#Epic Fail: couple photo emailed from stolen device

Forums › Off topic › #Epic Fail: couple photo emailed from stolen device

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744731 14-Jan-2013 19:08

turnin: I was going to suggest that whilst we don't know if these people stole the phone or we're just photographed the police should be a bit more careful, but the exception to the rule stated above includes "investigation" which means they can do/say whatever they like as long as it can be argued that by doing so it investigates the theft.

And starting with a photo of two people taken after the phone was stolen is a excellent place to start!

turnin: If I stole a phone I'm sure I wouldn't take my own photo's with it.

You probably know more about iphone than these two!

turnin:
I also suspect the police could easily match the faces to their own records, if this isn't the case then they must not have an existing criminal record.

If you call sitting down and manually trying to match that photo to the million or so photos of the police database *easy* - then yes its easy. Oh and lets not forget that appearance since the police photo was taken and the photo in the article may have changed. But yes its that easy.

turnin:
Clearly the media did make mention of the police quotes but at the very end of the article, no doubt so as not to spoil a good story too early. some people don't read the article to completion, as we can see here.

I read the article to the end, Im just not niave. The Police, publically at least, must not been seen to be jumping to conclusions. Its a bit like when someone gets murdered and they say "there is a person of interest we would like to speak to" - I mean really, read between the lines, when they say that they mean they want to arrest the person.

turnin: there are apple apps that do this. Might have saved some embarrassment for two potentially innocent people.

Potentially innocent? Unlikely innocent more like it. See above for conclusions on their guilt.

turnin:
There have been disparaging comments on the Police facebook page about the couple, and the photo has since been removed. Someone inside the police has had a change of heart and I'm not sure this will be the last we hear of this. It's only a stolen phone, is it ok to set people up for public mockery over a $800.00 item ? On moral grounds I think this sort of exposure should be reserved for kidnappings/murders and more serious crimes.

It is unlikely the Police "had a change of heart", the article says that they have had a number of nominations as to the identity of the two people, and that is likely the reason for the removal.

Its only a stolen phone. Maybe it would be different if it was your phone? On moral grounds? What moral grounds. The Police simply asked for their identification. Whatever sort of spin the public put on it, is nothing to do with the Police.

And, according to one of the other posters the phone is linked to two burglaries, and these sorts of investigations will often lead to more stolen property. BUT the Police will never know till try follow the lead.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#744745 14-Jan-2013 19:41

Thanks for the info on recent possession. As with most US law it is probably slightly different in NZ. Different legal system and different precedent.

The link you provided was a US link. I will assume the basic outline given at the top is correct. It is still not a presumption of guilt. Recent possession is used as one factor to decide based on the evidence presented at trial by both the defense and prosecution. So far there has been no trial and not even any arrests as far as we know.

If the Police interview these people and rule them out and do not arrest them or decide the evidence available cannot support a prosecution then it is all over but the publicity.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#744748 14-Jan-2013 19:48

bigal_nz:

turnin: there are apple apps that do this. Might have saved some embarrassment for two potentially innocent people.

Potentially innocent? Unlikely innocent more like it. See above for conclusions on their guilt.

At the moment they are both innocent because until there's a formal arrest, appearance in court and sentencing they're innocent. That's how it works isn't it?

You may think they are guilty, but that doesn't make them guilty until the formal process is completed. Until them we can live with "suspect" but not "guilty".

I think you are jumping the gun.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#744751 14-Jan-2013 19:54

Are you serious or just having a laugh ?

1/ do you get the bit, even the police say it, that the two people in the photo may not have stolen the phone ? Their photograph was taken with the stolen phone.

2/ The police have computers and a database of faces, if you compare these relatively unobscured faces with the police database , you don't need to sit at a table and go through them one by one.
Without a match, they probably do not have a criminal record, unusual for a person who has allegedly committed two consecutive house burglaries.

3/ How do you know these people know less than I do about iphones, it sounds to me like you are judging people on their appearances and fitting them up for crimes that they may not have committed. This is essentially what the police and the media have done here , consciously or not,

4/ There is an old saying " Innocent until proven guilty" , it still applies. It was put in place along with the rest of our justice system to ensure that people could not just think," well, he looks like he might be a crook, he fits all the stereotypes, so lets hang him"

I'm really hoping for the sake of society you are just trolling,

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744753 14-Jan-2013 19:59

gzt: Thanks for the info on recent possession. As with most US law it is probably slightly different in NZ. Different legal system and different precedent.

The link you provided was a US link.

Try : http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/1997/nz-bill-of-rights-act-1990-summary-of-case-annotations-ministry-of-justice-january-1997/section-25

About 3/4 of the way down the page from your very own justice department. Trust me recent possession is a basic crininal legal principal from very old UK law which our justice system follows closely.

gzt:The link you provided was a US link. I will assume the basic outline given at the top is correct. It is still not a presumption of guilt. Recent possession is used as one factor to decide based on the evidence presented at trial by both the defense and prosecution. So far there has been no trial and not even any arrests as far as we know.

If the Police interview these people and rule them out and do not arrest them or decide the evidence available cannot support a prosecution then it is all over but the publicity.

Im starting to hit the limits of my legal knowledge here, but yes people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof rests with the presecution, unless there is a reverse onus (ie the burden now rests with the defendant).

Recent possession, I think by its wording, does create a reverse onus, that is unelss the Defendant gives a good explanation to the contrary he is presumed to be either the theif or the receiver.

That said, there has been no trial, but based on the circimstances, and my knowledge of these things, and what information is available publically (a combination of fact and some inference), I think it is highly likely he is guilty.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744755 14-Jan-2013 20:08

turnin: Are you serious or just having a laugh ?

1/ do you get the bit, even the police say it, that the two people in the photo may not have stolen the phone ? Their photograph was taken with the stolen phone.

2/ The police have computers and a database of faces, if you compare these relatively unobscured faces with the police database , you don't need to sit at a table and go through them one by one.
Without a match, they probably do not have a criminal record, unusual for a person who has allegedly committed two consecutive house burglaries.

3/ How do you know these people know less than I do about iphones, it sounds to me like you are judging people on their appearances and fitting them up for crimes that they may not have committed. This is essentially what the police and the media have done here , consciously or not,

4/ There is an old saying " Innocent until proven guilty" , it still applies. It was put in place along with the rest of our justice system to ensure that people could not just think," well, he looks like he might be a crook, he fits all the stereotypes, so lets hang him"

I'm really hoping for the sake of society you are just trolling,

1/ As previously posted the Police are oblidged to say that publically, and as previsouly outlined in relation to there guilt a well established legal principle states in the abscence of an explanation they are presumed to be the theif or the receiver.

2/ The Police dont have a facial recognition software, assuming that such a thing would even work reliably. I dont know enough about it, but simply that the NZ Police dont have it, so it IS a manual, and massive task. Yes you do have to do it one by one.

3/ Well your on Geek Zone, so you must have a interest in IT. (In fact your a Master Geek!)

If by fitting up, you mean planting evidence to make a innocent person look guilty, then I dont know where you get that from?

4/ Yes Innicent until proven guilty, but I am making a conclusion based on legal precidents, and some inferred conclusions about the circimstances from public information.

What comments have I made about his appearance?

Also you need to look up reverse onus, where people are presumed guilty.

Legal 101 over.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#744756 14-Jan-2013 20:16

bigal_nz: Also you need to look up reverse onus, where people are presumed guilty.

Reverse onus means the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the accused.

It doesn't mean they are guilty, presumed or not.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#744757 14-Jan-2013 20:18

That second link mentions it only in passing and no definition there at all. Even the definition you presented earlier shows application of the doctrine is only one factor and not the only factor.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744759 14-Jan-2013 20:24

freitasm:
bigal_nz: Also you need to look up reverse onus, where people are presumed guilty.

Reverse onus means the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the accused.

It doesn't mean they are guilty, presumed or not.

Yes I suppose your right thinking about it.

Though come trial time, on a practicla note, it generally means the defendant has to give evidence, else he gets found guilty.

As it relates to this case, I am presuming him guilty based on that doctrine, and other factors previously mentioned.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744761 14-Jan-2013 20:27

gzt: That second link mentions it only in passing and no definition there at all. Even the definition you presented earlier shows application of the doctrine is only one factor and not the only factor.

Of course all admissable evidence would be considered at trial time, but based on the available information I think he is very probably guilty.

Ok, here is a UK link for you, our system is closely based on the UK system:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_act_offences/#a12

Recent possessionWhere the defendant is in possession of stolen goods a court may infer guilty knowledge or belief if the defendant offers no explanation to account for possession or if satisfied that the explanation is untrue (R v Smythe (1981) 72 Cr. App. R. 8. CA). This applies as much to offences of theft and burglary as it does to handling stolen goods.

Where the only evidence of an offence is 'recent possession' of stolen goods, it will often be difficult to exclude the possibility that the defendant was merely a receiver of the stolen property. A charge of theft or burglary may not succeed.

<deleted>

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#744767 14-Jan-2013 20:53

You have gone from presuming the couple guilty to presuming only the guy guilty for some reason. Why the change?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744796 14-Jan-2013 22:00

gzt: You have gone from presuming the couple guilty to presuming only the guy guilty for some reason. Why the change?

Statistically it is very unlikely to be a woman who commits a burglary, possible, but unlikely.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#744826 14-Jan-2013 23:39

While it would not be fair to assume any of the people in the photo are guilty, it is clear that the photo was taken after the phone was stolen (per the article) and therefore these two people would be 'persons of interest' to the police.

They may or may not be the thieves, but tracking them down will almost certainly help the case. If they didn't take the photo they almost certainly know the person on the other end of the camera. This is why police will have released the image.

This part is purely my opinion, but the angle and body positioning sure do look to me like the male in the photo is holding the camera up. Looks very 'selfie'. But I draw no further conclusions other than that.

Twitter: ajobbins

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#744869 15-Jan-2013 09:02

On the earlier question about "doctrine of evidence" many sources on law consider presenting this as a doctrine which must therefore be followed is extremely misleading. Possession is just one factor. If the facts and all the evidence support an accused being a thief or receiver of stolen goods, fine. If they do not, fine. There is no "doctrine" in reality inside the court just the normal rules of evidence. All of the evidence must be considered.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#744870 15-Jan-2013 09:05

freitasm:
Actually I'd even say NZ Police is in breach of privacy laws, seeing they have no firm case against this couple - unlike for example footage of an assault captured in CCTV.

Oh please.

What has the country come to.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4