Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/20/11 (by an anonymous journalist, ed. by Alexa O’Brien)


United States v. Pfc. Manning was conducted in de facto secrecy. The public was not granted contemporaneous access to court filings or rulings during her trial. In addition to reporting on her trial, I transcribed the proceedings, reconstructed the censored appellate list, and un-redacted any publicly available documentation, in order to foster public comprehension of her unprecedented trial.

As a result of a lawsuit against the military judge and the Military District of Washington brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as my own FOIA requests and research, an official court record for US v. Pfc. Manning was released seven months after her trial. That record is not complete.

The official trial docket is published HERE and the entire collection of documents is text searchable at

*During the pretrial proceedings, court-martial and sentencing of Pfc. Manning, Chelsea requested to be identified as Bradley and addressed using the male pronoun. In a letter embargoed for August 22, 2013 Chelsea proclaimed that she is female and wished to be addressed from that moment forward as Chelsea E. Manning.

This transcript of the December 20, 2011, Article 32 Pretrial hearing in U.S. v Pfc. Manning was obtained from a respected journalist in attendance that day at Fort Meade.

The journalist wished to remain anonymous, but wanted the transcript to be made public. The journalist requested that I clean up the transcript and fact check. Any errors are, therefore, my own.

  • The Investigation Officer is Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and Justice Department prosecutor.
  • Prosecution is Captain Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, and Captain Angel Overgaard.
  • Defense is Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard.


Investigating Officer: Good morning… [Reads rules.] Government?


[Prosecution calls Ms. Jihrleah Showman.]

Prosecution: You’re Ms. Jihrleah Showman?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: When did you deploy [leave the Army]?

Showman: June 25, 2011.

Prosecution: How long were you in?

Showman: Four years, two months.

Prosecution: What rank were you when you left?

Showman: Specialist.

Prosecution: How do you know Pfc. Manning?

Showman: I was in the same unit and was his team leader. We met in early March 2009, after I first came to the unit.

Prosecution: What was your M.O.S. [Military Occupational Specialty]?

Showman: 35 Foxtrot.

Prosecution: What was Manning’s?

Showman: 35 Foxtrot.

Prosecution: Before you arrived at the 2nd Brigade, did you attend AIT [Advanced Individual Training ] at Fort Huachuca? And when?

Showman: Yes. July 2007, approximately.

Prosecution: What training did you do there?

Showman: Training on how to be “all source” analyst. Initially: how to handle, disseminate, and destroy classified info. We were instructed on everything that classified information had to do with the country.

Prosecution: Did you also complete [missed] training?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: Did you need a security clearance?

Showman: You needed at least SECRET clearance before you could finish training.

Prosecution: Do any training with Manning?

Showman: We attended DSGS [Distributed Common Ground System computer] training that lasted approximately one week at Division Headquarters.

Prosecution: After JRTC [Joint Readiness Training Center]?

Showman: I believe before.

Prosecution: Did Manning attend JRTC?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: Iraq or Afghanistan rotation?

Showman: I believe Iraq.

Prosecution: Any other training?

Showman: Myself no, but Manning had received two separate TDY’s [Temporary Duty Assignment] classified under SECRET. One at Fort Drum, one in Washington, D.C.

Prosecution: Related to his job as a 35 Fox?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: Did you deploy with the unit?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: When?

Showman: 11 Oct 2009 was when we left Fort Drum.

Prosecution: Did you deploy with Pfc. Manning?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: Worked where?

Showman: Brigade S.C.I.F. Functioned as a fusion cell.

Prosecution: [Missed question.]

Showman: Yes, at F.O.B. Hammer.

Prosecution: [Missed question]

Showman: Yes, I worked with Pfc. Manning during the first two months of deploying during the night shift. Then we were separated by day and night shifts before he was moved to day shift with me.

Prosecution: What did he do?

Showman: Shia analyst.

Prosecution: [Missed question.]

Showman: Yes, in the S.C.I.F.

Prosecution: What was that?

Showman: Any traffic that came in the Shia people group, they would disseminated to specific Shia analysts; and they would data mine for further information on individuals or create presentations for officers, but they dealt with that group.

Prosecution: What did data mining include?

Showman: Special programs on DSGS [pronounced “desigs” Distributed Common Ground System] machines that allowed files to be stored, accessed in specific relation to individuals. Information originally came from [missed], we’d put that on the program, and you could use keywords to find stuff. They also had specific targeting folders for specific individuals.

Prosecution: What information would you input?

Showman: People we knew, incidents, specific dates. But typically part of individual names that we were aware of at the time.

Prosecution: What did enlisted analysts do?

Showman: Went through HUMINT [Human Intelligence] reports and gathered pertinent info. We had targeting packets on every individual that came across our desk, whether Sunni or Shia. They’d place that on share drives in specific Shia folders and gather more info. And then whatever officers would request to give Brigade Commander a better picture of enemy in area, they’d be able to complete projects along those lines.

Prosecution: Outside of DSGS [Distributed Common Ground System], any other tools?

Showman: We used [sounds like C Pop], but only to communicate as our map of our AO [area of operation] and the digital position of our units and our enemy’s position.

Prosecution: Know what WGET is?

Showman: No.

Prosecution: Never needed for your job?

Showman: No.

Prosecution: Did Pfc. Manning ever have computer issues?

Showman: If not weekly then bi-weekly his computer would freeze up, and Mr. Milliman would have to correct system before it crashed multiple times.

Prosecution: When did the accused leave the brigade S.C.I.F.?

Showman: Approximately May 9, [2010], the morning after he assaulted myself.

Prosecution: Why was he removed?

Showman: Because he attacked – he had punched me in the face, unprovoked, and displayed uncontrollable behavior that was deemed untrustworthy at the time.

Prosecution: How long were you Manning’s supervisor?

Showman: I believe a month or two.

Prosecution: This was right at beginning of deployment?

Showman: Yes.



[According to Rainey Reitman, “The defense requested a closed hearing to present information to have the IO decide on whether to allow a portion of Showman’s testimony to be provided in a closed session.”]


Prosecution (Overgaard): Ms. Showman, if you could just hold for a little while, we have to close the courtroom.


Investigating Officer: During the closed session, I determined that a very limited portion of Ms. Showman’s testimony should be closed in order for the Accused to have a fair trial. Closed portion lasted approximately 5 minutes. We’ll now continue with Ms. Showman’s testimony. Government?

Investigating Officer: Hi, Ms. Showman. [Explains rules, still under oath.] Ms. Showman, you’re admonished… [Missed].


Defense (Coombs): I just have a few questions for you. Let me start off by asking few questions about your time as a supervisor.

Showman: Ok.

Defense (Coombs): You supervised in garrison before deployment? Late April, early May 2009?

Showman: I would say probably March timeframe.

Defense (Coombs): Daily contact with him?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Early May time, you had incident.

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Involved him missing a PT formation?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You went to barracks to find out where he was?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Knocked on his door? He opened his door. Looked like he had just woken up. Dressed in civilian clothes?

Showman: [Answers, “Yes” to all.]

Defense (Coombs): At that point you weren’t yelling.

Showman: No.

Defense (Coombs): What did you say?

Showman: Told him, “You need to get dressed and get downstairs right now.”

[They discuss importance of formation to determine accountability, etc.]

Defense (Coombs): Once Pfc. Manning got into uniform, you walked back to formation and talked to him. How did he appear?

Showman: He was very quiet. Didn’t respond to anything I said. I believe I asked how he had slept, why he wasn’t at formation, was it an alarm situation? Why hadn’t he shown up? I don’t remember him responding.

Defense (Coombs): As you got closer, you saw Master Sergeant Adkins. How did he appear?

Showman: I said I would have to counsel him and that he would have to show up early for a couple weeks for correction. When Adkins came, Manning started screaming at the top of his lungs. Extremely loud. Saliva was coming out of his mouth. My guess was as loud as he could. He was swinging his arms around.

Defense (Coombs): You stepped back?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Screaming lasted several seconds?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Master Sergeant Adkins approached Manning?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): That caused him to stop?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): But his fists were still clenched?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And he continued to make grunting noises?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Adkins asked what’s wrong, and [Manning] said he could not take messing up – he hated messing up?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Now you recommended counseling, right?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): He lost his military bearing, right? Which is how the military is supposed to present itself?

[Investigating Officer asks Defense to not explain military bearing.]

Defense (Coombs): You set up a meeting with Manning?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did anyone else alert the Company Commander to his outburst?

Showman: Not that I know of.

Defense (Coombs): Did anyone recommend behavior evaluation?

Showman: No.

Defense (Coombs): You recommended further action to Adkins? Told him you felt Manning was a threat to himself and others? That he should not have classified actions? You told him you thought he should not deploy?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did Adkins pass any of that information along?

Showman: No.


[Coombs argues about discovery and the opportunity to ask questions.]

Defense (Coombs): I’m asking about whether she is aware – whether the team leader knows what is happening to their soldier.


Defense (Coombs): I’ll ask the exact same question. Do you know – do you know – if Master Sergeant Adkins ever informed the Company Commander?

Showman: I do not know. I know he said something to the S2.

Defense (Coombs): So that would be a no?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): And you made these recommendations because you felt Manning was unstable?

Showman: That is one of the reasons, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Manning was asked to freeze by the Lieutenant?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And he was unresponsive. You walked up to him, asked if something was wrong? He didn’t speak?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): You went to Adkins again.

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You and Master Sergeant Adkins sat Manning down. Talked to him. During the conversation, Manning told you he felt paranoid. He felt people were listening in on his conversations. You asked him if he wanted to harm himself.

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): He said no, he wasn’t suicidal. But he felt paranoid because people were listening to him and watching his every move. You asked him if he heard voices in his head? He told you that he did not. Why did you ask him that?

Showman: Not that I am a medical professional, but I was trying to determine how severe this may be.

Defense (Coombs): You were doing that because you were his team leader. Which was one of your responsibilities: to take care of soldiers and make sure they were okay?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Based on this, you felt he had a high level of paranoia?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): He wasn’t getting tasks done, like when he first came to the unit?

Showman: When I first came, yes.

Defense (Coombs): He wasn’t completing tasks?

Showman: To my understanding, yes.

Defense (Coombs): You confronted him?

Showman: I believe I did.

Defense (Coombs): And he said it was because of his paranoia about others?

Showman: That was one of his excuses, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did you think this had something to do with gender identity disorder?

[Transcriber note that Showman basically answers, “No,” to Coomb’s question, and that she didn’t know anything about gender identity disorder. Coombs then asks Showman more about Adkins and his actions.]

Showman: He [Adkins] did tell me that he reported this to somebody.

Defense (Coombs): Did you know the difference between a self-referral and a command-directed referral? If it is a self-referral, you don’t know what’s happening at health services. And you recommended a command-directed referral [in order to hear from health services on what would be discussed with Manning during counseling sessions], but that didn’t happen?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Once you saw his name on the deploy list, you were furious to see it listed?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): You went to speak to Master Sergeant Adkins again? And were told that you would have to deal with it?

Showman: I wouldn’t say that I would used those words…

Defense (Coombs): You were told it would happen?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And that you would have to deal with it?

Showman: Correct.

[Coombs and Showman discuss the situation in Iraq and decisions about shifts.]

Defense (Coombs): Mass Sergeant Adkins decided who was on the day shift? Because he was the overall NCOIC [Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge]? So he also decided about the night shift?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): I now want to ask you about the S2.

Showman: Ok.

Defense (Coombs): You believe the leadership was very restrictive?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Leaders were given the position but weren’t given much control over soldiers?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Everything had to go thru Adkins, including training and counseling? He oversaw all equipment and all soldiers within the section?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Soldiers were not being counseled as they should?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): After a time, you were replaced by another Specialist?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): With regard to Major Clausen, that was also at the S2?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Barely saw him? He mostly stayed in his office?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Given that you didn’t see him around, he didn’t exercise control over the soldiers of the S2 [Intelligence] section?

Showman: I would disagree with part of that. He didn’t control the soldiers.

Defense (Coombs): So the soldiers were controlled by Adkins?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): The person responsible for you was CW2 [Chief Warrant Officer, Two Hondo] Hat Hack?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): But the only person you had access to was Adkins?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And counseling wasn’t available?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): You stopped fighting for counseling?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Were counseled only once?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): You saw the 20 December 2009 event between [Specialist Daniel] Padgett and Manning?

Showman: Can’t remember date.

Defense (Coombs): Your desk was outside entrance to conference room?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You heard Manning scream?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You got up and walked to door?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Saw Manning sitting on one side of the table, Specialist [Daniel ] Padgett on other side of table? You saw Manning flip the table and see a computer get broken? Specialist Padgett stood up and went toward the table? He put his hand out and tried to talk Manning down?

Showman: I believe so.

Defense (Coombs): You saw Manning looking around, and he saw an M4? What is that?

Showman: Army’s assault rifle. Equivalent of an M16 but has a shorter barrel.

[Investigating Officer tells Coombs not to explain; Coombs continues and chides the Investigating Officer for not knowing what a S.C.I.F. was earlier.]

Defense (Coombs): Based on what you saw, Manning was about to reach for M4?

Showman: That is what I saw.

Defense (Coombs): And before he could, [Specialist Daniel ] Padgett grabbed him from behind? Like a full nelson that you would see in a wrestling match? And he dragged Manning away?

[NB There is a discrepancy between my own, Reitman’s, and this transcribers as to who grabbed Manning during the M4 incident. See Captain Steven Lim’s testimony. According to my transcript of Lim’s testimony, and Reitman’s transcript of Showman, Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) Joshua Ehresman grabbed Manning. But this transcriber says that Padgett grabbed Manning. When I first heard Captain Steven Lim’s testimony, I noted that Showman grabbed Manning, but that clearly isn’t the case, based on Showman’s testimony.]

Showman: Only had to drag him a couple feet away, then he sat.

Defense (Coombs): Did Manning receive an Article 15 [Non-Judicial Punishment]?

Showman: Not to my knowledge.

Defense (Coombs): Did you talk to Adkins?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did you tell Adkins that he should no longer be in the S.C.I.F.?

Showman: I probably did.

Defense (Coombs): And he didn’t remove him?

Showman: Don’t know, but he was still working there.

Defense (Coombs): Based on your experience, soldiers and leaders have the responsibility to report matters of concern? Increase security? And this should instigate a derog?

Showman: Right.

Defense (Coombs): What is your understanding of derog?

Showman: In order to derog, the Commander needs to place a recommendation. Indicate what actions led to derogatory determination. He’ll check a box indicating whether an individual can retain clearance or whether it should be rescinded or terminated, so the Brigade can deliver it to Division.

Defense (Coombs): Who’s responsible for derogs in S.C.I.F.?

Showman: The Security Manager.

Defense (Coombs): Who is the security manager?

Showman: I was the acting security manager at the time.

Defense (Coombs): Who was before?

Showman: [1st] Lieutenant [Elizabeth] Fields.

Defense (Coombs): S2 section at the time, did it try to keep everything within the shop?

Showman: I felt it did.

Defense (Coombs): Explain?

Showman: Any incidents that occurred, I felt it didn’t reach Company level, when my understanding was, that it should have. So when it was kept internally, only those as high as the S2 heard about incidents.

Defense (Coombs): The [Specialist Daniel] Padgett -Manning incident shouldn’t just remain in S2 shop, right?

Showman: Right.

Defense (Coombs): Sergeant did finally find out because CW2 [Chief Warrant Officer, Two Hondo] Hat Hack told him?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Not from Adkins?

Showman: No.

Defense (Coombs): Took CW2 [Chief Warrant Officer, Two Hondo] Hat Hack telling him to get the info to him?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You actually escorted Manning to meet with the Sergeant? You told the First Sergeant that he should never have deployed, that this wasn’t the first time, and that you were not surprised that this had happened?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Did you find Manning curled into a ball?

Showman: Shortly after this. The night of May 7 [2010]. He was in the conference room of the S.C.I.F.

Defense (Coombs): What time?

Showman: Between 8:00 and 10:00 [p.m.] in the evening around our shift change time.

Defense (Coombs): You reported to CW4 [Chief Warrant Officer 2] Ehresman?

Showman: I believe I said, “Be ready for something to happen again.” I told him what I saw, that Manning was in a fetal position.

Defense (Coombs): Why did you tell him, “Be ready for something to happen again?”

Showman: I assumed his actions would lead up to some of the displays we had already seen Manning produce.

Defense (Coombs): At that point you left the S.C.I.F. because it was the end of your shift?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Few hours later, you were called back to the S.C.I.F.?

Showman: Around midnight or one in the morning.

Defense (Coombs): This is normally when you sleep?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Shortly after you came back, that is when you were allegedly assaulted?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And after he assaulted you, you pinned him to the ground?

Showman: Yes. He said, “I’m tired of this.”

Defense (Coombs): And did he say, “I’m tired of everyone watching? I’m tired of [Missed]?”

Showman: I don’t recall.

Defense (Coombs): Did he tell you that he said that he was scared what Behavioral Health would find out about him?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): He said if they would found out, they would have him removed from army?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): S.C.I.F. activity. You saw soldiers watching movies and listening to music? All on their DSGS-A [Distributed Common Ground System – Army] machines?

Showman: All except movies.

Defense (Coombs): And DSGS-A machines were configured specifically for security analysts?

Showman: Repeat?

Defense (Coombs): Person who is not a 35 Fox or not in that field, they wouldn’t work off DSGS-A [Distributed Common Ground System – Army] machines?

Showman: To my knowledge, no.

Defense (Coombs): Authorized chat application on computers was [sounds like “cyjabber”] ?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): No one used?

Showman: No.

Defense (Coombs): Everyone used mIRC chat?

Showman: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): They installed down onto desktop from shared drive?

Showman: From my understanding, it was not installed, but I don’t think it was installed on desktop.

Defense (Coombs): Yeah, it was put there as an executable link, and it would start? You actually had a soldier help you put mIRC chat on your computer?

Showman: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Want to ask you about the Apache video, now known as Collateral Murder questions.

Showman: Ok.

Defense (Coombs): You actually found that video.

Showman: Yes. I was going through folders that belonged to the fire section. We were looking through different videos to improve my professional development.

Defense (Coombs): Why did you start looking at this video?

Showman: No reason in particular. I looked at a few others. But we would watch together – me and CW2 [Chief Warrant Officer, Two Hondo] Hat Hack – how his section responds to situations like that. He was grooming me to be a targeting analyst for future deployment.

Defense (Coombs): How many times did you watch?

Showman: Four to five times.

Defense (Coombs): Were other soldiers also watching?

Showman: One other soldier and three to four officers were watching.

Defense (Coombs): Was anyone talking?

Showman: Few of us discussed, yes.

Defense (Coombs): What was discussion about?

Showman: We discussed what we saw in video and tried to analyze what things could be perceived as or why the military was taking specific tactics in dealing with enemy.

Defense (Coombs): Any discussion regarding rules of engagement?

Showman: No.

Defense (Coombs): Discussion regarding military firing on a van?

Showman: I believe there was an answer given about that.

Defense (Coombs): So there was concern as to why a van was fired upon?

Showman: I believe so.


Prosecution: Ma’am. You spoke about mIRC chat with defense. Who helped you put it on your comp?

Showman: I believe it was Manning.

Prosecution: Why?

Showman: He was the most knowledgeable about computers.

Prosecution: What would you use it for?

Showman: I used it to talk to other targeting Divisions.

Prosecution: So for official purposes?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: You also spoke about defense saying Pfc. Manning discussed his problems with you?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: Did he share all his problems with you?

Showman: Some.

Prosecution: Did he ever tell you he was chatting with Julian Assange?

Showman: No.

Prosecution: That he had hundreds of thousands of [US Department of State] cables?

Showman: No.

Prosecution: But that if people knew, he would be out?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: Were you ever authorized to take computers out of the S.C.I.F.?

Showman: No.

Prosecution: You’ve signed at least one N.D.A., right?

Showman: Yes.

Prosecution: What do they say?

Showman: That you have to be silent for 80 to 100 years.

Prosecution: Do you need the N.D.A.’s to remind you?

Showman: No, but they help.

Prosecution: Who do the N.D.A.’s apply to?

Showman: Anyone who is deployed.


Defense (Coombs): N.D.A. agreements actually say you cannot disclose for 80 to 100 years?

Showman: Been several years since I’ve looked at one. Don’t know if the N.D.A. says that or not.

Defense (Coombs): But you recall them saying you can’t say anything for 80 to 100 years?

Showman: Yes.




Prosecution: Staff Sergeant Bigelow? This is Captain Overgaard.

Bigelow: How ya doing?

[Prosecution places Bigelow under oath.]

Prosecution: You alone?

Bigelow: I am alone in my bedroom. It is just me.

Prosecution: You are Staff Sergeant Peter Bigelow of N.A.T.O. in Naples, Italy [US Army NATO, Allied Forces Command South (AFSOUTH) Battalion]?

Bigelow: Yes.

Prosecution: How do you know Manning?

Bigelow: I knew him from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) in Iraq.

Prosecution: [Missed question.]

Bigelow: 15 October

Prosecution: [Missed question.]

Bigelow: I went over in January. He came to work for me after getting into an altercation with Specialist Showman.

Prosecution: He worked for you in the supply room?

Bigelow: Yes.

Prosecution: How long?

Bigelow: Up until the time I went out on leave in May. Also, the time that two N.C.O.’s [Non-Commissioned Officers] escorted him down, cause we were on same flight to [missed. Could be Kuwait] to put him into custody.

Prosecution: When?

Bigelow: Immediately after custody. I got there maybe about April time, couldn’t tell you.

Prosecution: But right after altercation?

Bigelow: Yes.

Prosecution: What computers were located inside during the time?

Bigelow: SIPRnet computer, NIPRnet computer, my personal laptop on which I got Iraqi Internet. Put on my F.O.B so that I could search Web sites’ portals that were closed off from NIPRnet computers.

Prosecution: So equipment to help you do your job?

Bigelow: Yes.

Prosecution: Did you ever log into Manning’s [She mentions several accounts: Amazon, Gmail, etc.]

Bigelow: Negative.

Prosecution: Know any of his passwords?

Bigelow: Negative.

Prosecution: Did you ever view the Web site? Search for Julian Assange?

Bigelow: No. Who?

Prosecution: Julian Assange.

Bigelow: Ma’am, I never heard of that person.

Prosecution: So you never downloaded every email on the domain?

Bigelow: I didn’t need it, thus didn’t do it.


Defense (Coombs): Your personal laptop have a password?

Bigelow: No cause it was my personal laptop.

Defense (Coombs): So when you were in the supply room could anyone get access to your personal laptop?

Bigelow: I gave specific instructions: You will not – you will not – download crazy things on my laptop. You would not go to Web sites, look at porn, things that would get me in trouble. After his Article 15 [Non-judicial Punishment], I gave instructions to Manning.

Defense (Coombs): Give instructions to other soldiers?

Bigelow: No.

Defense (Coombs): Not your clerk?

Bigelow: No, she had a NIPRnet computer in front of her. She didn’t need my computer.

Defense (Coombs): You are guessing about that?

[Bigelow admits that he can’t know for sure whether or not his clerk used his personal computer because he wasn’t there.]



Prosecution: [Missed question.]

Williamson: I started working for CCIU in September 2006. I am a special agent and digital forensics investigator. Special Agent David Shaver is my supervisor. From 2002 to 2006 I was deployed with the Department of Immigration for the Department of Homeland Security. From 1992 to 2002 I was a police officer, a criminal investigator in Texas.

Prosecution: What training do you have in forensics examination?

Williamson: While at the Department of Homeland Security I attended three courses in nine weeks at the end of which I was designated computer forensics agent [missed where]. Initial portion was Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) A+ Certification [talks about what the training entailed: OS’s, troubleshooting,..] That was DHS training.

Prosecution: What training under CCIU?

Williamson: Numerous courses. [Williamson talks about having three certifications that are issued by the military. Other certifications: CompTIA A+, Network +, [missed another], Certified Ethical Hacker, Windows Vista Certification.

Prosecution: Did you examine digital media? What did you examine?

Williamson: Primarily the supply NIPRnet computer and additional items.

Prosecution: What process did you go through?

Williamson: Initially, I took the working copy of evidence I had and loaded into forensics software EnCase. Verified that the evidence I am examining is the exact same as when it was imaged.

Prosecution: What did you find?

Williamson: During initial search, I located a user account for Bradley Manning and an Internet history for that user profile. May 21, 2010.

Prosecution: What activity did you see?

Williamson: I located a Google search for the term WikiLeaks. Open-Closed Article 15 [Non Judicial Punishment] hearing; also the Web history for the Web page linked to Article 15; Google Gmail account access.

Prosecution: And, what prompted you to look at the computer?

Williamson: I was approached by Agent [David] Shaver, [CCIU] to re-examine the machine and the image of that computer, and to look at the information related to [United States Forces – Microsoft Outlook Share Point Exchange Server global address list (GAL)] Iraq [missed the rest].

Prosecution: First thing you did?

Williamson: Primary was looking for keywords, some of which had been provided. One was a string of text for 2BCT10MNT, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. During the second search, I looked for text files that appeared to be extracts.

[Reitman notes, “At the prompting of his supervisors, Williamson did a more extensive search, focusing this time on information relating to the Global Address List (GAL) for Iraq. He searched for a keyword string related to 2BCT10MNT.”]

Prosecution: Why do you say that?

Williamson: Five to six text files, all different sizes, all different. Contained .mil email addresses or domain names or unit names.

Prosecution: Individuals’ names?

Williamson: Yes.

Prosecution: You said two to four text files in Peter Bigelow user account?

Williamson: Don’t remember size, but it would take over 2,000 pages to print them out.

[Reitman notes, “While he could give a size estimation for the files, he said that three of the files he discovered would have been 2,000 page printed (each of the three, not all three together).”]

Prosecution: Where did you find text files?

Williamson: One in “My Docs”; remaining in the recycle bin.

Prosecution: Anything else in the “Recycle Bin” of interest?

Williamson: Two .zip files. Both had similarities to the text files. There was a Tmp.pdf also in the “Recycle Bin”. Those were [18 pages] of counseling records for Pfc. Manning including U.M.C.J. [Uniform Code of Military Justice] statements.

[Reitman says, “The recycle bin also had zip files that followed the same naming convention of the found extracts of the GAL.”]

Prosecution: Internet searches on Peter Bigelow account?

Williamson: Searches for WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Global Address List (GAL), Microsoft Excel, Macro Outlook, [missed others].

Prosecution: What did those searches indicate to you?

Williamson: The last three having to do with the Global Address List indicated he was trying to extract information from the Global Address List (GAL) and save it to a file. Under Peter Bigelow’s account, there was access to the Army Knowledge Online Account for Manning’s profile. There was also access to the bradley.e.manning Gmail account; also a Web page for where the logged-in user was Manning. Google search page showing Bradley Manning’s Gmail account; invoice from where Bradley Manning was listed as billing address.

Prosecution: You said Web pages?

Williamson: Yes, cache Web pages. So the browser downloads a copy of page so that a Web site is stored if it is visited frequently. Internet activity is located in the index.dat file in the Internet Explorer history record.

Prosecution: Account activity. Any temporal relation?

Williamson: Searches for the Global Address List was one of the first things. Then there were the creation of files containing Global Address List extracts with administrative access to the Bradley Manning Gmail account.

Prosecution: One moment please…


[Williamson explains the documents he has been given by the prosecution.]

[Reitman notes that that Williamson describes the pages thusly:

Document 1: Cached Web pages and a Google homepage with a logged-in user, Bradley Manning.

Document 2: Screenshot of a Google search for the Global Address List Macro Outlook. Document I.D. 00409679.

Document 3: A screenshot that displayed what would be seen if someone clicked on the first result after the Google search above. Document I.D. 00410555.]


Defense (Kemkes): Agent Williamson, your work was only on unclassified information?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): The computer you used didn’t require a password?

Williamson: No.

[Reitman notes, “On questioning, Williamson noted that a CAC [Common Access]
card was not needed to log into the computer. Williamson was not sure if a password was required.”]

Defense (Kemkes): You talked about a Global Address List?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): File was saved under “My Docs” folder?

Williamson: One of the files.

Defense (Kemkes): Not encrypted or hidden in any way?

Williamson: No. I would say, “No.”

Defense (Kemkes): All you had to do was click on “My Docs”?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): Global Address List was never removed from this computer?

Williamson: I cannot say definitively, “Yes” or “No” whether it was extracted.

Defense (Kemkes): As far as you know, it was created and then saved on that computer?

Williamson: Context I have is that it is likely that it was removed. Forensics would indicate it is likely that it was removed. Cannot say definitively.

Defense (Kemkes): You also testified on searches for WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. You also found searches on gender identity disorder and [another Web page concerning adjustment disorder]?

Williamson: [Missed answer.]

Defense (Kemkes): You found something on Brianna Manning.

Williamson: Negative. I don’t recall anything on that name.

Defense (Kemkes): You did mention that you found a book?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): That book was on feminine facial surgery? You said it was sent to Potomac, Maryland?

Williamson: That was the address.

Defense (Kemkes): During the investigation, you prepared a lengthy report on your findings on a NIPRnet comp?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): You stand by the findings?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): You can tell when a user profile is created?

Williamson: There are a couple ways. What I had said was that, that account was created 21 May [2010].

Defense (Kemkes): So you can tell when an account was created using forensics tools?

Williamson: Yes.

Defense (Kemkes): And accessed?

Williamson: Yes and no. Accessed by a user is one thing, but Microsoft tends to access a lot of files. So sometimes it is difficult to tell whether it was the user or the OS that accessed a file.

[Reitman notes, “Kemkes asked if Williamson stood by his report that the Manning account was last accessed on 28 May 10. Williamson asked to view the report, and ultimately stood by the words there.”]

Defense (Kemkes): So you reported that it was last accessed May 28, 2010. Are you aware my client was placed under arrest on 27 May?



Prosecution: I would like to discuss a computer seized from Jason Katz. Who is he?

Shaver: Former employee of Brookhaven National Labs, Department of Energy. I was asked to examine a Linux work computer to determine whether the file was present.

Prosecution: How did you conduct the search?

Shaver: I verified that the hash values matched. Looked for on comp. There was, one user profile, kupo, and was present there.

[Not sure if “kupo” refers to Jason Katz’s alleged user profile.]

Prosecution: Password protected?

Shaver: Yes.

Prosecution: See contents?

Shaver: Opened with password.

Prosecution: Where did you get the password?

Shaver: From CENTCOM.

Prosecution: So you collected the password?

Shaver: BE2PAX.wmv BE22PAX.wmv was the file name. Video taken from an aircraft over the battlefield.

Prosecution: Had you seen video?

Shaver: Yes, Sir. File was in on the CENTCOM server.

Prosecution: Folder?

Shaver: Called “videos.” Part of the Farah investigation folder.

Prosecution: When was it placed on the computer?

Shaver: 15 December 2009.

Prosecution: Other activity?

Shaver: Yes. User of the computer was attempting to decrypt file Cracking program downloaded and installed. From bash history it was running to try to crack the password, Sir.

Prosecution: So presumably the user was unable to open file?

Prosecution: Sir, I cannot determine whether he was able to get the password or not.


Defense: You have seen the video? It is the Garani air strike video? Created in May of 2009?

Shaver: But this video was of a flight over a battle-space, not an air strike. It arrived on the computer on 15 December 2009.

Defense: Came from the CENTCOM server?

Shaver: Same movie file. Yes, Sir.

Defense: Are you aware WikiLeaks had similar video around the same timeframe?

Shaver: Yes, Sir.

Defense: You said there was a match earlier with the Farah folder?

Shaver: Movie was the same.

Defense: Farah folder’s date was May 2010?

Shaver: I do not know the date that it was put on the CENTCOM server.

Defense: Agent Shaver, was this the same video or a similar video to that seen on the .22 computer?

Shaver: No, Sir.

Defense: Different video?

Shaver: Different video, Sir.


Prosecution: Just briefly, Sir. Agent Shaver, you said the movie file was the same as the one on the CENTCOM folder?

Shaver: Sir, I watched both videos, and they were both the same hash files.

[Reitman notes:

Blouchard asked whether this video on Katz’s computer matched the one on the .22 computer. Shaver said that it did not.

Blouchard had no further questions, but the prosecution had one follow-up clarification. Upon questioning, Shaver explained that he knew the video in the file on Katz’s machine was identical to the one in the Farah investigation folder because the hash values matched.]





  • IA [Information Assurance] Exam [Reitman adds “375768-375776”]
  • [Reitman adds “375772”]
  • IA [Information Assurance] Training Requirement [Reitman adds “375773”]
  • IA [Information Assurance] Virtual Training Number 2 [Reitman adds “375774”]
  • Test Results [22348]
  • Al Qaida recruiting video [408202-408236]
  • Al Qaida & the Arabian Peninsula Magazine [408202-408236]
  • Enemy Number 1 Possession Evidence
  • Redacted [Reitman adds 410664]
  • Metadata display
  • Forensically Recovered Material
  • Miscellaneous Documents
  • C3 Documents
  • Pfc. Manning’s Military Intelligence Work Product
  • I.E.D. Storyboard
  • Range Storyboard
  • IIT
  • SIPRnet email 10 01 12 (multiple emails) [Reitman adds “410613-410618”]
  • SIPRnet email 09 11 30
  • WikiLeaks Background
  • Afghanistan War Logs posted by WikiLeaks
  • Pfc. Bradley Manning Documents
  • C.I.D.N.E. Typed File
  • IIR-5 [Intelligence Information Report?]
  • [Reitman has “Dooments”]
  • DISA [Defense Information Systems Agency] TRICKLER Report
  • [Reitman has “Other”]
  • CIDNE data on the Internet
  • NetCentric Diplomacy Evaluation Document

Investigating Officer: Objection from defense?

Defense: No.


Prosecution: What’s your job?

Edwards: Investigator with Computer Crimes Investigative Unit with Army CID. Have been CID agent for just over 3.5 years. Have been involved in law enforcement for approximately 12 years.

Prosecution: Training?

Edwards: Forensics examination training for computers. [He goes on to list his qualifications.]

Prosecution: How did you get involved in the case?

Edwards: Email from Chet Uber in which he relayed that he was aware of an individual who was in contact with an Army intelligence analyst, who was releasing information to an Australian national in charge of WikiLeaks. I came into contact with him and discovered that he was Adrian Lamo.

Prosecution: When…?

Edwards: June 11, 2010 was when I came into physical contact. Met him in Carmichael, CA.

Prosecution: Why meet?

Edwards: Collected chat logs.

Prosecution: What…?

Edwards: One removable hard drive from a mobile laptop. Also an HP mini laptop that had a hard drive in it, also belonging to Mr. Lamo.

Prosecution: Other devices?

Edwards: Two thumb drives collected from George W. [last name sounds like “Street”]. Chat logs provided during earlier interviews with Mr. Lamo but were not the complete record. The thumb drives were also transported back to [the offices] where they were [missed]. [Reitman notes, “The chat logs had been provided to this individual on two thumb drives.”]

Prosecution: Has Mr. Lamo ever been a Confidential Informant (CI)?

Edwards: Yes.

Prosecution: Mission?

Edwards: To collect whatever would help us with the investigation.

Prosecution: Did the Army pay Mr. Lamo any money other than expense reimbursement?

Edwards: No.

Prosecution: Any other compensation?

Edwards: No.

Prosecution: CID receive any information in exchange for those expenses?

Edwards: Yes. There was information that was provided. It wasn’t substantive to this investigation, but it was provided.

Prosecution: Provide information because he was getting expenses paid for?

Edwards: No.

Prosecution: Currently Confidential Informant?

Edwards: No.

Prosecution: [Missed.]

[Reitman notes, “Edwards stated that during the conversations with BradAss87, Lamo was not operating as a confidential informant.”]


Defense (Blouchard): Agent Edwards, you mentioned Lamo was a Confidential Informant for CID?

Edwards: Yes.

Defense (Blouchard): When did it begin?

Edwards: Latter part of July 2010 to three or four months ago.

Defense (Blouchard): Has two computers?

Edwards: Yes.

Defense (Blouchard): Met with him in June, he had an external hard and computer with a hard drive in it?

Edwards: Correct.

Defense (Blouchard): Obtain search warrants?

Edwards: No, he consented to examination.

Defense (Blouchard): Any limitations?

Edwards: Specific search of communication and chats with Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Defense (Blouchard): Familiar with Mr. Danny Clark?

Edwards: I attempted to interview Mr. Danny Clark in Boston.

Defense (Blouchard): When…?

Edwards: Between June 18 through June 23, 2010.

Defense (Blouchard): Interview him?

Edwards: No.

Defense (Blouchard): Why…?

Edwards: He invoked his right to counsel.

Defense (Blouchard): Knowledge of Mr. Clark having communication with Lamo?

Edwards: I do.

Defense (Blouchard): How?

Edwards: Lamo?
provided chat log he had with Clark.

Defense (Blouchard): When was it provided to you?

Edwards: Want to say around the July 22 [2010] period.

Defense (Blouchard): Anyone from law enforcement direct Lamo to have communications with Clark? Suggest it?

Edwards: No. No. We said he has no specific guidance to search, but if he does collect information, he should let us know. I think he knew there were other individuals involved and opportunities in that community with other hackers. If he was to discover anything, he should share that information.

Defense (Blouchard): Was Mr. Lamo encouraged?

Edwards: [Repeats himself.] If he found something, yes of course we’re interested. But tread lightly. Do not be deceptive. Don’t do anything illegal.

Defense (Blouchard): 11 June 2010 was your first meeting with Lamo? Any prior communication?

Edwards: 25 May 2010. When Mr. Uber connected me to Mr. Lamo.

Defense (Blouchard): Conversation length?

Edwards: Minutes.

Defense (Blouchard): Nature of communication?

Edwards: Basically establishing Mr. Lamo was the person connected to the US intelligence analyst.

Defense (Blouchard): After May, any communication?

Edwards: Just to set up meeting date.

Defense (Blouchard): After 11 June?

Edwards: Only discussing extent of chats and trying to come up with meeting point.



Prosecution: Please stand, face…?

Lamo: Yes I will.

Prosecution: Do you swear…?

Lamo: Yes I do.

Prosecution: Please be seated.

Lamo: That I shall.

Prosecution: You are Mr. Adrian Lamo?

Lamo: That is my name.

Prosecution: From San Francisco, CA?

Lamo: Yes.

Prosecution: Mr. Lamo, when did you first come into contact with who eventually who you communicated with as bradass87?

Lamo: Received a series emails from 10th Mountain Division that was tied to a unit and location where Manning was stationed.

Prosecution: What was email from?

Lamo: From Bradley Manning, but don’t recall first. Later ones came from I initially said we should communicate via A.I.M. chat.


Prosecution: Why couldn’t you decipher?

Lamo: They had been encrypted using an outdated key.

Prosecution: First chats?

Lamo: May 20. His username was bradass87. It was encrypted using a piece of software known as OTR. Installed manually.

Prosecution: Why were the chats encrypted?

Lamo: I can only speculate.

Prosecution: Why do you use encryption on chats?

Lamo: I desire my right to privacy as a citizen.

Prosecution: When did bradass87 identify himself as Bradley Manning?

Lamo: They identified themselves when I asked them whether they were a user of FaceBook; and they indicated that though I could not search for their account, they could search for mine. I received a friend request as well as an Army Knowledge account with a username and password that would allow me to access to the Army online portal.

Prosecution: Who contacted you?

Lamo: Bradley Manning.

Prosecution: How do you know that?

Lamo: Based on photos, demographic information, and extensive back story on the wall of a FaceBook account that recounted biographical data unique to Manning.

Prosecution: Did you log onto the AKO [Army Knowledge Online] account ?

Lamo: I did not.

Prosecution: Why?

Lamo: Would have been a crime.

Prosecution: Why did you seek verification of who you were chatting with?

Lamo: He had made claims that I might be misled as to the identity. I desired identification as to identity of remote party.

Prosecution: How long did you chat with bradass87?

Lamo: Over a period, May 20 through May 26.

Prosecution: Encryption key change at all?

Lamo: No. The key, unique to the computer, remained consistent, indicating I was chatting with the user, using the same moniker and computer the whole time.

Prosecution: How do you know [Special Agent] Tony Edwards [CCIU]?

Lamo: He responded to my initial reports of Pfc. Manning’s actions. He came to Sacramento to interview me regarding that report.

[Note Carmichael is 10.5 miles from Sacramento, CA]

Prosecution: What computer equipment did you give him?

Lamo: Provided one 500GB hard drive, Net-book with hard drive, two thumb drives of varying sizes.

Prosecution: Give thumbs to Edwards or military intelligence investigators?

Lamo: The number of people present and the lack of familiarity with agencies in question makes it difficult to distinguish who.

Prosecution: Before giving hard drives over, did you alter…?

Lamo: No. Did not manipulate. They were exactly as they were during the chats.

Prosecution: Familiar with Jason Katz?

Lamo: I am familiar with the name and certain circumstances regarding his life and times.

Prosecution: How did the Army become familiar with the video?

Lamo: I was alerted by someone I chat with that an individual stated he was attempting to decrypt something on behalf of WikiLeaks; that he was trying to decrypt the Garani video and that he was using federally funded lab resources to do so.

Prosecution: You gave his name to the agent?

Lamo: Yes.

Prosecution: Do you have Asperger syndrome?

Lamo: I have been diagnosed thus.

Prosecution: Issues with drug use while communicating with Pfc. Manning in 2010?

Lamo: No. I had recently been successfully treated and placed on a medication that reduced my Asperger’s and allowed me to function more normally than usual.

Prosecution: Drug use when handing over hard drives?

Lamo: No, condition at that time consistent with time of communication with Manning.

Prosecution: Consistent with today?

Lamo: Yes.

Prosecution: Ever been a source for the media?

Lamo: Yes I have.

Prosecution: Why?

Lamo: Because there is a necessity in certain circumstances to stay ahead of a story before it gets a life of its own, to be sure facts remain intact.

Prosecution: Ever received compensation from the Army?

Lamo: I have not.


Defense (Coombs): Tell me if you don’t understand a question.

Lamo: I appreciate that.

Defense (Coombs): Understand?

Lamo: Yes I do, sir.

Defense (Coombs): You are a convicted felon?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Hacked against large companies?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): In 2004, you were found guilty of computer fraud?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Six months house arrest, two years probation?

Lamo: I believe it was 2.5 years, but don’t have the docket before me, thus cannot state with certainty.

Defense (Coombs): Receive funds…?

Lamo: Restitution.

Defense (Coombs): Suffered from depression starting around this time?

Lamo: It would be consistent with that period.

Defense (Coombs): You over-medicated?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Your parents became concerned and called the cops numerous times about your drug usage?

Lamo: That took place, yes.

Defense (Coombs): In April 2010, you were involuntarily institutionalized after you called the police?

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): Remember why you called the police?

Lamo: Due to dispute over the possession of my medications.

Defense (Coombs): Thought someone stole it out of your backpack? In fact, you thought someone stole your backpack?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Police did show up?

Lamo: There was an officer response.

Defense (Coombs): You were arrested?

Lamo: That is consistent with the course of events.

Defense (Coombs): You were institutionalized?

Lamo: As is usual in the state of California.

Defense (Coombs): May 7, 2010 you were discharged?

Lamo: That should tend to be correct.

Defense (Coombs): What do you do for a living?

Lamo: I do computer related work…would be considered odd jobs.

Defense (Coombs): So not full-time employment?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Any benefit? Immunity agreement? Government hasn’t made promises? No monetary compensation?

Lamo: [Answers, “I have not” to all the questions.]

Defense (Coombs): You are here on your own wishes?

Lamo: I am here to ensure that the truth is presented.

Defense (Coombs): I appreciate that.


Prosecution to

Investigating Officer: Can we have a conference?

[Reitman notes: “At this point, the prosecution stood and asked for a sudden conference…The attorneys retreated to the back-room for a meeting with the Investigating Officer, while Manning and Lamo remained in the court room.”]



[Sound issues in the press pool.]

[Reitman notes, “Coombs asked if it was about an ‘eight’ email exchange, and Lamo said he wasn’t certain.”]

Defense (Coombs): That is why I said approximately…

Lamo: [Missed answer.]

Defense (Coombs): You never read emails?

Lamo: The bulk of them were unreadable.

Defense (Coombs): So you never read any of these emails you received?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense: Alleged I.M. chats began via A.O.L. I.M.? And this was your idea? Began 20 May 2010?

Lamo: [Answered, “Yes” to all questions.]

Defense (Coombs): Chats between you and someone who identifying them-self as bradass87?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Chatted on that day?

Lamo: I believe that to be the case.

Defense (Coombs): And over the next five days?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Ended 26 May 2010?

Lamo: Yes, they did.

Defense (Coombs): At the time of chats, you were living with parents?

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): Day after, the 21st May initial chat, is when you decided to contact Army authorities?

Lamo: It was about that time that I contacted a third party to make a determination as to the seriousness of admissions made in the chats.

Defense (Coombs): Day after the chat began is when you decided to contact?

Lamo: That would be roughly accurate.

Defense (Coombs): We need to be accurate here. Accurate or not?

Lamo: I believe it is.

Defense (Coombs): 21st of May.

Lamo: Thereabouts.

Defense (Coombs): Again, close as possible. 21st May, right?

Lamo: At that time, I made communications regarding chats that had been communicated to me.

Defense (Coombs): So would that be 21st May?

Lamo: Yes it would.

Defense (Coombs): Who did you contact?

Lamo: Timothy Douglas Webster, a psychology student at U.C. Santa Barbara.

Defense (Coombs): What was he before that?

Lamo: Counter-Intelligence agent in U.S. Army.

Defense (Coombs): So you contacted him and contacted Army authorities because you wanted to make sure you had the right team?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Asked a friend who was good at CID investigation? Who would handle this right and in a sensitive manner?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So within a day, you decided to report what you knew to law enforcement.

Lamo: What I saw in the chats appeared to be an admission of acts so egregious that it required that response, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Day after?

Lamo: What I just affirmed, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Before I talk about this, another set of chats…recall the I.M. chat with Danny Clark?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): 21 July 2010?

Lamo: That would be accurate.

Defense (Coombs): Why dud you contact Mr. Clark?

Lamo: I was curious regarding his role in the WikiLeaks affair.

Defense (Coombs): In these I.M. chats you initiated, you state, “Let’s agree neither of us is gonna share these logs.” Recall…?

Lamo: Yes, I do.

Defense (Coombs): You actually shared it with law enforcement?

Lamo: At the time, I found there was a necessity that overrode that implied agreement, yes.

Defense (Coombs): You shared?

Lamo: Those logs were shared with law enforcement.

Defense (Coombs): By you?

Lamo: By me.

Defense (Coombs): That was the point of the whole conversation, right?

Lamo: I don’t understand the question.

Defense (Coombs): You were working with law enforcement.

Lamo: That was not my intent in contacting Danny Clark.

Defense (Coombs): Law enforcement told you to keep your ear to the ground?

Lamo: I was told to [missed] WikiLeaks. For what it is worth, I am not working with the guys out pounding on doors.

Defense (Coombs): Not my question. You were told to keep ear to ground?

Lamo: They told me that if I saw or heard anything that I should report it.

Defense (Coombs): That would be accurate. “I’m not working with the guys out pounding on doors.” Recall saying that?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Yet these chats went through you to Agent Edwards.

Lamo: At that time, I wasn’t pounding on doors.

Defense (Coombs): So that is the distinction you made?

Lamo: At that time I wasn’t working with Mr. Clark, until I knew he was involved with illegal activity.

Defense (Coombs): What in this chat with Danny Clark made you want to report to law enforcement?

Lamo: I found it unusual that someone would install additional encryption software on an Army computer, and that they would employ a civilian in so doing.

[Missed question and answer.]

Defense (Coombs): Chats with bradass87, let’s go back to that.


Defense (Coombs): Take a look and see if it jogs your memory.

Lamo: I recognize the cover page.

Defense (Coombs): Thumb through, see if you recognize.

[Lamo reads for a what the transcriber describes as a long time.]

Lamo: A reasonable person would conclude that these logs are communications between myself and a person known as Bradley E. Manning.

Defense (Coombs): You continued to chat with bradass87?

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): During the following days after contacting law enforcement – I want you to look at page eight – it is numbered on the bottom for your benefit.

Lamo: Thank you.

Defense (Coombs): Can you look at 12:46:17 p.m.?

Lamo: I have located that line.

Defense (Coombs): Question by you: “How long have you helped WikiLeaks?”

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Got to page 49,1:48:50 p.m.?

Lamo: That line has been located.

Defense (Coombs): This time read to me.

Lamo: [Quoting himself] “Give me some bona fides, you know? Any specifics.”

Defense (Coombs): 1:51:14 p.m.

Lamo: “Anything unreleased?”

Defense (Coombs): You are trying to determine if he has any other items?

Lamo That is an accurate assessment.

Defense (Coombs): Let’s look at page 14.

Lamo: I am on page 14.

Defense (Coombs): If you would go to 7:26:47 a.m. Read that line.

Lamo: “Is there a Baghdad 2600 meeting?”

Defense (Coombs): Reference to a hacker meeting?

Lamo: Reference to meeting of computer enthusiasts, who include hackers.

Defense (Coombs): Look at 7:28:41 a.m.

Lamo: “Is he the other one who pokes around the network?”

Defense (Coombs): Go to page 18, 7:30:09 a.m. Read it.

Lamo “Then it stands to reason that you have at least three people who have some InfoSec knowledge.” I am asking these questions out of concern for additional harm.

Defense (Coombs): …to determine if anyone is working for bradass87?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Turn to page 25. We are going to talk about 2:48:52 p.m. for starters. Read.

Lamo: “How long between the leak and the publication?”

Defense (Coombs): …in reference to what is known as collateral murder?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): 2:50:04 p.m. Look.

Lamo: I am looking at this line.

Defense (Coombs): Read.

Lamo: Yes, I can. “Uploaded where? How would I transmit something if I had similarly damning data?”

Defense (Coombs): 2:50:04 p.m. Repeat.

Lamo: “Uploaded where? How would I transmit something if I had similarly damning data?”

Defense (Coombs): 2:54:53 p.m.

Lamo: That line reads: “Submission where?”

Defense (Coombs): 2:56:53 p.m.?

Lamo: Sorry, repeat?

Defense (Coombs): 2:56:53 p.m.

Lamo: I do not have a [missed time stamp] sitting on the desk before me.

Defense (Coombs): [Asks Lamo if he can find a certain line] 2:56:53 p.m. There is the inversion. Sometimes that happens. You are asking how information was shared with WikiLeaks?

Lamo: That is an accurate assessment.

Defense (Coombs): You know a lot about computers?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So you are asking questions that you already know the answers to?

Lamo: I am not familiar with the organizational structure of WikiLeaks.

Defense (Coombs): I am talking about uploading.

Lamo: Every server can be customized and tailored, therefore there is no general knowledge that can be applied to that situation.

Defense (Coombs): So, you are asking how he did it?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): Let’s turn to page 32. Do you see 2:13:12 a.m.?

Lamo: Yes I do.

Defense (Coombs): Read.

Lamo: The line reads, “Would the cables come from State?”

Defense (Coombs): 2:13:51 a.m.

Lamo: “Why does your job afford you access?”

Defense (Coombs): 2:14:36 a.m.?

Lamo: “So you have these stored now?”

Defense (Coombs): Turn to page 33. 2:16:10 a.m.

Lamo: “So how do you deploy the cable, if at all?”

Defense (Coombs): 2:18:34 a.m.

Lamo: “What’s your endgame plan then?”

Defense (Coombs): Now you are asking these questions to have bradass87 make statements that would incriminate himself, correct?

Lamo: I am asking questions that in the network – someone who saw him in the physical world -would ask what they were doing, and how they could help them.

Defense (Coombs): Don’t understand. You are asking him how he did what he did?

Lamo: I am asking him in order to better understand his allocution, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Better understanding? At this point you have already decided to go to law enforcement, correct?

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): Let’s go to page 36. 1:54:14 p.m.

Lamo: The line reads: “Is that how you got the cables out?”

Defense (Coombs): Page 37, 1:56:36 p.m.

Lamo: Could you repeat?

Defense (Coombs): 1:56:36 p.m.

Lamo: That line reads: “From a professional perspective, I am curious how the server was insecure.”

Defense (Coombs): …to determine what bradass87 did and how he sent information?

Lamo: I was asking out of curiosity. I am a curious individual, as I believe has been amply indicated by my actions.

Defense (Coombs): A curious individual working with law enforcement?

Lamo: Ultimately, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Page 41, 3:34:25 p.m., read.

Lamo: That line reads: “Hey. Can you torrent from there?”

Defense (Coombs): Explain “torrent”?

Lamo: Torrent is a slang use of bit torrent, which is a peer-to peer file-sharing program.

Defense (Coombs): Why are you asking?

Lamo: At this date, 1.5 years later, I do not recall why I asked that question.

Defense (Coombs): Could it be, because you are trying to obtain additional information for law enforcement?

Lamo: I don’t see how the information could be valuable.

Defense (Coombs): Don’t see how peer-to-peer sharing would be useful to law enforcement?

Lamo: Bit torrent is public by nature. Someone trying to share a file covertly would not use it as their first choice.

Defense (Coombs): That is not my question. [Missed.]

Lamo: In the sense that the logs as a whole were meant to be was shared with law enforcement, yes.

Defense (Coombs): Page 45, 4:45:20 p.m.

Lamo “For a spy,” followed by an emoticon denoting a smiley face.

Defense (Coombs): You are indicating to bradass87 he couldn’t be a spy, correct?

Lamo: That predates his statements that he couldn’t be a spy.

Defense (Coombs): There are a number of coherent statements prior to that, that begin with “I’m not sure whether” made by bradass87…

Lamo: If you so prefer. “I’m not sure whether I’d be considered a type of “hacker”, “cracker”, “hacktivist”, “leaker” or what…I’m just me…really…starts off like every physics/astro class intro…ever”

Defense (Coombs): [Missed question.]

Lamo: I have no particular love for law enforcement.

Defense (Coombs): All this is because of your curiosity, not because of law enforcement?

Lamo: Because somebody had disclosed to me that they were involved…

Defense (Coombs): You have to listen to my question.

Lamo: Context is necessary to establish my curiosity.

Defense (Coombs): Were you working with law enforcement at this time?

Lamo: Yes, I was.

Defense (Coombs): Do you consider yourself a reporter?

Lamo: I work in journalism, and when I see stories I report them.

Defense (Coombs): You have indicated that you have written articles that are journalism?

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): You understand that in journalism you have to protect sources?

Lamo: [Missed answer].

Defense (Coombs): Page two, 10:23:34 a.m. See where you say “I’m a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.”

Lamo: Yes, and I also see no affirmative response.

Defense (Coombs): Not my question. Do you see the statement?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Immediately after…?

Lamo:Assange level? Or are you socially engineering…”

Defense (Coombs): You say the person denied protection?

Lamo: They declined to affirmatively accept it.

Defense (Coombs): So nowhere does it say “I do not want…” No where in that chat is there an affirmative statement where the individual declines your offer for journalistic privilege.

Lamo: The offer is neither declined nor accepted.

Defense (Coombs): Nowhere is there a declining?

Lamo: Neither is there an acceptance.

Defense (Coombs): That is not my question, Mr. Lamo.

Investigating Officer: Mr. Lamo? Can you please answer the questions?

Defense (Coombs): So nowhere is there a declining of protection?

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): You reference one point that he says, “No,” I do not want to go to press. Let’s turn to p. 7. See the statement there?

Lamo: Yes I do.

Defense (Coombs): Why don’t you read the question by you and the response?

Lamo: “Want to go to the press?” followed by emoticon denoting smiley face. Response from either Bradley Manning or bradass87 is “No.” They continue “There’s an issue with that.”

Defense (Coombs): Let’s go to page 10. Look at 1:55:10 p.m. What do you state at 1:55:10 p.m.?

Lamo: “I told you none of this is for print,” indicating it is not for journalistic purposes.

Defense (Coombs): Response from bradass87?

Lamo: Response from the individual, either Manning or bradass87 is “okay, okay.”

Defense (Coombs): Now at the time, you were saying none of this is for print, you had already reached out to law enforcement.

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): You subsequently provided to law enforcement and gave to Wired magazine?

Lamo: It was not for print by me.

Defense (Coombs): Okay. So you thought Wired wouldn’t do anything with it?

Lamo: At the time I was surprised by the depth of the unsurpassed leakage in the admissions made in logs that I wasn’t sure I would come back from the meetings with authorities.

Defense (Coombs): Ok, so you thought in case I don’t show up again, here it is.

Lamo: That is correct.

Defense (Coombs): You used OTR? Automated encryption service?

Lamo: Can be either automated or manual.

Defense (Coombs): You are OTR using to encrypt messages?

Lamo: That is its purpose.

Defense (Coombs): So someone would use OTR if they wanted to keep things confidential?

Lamo: Might be one reason.

Defense (Coombs): You have indicated the individual intended conversations to be confidential?

Lamo: [pause] A reasonable person would conclude that, and I would arrive at that conclusion.

Defense (Coombs): There was at no point in I.M. chats decision to have this information become public.

Lamo: No.

Defense (Coombs): And these chats had sensitive info. Regarding bradass87?

Lamo: Yes, they did.

Defense (Coombs): You believe this person was speaking to you for moral support?

Lamo: I believe they were reading out for approbation and for a like-minded individual who would act similarly in their life to Julian Assange.

Defense (Coombs): Not what I asked. Do you believe they were talking to you for moral support?

Lamo: I believe that was one of their motivations.

Defense (Coombs): Looking for emotional support?

Lamo: That is a possibility.

Defense (Coombs): Looking for guidance on what they should do in such a situation?

Lamo: I do not believe they were looking for guidance, so much as bragging about what they had done. The chat logs are to an extent bifurcated in that – some of them deal with personal info and some deal with wrongdoing.

Defense (Coombs): You consider yourself a minister?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You are a minister at the Life Church?

Lamo: Correct.

Defense (Coombs): You told the person you were speaking to that they could treat it as a personal conversation?

Lamo: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): The person said that while they were “not a source for you,” they were looking for “moral and emotional support”?

Lamo: [Begins long answer…]

Defense (Coombs): Listen. The person said that while they were “not a source for you,” they were looking for “moral and emotional support”?

Lamo: Perhaps to bond, yes.

Defense (Coombs): As a minister, you understand that a person might come to you as a formal act of religion or a matter of conscience? Do you understand the question?

Lamo: I understand, however…

Defense (Coombs): Can you understand the question? It is a very simple question. Can you answer in a, “Yes” or “No” fashion?

[Discussion about whether defense should rephrase question.]

Defense (Coombs): An individual can come as a formal act of religion, true?

Lamo: Yes, if they are a person of faith.

Defense (Coombs): They can come as a matter of conscience?

Lamo: Yes, I imagine that they could.

Defense (Coombs): No further questions.


Prosecution: First contact?

Lamo: My first contact was with Timothy Douglas Webster.

Prosecution: His job?

Lamo: At the time, he was a student at U.C. Santa Barbara.

Prosecution: Was he a member of the law enforcement agency?

Lamo: No.

Prosecution: When did you first meet with US Army CID?

Lamo: I have difficulty distinguishing…

Prosecution: When was the first time you met with a law enforcement agent?

Lamo: I believe that would have been around 23rd or 24th, however don’t have marked on a calendar.

Prosecution: Anything that could help you remember?

Lamo: If there was a record of such a meeting, that would help me remember.

Prosecution: Just a moment…


Prosecution: No further questions, Sir.





Prosecution: Did you look at the computers from Lamo?

Shaver: Yes, Sir I did.

Prosecution: What did you find?

Shaver: Only authorized to search for any communication between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning. I found chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning.

Prosecution: Get an opportunity to compare the chat logs on Adrian Lamo’s and Bradley Manning’s computers?

Shaver: Yes, at some point, chat log had been enabled, and they basically matched. Except for some connectivity issues.

Prosecution: So like error messages?

Shaver: Yes.

Prosecution: But content was the same?




Prosecution: Are you familiar with spear phishing?

Bettencourt: It is an attempt to gain personal info via email or chat. So they masquerade as a trusted source. Regular phishing: you might get something from Paypal saying your account expired. If you answer, they might get your personal financial information. If they cast the net wide enough, they catch some people. Phishing is like a shotgun; spear phishing is like a sniper rifle.

Prosecution: What makes spear phishing more effective?

Bettencourt: You need intelligence about your target. If you are going to craft a message, the more effective you will be. Spoofing, making believe you are somebody, you may think that it is from someone you know, and you may accept it.

Prosecution: You said spear phishers target for financial gain?

Bettencourt: Many cases, but there are nation-based attempts. Government espionage.

Prosecution: I wanna talk about the value of information, especially in terms of WikiLeaks. Have they ever said that they valued the information released to them?

Bettencourt: They have had some dissension in their ranks and have had some…



Bettencourt: Mr. Assange. …said folks, he demanded that they sign an N.D.A. saying they would not disclose…to WikiLeaks. They said somewhere between 12 and 15 million. The valuation of information 12 million pounds.

Investigating Officer: Everything they possessed or what they possessed in this matter?

Bettencourt: Everything.

[Transcriber notes that they may have missed more.]