around the world in 1961, particularly considering how complicated, and rough such a trip would be in 1961? How did she get around the required vaccinations to enter Africa? And if she waited until her 2nd or 3rd trimester, why not just give birth here, and put the child up for adoption? The of course, no explanation of how the child entered the US without any documentation, and almost as rediculous as the idea that a woman in her late 2nd or 3rd trimester would take a week long trip to a third world nation to give birth is the idea that right after giving birth she would be up for another week long trip back across the world with a new born child. I love the comment of “There is no record of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama being in HI or anywhere in the USA from circa the very early spring of 1961” but totally ignores the fact that there is no record of Stanley Ann EVER going to Kenya. So somehow it is significant that we have no evidence of her being in Hawaii in that particular time period (except for the President’s birth certificate of course, which places her in Hawaii), but the fact that we have no evidence of her ever leaving, or being anywhere else is somehow significant.
Then there is the outright lies saying that the President’s grandmother claims to have held the new born President in Mobassa hospital. This is particularly rich, since even the butchered audio makes no mention of Mobassa hospital (and of course ignores the fact that she say he was born in Hawaii), ignores the fact that the ambassor he quotes issued a correction the next morning saying he was speaking about Obama’s father, and that somehow, if PM says something on Parliament floor, it suddlen becomes a factual statement. This has to be the most rediculous thing I have ever read.
Only if you have no respect for the laws and Constitution of the United States.
The state of Hawaii has provided the President with two different documents that say he was born in Hawaii. The state of Hawaii has made public the index data confirming the President was born in Hawaii. There is no evidence that the President was born anywhere else but the state of Hawaii.
There has been no evidence every produced to show the president was born anywhere else, and secondary sources confirm Hawaiian birth. If there was an actual court case that required a birth certificate, either form the President has published (and which have been examined by third parties) would be legally sufficient to establish Hawaiian birth. So why should we ignore the US Consitution and the laws of the 50 states, and federal law to require an innocent man, who has never been charged with anything, no presented with any evidence of wrong doing, to prove for a 3rd time his innocence, in the process ignoring the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, as well as the federal (and I’m guess most, if not all the states) rules of evidence?
Is it because you hate our country, our legal system, or just the scary black man in the white house? I’m guessing all of the above.
Sorry, the ambiguity was intentional and an essential part of the intent of the story.
John has the right to his opinions, and though preposterious they may be, I’m certain that as a patriot, John would defend to the death our right to mock them.
I agree …. coddling is intended for infants.
I do not believe one can be a patriot, while advocating dispensing with the assuption of innocence until proven guilty (requiring an individual continually reprove his innocence), or intentionally ignoring parts of the Constitution that get in their way while attempting to delegitimize a duly elected President, that received more votes than any individual in our nation’s history.
But that’s just me.
If she were going to go anywhere it makes sense that she would have gone to Seattle like she did shortly after her son was born.
BTW, there are some contradictions in the INS records, on page 4 there are two cards, one says date of admission 8/9/59 and the other (upside down on the page) says date of admission 8/9/60. On page 10 an “Arrival-Departure Record that has a stamp that says admitted on 8/9/60. This would appear to be a card held by the INS and everytime an extension was granted the card was updated. Including his eventual departure in 1964.
So I would assume his actual entry into the US was 8/9/1960.
I love Judge Judy’s common sense. She likes to say “That doesn’t make sense. And if it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true!”
The very idea that a poor 19 year old pregnant girl would fly half way around the world, to a place where she doesn’t know anyone, to live with strangers, only to give up her child, then fly home to her husband, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Starting with, where did she get her money for the expensive air fare? Huh??? Nothing about this flight of fancy makes sense! Judge Judy would laugh the birthers out of her courtroom.
That was great, thanks. Maybe the person saying no one had proof he even went to Harvard would believe this. No, wait, they didn’t believe the newspaper articles at the time. Oh, well…
Looks like the 8/9/1959 date is the correct one. On page 49 is a December, 1959 doc that says he wanted permission to go to work.
You lost me at “Kerchner”.
Woopy, he has a theory, good for the “Commander”.
Are you completely insane?
Are you actually suggesting that a woman in the last month of pregnancy would not only go on a taxing around the world trip circa 1960, but that she would do so without the immigrant husband who, you know, speaks the language, knows where everything is, knows how to get around, etc. That’s fool talk.
And frankly, when one is so desperate to believe anything that will keep Barak Obama from being President in their little minds, the motivation is transparently obvious, whether you will admit it to yourself or not.
John should read what the Mayo Clinic has to say about the third trimester of a pregnancy. The backaches and frequent urination would be enough to keep anyone from contemplating a flight halfway around the world, not to mention the recommendation for bi-weekly checkups with an ob/gyn.
“We are so upset that you are marrying this man that we are sending you halfway around the world to hang out with his family. After the wedding, of course. Here’s a few thou for airfare. Need a ride to the airport?”
What’s at all weird about that?
Seriously, how was CDR raised that he finds this kind of family dynamic plausible?
“That’s fool talk.”
Say n’more; say n’more.
Regarding Obama’s grandmother, the wording as I understand it is:
McRae: “Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to visit Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?”
“She says yes she was. She was present when Obama was born,” said the translator.
I take this to mean that she was present in Kenya when Obama was born (which she was) , not that Obama was born in Kenya. That makes more sense in light of her immediate denial that President Obama was born in Kenya.
Especally considering the whole interview was through an interpreter. “Present” and “here” are very close in English; they could be the same word in Luo, in which case the question would have been “Were you here when he was born?” to which she then answers “yes.” Then when the interviewer asked about the President being born there, she clarified that he had misunderstood; BHO was born in Hawaii, as all people without sludge between their ears are now aware.
Anything is possible in the birther universe. I believe Stanley Ann Dunham had access to a time machine with the flex capacitor, probably from professor Emmett “Doc” Brown himself. She used that machine to go to Kenya, gave birth to Obama Jr., and returned to Hawaii. This perfectly explains why there is no record of Stanley leaving or entering the USA around the time of Obama’s birth. Keep in mind she can go back in time or to the future with a press of a button. Upon learning Obama Jr. would win the presidential election in 2008, she immediately made the birth announcement on two Hawaiian news papers and forged all the necessary documents to get Obama’s official birth certificate.
Great Scott! I hope the honest Sheriff Arapaio and his posses will investigate this angle.
Normally, I do not look up all the little details but found myself curious, wondering if the files might show where he arrived (I didn’t expect when). Oh the fun you can have when you should be practicing. I guess I will have the “wing it” on the Widor this Easter. Maybe I can blame it on the birthers.
Yeah, and while you’re there, you can meet MY OTHER WIFE!
That brings back memories.
When I was a child I asked myself about the hypothetical situation of an archaeologist digging up what he believed was an ancient vase and according to every test he could think of it was authentic, but it was not. The fake was so well made that it bore no signs of it being a fake. Then I asked myself the philosophic question of whether it actually was a fake and where did the knowledge reside that it was.
Funny what you think about when you’re a kid.
Mmmmm . . . dilaudid. Calgon, take me away!
Not flying pigs, Lying Lucas Smith’s floating Virgin Mary.
Doc, (Houston) we have a problem. The immigration documents released to Heather Smathers show that Obama Sr. was born in 1934. He didn’t state his DOB as1936 until he got to Harvard. You can see the 6/18/1934 birth date in the immigration documents on pages 54, 52, 51, 49, 45, 43, 39, 37, 35, 32, 19, 9, 3 and 1.
the 1936 birth date is used by Obama Sr only after he left Hawaii. you can find it on pages 31, 29, 27, 25, 14, and 7.
my guess is that Obama Sr. wanted to appear younger while at Harvard, so he wouldn’t be forced to go back to Kenya. In 1964 he would have been 30 years old, a little too old for your average scholorship student.
but this also creates a cloud over the birth certificate. Obama Sr.’s age is listed as 25 on Obama II’s birth certificate, dated August 4,1961. In reality, (if we are to believe the immigration documents) Obama Sr. was 27 years old.
there is also a newspaper article that adds credence to the fact that Obama Sr. was 27 in 1961. Written in 1959 by Honolulu Star-Bulletin reporter Shurei Hirozawa, it was entitled “Young Men From Kenya, Jordan and Iran Here to Study at U.H.” In it Hirozawa writes, “One of them is Barack Obama, 25 year old business administration major from Kenya…”
So, when Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii in 1959, long before Ann Dunhan was ever in Hawaii, he told a reporter he was 25 years old. Doc, can you explain this?
Unfortunately you’ve made an often encountered error where you’ve conflicted time and space.
The DeLorean only went through time and whatever distance it took to get to 88mph.
I highly doubt it was driven to Africa and back.
THAT certainly pokes a hole into another reasonable and cogent birther argument…
I could never figure out how time machines worked if they could work. You need to end up some place relative in time and space. The Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun, while the sun is moving relative to space. The original Back to the Future time machine placed someone at an exact time at exactly the same spot as if we were surveying a spot of land.
I figured if a time machine really worked, it could materialize someone in a solid object or perhaps combine things such as the air that’s in the target location. Perhaps it displaces whatever matter is there. However, if it has to be the same spot in some relative point, I figured it would most likely materialize someone in outer space given the movement of the Earth.
There was a Back to the Future Saturday morning cartoon. They turned it into an historical journey by changing the time machine such that it could go to a specific time and place.
Still – I guess that’s why it’s called science fiction.
I wrote a comprehensive article on this last May:
As you can see, your comment: “He didn’t state his DOB as 1936 until he got to Harvard.” is incorrect. This resolves the problem so far as the birth certificate.
Otherwise, Obama Sr. lied about his age.
I have written extensively about this. The Kenya birth scenario is physically impossible:
Wait a minute Doc, Obama Sr. left Hawaii for Harvard on 6/22/1962.
From your article,”I(t) appears that prior to 8/10/62 all dates of birth point to 1934 and every document Obama actually signed after 6/6/63 used the 1936 date.”
so it is correct that Obama Sr. did not use the 6/18/1936 birth date until he was at Harvard. If you want to split hairs, we can say he didn’t use that birthdate until after he left Hawaii.
also, what about the reporter? Someone had to tell him Obama Sr was 25 in 1959, Occam says it was Obama Sr. who gave that piece of information.
Hey, sorry about that, I misread the chart.
What the chart shows, however, is that Obama Sr. went back and forth with birth dates so he was inconsistent. It’s not like there was this cutoff point before which he always did one thing and after which he did another. So the only thing you can say about the birth certificate is that it’s the first document we know about using the 1936 date, but so what? I really don’t understand your original statement that this “creates a cloud” over the birth certificate.
What the chart shows is that Obama Sr. only changed his birth date after he left Hawaii.
We also have an eye witness to his age who just so happened to be a reporter. If we base our research solely on documents we have to accept the fact that Obama Sr. was and told everyone he was, 25 in 1959 which would of course make him 27 in 1961.
So, could the people who filled in the information on the Obama II birth certificate have made a mistake? Yes, possibly. It just adds another inexplicable complication to the story. That’s all I’m saying.
In vital records speak, the person providing information is called the “informant” and It’s usually the mother. We know that’s the case here because Stanley Ann Obama is the one who signed the form. She is the source of the age.
You interpret the dates to say that at some point Obama Sr. wanted to make himself appear younger than he actually was. If that’s the case it would be for vanity, not to help with scholarships — they don’t work that way. And so you assume that he was really born in 1934. There’s nothing implausible about that scenario.
However, another scenario is that at some point a very young Obama Sr. tried to make himself appear older, and then later reverted to his true date of birth. There’s nothing implausible about this scenario either. The 1936 date is further supported by the fact that this is what is on his tombstone.
Obviously Obama Sr. lied about his birth date, so any date from him is questionable. The tombstone presumably came from his family, who have independent knowledge and no reason to falsify the date.
If I had to guess, I’d say that the 1936 date is the true one.
And after Birthers saying there have been 10,000 complications to the story, which proved to be nothing, this one really have me up nights!
The BC is authentic. He’s the President. Get over it.
Complications are not necessarily inexplicable. Failure to understand that life is messy is a contributor to paranoid thinking. There are far scarier unknowns to be worried about.
Doc, I’m only going by the documents we have, and i believe you would be the first to concede that a tombstone is not a document.
Also, based on the immigration documents, wouldn’t you agree that his passport would have had the 1934 DOB? It would appear to me to be extremely unlikely that his passport had a 1936 DOB while the immigration documents show a 1934 DOB.
So, we can only conclude based on the documents we have that the informant, Stanley Ann Dunham, got Obama Sr.’s age wrong. Another inexplicable complication.
“There you go again.”
It was probably done to entertain a little girl at a boring university dinner — but it sounds like a mystery for
The (other) Doctor Svlad CjelliDirk Gently to unravel.
I nominate for QOTD.
How is that even an explicable complication? On my birth certificate, the father I always knew was listed as my father. The name of the man who biologically ” contributed” is nowhere on the document. Since I was born in America, have attained the age of 35 years, and resided in the U.S for 14 years; I am eligible to be President ( although the pics from the college years may haunt me, if I throw the old hat in the ring.).
A weaselly father does not render Article 2 an asterisk
REALLY?? All this fuss over the fact that Obama SENIOR’S DOB is incorrect? My mother was born at home in 1936. When she went to get her driver’s license they realized the doctor had not filed a BC and had since died. She and her mother went and swore that she was born on a specific date in 1936 and she received a VALID BC. My ex-husband’s aunt was born in the ’30s and up until she was 16 thought her name was “Martha Lees” which was on every document and record that she filled out, school, medical, etc. When she went to get her driver’s license she had to get a copy of her BC and found out that her real name was “Margaret Louise.” So what??
Obama Sr. was born in Africa in the 1930s. The fact the he, himself may not have known his exact birthdate wouldn’t be something that I find particurarly shocking. My father was born in Europe in the 1930s, and there is some question as to which year he was born in. I would think European record keeping was probably a little better than Africa’s.
Even more central, what does it matter? The date of Obama Sr.’s birth is entirely irrelevant. How does anything about Obama Sr’s birth add or detract anything, particularly an “inexplicable complication” to “the story”?
Obama Sr. was kind of a rascal.
They met at a Russian language course. One wonders whether the text of the ancient song Milenky ty moy was part of the course.
Milaya moya, vzyal by ya tebya, a tam v kraju dalyokom, jest u menya zhena. (My dearest, I would take you along, but in that land far away, there is a wife already)
“The fact the he, himself may not have known his exact birthdate”
understandable to me, I was born at home, no birth certificate, my mother celebrated my birth day on April 5 every year, when I was 18, I joined the US Marines, they asked for BC, I had none so I got my baptism papers,it clearly stated April 6. My father filled them out. so who is right, mother or father. Doesn’t matter as the only date I could use to get a delayed BC is April 6.
I agree. Here’s another inexplicable complication: Rush Limbaugh’s veins are filled with R-12 halomethane refrigerant.
john woodman is frank arduini… fake obama… kevin you fake bullshit artist….. meet me somewhere you fuckin coward… scott e. washamericom (beradine ayers)
[Well, I had to let this one through just for comedic irony. We recall that Scott Erlandson was the coward who ran away from a debate he had agreed to with Frank Arduini at Reality Check Radio. (John Woodman is not Frank Arduini by the way. Both have been on Reality Check Radio and their voices are very unlike.)
I’m moving our cross-dressing troll from the moderation filter to the spam filter so I don’t have to look at his pathetic pleas for attention any more. I give attention to the moderation queue just in case someone is there that shouldn’t be. The spam queue gets less attention, and I delete it through a more compact interface.
Moving him to the spam queue is an application of the Empty Chair philosophy. By presenting Scott with an empty chair, I don’t have to listen to him. Doc]
I was going to leave the following in the open thread but, given the comment stream, it seams appropriate here.
This morning, I was reading a book by Brian Wren, “Praying Twice, The Music and Words of Congregational Song,” and in the chapter on contemporary worship music, I noticed some quotes which caused me to reflect how it is similar to some birther behavior. In an initial statement he says (emphasis mine, to demonstrate the part reflective of birther style):
This sentence is footnoted, with a quote from Aylward Shorter’s “Toward a Theology of Inculturation.”
Who is the coward Bernadine.. Running away from a debate… You’re so pwned.
Your name will live in infamy forever… Bummer….
A wise choice. For one, the post you showed used some very vile & irresponsible language in an attempt to get attention. Pathetic coward Scott is just looking to start fights by slinging ugly poo and then running away again.
There is no reason to entertain any of his childish rants anymore. I agree, leave him in the obscurity of the trash where he belongs and flush often.
The obots flap their arms and clack their fingers frantically over their keyboards.
Meanwhile, every day their are calm, methodical police investigators who are running the newly developing Arpaio leads on the HI DOH, the INS, the Obama staff, and at least one suspect, a ‘person of interest’, based on already established ‘probable cause’. They will soon be fighting over the honor to make the arrest for felonies of b.c. forgery and/or SSN fraud….and then?
What will the obot explanations be then??…. Maybe you’ll still be here clacking away…the police are stupid?…racist?…delusional? We’re all sooooo much smarter than all of them!!??
Sorry, obots, it won’t work much longer. Prisons are full of people like you and there’s about to be at least one more added…let’s see what he/she has to say when the cuffs go on….
Name one current or former member of the police who is on the Cold Case Posse. That’s the problem. Nobody knows who is on the Posse and what are their qualifications.
You should take a hint from the fact that no one outside of the birthers takes the Arpaio show seriously. They shouldn’t — the Posse is just a bunch of birthers (from all that has been disclosed so far) who got a bigoted old sheriff to let them play in his office.
And then? Most likely Obama gets re-elected and Arpaio not so much.
Nice projection! 😀
“LurchInTheSand”, these “methodical police investigators” of yours, along with Shuurif Joes’ self proclaimed “renowned forensic experts”.
a. They are volunteer “posse” members and certainly not police
b. The following is a little long but demonstrates some of the steps that an ACTUAL forensics analyst or expert would undertake and some of the minima criteria they need. Without these and there is precisely zero evidence that these putative “experts” (***cough*** Mara Zebest***cough***) undertook or even understood them, then any data so gathered would be wholly valueless and never see the inside of a courtroom as “evidence”.
Analysis of an electronic copy or electronic representation of an original physical copy
The very first step that must be taken is to ensure that at the least 2 fixed immutable master copies of the data are taken and that these are secured and stored.
A work record needs to opened stating what the file is, where and when it was obtained, the mechanisms use to obtain the file, the steps undertaken to ensure the inviolate nature of the seized file, and whether the file is an original document itself or a representation of a physical original.
In addition the work files needs to contain a full record of all tasks undertaken.
Assuming that the work is being undertaken on a representation of an original physical copy:
1.What methodologies (if any) did the Cold Cae Posse and their as yet anonymous “experts” use to seize forensically sound originals of the images they analysed?
2.Did they have access to the data storage device the original file resides on or did they simply copy a file over the internet?
3.If they did not have access to the originating storage media, what steps could they have undertaken to ensure the file they worked on is the file stored on the originating media?
4.Where are the work books and records detailing the steps undertaken, tests performed, individuals performing them, test software and hardware used?
5.What methods were used to ensure inviolate copies of the seized originals?
6.What steps were taken to take forensically sound working images of the “frozen” images?
7.What steps were taken to ensure that the files being analysed had a sound, inviolate chain of custody from start to finish?
8.Which hashing method, version, and application did they use?
9.Where and how were the hash values stored and can they be demonstrated not to have been altered, amended or changed at any stage?
10.Since, by the very nature of electronic transfer of data via the Internet, data can and (unless sound methods are in place) will be changed during the transfer and recording process, what steps, policies, processes, procedures, applications and methodologies were used to ensure an inviolate and sound copy was transferred?
11.What steps were undertaken to ensure that the file that was identified and copied was in point of fact originating from their supposed target. For example was any network traffic analysis undertaken to provide some surety that the believed target was the actual target?
12.In addition what steps (if any) were taken to ensure that the data was not maliciously or inadvertently altered, amended, changed, or corrupted in transit through multiple routers and routes?
13.When the file was being worked on, what assumptions were taken and worked on and where is the record in the report?
14.When the file was initially analysed, was it noted and recorded that the file meta data indicated it was created using a Mac computer using an operating system specific and embedded process to create a PDF file via scanning?
15.If so noted, where is it recorded in the working documents and where is the decision matrix explaining exactly which criteria were adopted to NOT replicate this and instead use Windows PC’s, a Windows operating system and a third party application to create a PDF?
16.Is it recorded in the work record, or other contemporaneous record what differences could be expected by not using similar/identical hardware, software and processes and is this matrix of expected differences recorded and matched against actual results?
17.Were these differential records analysed independently of the analyst to ascertain if the differences were insignificant, significant, or fatal for forensic analysis?
18.Where is it documented and recorded that the CCP and their analysts identified which model, make and manufacturer of scanner was used to create the file and where is it also noted that the CCP and their analysts used the same to create and work on their images?
19.Is it recorded in the work record, or other contemporaneous record what differences could be expected by not using similar/identical scanner hardware, software, and processes, and is this matrix of expected differences recorded and matched against actual results?
20.Were these differential records analysed independently of the analyst to ascertain if the scanner differences were insignificant, significant or fatal for forensic analysis?
21.Was the analysis run once or more than once and if more than once, were the results of the analysis compared to see if they provided the identical results?
22.Assuming that the analysis run was run for sanity checks more than once were they independently run by another analyst to act as a check against methodology or process bias?
Once the analysis was run and the results collated, was the report reviewed by the CCP? If the report was acceptable, did Sheriff Arpaio officially sign off as to satisfaction of the records and results?
Yeah, sure they are. In other news, birther have it on very good authority that Sheriff Joe and his posse will soon be finding a cache of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I beg your pardon. I have formed my very own Red Hot Posse and we are working on several cases at once. We are even investigating the Cold Case Posse to see if they are breaking the law by profiting on their own “report”.
And when NONE OF THAT HAPPENS, will you be back here apologizing for your slurs and admitting you were wrong?
There will be no arrests. No cuffs going on. No indictments. No convictions. Because the whole thing is baloney. Well, actually USED baloney.
And when nothing happens, the only logical conclusion will be: We are, indeed, smarter than them. And you.
Time will tell, pal. Your freewheeling fantasies are about to run over the Spike Strips of Reality.
Any day now, right?
There is no “police investigation” because there are no “police” involved in what Arpaio has allowed to happen. Posse members are civilians with no peace officer authority of any kind.
There are no leads, there is no suspect and there will be no arrests.
yeah you really told them Scott, running away from the debate and all. That’s an amazing ventroliquism act Frank can do changing his voice and talking at the same time.