E-Mail Defense Madness

I cringe everytime I hear someone in the media say they 'checked the emails' or 'the emails didn't suggest any kind of XXX'.

Why would anyone rely on emails?

Emails can be faked just like other documents.

Did they base their inquiry/analysis on paper copies? It is a simple thing, to cut, paste, & copy email text and create different version of events. It's a simple thing to erase recipients and create a new version of events and those in the know.

It only takes a good reader, someone good with a photoshop program, a word processor, scanner, scissors, and copy machine. The possibilities are endless.

This is the electronic age. Did they request electronic files? Or, accept paper copies?

It's a simple thing to replace some pages with new pages, create emails that only exist on paper.

In the electronic age, did they go for electronic evidence with its electronic 'paper trail'?

I haven’t seen this discussed, but it keeps coming to mind.

The one known affectionately as “Turbo Tim” is a good example. Did they go for the electronic files or paper trail?

If you’re worked with email systems, they are not all the same and not fool proof.

In older systems, the ‘bcc’ record may not, most likely did not print out on the email of the originator. It was difficult to remember who was ‘bcc’d’ on the email. No paper trail unless you noted it somewhere, or had an ‘unwritten’ or ‘verbal’ agreement to copy someone.

In newer systems, possibly for security purposes, the ‘bcc’ may print out on the originators copy.

In older systems, when the email is forwarded or returned, it may have been possible to edit the body of the original email. This can be confusing and misleading.

In newer systems, the original body of the email, is often locked to prevent tampering. Each time an email is forwarded, the latest recipients can only read the previous messages, they may not edit them.

Do investigators rely on paper copies of emails or do they rely on electronic audit trails?

Some may suggest this is much ado about nothing. Why would someone go through all that trouble?

Avoid embarrassment? Avoid jail? Criminal charges? Money?

The possibilities are endless.

The East Anglia emails are one such example. Why would someone put the originals on the internet?

Did East Anglia comply with any FOI requests? Are there paper emails for comparison somewhere? Why didn’t they comply?

Tim Geithner – What kind of email evidence did they evaluate to determine he didn’t know about the pass through? Paper copies of emails? Electronic records?

Was Tim clueless? Who do the paper trails show was responsible for the no hair cut pass through?

What exactly did those emails say? Who was the decision maker?

There are some, wise to the use of emails, who may have decided to eliminate the paper connection to themselves and rely on ‘verbal’ communication.

Doesn’t the buck stop with Tim Geithner?

It seems like the ‘E-Mail Defense’ is the best way to avoid implicating oneself in potential financial or other wrong doing.

I have to believe the hackers of East Anglia had a reason for providing the source email documents/records – an open book for the world to see.

What E-Mails did they use when they investigated AIG, Tim Geithner? Paper? Or, the unvarnished/unedited truth?

Something to think about when you hear about the E-Mail defense in the news. If they have forensic accountants, should they have forensic e-mail investigators?

jmho