Dirty deeds in Denver: Ex-prosecutor faked texts, destroyed devices to frame colleague

Sometimes, data collection can work <em>for</em> you.

See full article...

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Amazingly stupid woman to think she could get away with saying he texted her. I guess lucky (?) for him that her story was easily disproven.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Why did she do what she did? It’s unclear to me. WAS there a “ romantic” angle?

Warning to guys - dont mess with crazy.

 

[Maestro4k]

No single person should be trusted on their word. Men, women, children.. all have biases and reasons for bending the truth or outright lying to benefit themselves. Society understood this at one point.

Just as the article describes, whether we like it or not there are mountains of data now on anything electronic we engage in and combine that with all the tools available cheaply now to record our lives in various ways, there is no reason an accusation from anyone should make it past the starting line without evidence beyond 'he said/she said'. Verbal claims should never be actionable on their own. Glad he is suing, glad she was disbarred, and hope this does have a chilling effect on anyone else thinking to ride the coat-tails of MeToo for their own benefit.

Please point out where I said they should be. I pointed out that:

• Men's rights advocates will use this instance of a false sexual harassment claim to say support their claim that most or even all sexual harassment claims by women are false. They latch onto every big instance of false accusations to do so.
• That the rate of false sexual harassment claims is low, and it is. Studies have found the rate to be between 2% and 4.5%.
• That women legitimately sexually harassed already don't report it at a high rate. In some industries more than 90% experience sexual harassment, while overall over 85% of people sexually harassed never file a formal complaint and approximately 70% don't even complain internally. (Note the latter applies to both genders, but with the rate of women experiencing sexual harassment so high, it disproportionately impacts them. Source for both stats.)
• I can't find any stats on how often false accusations are caught, so I may be wrong on that one.

Everyone sexually harassed should feel like they can speak up. Women already experience it at a very high rate and don't report it at a very high rate. Anything that makes them more likely to not speak up is bad, period. I would hope you agree with that.

Claims, no matter who they're by, should be investigated properly and the accused shouldn't be punished if there's no proof. That this guy was transferred with zero proof was wrong and I hope he wins his lawsuit. I agree that this will hopefully help stop other women thinking of doing something similar from doing so. She threw away her career on this, after spending a lot of time and money getting a law degree. It can't have been worth it.

I do appreciate you not accusing me of saying the victim was the problem here like another commenter did, but you still suggested I said something I didn't.

 

[Frosty Grin]

The rate of false claims is very low, you don't have to take my word for it. Studies have found that the rate of false claims is between 2% and 4.5%. Men who insist it's higher make it harder for real victims of sexual harassment to speak up and get justice. And sexual harassment of women, just like sexual assault and rape, is vastly underreported already. Anything that makes that worse is not good for society. Unless you think it's cool for women to be sexually harassed, assaulted and raped I guess.

Your attitude makes it worse. Because, on one hand, that real harassment is underreported actually means that false claims may constitute a higher percentage of the reported incidents. And trying to make it easier to report harassment by making the investigations less invasive or making punishment more swift can encourage false claims too. Leading to blowback when eventually some cases get caught.

More importantly, you can't just say that false claims are rare and leave it at that - it makes it look like you're OK that some people will get hurt by them. You should be "latching" on every case like that too.

And, sure, it's easy to say that "the accused shouldn't be punished if there's no proof" - except then many cases will end up not having enough proof, and the accuser and the accused will have to keep working together. Which is how the employer ended up reacting the way they did.

 

[Batmanuel]

How do you ruin modern phones by dropping them in the bathtub? Unless they are foldables or really cheap phones, they should be IP68 rated.

 

[umtumbum]

• That the rate of false sexual harassment claims is low, and it is. Studies have found the rate to be between 2% and 4.5%.

That study cites other studies that found the rate to be between 2% and 10%. It does not describe their specific methodologies but does go on to say that there are variations in how false reports are defined, and says "The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) upholds that, “The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted”", and then details that it excludes cases such as insufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution, delayed reporting, victims deciding not to cooperate with investigators, and inconsistencies in victim statements.

All those he-said-she-said cases are not covered in the false reports rates by these studies. It could be high or it could be low. Nobody knows.

 

[Auie]

The data in her phone/laptop could still probably be recovered, especially if it's true that "all she did" was douse them in water, as she claimed.

Might even just be a matter of taking out the HDD/SSD and sticking it into a functioning device for the laptop.

 

[graylshaped]

Yes, and you are required to fail the entire section, every question, to be awarded the degree.

Do you know the difference between earning a law degree and passing the bar?

 

[XSportSeeker]

The case is a reminder that, despite well-founded concerns over tracking, data collection, and privacy, sometimes the modern world's massive data collection can work to one's benefit. Hines was able to escape the second allegation against him precisely because of the specific (and specifically refutable) digital evidence that was presented against him—as opposed to the murkier world of "he said/she said."

Choi might have done as she liked with her devices, but her "evidence" wasn't the only data out there. Investigators were able to draw on Hines' own phone data, along with Verizon network data, to see that he had not been texting Choi at the times in question.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is questioning if bad stuff weaponized against everyone can sometimes hit a good mark.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, right? Doesn't mean it's doing it's job properly.

Every so often we have to hear about apologist cases for something that is practically ruining society. This is never a good defense of it. It also suffers from fallacy of appeal to consequences. Neither you nor I know whether this case wouldn't be solved in a different manner if there was no "modern world's massive data collection", really. Or if it would even happen. You don't have a crystal ball, neither do I.

You are just assuming it wouldn't. It is a presumption that it could only be solved with mass data collection. Do you know this for a fact? That it would really end up in a case of "he said/she said"? Were investigators and other involved interviewed to know the only way this could be solved favorably to the defendant was through mass data collection, or you are just assuming it from a limited view of the case?

Similarly, most arguments in defense of privacy ending measures also just assume cops or intelligence wouldn't be able to do their jobs, think of the children, think of the international terrorists, we'll be put at a disadvantage if we don't also do it or don't do it first, we wouldn't be able to catch Internet based criminals if we didn't have mass data collection, and so forth and so on. Again, this is a fallacy of appeal to consequences. One that also has a historical blindness. How did we ever solve crimes in the past when we did not have mass data collection, I wonder?

Other factors at play here is that you are stuffing together a separate issue that has nothing to do with the state of privacy - how a man, presumed innocent, was punished without proof. The main problem isn't whether there is mass data collection or not, it's one of injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Another problem in the argument is putting concerns about tracking, data collection and privacy versus the solving of this case in opposition. As if you can't have both. We had a court order for collaboration to collect the data, the state of mass private data collection that is leading to mass data leaks, data broker economy, and unregulated selling of private data encompasses way more than what was needed for the man in this case to prove his innocence.

Finally, about false accusations, most studies I've read put false accusations of sexual misconduct around the 2-10% mark in reported cases, which are a subset of actual cases. Gotta be careful of sweeping generalizations.
Let me put this in another perspective. You wanna reduce all sexual crimes? Sterilize the entire population and segregate between men and women. That will reduce sex crimes quite dramatically. Does it mean it's something that should be done?

It's the idea of asking for peace for an infinitely intelligent AI or a genie in the lamp, and ending up with human extinction. Crimes are unfortunate, but they are also a part of humanity. We should all be seeking justice, but not blindly. In the very same way that articles of the Constitution and law were designed to protect individuals in society, if it's not used with reason and care, it can always be weaponized by a few rogue agents in a project for power, to topple what these were trying to protect.

And it's right now that people needs to understand this the most.

 

[scrimbul]

Do you know the difference between earning a law degree and passing the bar?

I'm more interested in why this particular comment thread and article type seems to be attracting commentary from people who like to think they know more than they do in all aspects about the topic and want to make snarky comments about it for little more than water-cooler chatter, goddamn. The article is fine but none of the pontificating beyond it is THAT interesting this time around.

And then there's that one guy who lurked for a year and then wasted his first post on editorial critique outside of the feedback forum section and didn't have the balls to @ the article author either, to critique a writing style that's been prevalent for this site for over a decade across multiple authors.

The whole first three pages is 'Like, really people, c'mon.'

 

[A Man A Plan A Canal Panama]

Do you know the difference between earning a law degree and passing the bar?

Whoosh

Thanks for stepping in the punch line.

 

[Lessa]

The worst part of this is all of the people who legit are harassed and now won't be believed.

 

[sdrubbins]

It's funny, but law school doesn't seem to offer "ethics" even as an elective.

I mean, it literally does, and outside of the prescribed first year-courses, it is the only course that is required to graduate.

Crazy/dumb/bad people make it through law school just like they do in every profession. No test or course has yet been devised to successfully keep them out.

 

[launcap]

Either way, a good reminder to avoid romantic entanglements in the workplace. Even assuming mutual interest at one point, if/when a relationship sours, it's like botulism. The organism is dead but the poison remains.

My wife and I worked for the same company for 7 (ish) years - but then we were married when we started there.

That was about 36 years ago.. (still married!)

 

[joncaplan]

It's funny, but law school doesn't seem to offer "ethics" even as an elective.

I get that your post is intended as a cheap shot at all lawyers born out of frustration, rather than sharing of factual information, but
legal ethics is indeed a topic in law school. Even read a bit of a legal ethics textbook out of curiosity. The surprising thing to me was that it was about understanding what is permitted, rather than reflecting the common use of ethics to be about right and wrong.

In any case, there are people in all professions that behave badly and it's unlikely that a class would be an effective way to prevent false accusations.

 

[JohnCarter17]

"After I accidentally dumped the bottle, I drilled a hole in the bottom to let all the water out and accidentally hit the SSD controller"...

You mean you didn't broil it in the oven to try drying it out first?

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

It could happen.

Unfortunate accidents happen all the time.

at least that's what my uncle said last time I talked to him in federal prison.

 

[moddrift]

No, the worst part is all the male's rights assholes will point to this case as "proof" that all women are making false sexual harassment claims. The reality is that the number of false claims are low, are nearly always caught (although not necessarily without causing some damage, as in this case) and far too many real victims never even speak up.

No, the worst part is definitely that there will be victims of harassment who won't be believed, as the original poster said. The men's rights assholes can piss up a rope.

ninja'd: the.mighty.oracle

 

[azazel1024]

This is a great example of how HR is there to protect the company, not employees. Moving the accused is the most logical move from that standpoint, as illustrated.

It can easily look like "guilty until proven innocent", though. The accused will have the stigma of being accused, proven or not. There's still the potential for a lawsuit - but that's only because the accused was actually able to prove his innocence here, which is a lot harder to do usually in the sort of he said, she said situation that characterizes this kind of accusation. And damages will likely be much lower than they would have been if the accuser had been moved. The real lawsuit will be against Choi, who is financially challenged and now has no job, career, phone or laptop.

Agreed. I don't think our society has found a good balance in general.

How do we reasonably hold false accuser accountable and clear the name (CLEARLY) of those falsely accused? How do we ALSO have a good process in place so that those who are making just accusations are believed and supported?

What about those cases where someone making an accusation just doesn't have the evidence to support it (but they aren't lying)?

IMHO, probably when there is clear evidence that an accusation is malicious/false, we need to do a better job of holding the accuser to account is at least one step. Probably mandating a thorough investigation if an accusation is made is another way (without sweeping it under the rug) and holding those responsible (personally, not just the employer) for investigating responsible if they don't do due diligence in investigating to substantiate the accusation.

It can go for a lot of things. I've seen (now) ex-spouses toss out false domestic violence accusations and push for restraining orders to "get an edge" in divorce cases. The vast majority of such cases, nothing at all happens to the accuser even though the police and judge (and if a prosecutor gets involved) are usually well aware that the accusation can't even hold a thimble of water.

That doesn't mean every accuser should be prosecuted/punished if domestic violence charges or a restraining order are not upheld in the end, but even clear and convincing cases of false accusations are almost NEVER prosecuted for false police reports or perjury. But the person accused has time and cost of having to defend themselves against the accusations. They might have the stigma of family, friends, and work finding out they got arrested for DV. They might have to spend time and $ trying to get firearms back from the police if they owned any (who usually do NOT release them, even if DV charges are dropped or if a temporary restraining order is dropped and no permanent restraining order is issued. Most places it takes going back to court and getting a judge to issue an order to the police department to release them. Which usually takes hiring an attorney).

PS I thought it might be good to throw out numbers. https://shrink4men.com/2017/11/13/b...-order-abuse-in-divorce-and-custody-disputes/

~70% of restraining orders in divorce situations are deemed frivolous based on a 2008 study. It is to the level that most divorce lawyers consider it fairly routine in any sort of acrimonious divorce that one of the spouses (generally the woman) will attempt to seek a restraining order. To the point where most divorce lawyers are going to recommend their client document every and all interaction with their ex-spouse. About a third of all divorces one partner seeks a restraining order. Rarely are permanent restraining orders issued and ANY restraining order only needs a preponderance of evidence standard (51% likely it is true) for both the ex-partite temporary and a permanent restraining order to be issued. However, the rate of permanent restraining orders is significantly lower than temporary restraining orders.

PPS NOT data, just anecdote. My side familiarity with the EEO and harassment processes in federal government is that they are generally investigated pretty comprehensively, and run counter to what this Gov Exec article found. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2...crimination-complaint-lose-their-jobs/183849/

The big caveat with that gov exec article...there isn't any data on how many of those EEO complaints were filed FALSELY. Having been a supervisor or supervisor adjacent more than half of my career (of note I have never had any complaints filed against me, but I have been involved in some as a witness) I've been aware of a tiny number of what were absolutely justified EEO complaints that were filed (and all of those had a just resolution for the employee involved). The VAST majority of them were from disgruntled employees. A lot of said "retaliation" mentioned is that in many cases, an EEO complaint is being filed by an employee that is about to be, or is being put on a opportunity to perform successfully plan, or a performance improvement plan. IE, you've got a few months to shape up, or ship out. Hence, when the complaint is found to not have merit, and their performance doesn't turn around, they get fired. For an employee facing discipline/termination, there is basically little to no negative consequence to filing an EEO or harassment complaint as a federal employee if you don't plan to actually turn your work product/ethic around. You'll likely get a several months delay in termination as no one is going to fire someone going through the complaint process (which takes months) short of gross misconduct.

 

[d_cooper]

Actually society has a terrible track record on that. I'm not sure why you would think that we were more aware as a whole of bias in the past.

What I was thinking when I said that was the more historically recent theme of not blaming the victim (not questioning them in practice), the saying 'believe all women' and the like. In the effort of trying to help some people have the courage to come forward and actually accuse their abusers, society over-corrected to the far end of the extreme in promoting the the idea of not demanding some sort of proof before people were to be believed.

 

[MagicDot]

It's hard to fathom why someone that invested 5-6 years of their life (and several hundred thousands of dollars) to become a lawyer would piss it all away by trying to squeeze a settlement out of a DA and/or the Denver DA's office. So either this person is astonishingly dumb for a law school graduate or had some sort of serious beef with her colleague.

If I had to guess her motivations, after 5 or 6 years as a lawyer, her morals had been pulled so low that setting up a gold-digging scheme seemed business as usual. Just kidding - she probably hated the job and was setting up an exit strategy.

 

[Matthew J.]

I mean, isn't that the whole MO of the position and department? Prosecutors assume guilt and act as adversary to any defense?

I always thought prosecutors were supposed to pursue justice, not convictions. Prosecutors have discretion to not bring charges if they don't think it's in the best interest of justice, and they're supposed to drop charges if they believe a change in the situation warrants it (e.g. new evidence that casts additional doubt, even if it doesn't prove innocence outright).

 

[ARLibertarian]

The texts were actually sent by Adrian Dittmann.

As evidenced by the offer to buy her a pony.

 

[Link2k]

The upvotes on your conspiracy theory:

The joke being that Elon is Adrian, but it turns out that's just, actually, what he wants y'all to believe. And it's genuinely funny (with you as the butt of the joke) because it proves that ideology, not truth, is what drives post visibility on this site.

I wouldn't piss on Elon if he was on fire but he's not Dittman. The journalist the Independent mentioned, who Elon banned, went through the trouble to actually see if this could be disproved, and was mostly able to. Here. Have another!

Bad news for Adrian Dittmann/Elon Musk truthers | TechCrunch

Ha. ha.

What are you actually talking about?

I upvoted the original because it was funny. I also never believed Dittman was Musk and the joke works either way.

I actually think it works better knowing Musk isn't Dittman just a sycophant.

My recommendation is stop focusing on approval of the internet, all your days will be better.

 

[ARLibertarian]

I'm willing to bet both are the case here.

I suspect bipolar sociopath.

 

[Hichung]

There's a reason I've never, ever shown even a remote interest in anyone I've ever worked with, or worked in the same company as I worked. Simply not worth the risk.

There's plenty of other fish in the sea to date that are unlikely to have any impact on my job.

Of course, if the issue was he rejected her advances, he got fucked and didn't even know it.

 

[alisonken1]

You mean you didn't broil it in the oven microwave it to try drying it out first?

FTFY.

 

[alisonken1]

I always thought prosecutors were supposed to pursue justice, not convictions. Prosecutors have discretion to not bring charges if they don't think it's in the best interest of justice, and they're supposed to drop charges if they believe a change in the situation warrants it (e.g. new evidence that casts additional doubt, even if it doesn't prove innocence outright).

The problem with justice v. convictions is justice doesn't get you promoted or voted into office - only convictions count.

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha]

In the long run it won't work because digital forensics. But .... serious damage could have been done to actual victim if the texts were leaked into the court of public pitchforks and torches.

And there were actual damages to the victim as can be seen by

I still think that the altitude of Colorado limits the LE's ability to think.

 

[Bash]

Or you have to be seriously stupid to believe the police are this stupid.

You is quite correct.

 

[AusPeter]

I still think that the altitude of Colorado limits the LE's ability to think.

Denver isn't really that high.

Denver: 5,820 ft
Albuquerque: 5,312 ft
Los Alamos: 7,300 ft

Lots of defense and aerospace work is done in Albuquerque. And Los Alamos is synonymous with high tech national defense work.

I live at 7000 ft and still wouldn't have acted like Choi. (I also ski at between 11,000 and 12,000 ft and definitely can think well enough not to hurt myself!)

 

[JagCat]

It's hard to fathom why someone that invested 5-6 years of their life (and several hundred thousands of dollars) to become a lawyer would piss it all away by trying to squeeze a settlement out of a DA and/or the Denver DA's office. So either this person is astonishingly dumb for a law school graduate or had some sort of serious beef with her colleague.

Or a serious personality disorder.

 

[killswitch1984]

I get that your post is intended as a cheap shot at all lawyers born out of frustration, rather than sharing of factual information, but
legal ethics is indeed a topic in law school. Even read a bit of a legal ethics textbook out of curiosity. The surprising thing to me was that it was about understanding what is permitted, rather than reflecting the common use of ethics to be about right and wrong.

In any case, there are people in all professions that behave badly and it's unlikely that a class would be an effective way to prevent false accusations.

It's actually a mix. The Professional Ethics course I took in law school took time to discuss right and wrong as we also looked a specific situations and how lawyers are expected to remain ethical. It can be incredibly difficult when you are representing morally-failing individuals or put in situations that have no clear right-or-wrong answer. We didn't spend hours and hours on ethical philosophy, sure, but it also wasn't just learning how to deal with criminal clients or the complexities of IOLTA.

 

[graylshaped]

Whoosh

Thanks for stepping in the punch line.

"Lawyers are bad" was your joke.

Ha ha.

/rollseyes

 

[JagCat]

Whenever I catch myself feeling respectful of the legal profession, I try to remember that both Ted Cruz and Sidney Powell have law degrees.

And Aileen Cannon is a judge.

 

[graylshaped]

My wife and I worked for the same company for 7 (ish) years - but then we were married when we started there.

That was about 36 years ago.. (still married!)

Absolutely, I have seen exceptions, including family members with what are now long-term, happy marriages that started from a workplace relationship. Those are the outliers. Congratulations on your own long-term success!

As a pragmatic matter, our company's policy did not forbid such relationships. It did require notification to leaders if such a relationship occurred between those in a reporting relationship, and on more than one occasion, I had to have a difficult conversation with good members of my team, not for being human, but for not telling me about the potential conflict of interest.

 

[graylshaped]

Whenever I catch myself feeling respectful of the legal profession, I try to remember that both Ted Cruz and Sidney Powell have law degrees.

With respect to where others have taken this line of thinking, be mindful of judging an entire group of people by the actions of individuals.