4 ms·

Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's va

by baps 3y ago

Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her. But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.

withinboredom 3y ago
Where the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.
- baps 3y ago
  The procedural error was that the prosecution neglected to have someone testify that the evidence submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made. That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement. I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    We don’t actually know if he did any of that. There was never a trial. For all we know, they were looking for their guy and he never showed. Then this posh British guy came in to get some coffee and they started chatting him up. Him, not knowing what is going on, decides “what the hell, I’ll play along with the prank” (note, he never said, in person, he was going to have sex with her). Turns out it wasn’t a prank at all, but they thought they found their guy and bam, he goes to jail. I’d be curious to hear the Duncan Donuts recording. I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
    - baps 3y ago
      That sounds quite the unlikely tale. How would you explain the child pornography they found at his home, was that a prank too?
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        Read above about how a cop planted evidence in my car to get what he wanted. Google Civil Forfeiture if you want to see more scummy ways cops will fuck up your life for giggles. For all we know it was anime and the cop said it was child porn because he had never seen anime in his life.
        baps 3y ago
        [dead]
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Just as unlikely as… Appellate court: decisions look legit based on evidence; at trial, please prove evidence Plaintive: how about we just don’t have a trial… Defendant: ffs Something smells fishy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been on the wrong side of cops’ biases too many times to think they are automatically in the right; making virtually any other possibility just as likely. For example, for all we know, the defendant is actually an alien and they simply wanted to run experiments on him for a few years. Oh, wait, he actually is an alien. lol. Anyway, I got nothing and doxing them on here without any actual evidence of wrongdoing, but insisting that circumstantial evidence is proof without even a trial is super fucked up. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve worked with plenty of them to prove some technical shit or another for a case, even the FBI. So I’ve seen some crazy and unlikely cases in my life. This sounds suspiciously like they couldn’t pass the bar of “without a doubt” and simply gave up. Oh, and why is a trial important? So we get to hear his side of the story. You’ve only heard one side, and he would be wise (and well within his rights) to never share his side.
        baps 3y ago
  - gwd 3y ago
    > I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place Maybe he had an ex that wanted to make life hell for him. Create a new e-mail account using the guys name, use that to create a Craigslist account, do the whole bit. Come back "to pick something up", plant some child porn on his computer; or maybe the "child porn" on the computer wasn't really that childish (either just normal porn, or maybe porn alleging to be 17-year-olds or something). Arrange with the "uncle" (whom you know are the cops) to meet at a place you know he frequents regularly: maybe he just carries $500 with him as a habit; maybe he always stops at the Dunkin Donuts after visiting the payday check casher -- an ex would know that kind of thing. Or maybe come up with some other excuse to get him there with the requisite cash. Or, play then Craigslist game the other way, and arrange for him to be there with the cash -- maybe he thought he was buying a used car, or maybe he actually thought he was buying a used instrument from Craigslist, being sold by a 12-year-old girl! There absolutely are vindictive people like that in the world; and my guess is there are a lot more vindictive people like that than complete idiots who would ask a complete stranger on Craigslist, out of the blue, to arrange sex with someone under 11. (And then come on Hacker News decades years later to protest his innocence?) "I was framed" certainly seems implausible, but slightly less implausible than the accusation. EDIT: From the link above: > Wistocki observed a vehicle approach the parking lot, and an individual exited the vehicle. The individual walked over to Detective Anthony Cimilluca (who was portraying Kelsey's uncle Greco). The individual introduced himself as Joshua Smith, and Cimilluca introduced himself as Greco. Inside the Dunkin' Donuts, Smith gave Cimilluca $500 and asked to meet Kelsey. Cimilluca told Smith that she was waiting outside in a van. The pair exited Dunkin' Donuts and Smith was arrested. Upon his arrest, Smith was identified as the defendant. Somewhat harder to explain why you introduced yourself as "Smith", and gave $500 to a guy you thought was named "Greco".

by baps 3y ago

withinboredom 3y ago

Where the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.

baps 3y ago
The procedural error was that the prosecution neglected to have someone testify that the evidence submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made. That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement. I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
- withinboredom 3y ago
  We don’t actually know if he did any of that. There was never a trial. For all we know, they were looking for their guy and he never showed. Then this posh British guy came in to get some coffee and they started chatting him up. Him, not knowing what is going on, decides “what the hell, I’ll play along with the prank” (note, he never said, in person, he was going to have sex with her). Turns out it wasn’t a prank at all, but they thought they found their guy and bam, he goes to jail. I’d be curious to hear the Duncan Donuts recording. I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
  - baps 3y ago
    That sounds quite the unlikely tale. How would you explain the child pornography they found at his home, was that a prank too?
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Read above about how a cop planted evidence in my car to get what he wanted. Google Civil Forfeiture if you want to see more scummy ways cops will fuck up your life for giggles. For all we know it was anime and the cop said it was child porn because he had never seen anime in his life.
      - baps 3y ago
        [dead]
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Just as unlikely as… Appellate court: decisions look legit based on evidence; at trial, please prove evidence Plaintive: how about we just don’t have a trial… Defendant: ffs Something smells fishy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been on the wrong side of cops’ biases too many times to think they are automatically in the right; making virtually any other possibility just as likely. For example, for all we know, the defendant is actually an alien and they simply wanted to run experiments on him for a few years. Oh, wait, he actually is an alien. lol. Anyway, I got nothing and doxing them on here without any actual evidence of wrongdoing, but insisting that circumstantial evidence is proof without even a trial is super fucked up. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve worked with plenty of them to prove some technical shit or another for a case, even the FBI. So I’ve seen some crazy and unlikely cases in my life. This sounds suspiciously like they couldn’t pass the bar of “without a doubt” and simply gave up. Oh, and why is a trial important? So we get to hear his side of the story. You’ve only heard one side, and he would be wise (and well within his rights) to never share his side.
        baps 3y ago
- gwd 3y ago
  > I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place Maybe he had an ex that wanted to make life hell for him. Create a new e-mail account using the guys name, use that to create a Craigslist account, do the whole bit. Come back "to pick something up", plant some child porn on his computer; or maybe the "child porn" on the computer wasn't really that childish (either just normal porn, or maybe porn alleging to be 17-year-olds or something). Arrange with the "uncle" (whom you know are the cops) to meet at a place you know he frequents regularly: maybe he just carries $500 with him as a habit; maybe he always stops at the Dunkin Donuts after visiting the payday check casher -- an ex would know that kind of thing. Or maybe come up with some other excuse to get him there with the requisite cash. Or, play then Craigslist game the other way, and arrange for him to be there with the cash -- maybe he thought he was buying a used car, or maybe he actually thought he was buying a used instrument from Craigslist, being sold by a 12-year-old girl! There absolutely are vindictive people like that in the world; and my guess is there are a lot more vindictive people like that than complete idiots who would ask a complete stranger on Craigslist, out of the blue, to arrange sex with someone under 11. (And then come on Hacker News decades years later to protest his innocence?) "I was framed" certainly seems implausible, but slightly less implausible than the accusation. EDIT: From the link above: > Wistocki observed a vehicle approach the parking lot, and an individual exited the vehicle. The individual walked over to Detective Anthony Cimilluca (who was portraying Kelsey's uncle Greco). The individual introduced himself as Joshua Smith, and Cimilluca introduced himself as Greco. Inside the Dunkin' Donuts, Smith gave Cimilluca $500 and asked to meet Kelsey. Cimilluca told Smith that she was waiting outside in a van. The pair exited Dunkin' Donuts and Smith was arrested. Upon his arrest, Smith was identified as the defendant. Somewhat harder to explain why you introduced yourself as "Smith", and gave $500 to a guy you thought was named "Greco".