Yet more internet convictions by those who have no knowledge of the facts, just the gossip and rumours that spring up on a few sites - "I read it on the internet, it must be true".
"Stolen iPhone" ? "Stolen Property" ? Prove it. And I don't mean start quoting the California Penal Code. You need to prove, with corroboration for all non-physical evidence, ie. all testimony, that the crime of theft has been committed. You have to prove it beyond ALL reasonable doubt.
"So the guy allegedly steals the iPhone and then makes multiple calls to Apple the next day" ? Well, that's not going to convict him.
Not helped by the Apple Engineer. loses the phone, or allegedly has it stolen, gets it back 5 weeks later and then reports it stolen. After 5 weeks ? Sure there's a limit to how long they can wait to report it, and they're well within it, but 5 weeks, and after you have it returned ? And what efforts did the engineer make to retrieve the phone ? Did he even call his own number when they awoke from their night on the ale ? (The first thing anyone does when they misplace their phone). The defence will be in fits of laughter.
You need to prove the phone stolen before you can even look at Gizmodo. Did they belive it stolen ? The guy that found it must have had a good story to tell them about the circumstances of finding it, and their efforts to return it.
I'm not saying everybody is innocent, but you need to do more research before declaring someone as guilty, or you better get back onto Google to find out how to defend yourself in a libel case.
I wish I could find that post by cmaier that I just think is the best response to those who would defend the thief and Gizmodo by finding fault with the engineer; something to the effect of, "Well, he deserved it. Walking into a bar with an iPhone wearing that low-cut blouse and short skirt, what did he expect to happen? He was asking for it."
Incidentally, you can defend yourself in a defamation case (and it would be libel, not slander) brought by the thief or Gizmodo on the grounds that they both are now public figures and that you are expressing an opinion. (And I didn't even need to resort to Google.)
And one more thing: the only way any of us, including the District Attorney, is going to prove the guilt of the thief is by starting with the law. In this case there is no one denying that the finder sold the phone to Gizmodo, based on all the reports, so we can assume that fact can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom. Once the People prove this fact, the burden shifts to the
defendant to produce evidence that he undertook efforts to restore the phone to its rightful possessor, i.e., either Apple or the engineer. We don't know what evidence he might proffer, but I think it's not unreasonable to base our discussions on what Gizmodo reported until we hear directly from the finder. In court, once the defendant adduces evidence of his efforts, the burden of persuasion lies with the People to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the efforts the defendant claims he made were either were not truly made, or that they were insufficient to meet the legal requirement that they be "reasonable and just".
In fact, there is very little "proof" for the State to present in a case like this. Usually in a larceny case the major question is whether or not the defendant was the one who took the goods. Here, there is no question that he took the phone, nor is there any question that it was not his. No one is arguing that the engineer made the finder a gift of it, that the finder innocently mistook it for his own, or that the engineer intended to discard the phone.
The only additional "proof" the People will need to produce is if it disputes whatever account of his activities the defendant offers. Otherwise, it is simply a question of arguing about whether or not what the defendant says he did to get the phone back to either the engineer or Apple was reasonable and just.
And we're all just participating in much the same argument that will go on in the jury room, and anyone here or at the water cooler is perfectly free to say how they would vote were they on the jury and the scenario reported by Gizmodo were relied upon by the defendant. And it is entirely within anyone's rights to respond, without fear of being sued for defamation, "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!"
