San Francisco Police Did Assist Apple in House Search of iPhone 5

[darkplanets]

No. Its been pointed out from what has come from the story. Apple employees or SFPD used threats of deporting Mr. Calderon and or his family if they were not legal.

I have yet to see any definitive proof of such-- no reliable article states as such that Calderon was threatened with legal deportation action. Asking it is one thing, using it is another. Verbal accounts are inaccurate and are often rife with inconsistencies, as we so aptly see here.

The poster responded to a post that Mr Calderon will get money from Apple or SFPD. In his/her post that I and another forum member quoted said:
Just hope all his family members have their green cards and papers in order before he starts making waves.
That is from his/her post. And yes by that quote I can infer what kind of poster that person is.

I am quite fluent in reading comprehension, thank you. You cannot infer such qualities from such a non-definitive statement-- it's rather presumptuous and judgmental. It could be interpreted as a cautionary statement, not a call to arms or a political stance. You did understand what I said, right? Clearly not. Re-read what I said. Since it was purported that they did question his legal status, it is therefore logical that they should consider that as a potential front of action in future litigation or sub-legal interactions. His was more-so a cautionary statement-- in fact, it could even be interpreted that he sympathizes with their plight and that he hopes all of their affairs are in order so that they cannot use that legal route.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will be so quick to criticize others based on simple one-liners and then interpret such statements to define a person's character off of such, often through misinterpretation. You shouldn't be so quick to jump the gun and assume the worst; you're clearly very politically motivated in this area (naturally given your supplied information) but try not to be bigoted-- not everyone is "out to get" all immigrants.

 

[cere]

I have yet to see any definitive proof of such-- no reliable article states as such that Calderon was threatened with legal deportation action. Asking it is one thing, using it is another. Verbal accounts are inaccurate and are often rife with inconsistencies, as we so aptly see here.

Well, we do have the statements from Mr. Calderon. So far, he has been the only party that has been both forthcoming and whose statements have been shown to be true. His statements, originally contradicted by the SFPD were subsequent proven to be true. So, should we assume his assertion of being threatened with possible deportation (whether that threat had any legal weight or not) is not accurate? What reason do you have to doubt him? The SFPD released statements that were not true, either through miscommunication or intentionally. Apple has released no information. For all we know, the search was on the night it was lost and the phone was returned to Apple the next day by another party that actually had it.

 

[zub3qin]

Like anyone else can... I can search your house if I come over to your house and ask you to search it for something and you say it is okay.

This is true- but the problem is that the owner says he was told that they were Police, not private citizens searching his home. Had he known they were not government officials (i.e. police), he would never have consented to the search.


I expect Apple will replace the 1 year old security guy who was leading this effort, since he seemed a bit like G Gordon Liddy- anything goes to protect Apple/Nixon. Apple probably wants this type of guy but they need plausible deniability.....

 

[BigPrince]

Well, we do have the statements from Mr. Calderon. So far, he has been the only party that has been both forthcoming and whose statements have been shown to be true. His statements, originally contradicted by the SFPD were subsequent proven to be true. So, should we assume his assertion of being threatened with possible deportation (whether that threat had any legal weight or not) is not accurate? What reason do you have to doubt him? The SFPD released statements that were not true, either through miscommunication or intentionally. Apple has released no information. For all we know, the search was on the night it was lost and the phone was returned to Apple the next day by another party that actually had it.

How have Mr. Calderon's statements been shown to be true?

Just because SFPD "miscommunicated or lied" implies NOTHING about the TRUTH VALUE of Mr. Calderon's statements.

----------

This is true- but the problem is that the owner says he was told that they were Police, not private citizens searching his home. Had he known they were not government officials (i.e. police), he would never have consented to the search.

Yeah he says that NOW after the fact...we have no idea yet that is what he was told....I find it unusual that Apple would BRING THE REAL POLICE so they could LIE ABOUT being the Police themselves....and that the REAL POLICE would be okay with that....WHY involve the REAL POLICE to LIE about being the POLICE?

 

[cere]

How have Mr. Calderon's statements been shown to be true?

Just because SFPD "miscommunicated or lied" implies NOTHING about the TRUTH VALUE of Mr. Calderon's statements.

Umm, by the SFPD's own admission after they were found out? They admitted the part of his story about being visited by the police was true.

We have two parties making statements. Sergio said the SFPD visited his house and his house was searched. SFPD denied this. Turns Calderon was correct. Even after his statements were contradicted by the police, the facts turn out to support his statements and not the SFPD. His statement was shown to be true, at least the part that we have corroborating evidence (the SFPD's subsequent admission that he was correct).

Better, before you start accusing him of lying, do you have any evidence of this? No you do not. No matter how much you want to, you don't. Not yet anyway. Maybe he is a complete liar. You have no proof.

Two parties making claims, some of which are contradictory. When one is proven to be false, it calls into question their reliability. NOTHING from Mr. Calderon has called his reliability in to question (and the parts of his claims that can be proven have been proven to be true) to be true. We won't know more unless the other parties involved, Apple and the SFPD, decide to release truthful and accurate information.

No matter how much you might want him to be a liar, he is the only party that has made claims that have been corroborated and never shown to be false. SFPD can't claim that in this case. Apple, having said nothing, can't claim that. Only Sergio.

Yeah he says that NOW after the fact...we have no idea yet that is what he was told....I find it unusual that Apple would BRING THE REAL POLICE so they could LIE ABOUT being the Police themselves....and that the REAL POLICE would be okay with that....WHY involve the REAL POLICE to LIE about being the POLICE?

Good question. Why would Apple bring the REAL police without any formal claim of lost or stolen property? Why would the REAL police agree to participate in what was a private investigation (apparently against dept policy without a supervisor's approval) and subsequently fail to document or report their involvement (also against department policy). Why would the REAL police not respond to department inquiries about their involvement until their captain was directly contacted?

You need Calderon to be a liar for your own belief system, but that is your problem. The only ones shown to be wrong or dishonest have been the SFPD. You need it to be otherwise, but the facts so far don't fit your agenda.

 

[BigPrince]

Umm, by the SFPD's own admission after they were found out? They admitted the part of his story about being visited by the police was true.

We have two parties making statements. Sergio said the SFPD visited his house and his house was searched. SFPD denied this. Turns Calderon was correct. Even after his statements were contradicted by the police, the facts turn out to support his statements and not the SFPD. His statement was shown to be true, at least the part that we have corroborating evidence (the SFPD's subsequent admission that he was correct).

Better, before you start accusing him of lying, do you have any evidence of this?

Two parties making claims, some of which are contradictory. When one is proven to be false, it calls into question their reliability. NOTHING from Mr. Calderon has called his reliability in to question (and the parts of his claims that can be proven have been proven to be true) to be true. We won't know more unless the other parties involved, Apple and the SFPD, decide to release truthful and accurate information.

No matter how much you might want him to be a liar, he is the only party that has made claims that have been corroborated and never shown to be false. SFPD can't claim that in this case. Apple, having said nothing, can't claim that. Only Sergio.

Nice Straw Man argument here. I am specifically talking about deportation and that we cannot assume anything about that claim.

I will be more specific in my claim: Why do you believe his citizenship status claims? You appear to be basing on it the fact the SFPD appears to be dishonest. But there dishonesty does not mean Mr. Calderon is being truthful....ever hear of someone being opportunistic?


Now where did I claim he was lying in my statement? Please be specific.

Good question. Why would Apple bring the real police without any formal claim of lost or stolen property? Why would the REAL police participate in what was a private investigation (apparently against dept policy without a supervisor's approval) and subsequently fail to document or report their involvement (also against department policy).

You need Calderon to be a liar for your own belief system, but that is your problem. The only ones shown to be wrong or dishonest have been the SFPD. You need it to be otherwise, but the facts so far don't fit your agenda.

So if anything, the Police may of done something wrong, but that doesnt mean Apple did. To me bringing the real police is a sign Apple tried being honest.

What is my agenda? Please be specific, and please show how I need Mr. Calderon to be a liar to fit that agenda.

 

[cere]

Imagine instead of Apple, it was Microsoft or BP or Halliburton.

Sometimes reading these posts I feel like I'm on a religious website.

Even tried to debate a hardcore Scientologist? Very similar vibe with some people here.

 

[cere]

Nice Straw Man argument here. I am specifically talking about deportation and that we cannot assume anything about that claim.

I don't think you understand what strawman means.

What I said was, we have no reason to doubt his story. They parts that can be proven, have been prove.

I will be more specific in my claim: Why do you believe his citizenship status claims? You appear to be basing on it the fact the SFPD appears to be dishonest. But there dishonesty does not mean Mr. Calderon is being truthful....ever hear of someone being opportunistic?

Do you have ANY reason to think he is being dishonest? Do you have ANY reason to think he is being opportunistic? Has ANY part of his story been proven to be false?

Why shouldn't I believe he is being honest? He has made claims that many called into question that were later validated.

Now where did I claim he was lying in my statement? Please be specific.

When you question someone's honesty and say you have no reason to believe he is being truthful, you are implying he is lying.

Edit: And if you are going to play semantics and claim your questioning of his statements truthfulness was not implying he was lying, then I will say I never said you called him a liar. I said 'before you call him a liar' and said you want him to be a liar. But stupid word games are stupid. So let's not start that sort of stupid word game. Own your words.

How have Mr. Calderon's statements been shown to be true?
Just because SFPD "miscommunicated or lied" implies NOTHING about the TRUTH VALUE of Mr. Calderon's statements.

Yeah he says that NOW after the fact...we have no idea yet that is what he was told....I find it unusual that Apple would BRING THE REAL POLICE so they could LIE ABOUT being the Police themselves....and that the REAL POLICE would be okay with that....WHY involve the REAL POLICE to LIE about being the POLICE?

This is you praising his honesty?

So if anything, the Police may of done something wrong, but that doesnt mean Apple did. To me bringing the real police is a sign Apple tried being honest.

Not saying Apple did anything wrong. Who implied Apple was being dishonest? That isn't the point. The 4 detectives and the Apple investigator with 26 years experience should know that police accompanying private investigators on a unreported investigation and without supervisor approval was not the best idea.

What is my agenda? Please be specific, and please show how I need Mr. Calderon to be a liar to show to fit that agenda.

You would be best to answer that. But, I wonder, if everything Mr. Calderon has said is true (and again, you have NO reason to believe otherwise), how you would hold up? If Apple employees did act inappropriately (no reason to think they did with the fact at hand) would you end up weeping in a corner or lashing out in rage at others?

I am getting tired of how people assume its FACT that:

1. Apple employees purposely lied about being law enforcement.
2. That the immigration card was played.

*news flash* The above are not facts, just accusations being thrown around in the fog of this still developing story.

You get tired of people assuming Calderon is being honest though you have no reason to think he is being dishonest. That is pretty telling. Do you have any reason, based on facts, to not believe he is being honest? Be specific.

 

[samcraig]

Like anyone else can... I can search your house if I come over to your house and ask you to search it for something and you say it is okay.


[

The difference is YOU aren't a corporation. The alleged incident transpired as a result of a CORPORATION not individual conducting a search under what allegedly appears sketchy at best regarding whether they identified themselves as Apple employees, police or not at all.

Additionally - the reason for search warrants aren't JUST about permission to enter. On a search warrant there are specifics as to WHAT may be searched and what specifically they are looking for. There are hundreds of cases that are plagued by evidence that is illegally obtained and inadmissible in court because procedure wasn't followed.

And then there's the issue of intimidation - real or perceived. YOU visiting someones house may not be intimidating or DEEMED intimidating. But when 4, 5, 6 cops show up - it can be argued as such. Just because YOU wouldn't be intimidated (for whatever reason) doesn't make it a rule for everyone.

 

[gri]

I don't think the problem is if he is dishonest - the bigger picture here is that a large company, which is known to be secretive is suddenly showing up at somebody's doorsteps, claiming to be police and asking if they can search a private property... This is getting creepy on the parts of Apple. How far are they willing to go? And sadly enough they suddenly find themselves on the side they proposed not to be in their now famous Macintosh ad spot...

 

[RalfTheDog]

So was the iphone4, but the release of the pictures made apple sell how many less phones? It is not worth billions, its imaginary attached value, its like claiming the first phone of the production line is worth 1/100 of a billion, because its the 100th phone produced.

The early release of the pictures gave HTC and Samsung an early start copying the look of the phone, costing Apple quite a bit in sales.

Because they are the new Big Brother!
Ironic huh
Nice to see how the SFPD can get involved in a civil matter ...guess they have the man power to spare...and your tax dollars to waste.

Here is a hint, you can do the same thing. I have a friend who owns a computer store. One of his former employes ripped off a bunch of RAM, then attempted to sell it on Crageslist (with photos and everything). My friend called the police and told them he was going to the former workers house.

The police came with him, stood in the background, just to make sure neither party got violent. (I think they called it domestic protection or something silly like that.) The police got a bit more involved when My friend came to his store at 3:30 in the morning and found the guy loading up customer computers into the back of his truck.)

If someone steals your property and you know where it is (and you don't think they will shoot you). just call the police, tell them you are going over to politely ask for your property back and would like a witness to make sure nothing bad happens. Most police departments would be thrilled to help.

Dude you are so wrong.
There is no way the police will involve themselves in a civil matter.
Yes they should tell Apple to go deal with it through the civil court process.
That they didn't sends a clear message that Apple are way more important than regular poor folk like us.

See my comment above.

So....why hasn't someone leaked the phone and made a crapload of money in the process?

Because HTC pays more if you don't publish the pictures. Why get six figures when you can get seven?

 

[samcraig]

Here is a hint, you can do the same thing. I have a friend who owns a computer store. One of his former employes ripped off a bunch of RAM, then attempted to sell it on Crageslist (with photos and everything). My friend called the police and told them he was going to the former workers house.

The police came with him, stood in the background, just to make sure neither party got violent. (I think they called it domestic protection or something silly like that.) The police got a bit more involved when My friend came to his store at 3:30 in the morning and found the guy loading up customer computers into the back of his truck.)

If someone steals your property and you know where it is (and you don't think they will shoot you). just call the police, tell them you are going over to politely ask for your property back and would like a witness to make sure nothing bad happens. Most police departments would be thrilled to help.

There's a difference though. For one - the person is an EMPLOYEE of the company doing the search. Furthermore - it's a KNOWN relationship.

If Apple had knocked on the door of one of ITS employees, identified themselves as such (if the person didn't know who was at the door) clearly - that's one thing.

The example you gave, although I definitely understand and agree to a point, just isn't the same as what allegedly happened here

 

[RalfTheDog]

There's a difference though. For one - the person is an EMPLOYEE of the company doing the search. Furthermore - it's a KNOWN relationship.

If Apple had knocked on the door of one of ITS employees, identified themselves as such (if the person didn't know who was at the door) clearly - that's one thing.

The example you gave, although I definitely understand and agree to a point, just isn't the same as what allegedly happened here

If you know where your stolen property is, you have every right to ask for it back. If you think there might be some danger in asking, you have every right to ask a member of the police (or any other band) to stand outside and make sure no one does anything stupid. People (and companies) do this all the time.

There is no law against knocking on a door and saying, "Can I please have my stuff back?" There is no law against taking basic precautions to make sure you don't get yourself dead when you do this.

 

[BigPrince]

I don't think you understand what strawman means.

No I do. The original statement I was responding too was about:

“we assume his assertion of being threatened with possible deportation”

That was what I took to me your MAIN TOPIC of that post….however you start with:

Umm, by the SFPD's own admission after they were found out? They admitted the part of his story about being visited by the police was true.

Which has nothing to do with the immigration status issue but is misused to help bolster your argument wrongly.

What I said was, we have no reason to doubt his story. They parts that can be proven, have been prove.

I agree that if parts can be proven, INDUCTIONS can be drawn to HELP prove other parts. I don’t agree there is enough proven parts to make draw the INDUCTIONS you are making.

Do you have ANY reason to think he is being dishonest? Do you have ANY reason to think he is being opportunistic? Has ANY part of his story been proven to be false?

Just because something has not been proven false does not imply it is true. Ever hear of OJ Simpson?

I do not have any proof he is being opportunistic….I am merely suggesting that his can be an alternative and equally plausible explanation to the claims that are being thrown about being asked about his citizenship.

Why shouldn't I believe he is being honest? He has made claims that many called into question that were later validated.

Because someone makes claims that are later validated, does not mean they are saints and can only speak the truth.

When you question someone's honesty and say you have no reason to believe he is being truthful, you are implying he is lying.

This is you praising his honesty?

Are you a SHEEP? I am attempting to get at the truth by asking questions, that doesn’t imply **** truthfulness or lying. I am just not making as many faulty assumptions as some people on this forum are.

I am pointing out that SFPD claims have no impact on the truth value of Mr. C’s claims.

Not saying Apple did anything wrong. Who implied Apple was being dishonest? That isn't the point. The 4 detectives and the Apple investigator with 26 years experience should know that police accompanying private investigators on a unreported investigation and without supervisor approval was not the best idea.

How would Apple know that his investigation was not sanctioned or gone through the appropriate channels? They called the Police for assistance and they came!

You would be best to answer that. But, I wonder, if everything Mr. Calderon has said is true (and again, you have NO reason to believe otherwise), how you would hold up. If Apple employees did act inappropriately (no reason to think they did with the fact at hand) would you end up weeping in a corner or lashing out in rage at others?

If you don’t know what my agenda is then don’t make claims about it. Also, there is NO REASON to BELIEVE EVERYTHING Mr. C claims…I am asking for each thing he claims to be substantiated. So far the immigration status has not been. It is a he says vs he says.

You get tired of people assuming Calderon is being honest though you have no reason to think he is being dishonest. That is pretty telling. Do you have any reason, based on facts, to not believe he is being dishonest? Be specific.

Again, I reiterate, because SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRUTHFUL in SOME STATEMENTS DOES NOT IMPLY they are TURTHFUL IN ALL STATEMENTS.



Now where did I claim he was lying in my statement? Please be specific.
No where so far have I said he was lying.

I am only guilty of not taking for granted what he claims and have reminded people of that.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I don't think you understand what strawman means.

Why shouldn't I believe he is being honest? He has made claims that many called into question that were later validated.

If a bank had been robbed and a tracker in the money traced the cash to a person's house, I think that I would question that person's motives and honesty. The property that was stolen is worth far more than anyone would get robbing a bank. I trust him less than any random person convicted of a major crime.

 

[samcraig]

If you know where your stolen property is, you have every right to ask for it back. If you think there might be some danger in asking, you have every right to ask a member of the police (or any other band) to stand outside and make sure no one does anything stupid. People (and companies) do this all the time.

There is no law against knocking on a door and saying, "Can I please have my stuff back?" There is no law against taking basic precautions to make sure you don't get yourself dead when you do this.

Big difference as you just wrote intentionally or not.

Knocking on someones door and asking for your stuff back vs. requesting/intimidating someone to enter their home to search.

----------

If a bank had been robbed and a tracker in the money traced the cash to a person's house, I think that I would question that person's motives and honesty. The property that was stolen is worth far more than anyone would get robbing a bank. I trust him less than any random person convicted of a major crime.

that doesn't release the person of their constitutional rights. It doesn't matter who you trust and why. There are laws. Period.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Big difference as you just wrote intentionally or not.

Knocking on someones door and asking for your stuff back vs. requesting/intimidating someone to enter their home to search.

Again, I have no problem with saying, "Can I come in and look around?" I also have no problem with him saying, "No."

 

[BigPrince]

that doesn't release the person of their constitutional rights. It doesn't matter who you trust and why. There are laws. Period.

I don't think he is suggesting that. He is providing a reason why someone might not trust Mr. C, at least in the context of my posts between me and Cere.

 

[RalfTheDog]

that doesn't release the person of their constitutional rights. It doesn't matter who you trust and why. There are laws. Period.

I did not see the second part of your post.

I have every constitutional right to ask to come in. It is a First Amendment right. He has every right to say no. That is a Forth Amendment right. All rights of both parties were respected.

 

[cere]

Which has nothing to do with the immigration status issue but is misused to help bolster your argument wrongly.

They are part of his story as a whole. If one wants to prove or even assume he is lying, start by proving just one part of his story is false. So, far, you cannot.

I agree that if parts can be proven, INDUCTIONS can be drawn to HELP prove other parts. I don’t agree there is enough proven parts to make draw the INDUCTIONS you are making.

No inductions on my part. I'll wait for more facts. Nothing so far to make be question Calderon's veracity. Nothing. But, I don't tend to automatically people are lying. That would be sort of neurotic or maybe a little psychotic.

Just because something has not been proven false does not imply it is true.

I don't tend to automatically people are lying. That would be sort of neurotic or maybe a little psychotic.

I do not have any proof he is being opportunistic….I am merely suggesting that his can be an alternative and equally plausible explanation to the claims that are being thrown about being asked about his citizenship.

And why is it you are looking for alternatives? Has there been anything to make you think he version isn't true? Do you need his story not to be true? Do you need him to be lying or just want him to be lying?

Because someone makes claims that are later validated, does not mean they are saints and can only speak the truth.

Nope, but it doesn't given you a reason to believe he is being dishonest either. In fact, having one part of a story corroborated does more to bolster the rest of his story. The rest of his story could be BS, but no reason to think so.

If your wife or girlfriend told you she went shopping yesterday, would you automatically assume she actually cheated on you, with no reason to think that. That is just bizarre, to automatically questions someone's honesty with no reason.

Are you a SHEEP? I am attempting to get at the truth by asking questions, that doesn’t imply **** truthfulness or lying. I am just not making as many faulty assumptions as some people on this forum are.

No, but apparently I don't suffer from trust issues. Those can be very problematic later in life.

I am pointing out that SFPD claims have no impact on the truth value of Mr. C’s claims.

Truthfulness of part of statement helps to bolster the overall statement. Why do you think, in court, you are often asked questions that serve only to show the integrity of your statement?

How would Apple know that his investigation was not sanctioned or gone through the appropriate channels? They called the Police for assistance and they came!

Do you have any evidence they simply 'called the police'? SFPD was unable to find any records of such a call. With everything done off the books, we don't know how appropriate the various actions were. Certainly the SFPD seems to be implying not everything was done appropriately on their end.

If you don’t know what my agenda is then don’t make claims about it. Also, there is NO REASON to BELIEVE EVERYTHING Mr. C claims…I am asking for each thing he claims to be substantiated. So far the immigration status has not been. It is a he says vs he says.

Again, I reiterate, because SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRUTHFUL in SOME STATEMENTS DOES NOT IMPLY they are TURTHFUL IN ALL STATEMENTS.

And again, no reason to not to believe him. Could be he s a lying prick. Nothing even remotely indicating that yet.

Now where did I claim he was lying in my statement? Please be specific.
No where so far have I said he was lying.

I am only guilty of not taking for granted what he claims and have reminded people of that.

You could as easily say he hasn't denied being a terrorist for how much sense your reminder makes. You have no reason to 'remind' people he could be lying than to remind them he might be al queda. Doesn't make sense.

 

[samcraig]

I did not see the second part of your post.

I have every constitutional right to ask to come in. It is a First Amendment right. He has every right to say no. That is a Forth Amendment right. All rights of both parties were respected.

No one but those there can say for certain though if that's actually what happened. And that will be for a court (if there's ever a case) to decide, right?

Your assertion above based on reports assumes that there was no deception involved in the one asking.

Look - I'm not saying Apple is guilty, The guy is innocent or whatever. I'm just responding to both posts and assumptions - which can go either way.

Truth is - no one here is really qualified to "tell it like it is" since no one here has the actual facts.

 

[kdarling]

Here is a hint, you can do the same thing. I have a friend who owns a computer store. One of his former employes ripped off a bunch of RAM, then attempted to sell it on Crageslist (with photos and everything). My friend called the police and told them he was going to the former workers house.

The police came with him, stood in the background, just to make sure neither party got violent. ...

Yes, I've done the same many years ago with a renter who stopped paying.

However, he knew me. He knew I wasn't a cop. And the policeman who _was_ standing nearby us was in uniform.

In this case, someone answered their door to see an unknown group of "officers" in plain clothes, two of which identified themselves as SFPD, and then the others in the group asked to search his house... supposedly without making it clear to him that they were Apple employees, not cops.

I think the plain clothes aspect was a big factor in causing confusion, whether deliberate or not.

 

[cere]

If a bank had been robbed and a tracker in the money traced the cash to a person's house, I think that I would question that person's motives and honesty. The property that was stolen is worth far more than anyone would get robbing a bank. I trust him less than any random person convicted of a major crime.

Nothing has been reported as stolen, it was tracked to the vicinity of his house, where he does not live alone, he fully admitted to being at the bar, granted access to his home, vehicle and PC which were searched with nothing found and he came forward with his statement to the press even though he was never publicly named.

What part of that makes you distrust him?

 

[BigPrince]

Cere,

What are the facts you find in this story?

I have not claimed he is lying or telling the truth. I am sifting through the details of this story and trying to clear the fog. I have made few assumptions.

Again, because it can't be proven as this time if he is lying does not entail he is telling the truth. Is this something you disagree with?

I don't assume he is automatically lying. I will grant that I am being skeptical, that would imply I am cautious, but not imply that I am neurotic or maybe a little psychotic.

And why is it you are looking for alternatives? Has there been anything to make you think he version isn't true? Do you need his story not to be true? Do you need him to be lying or just want him to be lying?

I am not looking for any alternatives. I am offering equally plausible explanations given what we know at this time. If there are two equally plausible explanations then we can't assume that what he says is the truth.

Nope, but it doesn't given you a reason to believe he is being dishonest either. In fact, having one part of a story corroborated does more to bolster the rest of his story. The rest of his story could be BS, but no reason to think so.

There is no reason to believe the rest of his story is not BS or BS based on other parties in this story. I will reiterate that SFPD "lying" about this investigation does mean Mr. C is being 100% truthful. Do you disagree about this?

If your wife or girlfriend told you she went shopping yesterday, would you automatically assume she actually cheated on you, with no reason to think that. That is just bizarre, to automatically questions someone's honesty with no reason.

Red herring? Why did you throw this statement in here?

Do you have any evidence they simply 'called the police'? SFPD was unable to find any records of such a call. With everything done off the books, we don't know how appropriate the various actions were. Certainly the SFPD seems to be implying not everything was done appropriately on their end.

That is very true, but that is the SFPD at fault, NOT Apple based on those facts.

You could as easily say he hasn't denied being a terrorist for how much sense your reminder makes. You have no reason to 'remind' people he could be lying than to remind them he might be al queda. Doesn't make sense.

People keep making FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS based on what keeps getting REPEATED as FACT when it has not been proven to be FACT yet in this thread.

 

[cere]

Cere,

What are the facts you find in this story?

A phone was lost. Mr. Calderon was visited by the police and Apple. His home, vehicle and PC were searched with nothing found. Calderon's statement agrees with all of this and further contained statements that were at first denied by others and later shown to be true. To this point his veracity holds up. Calderon further claims he was intimidated and threatened.

I have not claimed he is lying or telling the truth. I am sifting through the details of this story and trying to clear the fog. I have made few assumptions.

Assumptions can be problematic.

Again, because it can't be proven as this time if he is lying does not entail he is telling the truth. Is this something you disagree with?

I don't assume he is automatically lying. I will grant that I am being skeptical, that would imply I am cautious, but not imply that I am neurotic or maybe a little psychotic.

Certain parts can and have been proven to be true. Of the parties so far involved, his are the only statements that have not been shown to be false.

I am not looking for any alternatives. I am offering equally plausible explanations given what we know at this time. If there are two equally plausible explanations then we can't assume that what he says is the truth.

We shouldn't assume anything. I am not et seeking alternative explanations because so far the only reliable source has been Calderon, as far as we know (or rather, the only source that has not already been shown to be unreliable)

There is no reason to believe the rest of his story is not BS or BS based on other parties in this story. I will reiterate that SFPD "lying" about this investigation does mean Mr. C is being 100% truthful. Do you disagree about this?

I would agree that anything from SFPD has been called into question by their performance up to this point. I would suggest nothing so far puts Sergio's credibility into question. Yet. Would you disagree with this?

Red herring? Why did you throw this statement in here?

It was meant as a ridiculous example of how bizarre I find questioning someone's honesty with no justification. It was meant to be a ridiculous example of making assumptions that are not based on facts.

That is very true, but that is the SFPD at fault, NOT Apple based on those facts.

Very much agreed. Yet some people seem to think the they need to besmirch Calderon or question his integrity for not other reason than if he is being honest, it impeaches the behavior of the SFPD and therefore puts the entire operation into question. The investigation, being done on the behalf and with the involvement of Apple. That does not mean Apple nor any employee of Apple did anything wrong, but it would certainly hint that way. That, in and of itself, seems to be why Calderon and his credibility is being questioned, with no actual reason to do so.

People keep making FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS based on what keeps getting REPEATED as FACT when it has not been proven to be FACT yet in this thread.

That he made the statement is fact and that is all I am taking for granted. I am not assuming the statement itself is true or false. I know at least part of his statement is true, even a part that was originally subject to disbelief and denial.