Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
You're absolutely wrong here.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
The defense would ask if the police have been in his computer and seen something incriminating, as soon as they said "well... no," the entirety of their claims would mean nothing.
And they'd say "that's irrelevant because we already have established proof from the defendant that they know what is on there, how they know doesn't matter since it is established that they know."
It's like saying you are in the room, but asking someone to prove how they know that you got there. But that doesn't matter, the witness saw you in the room. The question isn't "how did you get here", it's "are you here."
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
No he didn't he stated.
""We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
You're absolutely wrong here.
Based on what? Your personal belief that the admission of the defendant doesn't matter? You can't just make it up. I'm just using what was said, which was black and white.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
The defense would ask if the police have been in his computer and seen something incriminating, as soon as they said "well... no," the entirety of their claims would mean nothing.
And they'd say "that's irrelevant because we already have established proof from the defendant that they know what is on there, how they know doesn't matter since it is established that they know."
It's like saying you are in the room, but asking someone to prove how they know that you got there. But that doesn't matter, the witness saw you in the room. The question isn't "how did you get here", it's "are you here."
To know is to have empirical evidence of it, they suspect based on the statement of someone they've already charged with a similar crime and are attempting to charge with additional, similar crimes.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
No he didn't he stated.
""We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Which is exactly what I'm using. That he also knows what is on there doesn't matter. That it will hurt him doesn't matter (except it disproves the "its drivers and stuff" theory).
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Based on what? Your personal belief that the admission of the defendant doesn't matter? You can't just make it up. I'm just using what was said, which was black and white.
Which you're clearly wrong because a state supreme court has said, no the defendant doesn't need to give up his password.
FFS
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Based on what? Your personal belief that the admission of the defendant doesn't matter? You can't just make it up. I'm just using what was said, which was black and white.
Which you're clearly wrong because a state supreme court has said, no the defendant doesn't need to give up his password.
FFS
LOL, what does that have to do with the discussion? I've never said anything related to that, whatsoever.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
they suspect based on the statement of someone they've already charged with a similar crime and are attempting to charge with additional, similar crimes.
Nope, That's not the case. If you think this, you've missed the point of the discussion.
They don't think, they know in a legal sense because the person in question has admitted to it. That's it. Over and done, the whole thing. Passwords, eye witness, all pointless background noise.
He told the cops that what they thought was on there was, in fact, there. What more is needed to prosecute?
"Sir, we need to go in your house to see if there is evidence of a murder."
"You don't need to come in, we both know that I murdered the guy."
You don't need to see the body or find the weapon, he admitted to the crime.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
"We both know there is an operating system, a file system, random data of go pound sand I'm not going to willfully give you evidence to charge me with more possible crimes based on what's may be on my computer."
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work. I have no idea what you think will be found in there, but this is basic "how a court works."
The main evidence in most courts is witnesses. And no witness is as strong as the defendant admitting to the suspected crime. Now if he admitted to a crime no one expects and is unlikely, they will often question if he is just crazy. But once he admits to one that there is a previous suspicion that he did, that's all you need in any court.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
"We both know there is an operating system, a file system, random data of go pound sand I'm not going to willfully give you evidence to charge me with more possible crimes based on what's may be on my computer."
That's fine, but he didn't say that, so that you had to change what was said so dramatically to come up with a way for it not to be what I said shows that you see the problem.
He didn't deny that those things are on there, but he didn't limit what they knew to that. So your example isn't related.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work.
And the courts in this case have said that the defendant can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by providing a password.
What the hell are you even arguing here. You clearly aren't seeing the conversation.
-
This isn't difficult, at all. He admitted to them knowing what was on there. Additionally he admitted that what they knew was on there would hurt him. The second point is superfluous, but really strongly validates what he already admitted to.
That's it. The whole point.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work.
And the courts in this case have said that the defendant can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by providing a password.
What the hell are you even arguing here. You clearly aren't seeing the conversation.
I started the conversation. I started the point that asking for the password was unnecessary because he had already admitted to the crime.
YOU then argued with that point. WHy you keep bringing up that the password cannot be forced, when my point was that the password isn't even needed and I have clearly stated repeatedly that I'm discussing absolutely nothing related to if the password can be forced out of him or not, I can't explain.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
This isn't difficult, at all. He admitted to them knowing what was on there. Additionally he admitted that what they knew was on there would hurt him. The second point is superfluous, but really strongly validates what he already admitted to.
That's it. The whole point.
Okay "I know God is real and he lives on the far side of the sun, and I have proof on my encrypted computer"
Make me show you proof of that statement. Go ahead.
