Comment Re:What about accused, but case dismissed? (Score 1) 130
What some of you need to remember is that things on the network at WTAMU have changed quite a bit since these events.
Much of the networking staff/IT there has changed completely. Kenneth is no longer there; but James is still there.
They (the current networking staff) really have worked hard to fix the problems that plagued their system.
It is not fair to continue to block them for mistakes in their past.
Just a guess, but it is most probably James H. and/or the dean of Tech. Dr. Nelson, who follows all of James's "recommendations" blindly, who "advised" the Police department to continue not to allow him access to the campus.
The police/admins. may not have handled the situation as well as they could have. What they should have done was allow him access to the campus with a restriction on computer access. The problem with that is that his abilities as mentioned here probably meant that they were afraid of his ability to still "get through". Of course the next logical question is.. If he really IS that good, doesnt it mean that if he wanted to harm the campus network, he would have been able to do so remotely anyways, and most probably WITHOUT detection?
Most of the case file, including a copy of the trespass warnings, and other details can be obtained from him (if you ask nicely) or from the court records (if you are willing to go through the red tape).
As for the UPD, [writing "forever" on a trespass warning that has a normal limit of 1 year clearly shows a deeper hatred than normal]
I am surprised he did not go further legally {but funds may have been an issue} since it was obvious that the UPD was most probably abusing the law(s) that allowed them to ban him from campus in the first place.. A law that was meant to stop drug dealers and gang members and other VIOLENT offenders from accessing campuses was possibly being abused by the police to further their own personal prejudices and fears or agendas.
Some of the same problems on the networks mentioned above; many that seem to have been fixed were some that supposedly the "accused" informed them of a long time ago, but was ignored, and was later on blamed for when they were most probably exploited.
His "defense" file if they went to trial contains copies of emails to both the ISP and his bosses at the university about some of the problems, as well as an "explanation" of most of the circumstancial evidence that they had..
Something else that gets me, and was mentioned in that newspaper article, is that the university allows a CONVICTED murderer {manslaughter) to access the campus freely, but yet they deny someone else access to the University...
One really has to wonder if other factors are in effect here other than the network issues.
It seems more of a personal grudge than a network/computer issue.
Something that no-one else has mentioned here is that there is also another third party involved. A third party who initiated the accusation/complaint (their web page was also allegedly erased by the accused), who turns out was applying for the same job position as the "accused" at the ISP
makes you wonder......
Much of the networking staff/IT there has changed completely. Kenneth is no longer there; but James is still there.
They (the current networking staff) really have worked hard to fix the problems that plagued their system.
It is not fair to continue to block them for mistakes in their past.
Just a guess, but it is most probably James H. and/or the dean of Tech. Dr. Nelson, who follows all of James's "recommendations" blindly, who "advised" the Police department to continue not to allow him access to the campus.
The police/admins. may not have handled the situation as well as they could have. What they should have done was allow him access to the campus with a restriction on computer access. The problem with that is that his abilities as mentioned here probably meant that they were afraid of his ability to still "get through". Of course the next logical question is.. If he really IS that good, doesnt it mean that if he wanted to harm the campus network, he would have been able to do so remotely anyways, and most probably WITHOUT detection?
Most of the case file, including a copy of the trespass warnings, and other details can be obtained from him (if you ask nicely) or from the court records (if you are willing to go through the red tape).
As for the UPD, [writing "forever" on a trespass warning that has a normal limit of 1 year clearly shows a deeper hatred than normal]
I am surprised he did not go further legally {but funds may have been an issue} since it was obvious that the UPD was most probably abusing the law(s) that allowed them to ban him from campus in the first place.. A law that was meant to stop drug dealers and gang members and other VIOLENT offenders from accessing campuses was possibly being abused by the police to further their own personal prejudices and fears or agendas.
Some of the same problems on the networks mentioned above; many that seem to have been fixed were some that supposedly the "accused" informed them of a long time ago, but was ignored, and was later on blamed for when they were most probably exploited.
His "defense" file if they went to trial contains copies of emails to both the ISP and his bosses at the university about some of the problems, as well as an "explanation" of most of the circumstancial evidence that they had..
Something else that gets me, and was mentioned in that newspaper article, is that the university allows a CONVICTED murderer {manslaughter) to access the campus freely, but yet they deny someone else access to the University...
One really has to wonder if other factors are in effect here other than the network issues.
It seems more of a personal grudge than a network/computer issue.
Something that no-one else has mentioned here is that there is also another third party involved. A third party who initiated the accusation/complaint (their web page was also allegedly erased by the accused), who turns out was applying for the same job position as the "accused" at the ISP
makes you wonder......
