Evidence Appears To Exonerate Anthony Weiner

I wasn't going to put this in the blog, but I see it is not being covered fairly in the media.

I don't have a twitter account, but I know it is possible to have an e-mail sent with a different address appearing in the "from" address than the one that actually sent it. This has legitimate uses. I think I used it once to send an e-mail from work, with the "from" address changed to my personal e-mail address, because personal e-mail sites were blocked, for security reasons. I don't have e-mail at home, and needed to send this right away. Can't remember why.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2011/06/02/evidence-appears-to-exonerate-anthony-weiner/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liberalvaluesblog%2FMjjM+%28Liberal+Values%29

June 2, 2011 — Ron Chusid
The available evidence continues to support Anthony Weiner’s contention that the controversial weiner picture on Twitter was sent by someone else. It wound up taking bloggers to determine what happened with social media sites. Cannonfire demonstrates that this technically wasn’t a case of someone needing to hack Weiner’s Twitter account as it was possible to fake the sending of the twitter picture due to a “feature” of yfrog. In order to get the photo site to send out a photo as a tweet it appears that it is only necessary to find someones yfrog email address:

Believe it or not, when an outsider sends a pic to someone else’s Yfrog account in this fashion, the action creates a message in the “twitterstream.” The message seems to originate with the Twitter account holder — but it doesn’t. It comes from somewhere else — from someone mailing a picture to the account holder.

This is a serious security flaw in the design of Yfrog and Twitter. It allows a malicious outsider to “spoof” a tweet that seems to come from someone else.

In addition, the post looked at problems in the url, demonstrating that “The anomaly in the header indicates that the image was not sent by Weiner. It had to have been sent by someone else.”

Next step was to track down the culprit. It appears that the picture was posted by a conservative who posts under the name Dan Wolfe who first claimed to find the picture. It turns out that the picture supposedly found by Wolfe has irregularities which cast doubt upon Wolfe himself. “The date stamp on this image is May 30, not May 27. The EXIF data is strange in other ways” Not surprisingly, Dan Wolfe has been acting pretty strange today:

Explaining his hesitation to speak on the telephone, Wolfe wrote that his ex-wife (working in conjunction with a former girlfriend of his) had twice secretly recorded him and that the resulting tapes had “gotten me in a lot of legal trouble.” As a result, he contended that if his ex-wife’s attorney “got a hold of a call recorded with me on it they’d have a field day with that. I want to try to avoid.”

While not addressing who would make such a recording, how it would surface, or why it would do harm to him, Wolfe concluded, “I am screwed. If all this comes out along with everything I’m dealing with here–I don’t know what to do.”


----- (skipping)

..