MARTIN JORGENSEN, Computer Investigator for Corporate Risks Limited, Wellington
Martin Jorgensen initially created the theory ignition that caused me to be arrested, detailed to me at the Police Interview by DC Bill Dawson.
In this theory, which was closely based on research by Columbia University published at the end of November 2011, I had hacked my printer, modifying the firmware so that it burst into flames when I sent it a print command, possibly an automatic reaction to the receipt of an email message. The printer, bursting into flames caused the fire that destroyed the property whilst I was 400 Km away.
At the Police interview I had totally destroyed this theory, it was immediately obvious to me that it was impossible to make the ink jet printers, that I used, burst into flames in any circumstance since they contained no heat source and they did not have user programmable firmware in any case. I was unaware at that time of the Columbia research but I quickly found it on the internet and the acceptance by HP and Columbia that the suggested security flaw in the printers only applied to laser printers and not the main stream ink jet printers.
I had expected to be released at that point but Jorgensen rewrote the theory and changed the evidence to get around my evidence – a FRAME!
There was no actual evidence for the original ‘HACKING’ theory and even less for the replacement theory where, for some insane reason, It was suggested that I used the printer as a mechanical trigger pulling a switch to start the fire.
This is the ‘TRIGGER’ theory which was stupid since it was complex would have been highly unreliable, pointless when a totally reliable simple time switch, plugged into the same mains socket as was used by the printer in this theory, with any heating appliance attached could have been used in a similar way to cause the fire.
Martin Jorgensen throughout the case, produced endless TECHNO BABBLE as evidence, at no time did he justify his ‘evidence’ with copies of the evidence source files or technical references to show that his claims were based on published computer resources.
It was all designed to implicate me and bamboozle the Courts without any substance at all. Some examples of this behaviour still make my hair stand on end! I could have gone to jail for many years had I not been a step ahead of his lies.
It is unclear from which log files the data has been collated from, the file names are not given in full form to enable verification.
8:21 ‘Parent.lock’ for example on the first line is a tiny file created by Mozilla programs such as Firefox and Thunderbird when you open the program and is deleted when closed to prevent conflicts, it does not contain any data, it’s purpose is a flag showing the Mozilla software is open so the type of activity noted as Accessing Stuff.co.nz and Trademe is not related to this file, the ‘Note’ is rubbish, it doesn’t show user access by keyboard since the browser could easily have been activated by downloads, emails or on a scheduled task. The main point is that the evidence is unsubstantiated and unsupported.
10:07 Affected Files ‘A1’, what is this file, where is it? File download, what file? How do you get the Note, ‘Portable browser application downloaded by user access via keyboard’?
If this is correct and somebody was using the keyboard at 10:07 then it shows the intruders were already in the house since it is not disputed that we were in Whangarei at 11:00 a drive that takes well over an hour even in quite traffic so it was impossible on this heavy traffic, RWC 2011 day for us to have been using the keyboard at 10:07.
Similarly, with the entries at 12:49 Portable device and at 5:06pm History.IE5 both relating to Remote access, difficult since we were still battling our way down to Hamilton at these times, this was the opening day of the 2011 RWC and traffic to Auckland and around the area was insane. We only arrived at the Motel at 7pm and in 2011 phones were far too limited to remotely run PC applications! They would also have left records of attempting to do so with the phone service supplier.
The whole document is techno babble with no basis as evidence at all as with almost everything produced by Jorgensen. The most significant fact supported by this document is that it has no reference to a PRINT Command. Had any printing been done, it would have left records in the source program, the print utilities such as the spooler and these records, vital to the ignition theory were omitted by Jorgensen on this report.
In the end, the inability to show that anything was printed on the night of the fire, required to trigger the theoretical ignition device, would lead to my acquittal.
Jorgensen produced a report, dated 15 January 2012, which contains images of the video of the ignition system for the Trigger system disclosed in June 2012 which is radically different to the system I was questioned about at the Police interview in April 2012.
After many requests for the original images used in this report they have never been disclosed, neither has the video itself. The images and the video would, we assert, have meta data showing the images were taken after the interview and the video was also produced at that time.
The refusal to disclose is critical, if the meta data is after the interview and not prior to 15 January 2011 the Trigger theory is shown to be a FRAME to incriminate me, not the original findings of Joseph and Jorgensen.
When faced with a real computer expert,
Jorgensen was rapidly disclosed as a fraud.
He produced an incriminating document, shown below,
as evidence purporting it showed I had used Direct printing, leaving no record,
on the night of the fire, 9 September 2011.
As always he didn’t supply the authority to show the data showed what he claimed it did but it didn’t matter in this instance, since the DATE in the evidence had been ADJUSTED by Jorgensen.
Our expert had no difficulty producing the Actual Registry record from the PC drive which was the source of Jorgensen’s document, shown below.
The ‘Last Written Time 30/04/2011 3:38:35 UTC’ shows the file had not been changed for many months prior to the fire and not as Jorgensen’s report stated had been changed on the night of the fire –
Martin Jorgensen had falsified the date on his document.
I was acquitted once the falsification was revealed but Jorgensen was not censored by the Court and he is still working for Corporate Risks Limited, presumably spouting endless techno babble to the detriment of many other poor souls fighting IAG for their insurance pay outs.
None of this however could work if the NZ POLICE were honest!
DC Bill Dawson was totally complicit with the actions of IAG’s investigators, the video of the Police interview was edited and that cannot be done without Police co operation.
Read about DC Dawson’s part in this case HERE SOON
Get the latest, Read the BLOG