Bell Case Subpoena

[Bill Stewart]

At 04:55 PM 1/9/01 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:33:11PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
>> I'd think there'd be serious problems with most of the evidence
>> in this case being hearsay, except stuff specifically
>> posted by Jim Bell.
>
>Remember that the subpoena delivered to JYA is for a grand jury
>appearance - not trial testimony (yet). 

Oh, right, good point.

>The "you can't trust email headers because they might be forged"
>argument didn't go far in CJ's trial, and they're not likely to
>fare much better elsewhere. The criminal trial system is perfectly 
>comfortable with evidence whose theoretical (or actual) perfection
>and purity are less than ideal.

But haven't there been people actively forging Bell's headers?
I forget who was forging whom in the CJ mess.
(And even that's not counting Detweiler.)
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart at pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639