CS 5: Leadfinger

Leadfinger

Letter from Cybersalem #5

From Kafka's The Trial [1]:

"Someone must have traduced Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning. His landlady's cook, who always brought him his breakfast at eight o'clock, failed to appear on this occasion. That had never happened before."

Some may believe I select out those incidents and matters from the trial of Randal Schwartz which make the prosecution look poorly. To be honest, I wish such a procedure was possible. The truth is the whole prosecution is a travesty from beginning to end, and in virtually all its aspects. I can hardly tell where to begin, or in what order to proceed.

Nonetheless, even in such a thorough mockery of justice as Randal's prosecution, some events do seem more significant than others. The most important event of all was the meeting which occurred on Friday, October 29th, 1993, at which a mysterious figure whom I shall call Leadfinger decided that the police should be involved.

One would hope, in 1993 America, even if a corporate executive was benighted enough to want to, in the manner of a Kafka plot, prosecute someone on the basis of secret accusations, someone would tell him this could not be done. Still more, if this dim bulb in the management socket wanted to make his accusations anonymously it would quickly be realized this was not just impossible, but bizarre. But this hope must be disappointed. Employees, police, district attorney and judge all swallowed this as if it were the normal judicial fare.

Leadfinger believed that Randal had done far more than the trivialities with which he was charged. Just what, he and his circle of influence have never shared with jury or public. The bridge meeting, as most call it [2], is the most important event in Oregon v. Schwartz not just because it is a crucial beginning, but because it marks a sea change in the trail of evidence. All evidence that Randal and his activities were considered security hazards from before the bridge meeting is remembered after the bridge meeting by persons financially beholden to Intel [3]. Not so much as a handwritten note predates the meeting [4]. There simply is no independent record of Intel having a security problem with Randal before the bridge meeting. After the bridge meeting, the dam breaks, rivers of ink spill, and detailed recollections accusing Randal get committed to paper.

We know that at the bridge meeting, Leadfinger, who was someone in Intel management [5], ordered the force of the law be brought down upon Randal, and next to nothing else about it. No one at the meeting will say who Leadfinger was, or who the ranking Intel participant was (one would expect they would be the same, but there is no specific evidence of that). In the transcripts and reports we have [6] only a few people will admit to having been there [7], and only in one case does anyone identify anyone else as having been there [8]. This special treatment is especially evident in Mark Morrissey's report, which lists all participants for every other meeting it describes.

This lack of information is not due to any lack of energy or curiosity on the part of the defense. Incredibly, it seems Judge Bonebrake ruled this, the most important event in the whole affair, irrelevant and almost completely off limits to defense questions [9]. Judge Bonebrake not only prevented the jury from hearing any details of this meeting, but allowed Intel to keep them from the defense as well. In Oregon, Leadfinger, whoever he is, sure has clout.

Note 1: Kafka, Franz, The Trial, Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 1.

Note 2: A bridge meeting seems to be a form of telephone conference, accomplished via a device called a "bridge". For description of bridge meeting technology see Cower's testimony: Tr. 6-13-95, page 79, line 25 to page 80, line 6, and Tr. 7-18-95, page 129, line 24 to page 130, line 1.

Though most call this "the bridge meeting", not all do. John Kent was not sure it was a bridge meeting. See Tr. 7-18-95, page 136, lines 16 to 21.

Note 3: I should add that just because all the evidence against Randal prior to the bridge meeting is a matter of recollection by persons with a financial interest in Intel's good will does not, in my opinion, make every word of it false. But much of it is clearly the result of "improvement" after the fact. It is alleged -- in fact the police state under oath that Randal told them -- that Randal knew he was committing a felony. If those who knew of his activities took no step that resulted in so much as a scribble or a jotting, it says a lot about their perception of the seriousness of Randal's activities. And if Randal's accusers took his activities this lightly, how could Randal be thinking of the same activities as not just policy violations, but serious crimes?

Note 4: Some will wonder at this bold assertion of a negative. Discovery motions made by the defense would usually cover any such record, and in response to my email request for the results of motions to find written or electronic records of prior security concerns about Randal, Larry Oldstad of the defense team told me: "There were none. That was admitted, I believe." (Private email, Larry Olstad to Jeffrey Kegler, 1/21/97.) So if a written record of concern about the security implications of Randal's activities does appear, questions about compliance with the discovery motions would have to be answered.

Note 5: See Rich Cower's testimony: Tr. 7-18-95, page 148, lines 6 to 11; and Mark Morrissey's Tr. 6-14-95, page 193, lines 12 to 15.

Note 6: The sources on this meeting are few and usually deliberately vague.

Rich Cower testified about it in Tr. 6-13-95, page 79, line 15; in Tr. 7-18-95, page 147, line 24 to page 150, line 19; and vaguely in Tr. 7-18-95, page 129, line 22 to page 130, line 8.

Mark Morrissey testified about it in Tr. 6-14-95, page 192, line 18 to page 193, line 22. Mark Morrissey's report sharply breaks style to give a very elliptical account of the bridge meeting.

John Kent testified about it in Tr. 6-14-95, page 136, line 16 to page 137, line 20.

Clyde Stites talks confusedly about a series of meetings at this time, one of which almost certainly was the bridge meeting: Tr. 1-8-96, page 15, line 15 to page 19, line 12.

For second-hand accounts, from the defense, there is Sussman's opening statement to the jury Tr. 7-12-95, page 79, lines 6 to 16, and Larry Olstad's message to fors-discuss of 3/7/96.

Note 7: In their testimony, referred to above, Cower, Kent and Morrissey say they were present. Stites seems to imply he was.

Note 8: Morrissey testifies to John Kent's presence. Tr. 6-14-95, page 202, lines 5 to 7.

Note 9: At this point I have this only second-hand and as implied by the conduct of the attorneys in their questioning, and the pattern of objections and the rulings on them. The original ruling apparently was made via letter, and Bonebrake's letter rulings are not yet available to me.

Index