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!"
At last, a sensible response.
There's a lot of "IF"s and "so we can assume"'s in there, as there should be. Yes, the DA has to start with the law, but it is only a guide to what should be prosecuted. It's down to the DA, judge and jury's interpretation of the law that will decide.
But let's discuss the case at hand, that currently being investigated. What do we know so far - and correct me if I'm wrong.
- It's a criminal investigation.
- It's been instigated by lawyers for the Apple Engineer who lost the phone.
- the private residence of the Gizmodo editor has been raided.
- the individual who found the phone has spoken to the police - I would say "is known by the police" but it'd give the wrong impression.
So what can we assume - and again, correct me if I'm wrong, or tell me my assumption is iffy:
- Apple have not instigated this, although they may have a case in the future.
- The case is not based on any "theft" of the phone itself. I state this because I'm assuming the phone belonged to Apple, not the engineer - as was highlighted in the letter sent by Apple to Gizmodo. This may be an iffy assumption.
- The key points of the Apple Engineer and the home of the Gixmodo editor makes me assume that the case may relate to the alleged theft of the Apple Engineers personal information on the phone.
- It may even extend to the "theft" of the iPhone OS v4, but I would have expected Apple to instigate any case over that.
Any ideas ?
Would Chen be stupid enough to have kept any data from the iPhone on his personal computers ? (no comments about his general stupidity in acquiring the phone please - we've all moved on from that last week).
Can there be any other reason for the Engineer to instigate the case against Gizmodo and it's editor ?
Can there be any other reason the police would raid his home ?
They don't need to identify the individual who found the phone, they have already spoken to the police.
So let's see... if someone finds a Nokia in some bar in Nasville, then naturally they would immediately call the company in Finland, right? Hmm, but what if it was a Sony/Ericsson though... would you call Japan or Sweden? 
