An open letter to Senator Anne Cools about 90sAREover and the Richard Warman allegation

Dear Senator Cools,

There has been some buzz in recent days about the testimony of Professor Robert Martin of the University of Western Ontario regarding Human Rights Commissions, which (if you haven't heard it already) can be heard here (loading can be slow, so be patient).

Professor Martin, who spoke in his testimony of his high regard for you and noted that he regarded you as a dear friend, seems to have been especially exercised by allegations that Richard Warman was responsible for a nasty racist screed about you -- so nasty, that he wouldn't (quite rightly) repeat its words. (Nor will I.)

The problem with Martin's testimony is that Warman didn't write that post. He has denied the matter under oath and has sued for defamation those who have made the allegation in unprivileged circumstances. Moreover, the allegation was debunked over a year ago, largely on the internet (from where all these allegations began), including at my site.

One of the basic facts, as you may know, is that that the racist post in question was made by someone using the pseudonym "90sAREover". The allegation that this was Warman depends on the claim that "90sAREover" had the same IP as "lucy" (Warman's pseudonym) and a computer with the same set-up.

• the IP in question, however, was a web-caching proxy shared by most Rogers customers, as I have shown in a post called "Why there is room for doubt that Richard Warman wrote the Cools post". To summarize a long and technical argument, 90sAREover could have been any Rogers customer, or anyone with access to the computer of any Rogers internet customer. This could have been millions of individuals.

• It has also been claimed that Warman's computer was set-up identically to the one that made the racist post. This would not be especially helpful even if true: something over 10% of users had their computers set-up that way (see here), and 10% of millions is still hundreds of thousands. The set-up, however, was not identical. In a post called "why Richard Warman is innocent" , I demonstrate that the computer used to write the racist post was different in at least one key respect from Warman's computer, with the result that they must have been computers.

The technical argument of my posts may be unintelligible to you, and there is no reason that you should believe me -- an anonymous guy on the internet. If you forward this letter to someone knowledgeable in these matters they will confirm to you that there is no good evidence that Warman made the post in question. (That the IP was a proxy and therefore represents a potentially vast pool of users has been endorsed, for example, by the Conservative blog Catprint in the Mash.)^*

During his testimony, Prof. Martin said that you personally were greatly agitated at Warman for these remarks. You have every right to be agitated about this post. But not at Warman, who did not make it.

Obviously, if you have any questions that I can help with, I'd be happy to do so.

Best regards,

Buckets

cc:ReidS@parl.gc.ca, SilvaM@parl.gc.ca, ThilaE@parl.gc.ca, SweetD@parl.gc.ca, HiebeR@parl.gc.ca, MarstW@parl.gc.ca, CotleI@parl.gc.ca

Why there is doubt the Warman wrote the Cools post, Why Warman is probably innocent of the Cools post, Bernard Klatt

Edited to clarify catprint's analysis.^*

Did Richard Warman lie about "lucy"?

In the recent debate about whether Richard Warman was responsible for the racist Cools-post, one sometimes finds the claim that Warman was caught in a lie about his membership on Freedomsite during the Lemire hearing. For example, one commenter at drdawgsblawg offered this summary

Warman previously denied under oath that he'd signed onto a message board as the infamous "Lucy", then recanted when it became clear moments later that he had indeed used that pseudonym. So, did he "lie" then? I suppose it depends on how finely one likes to split hairs.

When challenged, he linked to a graphic a snippet of the transcript that had been posted to freedominion, which I repost here (the red underline and arrow were added by me):

Based solely on this, one might conclude that Warman had lied. It is always worthwhile, however, to be attentive to how evidence is presented and how that presentation affects one's perception. In this case, note especially the tendentiousness of what I've underlined in red.

Was there some "incontrovertible proof" presented, as was claimed by whoever prepared this picture? No. Let's look at the actual transcripts. Here is a screen capture of the bottom of p. 769 and the top of 770, including the page break. Note the red arrows, which point to what the commentary has replaced.

As you can see, there was no evidence presented at all, much less 'incontrovertible proof', and what the commentary has replaced is nothing more than a page number. What happened? Warman was asked whether he had registered an account, he answered that he had not as far as he remembered. When he was shown an account name that jogged his memory, he immediately corrected himself.

Now, those who dislike Warman or his actions are free to disbelieve him if they choose. But we also know (from Klatt's affidavit) (1) that Warman never posted any messages on the board as "lucy", (2) that he had logged in under this name precisely twice (see here, p. 37 of the pdf), and (3) that both his log-ins occurred within a two-hour period on Nov. 15, 2003. Given that more than three years had passed between these logins in 2003 and his testimony in February, 2007, surely any fair-minded individual would have no difficulty believing that he had simply forgotten about the "lucy" account in the interim.

So. A lie or an honest mistake? Take your pick. But if we're going to call this a lie, what are we to make about the numerous misstatements of Klatt in his sworn testimony?

Edited and rewritten for clarity and concision.

Klatt affidavit in Richard Warman & CHRC v. Lemire

I've been wondering aloud for the past few weeks (here and here) why it is that although Warman's critics have produced scores and scores of documents (see here, for example), the actual evidence that he was the Cools poster were nowhere to be found. Logs were produced to show that Warman visited the site without logging in on Oct. 15, 2003, and these have been cited as some kind of proof (here and here). But where were the logs of the notorious Cools post? Why was some evidence being fed into the blogosphere, but the most important evidence not?

Someone pointed out to me that the logs were part of the original Klatt affidavit, which I've managed to acquire. So that you can see the whole thing, I've uploaded into scribd.com and embedded it below. There are several serious mistakes in Klatt's testimony that I have already identified, and I hope to return to these soon. For now, however, the logs of the notorious "Cools" post is on p. 35, and these show that the case against Warman is fatally flawed: 90sAREover had a different browser installed than what we know Warman used for all of his posts in October and November. I'll clarify this later today.

Read this doc on Scribd: Klatt affidavit - 22 Aug 2006

Revisiting the lucy-90sAREover identification

Those who have been following the controversy about the Cools post will probably know the following chart. It apparently imitates one that Bernard Klatt presented at the CHRC hearing -- Klatt refers to such a chart during his testimony -- but this version (with my mark-up in red for point-by-point reference) was posted freedominion.ca on January 20 by "Entropy Squared". It is now part of Warman's statement of claim.

The chart was designed to make a case that Richard Warman was responsible for the posting of a racist denunciation of Senator Anne Cools on Sept. 5, 2003. The evidence argues against that conclusion. (Again, what is in red is my mark-up.)

A ~ a and B ~ b. Warman registered at Freedomsite.org using the pseudonym "lucy" and the IP 66.185.84.204, according to Klatt's testimony. Klatt also testified that 90sAREover (who wrote the notorious Cools post) had the same IP. I have shown here, however, that this IP is one of Rogers' web caching servers and could be used by any Rogers' subscriber -- indeed, the post could have been made by anyone with access to a Rogers-connected computer. This could be any one of millions (here).

• Update. Actually, the IP of "90sAREover" is less clear in the logs than Klatt's testimony implies: in the few minutes that 90sAREover spent at the site, his IP can be seen shifting back and forth between 66.185.84.204 and 66.185.84.200 five or six times. See here.

C ~ c. According to Klatt's testimony, the user-agent string recorded in the logs freedomsite.org show that both "lucy" and "90sAREover" used Windows 98. According to W3schools.com, 12.1% of computers were using Windows 98 in Sept. 2003, when the Cools screed was posted. 12% of millions (see previous), however, is still hundreds of thousands.

D ≠ d. During his testimony at the CHRC, Klatt asserted that "lucy" and "90sAREover" used the same browers. This is wrong. Details of a visitor's browser are found in the user-agent string, which is recorded by many sites. To judge from Klatt's testimony (here)*, the user-agent string of 90sAREover included the phrases "Rogers Hi-Speed Internet; (R1 1.3))". The R1 1.3 means that 90sAREover was not using Explorer as his browser, but in fact was using RealOne Player (version 2). The reference to "Rogers Hi-Speed" shows that the Cools poster had a version of Explorer that had been customized by Rogers for its customers (here), even though he was not using it to visit this site. To judge from Klatt's testimony, none of Warman's own visits show either the RealOne Player or the Rogers-customization. This argues against identification. (One wonders why there are not copies of these logs floating around the internet -- is it because they exonerate Warman?)

*Update. Now that the site logs are available for inspection, rather than Klatt's testimony, it is clear that Richard Warman's browser set-up was different than 90sAREover's.

E ≠ e. The IDs and emails are different. This can hardly be used as an argument that they're run by the same individual. Indeed, those trying to argue that they are identical need to explain why Warman registered "lucy" in mid-November (an account that he never posted from) if he already had the 90sAREover accout. If he were "90sAREover", why wouldn't he simply have used that account rather than registering the new one?

F ~ f. It is a matter of public record that "lucyaubrack@yahoo.ca" was Warman. We don't know, however, whether the "rob_m_simpson@hotmail.com" account was anonymous or whether it reflects someone's actual name.

G ~ g. Both "lucy" and "90sAREover" found their way to freedomsite.org, which was relatively obscure. This no more requires that these two were identical, however, than it would for any of the site's others users, or indeed for visitors of other obscure sites (such as the one you are visiting now). In any case, it is worth noting that 90sAREover is member #1331 (affidavit, p. 10), and "lucy" (Warman's handle) is member #1379 (affidavit, p. 10), which implies that at least 50 new members joined up in this period. These surely aren't all the same individual.

H ~ h. The entry seems slightly wrong.* Klatt only mentions a single log-in of "90sAREover", and mentions three log-ins by Warman (two as "lucy" and one as "guest"). (Cf. his summary at p. 1648, where he says that the two accounts logged in "once or twice".) But even if this were correct, it is not helpful. All internet sites attract one-time visitors who don't return. (By way of comparison -- 90% of my traffic at this blog are first-time visitors, and another 8% visit 2-5 times; less than 2% return more than 5 times.) Why would this suggest they are identical?

*Update. Klatt's testimony is less clear than his affidavit (here), which shows that both lucy and 90sAREover did in fact log-in only twice.

I ~ i. The respective usage times differ by a factor of ten. That is hardly an argument for regarding them to be identical.

J ~ j. When they registered both "lucy" and "90sAREover" filled none of the optional boxes. The question is how typical this is. Personally, I never fill in more than I have to, and I suspect that is a common approach to message boards.

K ~ k. "Created for a single purpose" states more than can be known -- the "purpose" (or intention) of one or both of these accounts may have been either grander or more modest than came to pass. Indeed, given that the "lucy" account was never used to post anything at Freedomsite, it's difficult not to assume that its original purpose was something different than what it was actually used for, given that it was never used.

L ~ l. I assume that the dates here are offered for context, not as an argument in favour of identification.

Updated several times for clarity.

Where are all the logs?

I have been posting for several weeks on the question of whether, as some have argued, "lucy" (a pseudonym that we know belonged to Richard Warman) was the same person as "90sAREover" (who posted a nasty racist denunciation of Anne Cools), as has been alleged by his enemies. I've already shown that the IP being used, 66.185.84.204, is a web-caching proxy that might be almost anyone in Ontario. And in the last post I pointed out that Klatt's testimony in Warman v. Lemire (see here) about 90sAREover's user agent string on Sept. 5, 2003, seems to imply that it was performed on a different computer than the one that Warman used on October 15.

But all this raises a question that should be uncomfortable for those who have argued that Warman is the Cools poster. Why is it that these logs have not been released? Is it because they are inconsistent with the claim that Warman had written this?