💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture
Sep 25, 2020 85 tweets 10 min read Read on X
Extradition September hearing day Day 13 (15 with 2 lost Covid days)

Joined the video link.

I believe the only remains medical witness is Paul Mullen, Emeritus Professor at Melbourne’s Monash University. He was JA’s consulting psychiatrist in Australia & diagnosed..
... him with clinical depression in 1995.

The other witness scheduled for today is computer forensics expert, Patrick Eller.

His report reviews evidence from Chelsea Manning’s court martial.
Summers is back after being unwell yesterday. JA entering. Split screen as the next witness will be on video.
Julian is wearing a suit and tie every day
Summers says at 11.30 last night they received the cross examination bundle from the Prosecution. JA has not reviewed it yet. The contents are significant. Eller is up & ready to appear at 5am. Neither Eller nor JA have consider it. Summers very annoyed. The judge ..
.. will give them 50 mins. Summers says, if at the end of that time, Eller wants more time, he will be seeking it.
Fitzgerald is seeking approval for 2 additional psychologists reports, I think! Audio was not great.

Re Journalist’s request for disclosure of medical reports - Fitzgerald would like no further disclosures than what has been said in court. Judge asks for the rules, she wants to
...give the press the opportunity to respond to a potential denial. A member of the press association will be asked to attend court.
Someone from the Press Association has entered, received Defence submission from Fitzgerald & she will respond.
Fitzgerald says Defence would like the time to provide a written final submission,it’s important for JA & also because there are supporting reports attached to the statements that haven’t been dealt within the hearings. Preference is for the final submissions to be made ideally..
... aurally as well if the judge can’t accommodate that. Most important is to be given 4 weeks to put it in writing.
Lewis responding, wants to wind it up asap..
Hard to hear Lewis.. he is saying JA should be given the time needed ..
Judge doesn’t want to give Defence 4 weeks
Judge can’t see why it’s necessary, saying “all the while your client will be in custody” Fitzgerald responds by saying bail would be an alternative.
Fitzgerald arguing why he needs 4 weeks, incl the first time he has seen JA in the flesh for months was at the beginning of ..
this hearing.
(Me: I imagine it’s a complex exercise to write a summary based on all the evidence, including refuting all the points made
in the cross examination).
Judge considering the calendar.
Judge concerned the Defence will seek to submit further evidence.

Fitzgerald says if it’s something dramatic, yes.
Fitzgerald says they have not managed to deal with the superseding indictment & Peirce will provide a submission on what they have managed to do.
Judge concerned about finality before the US election.
Fitzgerald says it prob will not be possible, & no matter who wins the election
... it may impact on the case depending on what the new President says about JA, says it’s not something they can avoid.

Judge agrees her decision won’t be made till after the US election.
Agrees they can have 4 weeks but can’t provide a date by which she will deliver judgm’t
Statement being read.
Judge says Mr Assange is speaking to “someone”.. (Stella)it’s inappropriate. Pause so Defence can seek instructions.
Defence reading a statement - audio not clear & she is motoring through it
They are quick to respond to messages & her mic is now on but I have missed whose statement this is, & the first few minutes.
Reference to Domscheit- Berg taking the electronic file & called the author to express concern about unredacted names
Now discussing Lukefeld, psychologist in the prison & Kromberg are not appearing so we can’t cross examine them while they are cross examine all our witnesses.
Defence now wants 2 expert witnesses in response to Lukefeld (sp?) & Kromberg, incl a psychologist who has ..
.. experience at ADX, otherwise we have not had the opportunity to respond.
Lewis objects saying he will seek an adjournment as they will need to cross examine plus bring in their own expert from ADX.
Lewis says enough is enough. We would have to have another hearing.
(Me: given the importance of the case....)
Fitzgerald says Kromberg can say anything he wants, as does Lukefeld, without being challenged - this material was submitted in August.
Fitzgerald says it isn’t easy to get evidence from insiders, you can just accept written statements if you wish
Judge: late evidence was served to her last night (the 2 Defence statements), makes the point both sides have submitted late evidence. (Kromberg’s on 5 Sept)
Judge is reading a decision on the late submissions- refused.
Eller back on screen
Judge gone to look for her relevant Eller bundle
Summers: Eller has served in the military
Examined jabber chat log re passcode hash & court martial records about what they disclosed.
Use of the hashcracking? No
Computer it related to? No
Re Nathaniel.. did it relate to a govt computer? No indication
Is passcode
..without encryption key be sufficient? No
Summers asks him to assume the hash cracking was successful.
Manning had her own account,
The hash value pertained to FTP user account, a local account on her computer that would not give her access to the wider network.
She used her own domain account to download docs
The audio is shocking & they are trying to fix
Jeeez, first a witness statement read we can’t hear, now a complex explanation has taken place in an underwater echochamber
ELler: the code was never cracked.
Had it been done, it would have resulted in a password for the FTP account.
Manning had access to her own account
Had she logged on to the FTP account, it would not have given her access to the domain. It would give her access to the internet.
Eller: if she accessed the docs, the IP address would have been tracked - that’s basic technical knowledge.
& reading the Lemo chat logs, the IP address was discussed by Manning ie downloads tracked using IP address.
Eller: No passcode was required for the Guantanamo docs but she could not have remained anonymous because of the IP address, this info established in Manning trial.
Summers is going thru all the docs, their locations, whether Manning could access them via the FTP account (had the password hash been cracked) and whether she could have done it anonymously. Some files could have been accessed but not anonymously, IP address would give her away
.. & other files would not have been accessible via that account.
Summers explains to the judge the reason we know Manning was aware of how she would be tracked is because she told Lemo.
Summers continues to clarify with Eller that she could not have used the FTP account to copy
.. the files anonymously either.
At Manning’s court martial, it was established there was an alternative way she could have achieved anonymity (?)( need to read witness statement for this.. it’s been challenging to type while concentrating on what’s being said as it’s complex)
Eller explaining it was not possible to download films etc because Manning & others did not have administrator privileges - this is what she was trying to achieve.
Lewis: how do you know the password had not been cracked?
Eller: no evidence it’s been cracked
Lewis: that’s
.. not the same thing.
Lewis: extract from jabber logs in your report.. you say Nathaniel Frank was JA
Eller: yes
Lewis: Manning to JA - any good at LM hash cracking? JA - yes
(Continues reading the conversation) ... “no luck so far”.
Lewis: LM?
Eller: Land Manager
Lewis: to create an LM hash, Windows converts the password.. ( Lewis going thru the complex Windows process)
Lewis a brute force attack & other ways to try to crack the hash.
Lewis asks about JA having the Rainbow tables.. because you say “at the time it was not possible to crack an encrypted hash”
Eller: at the time
Lewis: Manning was running Windows XP
Lewis: reads from Windows info for that system which warns it is possible to crack password hashes.
Lewis: this is what Manning sent to JA
Eller: yes
Lewis: Microsoft no longer support the LM hash because it’s easier to break because it’s not case sensitive & other reasons... making it easy to crack a hash with 7 characters.
Quoting now from another article ..
.. that provides the methods used to crack hashes, incl in Windows 10.
That article is from 2016.
Lewis is trying to get Eller to say it was possible,
Eller quoting now from a Microsoft 1999 doc that says they have made a change that makes it impossible. (Bingo)
Lewis responds by saying he doesn’t want to argue with him, (but it’s not him. Its Microsoft), adding that the court-martial found it would not have been enough anyway
Lewis wants a win: asks if he agrees JA is a superb hacker & a great hacker can crack anything.. (um, I can’t see how this is going to help).
Lewis: Manning used her own account which contained forensic evidence used against her at her trial ie Bradley.Manning
Lewis: reads from court martial transcript... the location where she found the cables.
Lewis: asking whether the FTP account could be used to hide activity in your own account
Eller: yes
Lewis: Manning accessed the docs on her account but if she’d used the FTP account she could have accessed the docs in a way that would not be visible
Eller: it would be visible
.. on the computer itself.

Lewis: in terms of whether the FTP account would be useful for other purposes.. your report says it was common for soldiers to crack the administrator password to download other material
Lewis: Defence say & you have speculated Manning wanted to download movies & music.
You said it could be assumed the FTP acct would have administrator privileges.. but you don’t know it did, it almost certainly didn’t
Eller: how can you say that? ..according to the govt’s
... experts, they could not conclude that so how could you?

10 min break
So the ten minute break rolled into lunch but not before the judge made a slip of the tongue & said Mr Fitzgerald would be continuing for the Prosecution after lunch, to great mirth.
Jennifer speaking with JA.
Lewis not back this afternoon.
Summers: jabber log Nobody is Chelsea Manning, did you look at evidence as to who Nathaniel Frank would be?
Eller: no
Eller admits he can’t know who was sitting at that computer on the other side each time.
Eller stands by his assessment that JA could not have cracked the password hash, that Microsoft say it was computationally infeasible to crack the hash.
Eller: it was impossible & my opinion aligns with the govt expert in Manning’s court martial case
Summers: even if the hash was cracked & managed to log into the FTP local account, activity would be traceable via IP address & time of access
Eller: 2 individuals use each computer, one in the day & one at night.
Eller: Manning didn’t need to access the FTP account because she already had a Linux CD.
Eller: there was no benefit to her to use the FTP account to access the material she did or to cover her tracks.
Eller: the FTP account most likely would have had admin privileges, needed to download material such as movies & music.
Witness finished.
No further statements can be read (they have to agree to the content beforehand).

Judge wants to deal with the Press request. Smith reads from a previous Supreme Court judgement: this court has the responsibility to deliver open justice...
.. assist public scrutiny plus understand how the justice system works V harm to privacy.
Prosecution supports Defence position there is no need for further disclosure.
Both parties say the press needs to argue why & how it would advance open justice.
Judge says aren’t the statements in the public domain by virtue of being adopted by the court.
Smith: advancing Supreme Court arguments on modern practice .. it is up to the judge to conclude whether observers have not been able to understand proceedings without access to the medical docs.
Judge says that’s helpful. The press rep at this point who we haven’t seen & can barely hear, will need to make an argument.
Fitzgerald now: it would have to amount to the press saying despite what has unfolded in court, they still can’t understand.
Fitzgerald: given the harm to someone who suffers from depression, and to his family given the private matters included, most of which has been covered, it’s going a step too far, but they are not past the first step, arguing the case.
The press rep reads: no wish to cause grief or explore private medical details of his family. We haven’t seen the report so we don’t know what we don’t know. We will be guided by the judge & we are guided by strong guidelines, but given it is a major reason Defence are ..
... arguing against the extradition, we need to be able to explain it to the public. Judge asks her to identify an example of where there was evidence the press was unable to understand.
She refers to occasions when reference was made to a certain paragraph.
Press rep asks if redactions could be considered in the medical statements. Judge gives her til 5pm to provide a submission in writing & she won’t hive a decision til Monday.
10 min break to see if anything else can be achieved today.
Btw, it seems this press request is triggered by one journo. The judge has asked the press rep to go back next door & canvass others, which might help in the rep’s written submission.
Stella and Jennifer speaking with Julian.
Court adjourned till Monday.

See you then!
Important postscript to Friday’s #Assange #extradition hearing so adding it to this thread.
The statement read to the court which we missed the first half of because the mic was off, was that of Jacob Augstein, in 2010 a Die Freitag journalist.
Augstein’s statement “alludes to the fact that it was a mirror created or controlled by Domscheit-berg that contained the file that could be decrypted with this password” published by Harding/Davies. This is critical information & we need to see the witness statement.
You will recall Domscheit-Berg took the file with him, refused to return it to Wikileaks.

defend.wikileaks.org/extradition-he…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 💧Mary Kostakidis

💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaryKostakidis

Jul 26
A devastating and damning report by @nirhasson 🧵

‘For Israeli decision-makers, starvation of the Gaza Strip was in the cards from day one of the war..
1. About 30,000 people live in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Imagine that the refrigerators of all Sderot residents are empty. In fact, they don't even have refrigerators. The bakeries are closed. The supermarket shelves offer nothing. Residents are hungry. And then, once every 24 hours, a single truck enters the city gates and distributes food, door to door. And the food on that truck? That's all there is, for the entire city.
About 30,000 people also live in Or Akiva. And in Arad. Each city gets one truck a day.
Will the residents of Sderot still be hungry by the end of the day? And what will happen after a week? And after a month?’ Cont
‘2. According official data from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, which is responsible for carrying out the government's civilian policy in those areas, an average of 71 trucks entered the Gaza Strip each day over the past month. Seventy-one trucks meant to feed 2.1 million people. One truck for every 30,000. Half of the trucks made it to a distribution center but the other half of them, brought in by the United Nations and various aid organizations, were looted en route.

It's a pitiful amount of food. But one can only wish the Sderot scenario was the reality in Gaza. The situation there is much worse.’ Cont
‘3. In Gaza, the truck does not distribute food door to door. Half of the food it carries is unloaded in large piles in remote military zones. The gates there open for just 15 minutes a day, according to a random schedule. You're reading that right: 15 minutes a day.

People loot the other half of the goods straight from the trucks. In both cases, those who manage to get to the food are almost exclusively young men, those who can carry heavy loads, run fast and are willing to risk their lives.

Over 1,000 have died so far while crowding around to get food, since late May, most of them from Israel Defense Forces gunfire.
What happens to those who can't make it to the trucks or the distribution centers? What about the women, the disabled, the sick, the elderly? What about the unlucky?
They are starving to death.’ Cont
Read 5 tweets
Jul 12
Louise Adler in The Guardian: 🧵
‘One must acknowledge the remarkably effective Jewish community organisations in Australia behind the latest antisemitism report. Collectively, with their News Ltd megaphone, they have successfully badgered the government of the day, cowed the ABC, intimidated vice-chancellors and threatened to defund arts organisations.
With the ability to garner prime ministerial dinners, a battalion of lobbyists has gained access to editors, duchessed willingly seduced journalists keen to enjoy junkets and corralled more than 500 captains of industry to subscribe to full-page ads against antisemitism and thereby blurring political argument with prejudice and bias. It is no surprise that this relentless propaganda effort has paid off…’
On those forever quoted statistics on antisemitism:
‘16 students at Sydney University feeling intimidated by the slogan “from the river to the sea” was reframed as 250 complaints submitted to parliamentary inquiry. A childcare centre that was not in fact a Jewish centre was added to the list of terrifying antisemitic attacks. The individuals police believe were hired by criminals seeking a reduction in their prison sentences who allegedly placed combustible material in a caravan became a “terrorist plot”’’

The figures include all the ‘fake’ antisemitism attacks by paid criminals orchestrated by a crime figure not in any way driven by antisemitism, antiZionism or anti Israel motivation. As for the keffiyeh and the phrase from the River to the Sea, interpreting the symbols and slogans of another group as threatening while promoting your own as needing protection is one eyed and undermines social cohesion.
‘The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals…
The envoy wants to strengthen legislation apparently. Isn’t that the role of the government of the day? Who is to be the arbiter? Who is to be the judge, for example, of universities and their report cards? Who will adjudicate “accountability” in the media? Who will recommend defunding which artist? Should this government endorse this proposal, it will clearly be the envoy.
Fortunately, a suite of laws protecting us from racism, discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence are already deeply embedded in our civil society. No university is oblivious to these laws, no public broadcaster, no arts organisation.
Educating future generations about the Holocaust has long been a priority. I hope the envoy is aware of the work done engaging thousands of school students at such institutions as the Melbourne Holocaust Museum where my own mother was the education officer for over a decade. If the envoy is concerned that school students aren’t sufficiently well versed in the horrors of the Holocaust, she might take heart from such evidence as the sales of Anne Frank’s diary continue unabated, in the past five years more than 55,000 copies were sold in Australia.
The envoy helpfully proposes to nominate “trusted voices” to refute antisemitic claims – yet again seeking to prescribe who speaks and which views are deemed acceptable. One hopes that media organisations are resolute against the plan’s determination to monitor, oversee and “ensure fair reporting to avoid perpetually incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews”. It seems that the envoy wants to determine what is legitimate reportage. Freedom of the press is of less importance. Independent journalism that is factual and speaks the truth is lightly abandoned.


What is Australia’s proposed antisemitism plan – and why are some parts causing concern?

Read more
Universities appear to be on notice: adopt the IHRA definition, act on it or be warned that in March 2026 a judicial inquiry will be established as the envoy demands.
Cultural organisations be warned – your funding could be at risk too. There isn’t a cultural organisation in the country that doesn’t have well-argued codes of conduct for staff, artists and audiences – in place well before the 7 October attack to combat homophobia, racism and hate speech. Now it is proposed that a Jewish Cultural and Arts Council is to advise the arts minister. To privilege one ethnic community over others is deeply offensive and dangerous.’

And there I’ll stop because Segal’s shopping list is deeply offensive and dangerous.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 13
A very fine post on safety/unsafety by @RandaAFattah
on Instagram 🧵
Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 10
Breaking
ABC changes its position and defence, now acknowledging @antoinette_news IS Lebanese . A recognition the race exists 🤦🏻‍♀️
Today’s hearing began with the ABC apologising for filing an unredacted affidavit revealing the name of a complainant.
Two own goals for @ABCaustralia
With respect to the very wise move to change their position on race in this case, I think it can be assumed Chair Kim Williams would have come down on management like a ton of bricks. He has been outspoken on change required at the broadcaster, and this catastrophic case is public confirmation of the rectitude of that position.
@ABCaustralia Currently Ahern being cross examined by ABC - he is held responsible for hiring Lattouf. Next today will be then Chair Buttrose followed by Green, her direct supervisor whose evidence will be an integral piece in the puzzle of what Lattouf was told, as she did the telling.
Read 15 tweets
Feb 8
In light of the ongoing court case brought by @antoinette_news against the @ABCaustralia for unfair dismissal, it’s worth recalling her proposal to the ABC in order to settle the matter which I’ll post in a thread below.
Instead, the ABC decided to defend their decision, exposed in excruciating detail and at enormous expense to the taxpayer - we are funding the 14 month battle (so far) and the massive US law firm Seyfarth the ABC has engaged to fight it. It will be costing a fortune.
Here is what she had asked for to settle it months ago:
🧵Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 3
Fascinating day in court as @antoinette_news lawyer outlines content of emails between senior members of the ABC prior to her HRW post, the pressure they came under from the lobby group Lawyers for Israel from the moment she was on air, because of her known political opinions, their conclusion the position was untenable but that they could not sack her abuse she had done nothing wrong and for fear of the phenomenal ‘blowback’.
The manner in which she was sacked - called to a brief meeting and told to collect her things and leave the building did not follow the proscribed procedure under the enterprise agreement according to her lawyer.
Her sacking followed her repost of a HRW report stating Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.
Court adjourned briefly..
If you wish to follow, livestream here

youtube.com/live/a8RorBeAi…
Lattouf’s lawyer lists numerous additional complaints from the lobby group to the Chair and MD on the day she was sacked, and The Australian, which evidently knew of the complaints, called the ABC.
He says emails show ABC senior figures were sympathetic to the Israel lobby’s position.
A slide of AL’s post simply saying ‘HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war’ is shown - apparent this could not be construed as anything but a statement of fact, and in addition, with ABC news stories appeared on the HRW report prior to and after AL’s post.

Her lawyer refers to an unwritten expectation that ABC employees will not do at any time anything that may convey the view they are not impartial.

He says ABC claims it imposed on AL a bespoke rule (not to post about Gaza) and then sacked her for breaching that standard.

If Senior Exec Oliver Taylor asserts the post expresses an opinion, then the dismissal is because of her political opinions - ‘opinionated’ and ‘partial’ mean the same thing, so they hold the post revealed impartiality.

If Senior Management were agnostic on the Gaza issue, then they succumbed to a campaign.
Either ABC capitulated to a lobby or she breached a standard specific to her.

He says the ABC submission is long and an elaborate navigation for the ABC narrative, characteristic of a lawyers drafting, when there is ample material in the contemporaneous emails, in order to reinterpret clear statements in emails; the affidavits don’t deal with critical issues - who gave the direction and when? Her supervisor Green stated in their meeting that she did not give Lattouf a ‘directive’ not to post, she ‘advised’ her to avoid it. The complex affidavits don’t describe why the post was ‘partial’ - the post doesn’t appear in Taylor’s affidavit at all ie the very thing that was ostensibly the reason for the sacking.
Apropos communications, the ABC are prohibited from using Signal as they are subject to the Archives Act and can’t delete.
ABC Witness statements are he says replete with terms like ‘trust and confidence’, ‘impartiality’ etc
Oliver Taylor believes she was given a direction ‘bespoke to her’ not to post about Gaza, and her post ‘may’ have breached that direction.
He says the ABC justify not following their protocols for dismissal because a presenter can be removed even if she hasn’t done anything wrong (rostering change etc).
Lattouf asserts if she was not of the Lebanese race she would not have been removed in that way.
The ABC will assert says there is no evidence there is such a thing as a Lebanese race. The ABC lawyer rose - he objects to this being run as a discrimination case because it departs from the pleadings.

SAl’s lawyer says the issue is whether she was dismissed because of the HRW post, or because of objections to her political opinion by the lobby group and the Chair of the ABC.

Also, AL’s lawyer says that there could be no rational basis for Taylor to believe her post was a sackable offence. That the evidence she was given a directive particular to her was implausible given Green told management she didn’t issue a directive. Nevertheless, Taylor concluded a directive was given. And he thought there ‘may’ have been a breach of ABC social media policy.
1 of 2 for this morning session
Read 35 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(