4 ms·

Right. Had the telco not realized their mistake, it could have gone much worse. Prosecutor: Was there anything suspicious about the defendant's behavior? Offi

Right. Had the telco not realized their mistake, it could have gone much worse. Prosecutor: Was there anything suspicious about the defendant's behavior? Officer: Yes. He was surprisingly knowledgeable about computers and hacking, and was very quick to provide several reasons why it couldn't have been him, as if he had rehearsed ahead of time. ... Prosecutor: Are the defendant's reasons plausible? Expert Witness: No. It's true that the average person would have had difficulty performing those actions within five minutes. But it would be easily possible for a technically skilled user such as the defendant. (Proceeds to demonstrate a "simulation" of the hack in a few minutes). And heaven help him if it turns out the victim was a friend-of-a-friend on Facebook; then they'd have him "lying" in the first thing he said to the police.

ars 15y ago
You are the third person to confuse the court and the cops. This is all true in court. But if you are innocent you don't want to be arrested in the first place. And the best way to avoid that is to talk to the copy, and not try to stonewall or hide things. And, BTW, "surprisingly knowledgeable about computers and hacking" is no longer so surprising these days.
- milkshakes 15y ago
  You're missing the point that we're trying to make. The reason the lawyer is important at the 'cops' stage is to prevent you from saying something stupid that will then be used against you at the 'court' stage. Once you're at the 'court' stage, it's too late to hire a lawyer to prevent you from saying something stupid at the 'cops' stage, and the damage is already done.
  - ars 15y ago
    Except that if you're not actually guilty how big of a risk is this? If you are guilty, then sure, bring a lawyer. But if you are innocent you don't have a lot to worry about. Not zero, certainly, but not a lot. You have to weigh two things: How likely you are to be found guilty when you are not (because of what you say) vs. how likely you are to convince the cops you have nothing to hide and not get arrested in the first place. I think talking to the cops is more likely to get you released than it is to get you found guilty when you are actually innocent.
    - milkshakes 15y ago
      I wish you the best of luck and hope that you are never the target of a criminal investigation. As someone who has been, on more than one occasion, I'm saying that this is suicidal advice. To be clear, the only reason I'm even digging in here is because I worry that someone might actually take your advice and wind themselves up in jail. You have to weigh two things: How likely you are to be found guilty when you are not (because of what you say) vs. how likely you are to convince the cops you have nothing to hide and not get arrested in the first place. You're simply not in a position to weigh either of those two things: you don't have all of the information that the cops have about the investigation, and you have no idea how they might twist your words down the road.
    - albedoa 15y ago
      One could easily argue that if you are not guilty, you have so much more to risk. The advice you are giving in this thread is downright terrible. You clearly don't understand some very basic legal concepts, and everyone would be better off doing the exact opposite of what you suggest. There's being wrong, then there's a refusal to admit you might be wrong that is so stubborn and adamant to the point of being malicious.
      - danssig 15y ago
        >then there's a refusal to admit you might be wrong that is so stubborn and adamant to the point of being malicious. Yea. If someone took his horrid advice and went to jail could they sue him for malpractice? It would be a hard case to win since you're taking advice from the a random person on the internet, but things at least that strange have happened before.
    - fr0sty 15y ago
      > how big of a risk is this? google "Steven Linscott" as an example[1]. He dreamed he saw a woman be murdered, told the police about and ended up serving 3 years of a 40 year sentence for murder. [1] http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php
    - matwood 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

ars 15y ago

You are the third person to confuse the court and the cops. This is all true in court. But if you are innocent you don't want to be arrested in the first place. And the best way to avoid that is to talk to the copy, and not try to stonewall or hide things. And, BTW, "surprisingly knowledgeable about computers and hacking" is no longer so surprising these days.

milkshakes 15y ago
You're missing the point that we're trying to make. The reason the lawyer is important at the 'cops' stage is to prevent you from saying something stupid that will then be used against you at the 'court' stage. Once you're at the 'court' stage, it's too late to hire a lawyer to prevent you from saying something stupid at the 'cops' stage, and the damage is already done.
- ars 15y ago
  Except that if you're not actually guilty how big of a risk is this? If you are guilty, then sure, bring a lawyer. But if you are innocent you don't have a lot to worry about. Not zero, certainly, but not a lot. You have to weigh two things: How likely you are to be found guilty when you are not (because of what you say) vs. how likely you are to convince the cops you have nothing to hide and not get arrested in the first place. I think talking to the cops is more likely to get you released than it is to get you found guilty when you are actually innocent.
  - milkshakes 15y ago
    I wish you the best of luck and hope that you are never the target of a criminal investigation. As someone who has been, on more than one occasion, I'm saying that this is suicidal advice. To be clear, the only reason I'm even digging in here is because I worry that someone might actually take your advice and wind themselves up in jail. You have to weigh two things: How likely you are to be found guilty when you are not (because of what you say) vs. how likely you are to convince the cops you have nothing to hide and not get arrested in the first place. You're simply not in a position to weigh either of those two things: you don't have all of the information that the cops have about the investigation, and you have no idea how they might twist your words down the road.
  - albedoa 15y ago
    One could easily argue that if you are not guilty, you have so much more to risk. The advice you are giving in this thread is downright terrible. You clearly don't understand some very basic legal concepts, and everyone would be better off doing the exact opposite of what you suggest. There's being wrong, then there's a refusal to admit you might be wrong that is so stubborn and adamant to the point of being malicious.
    - danssig 15y ago
      >then there's a refusal to admit you might be wrong that is so stubborn and adamant to the point of being malicious. Yea. If someone took his horrid advice and went to jail could they sue him for malpractice? It would be a hard case to win since you're taking advice from the a random person on the internet, but things at least that strange have happened before.
  - fr0sty 15y ago
    > how big of a risk is this? google "Steven Linscott" as an example[1]. He dreamed he saw a woman be murdered, told the police about and ended up serving 3 years of a 40 year sentence for murder. [1] http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Steven_Linscott.php
  - matwood 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]