Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bud | Hacker News Reader

I just read that entire indictment. I do not find the quote about Norton that you just posted anywhere in the document. There is, in fact, no mention of Norton whatsoever. Do you have some other source for that quote? Because it very much appears that you just created a throwaway account to post this.

View on HN

I don't really understand the quote. What does it mean/imply?

It would imply that she was called in front of a grand jury to testify against Aaron Swartz. I presume she initially refused to do so on the grounds that it might incriminate her - as is her right under the Fifth Amendment. Therefore the government gave her a letter of immunity, something they can do without her permission. Once she was immune to prosecution, the government could compel her testimony.

I assume she didn't want to go to jail (she does have a daughter, after all), so she testified. I can't say I'd hold that against her. You have very little rights in front of a grand jury.

This is the only thing I've found, thus far: https://twitter.com/textfiles/statuses/137387291617394688

A google for that exact phrase shows this: http://gnusha.org/logs/2012-09-15.log

I don't know enough about the case to dig further.

I originally found that in one of the legal docs, here:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Aaron+Swart...

http://archive.org/stream/UsaV.AaronSwartz-CriminalDocument2...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com