dmr@research.att.com (03/27/91)
There's a notorious trial going on now in suburban New York, often called the `Fatal Attraction' case from its resemblance to a certain movie plot. Man A, married to woman B, had an an affair with woman C; B was shot and killed, and C is being tried for murder. All the evidence is circumstantial. There is reason to believe that C bought a pistol at Ray's Sport Shop (oddly, just down route 22 from me in New Jersey); though the weapon has not been found, a recovered bullet corresponds with its type. Here's the Telecom connection. The prosecutor has summoned MCI, who brought records showing a telephone call from C to Ray's a day or so before before the weapon was purchased. C denies making the call. Moreover, she presented in evidence a paper MCI bill for the period, which not only fails to show the call to Ray's, but also shows a call to her mother at a time which, she argues, would make it impossible for her to be at the murder scene. MCI says it has no record of the call to C's mother. The prosecution objected to the introduction of the paper MCI bill, but the judge allowed it in evidence. So the jury has (among other things) to evaluate the trustworthiness of the MCI records as produced from their tapes, vs. the piece of paper produced by the defendant. Dennis Ritchie
ekrell@ulysses.att.com (03/29/91)
The latest twist in that case is that an MCI executive called by the
prosecution testified he didn't believe the MCI statement the defense
presented was genuine since at that time all MCI statements had a
special legend printed (something like "Communications for the next
100 years") and the statement shown by the defense didn't have it.
Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com