QUOTE(N.B.O.L. @ Apr 24 2009, 03:06 PM)
I found the google translation ambiguous as well. From it the only thing I could get was that Baker & the hacker knew each other. In post #2 of this thread, Frenchfry presented a summary translation of what the article says. It is the clearest version I have seen anywhere. I know FF's position on the whole thing, but it doesn't appear to 'me' that his position shaded his translation for us non-French-Speaking members of the board.
Here's what FF says:
According to the article, it was Baker that released the information under a false name, and the information was obtained by a French spy/hacker that was also involved in spying on Greenpeace. The spy/hacker admitted to his relationship with Baker. The information on Greenpeace was discovered during the investigation into the Landis affair.
There is absolutely nothing in the article that states or implies that the hacker admitted any relationship with Baker. FF seems to have made the exact same kind of error in quick-reading that the I believe the reporter made in misreading case history.
There's one other bit I left out in my analysis. Later in the article (babelfish) it says:
If the shutter “Landis” of the instruction hardly progresses (to date, the mystery remains whole on the possible part played by Lorho and the coach of the runner), the situation is quite different of the shutter “Greenpeace”.
In other words, Baker's possible role (the coach of the runner) is completely a mystery. This seems to completely contradict the "new" allegation against Baker, and is another reason why I think this reporter was just confused about past facts.
From what I've read here and elsewhere, they know based on files on Alain Quiros computer, as well as by his own confession, that he was the one that hacked the LNDD. It isn't clear if the 2000 Euros was payment for the LNDD hacking or another hacking. And I haven't found anyhing that indicates that Mr. Quiros has said who paid him. I can't quite figure out when he was caught, some sources seem to imply that they nabbed him months ago.
QUOTE(Lister Farrar @ Apr 24 2009, 02:52 PM)
My sense was the news was that Baker was implicated in arranging the hacking. Not just using the hacked documents in Landis's defence. No?
Sorry my mistake. I was only trying to speak to the notion of planting evidence, and how that notion could come from ambigous translation.
Yes, the article implies that Baker arranged the hacking and paid 2,000 for it (but it does not state this). It states that Baker is Norman Crepin, the fake author of the letters that were sent out containing the hacked lab data. It is this particular statement that I believe was based on a misreading of case history from 2006, and that no such revelation actually exists.
It's just such a surprising allegation to say that Baker is Crepin, and not talk about how this was established, and all in a paragraph that's otherwise discussing ancient history. And then later contradict that and say that the case is not progressing and Baker's role remains a complete mystery. AND on top of all that no one else picks up on the story at all.