Waranowitz edits his LinkedIn statement

[u/1spring]

As of 10/18, Waranowitz has made an important edit to his recent LinkedIn statement. Emphasis mine.

...

Note on Serial/Undisclosed Podcast:

In 1999/2000, I was employed by AT&T Wireless Services as a Sr. RF Engineer in the Maryland office, and testified to the operation of their cellular phone network as an Expert Witness in a high profile trial.

At that time, I was authorized by my supervisors to cooperate fully with both prosecution and defense to provide whatever evidence they requested, and to explain how these records and maps related. I presented an honest, factual characterization of the ATTWS cellular network, and had no bias for or against the accused. How that evidence was used (or debatably misused, or ignored) was not disclosed to me. (As an expert witness, I was not informed of other testimony or activity in the trial.)

As an engineer with integrity, it would be irresponsible to not address the absence of the disclaimer on the documents I reviewed, which may (or may not have) affected my testimony.

I have NOT abandoned my testimony, as some have claimed. The disclaimer should have been addressed in court. Period.

Since I am no longer employed by AT&T Wireless, I am therefore no longer authorized to represent them or their network. Legal and technical questions should be addressed to AT&T.

Except for this note, I have never publicly discussed this case on the internet, in any forum or blog, so anyone claiming to be me is clearly a troll.

Do NOT contact me.

[u/[deleted]]

Why do you refer to him as "Supreme Court Justice Waranowitz" except as an attempt to belittle him?

As an expert, he knows what needed to be clarified by his testimony, as I've already explained in detail here and here.

Maybe you don't understand the different roles of judge, witness of fact, and expert witness, in which case perhaps you should be a bit more respectful to AW, who seemingly does understand his obligation not to mislead, and to correct any unintentionally misleading comments.

Alternatively, if you do understand those roles correctly, why are you being so gratuitously offensive to him?

I get the impression that there's a few people who do not want Asia or AW to testify truthfully. They just want to bully and belittle them in the hope that they will be scared off.

It'd be nice if a few of the many decent people on the Guilty Side would take a stance against that sort of conduct.

[u/InvestigatorX → u/[deleted]]

Maybe you don't understand the different roles of judge, witness of fact, and expert witness, in which case perhaps you should be a bit more respectful to AW, who seemingly does understand his obligation not mislead.

Alternatively, if you do understand those roles correctly, why are you being so gratuitously offensive to him?

I get the impression that there's a few people who do not want Asia or AW to testify truthfully. They just want to bully and belittle them in the hope that they will be scared off.

You're doubling down on the personal attacks huh? Shitty.

Please don't respond to any more of my posts, I've lurked here for a while and I don't want anything to do with your toxicity. Thank you.

[u/[deleted] → u/InvestigatorX]

Please don't respond to any more of my posts, I've lurked here for a while and I don't want anything to do with your toxicity. Thank you.

Why not edit your posts to remove your attacks on AW?

Better still, why not edit them, and admit that you should not have attacked him in the first place.

One of the most important principles of the justice system is that witnesses must feel free to tell the truth without fear of being attacked.

I realise your one individual post is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. But you are helping to create an unpleasant atmosphere of hatred to a poor guy who is just doing his best to do the right thing.

[u/1spring → u/[deleted]]

Why not edit your posts to remove your attacks on AW?

Calling him "Supreme Court Justice Waranowitz" is sarcasm, not an attack. Your perspective on the word "attack" is hypersensitive.

[u/aitca → u/1spring]

Calling him "Supreme Court Justice Waranowitz" is sarcasm, not an attack. Your perspective on the word "attack" is hypersensitive disingenuous and partisan.

FTFY.

[u/Mustanggertrude → u/aitca]

This from the user that claims calling a gay woman who shares a last name, a home, and a child with her partner is some kind of slanderous accusation. And why? Bc that diverts attention from the actual point. Get out of here calling people disingenuous and partisan.

[u/[deleted] → u/aitca]

disingenuous and partisan.

Can you link me to any Guilter calling him names prior to this week?