Framed for Arson – The Next Events

After the Police interview, I was charged, taken to Hamilton Police Station.  Dawson had given me three massive ring binders full of the ‘Disclosure,’ their evidence against me and what he had referred to at the interview. After an eventful evening I appeared in Court the next morning and was immediately bailed.

As I was instructed at the Police Station, I returned to collect the ‘Disclosure,’ it had been ‘LOST!’

I created a fuss and eventually was given a small file containing DVD’s of the Police images taken at the fire scene, a similar one produced by the Fire Service, a few pages of an initial report by the Fire Service and some boring and useless documents. The DVD of the Police interview was NOT disclosed at that time.

Once I got home, I retired to bed, shocked, drained and exhausted by the events. My health had improved somewhat after we moved away from Killara but stress of this calibre was very hard to take.

After a few days I emailed Andrew Hooker and gave a brief outline of what had occurred, I detailed the hacking accusations in some detail as you can see in this excerpt from the email.

Hooker Email 1

I investigated printers causing fires and to my astonishment found there had been a massive amount of publicity in the computer and scientific press about a report on this subject relating to HP laser printers potentially being hacked by the University of Columbia. This was all dated in late November 2011, three months after the fire but just two weeks prior to the investigators going to search for my printer, an action which had baffled us at the time. Couldn’t be a co-incidence could it, the same general scenario as in their theory. I apparently beat Columbia University to the idea by several months, not sure where I did all the research and tests to try to make it work. Try is the operative word there because Columbia didn’t actually manage to get more than a little smoke. HP reacted rapidly and basically killed the issue, ink jet printers were specifically excluded since as I had explained they have no heat source an are impossible to hack since there is no intelligence in the printer, it is all done by the PC printer driver.

I emailed the Professor at Columbia and the printer manufacturers Brother and HP telling them of the accusations being made against me, they asked to be kept informed if the Police continued with them. I also started to research Printer Fires using leading printer forums to ask if others had come across this sort of thing, one of those forums still has the thread on-line – Printer Forums

Notice the date here, 23 April 2012 just 6 days after the Police Interview, long before the disclosure of the reports took place, there can be no doubt that the interview seriously concentrated on my hacking the printer.

HP laser jet hacked fire

In May, Chris Hlavac, lawyer for IAG wrote a letter declining the insurance claims, the text of the letter surprised me.

Hlavac decline snip
Report covers

This was a very different model of the ignition device than an email being sent to a hacked printer, here the PC is remotely accessed and set up to TRIGGER an ignition device! I just couldn’t wait to read the disclosure documents that would back this up.

Disclosure of the evidence came in dribbles, a box of documents one week and a few more papers the next. Then in late May we finally got the reports of the investigators, two Fire Investigation reports by Joseph dated 4 October 2011 and 21 December 2011 along with a Fire Investigation Report by Jorgensen of 24 January 2012 and his Computer Forensics Report dated 15 May 2012.

You can see the covers of the reports here, none are the report seen being referred to by Dawson, only one has the title Computer Forensics report and that one is dated 15 May 2012 so a month AFTER the interview.

None of these reports contain the pages or paragraphs that Dawson refers to in the Police Interview, full details of this fascinating discrepancy can be found in the book along with links to all the original documents and evidence.

 

In the disclosed transcript of the interview on 17 April 2011, the method of ignition is detailed by D C Dawson.

Police Transcript Snip 1
This had not been changed, an email was sent, opens and prints and the printer was the source of the fire. The next section where we discussed how the printer set fire to everything is not in the transcript but I remember the conversation very well.

I asked, as is recorded above, How does a printer set fire to everything? and got a reply talking about my hacking the printer so it burst into flames when an email I had arranged was automatically printed. This was the basis of my email to Andrew Hooker just days after the interview and to Columbia University and the printer manufacturers after I had read about the HP printer fire after they were hacked.

The transcript now has a completely different and far shorter answer to my question, well it really isn’t an answer at all!

I looked for the ignition method detailed in the reports, Hlavac’s letter of 3 May had detailed a different method to the one at interview. In the Fire Investigation Report of Jorgensen, dated 24 January 2012, a detailed explanation is given.

Ignition device?


This system is basically a primary school electricity experiment circuit, with a piece of string fixed to the paper to close the switch! It needed lots of extra parts and clearly would have been hopelessly unreliable with string and tape attached to the printer paper possibly causing it to jam if the pressure was too great.

The hacking ignition theory was at least clever, it would have left no trace and once created, if the hack actually could work, it would have worked every time.

Now this new ‘trigger’ ignition system matches the one described by Chris Hlavac in his letter of 3 May declining the claims. Here the printer is not the source of the fire, it is just a mechanical trigger, a remotely operated switch in effect. This gets around the point I made at the interview about my ink jet printer having no heat source.

The ignition system was now activated, according to Jorgensen, by me remotely contacting the PC and giving a print command, again this gets around the point I made at the interview about the other emails and the long time gap between the last email and the fire being seen.

 

FRAMED

Consider this, the investigators reports were dated in October and December 2011, these contained the details of the TRIGGER system of ignition, there is NO mention of HACKING at all in the disclosed reports.  The video of the interview and the transcript do not contain any references to HACKING.

The emails I sent to Andrew Hooker and those regarding the HP Fire reports about the hacking accusations and the forum postings about hacking were all done almost immediately after the Police Interview on 17 April 2011 where I raised fatal issues to the hacking model, the ink jet printer’s lack of heat source and programmable firmware, the multiple emails on the activity sheet and the long time delay after the final email and the fire.

The interview transcript contains reference to paragraphs and pages that do not appear in the reports. The file sizes of the files on the Police DVD are not consistent with video DVD where all the files are EXACTLY 1 Gb in size until the final file which is smaller. About 150 Mb of this video has been removed – around 5 mins of run time. A video expert has confirmed that edits can be seen in the video stream particularly around the area discussing the ignition method. The conversation about the change of DVD’s is missing from the transcript, this would have included a TIME statement which would not have matched the time run on the video due to the cuts.

The reports contain the Trigger theory and they PRE-DATE the interview so why did DAWSON NOT refer to any of the points relating to the ignition theory detailed in those reports? The report he did refer to on the video is not one of the reports disclosed, nor was it referred to by Joseph or Jorgensen in their written statements or testimony at the pre-trial in 2013.

There must be a question relating to the admissibility of all the evidence here. The actual evidence gathered from the fire scene and by Jorgensen from the PC must have been recorded in the original reports used by Dawson at the interview, this should have been based on the actual evidence interpreted by Jorgensen.

This original evidence, on which Jorgensen based his hacking theory as discussed at the interview, was discarded totally and replaced with a totally different evidence set, both of course were totally theoretical, no real evidence of the existence of either ignition system existed.

The real oddity here is that the total replacement of the ‘Hacking’ theory by the ‘Trigger’ theory was then backdated to BEFORE the Police interview took place. Whilst it is common for evidence to evolve during an investigation when further evidence is discovered that did not occur here. The old evidence vanished completely and was replaced totally by a new set. D C Dawson however at the interview had the OLD set of reports, not the NEW ones that REPLACED them and this is clear to see.

All the disclosed reports relate to the new TRIGGER theory created AFTER the Police interview which showed the Hacking theory was insupportable. Clearly, this evidence has no basis on the evidence collected by the investigators themselves, where did it come from? Could any of it have been admissible at all?

IT WAS WITHOUT DOUBT A FRAME! The evidence was altered to get around the points I had raised at the interview that destroyed the HACKING theory, there was no basis for either set of evidence, the reports rewritten the video edited by the Police and a new transcript produced, this required a concerted effort by all concerned but there is no other possible explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

No Comments