Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone - Page 6

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . . .

Originally Posted by Tulkas

They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

So basically I argued "no one knows anything. Stop demonizing Chen." and that's nonsense? Really? Really? The affidavit refutes you, but whatever......

Originally Posted by Tulkas

They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his.]/QUOTE]

Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.



And that's exactly the point you keep ignoring. "no one knows anything" is incorrect. Gizmodo made a bunch of public statements. One can reasonably discuss what they stated publicly. Their public statement was that someone found a phone in a bar that wasn't his, he made only a very feeble attempt to contact Apple, and Gizmodo paid him $5 K for the phone. That is plenty of evidence that Gizmodo knew it was dealing in stolen property.

Your attempts to ignore everything that hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law suggests that you are not interested in any kind of rational discussion but are rather defending Chen at all costs, no matter how irrational that defense might be. Sorry, that's not a very intelligent position to be taking.

Originally Posted by Extensor

It is quite obvious that harleighquinn is employed by Gizmodo to defend Chen. It is too bad that harleighquinn fails. Maybe Gizmodo should ask for a refund?

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

The only Jail Chen will go to is the one in your prison rape fantasies.

Give it a rest.

Originally Posted by the cool gut

Wow - looks like I really hit a nerve there. I was just stating fact, but you are really taking this whole issue quite personally.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

It's exactly the point YOU keep ignoring, saying no one knows anything and then coming in as though you know EVERYTHING, as you JUST DID RIGHT THERE.

Hypocrite.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Maybe you should read the posts that say I live in VA, work in DC and am an accountant for a government contracting IT firm, but yeah, sure, I work for Gizmodo.

I just have common sense, something apparently lacking in this forum.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Sorry, but I'm not the one saying no one knows anything - that's your silly position.

My position is that we know what has been reported. Granted, we don't know if it's true, but we can work on the basis of what is public knowledge. For example, when talking about what Gizmodo knew, we can reasonably rely on what Gizmodo SAID at the time.

In this case, you're pretending that Gizmodo didn't know it was stolen. Let's look at the facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO:

- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy made 'a' call to AppleCare (which would not constitute a reasonable effort to return it by ANY standards)
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone

At that point, it doesn't matter if they KNEW it was Apple's property or a real prototype. Those facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO are evidence that they knowingly purchased stolen property.

I'm just curious why it is that you insist on defending such inane positions (that no one knows anything). Further, why is it that you're making up lies and pretending that I espouse the same silly argument. Does Gizmodo pay well?

Originally Posted by jragosta

So common sense says that it's impossible to receive payment from someone on the other side of the country for shilling?

Not that I believe you're actually shilling for Gizmodo. I'm sure they could hire someone far more competent than you. But to argue that its impossible that you're shilling for them simply because you live in VA is the height of absurdity - just like 99% of your posts.

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

(Brian Lam's email to Apple PR) P.S. I hope you take it easy on the kid who lost it. I don't think he loves anything more than Apple except, well, beer. Maybe some spankings.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Maybe that's why it took her so long to finally report it. She was busy....ummmm...."punishing" Hogan and Warner.....

Originally Posted by Stevie

Prison time is extremely unlikely. Extremely. This is white collar corporate stuff, and petty at that.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

He likely did miss that part...you know since it didn't happen. From the docs:

"Sewell told be that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam."

So, you were wrong that it was before and you were wrong about whom Jobs called.
Nice work. Your entire comment was premised on one statement with two facts. Unfortunately, both facts were wrong.

If the facts don't work for you, just change them?

Not that it really changes the overall case against the various parties, but it certainly makes your comment untruthful or incorrect.

Originally Posted by thompr

Actually, I only got ONE fact wrong: you are right that Jobs called Lam not Chen. Easy enough mistake, but also doesn't change my original point.

With regard to the other issue: I said that Jobs called before Gizmodo ran the pictures (meaning all of those breakdown pictures which pretty much sealed the deal as this being more than just a rumor). You are right that Gizmodo ran a story prior to that, but they ran the pictures AFTER Jobs demanded the return. Guilty as hell, as I said, regardless of whether Lam or Chen answered the phone. (As if Lam didn't immediately call Chen to tell him that "the Steve" called and wanted his phone back.)

Thompson

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Not really. I have dead nerve endings. I'm just tired of people making themselves look like idiots in print.

Originally Posted by jragosta

That's easy enough to fix. If you'd stop posting, you'd stop looking like an idiot - at least online.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Also, Tate DID NOT make a fool of himself. Read it again with an impartial view and any fool can see it was Steve who made a fool of HIMSELF.

You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. Actually, that's not true: One can, but in line with HOW one does business, not what the consumers can consume. If he want's that type of control he can move to China or the Middle East. They would be happy to take him. (actually, pornography in China in 200 made nearly double the USA numbers, so they may not want him either.)

Porn, as an industry, actually nearly competes with APPLE. Stating he plans to eliminate it is on par with pissing off the Taliban (hyperbole) and they have a large amount of influence that can hurt Apple, if they choose to.

Flash? I really don't care. It's crap. It can go. But forcing his morality on us? He sounds like all the hippies that had their fun and now want to ensure no one else does. It's like a parent telling you to not do everything they know they did.

Hypocrisy. Something I swore I would not do with my children. "Do as I say, not as I do" or in this case, did.

Don't use an icon that stood for actual freedom as your poster child to take that freedom away. That's pretty much Orwell's "1984" in a nutshell. To make something mean the opposite of what it originally meant and convince everyone the new meaning (New Speak) Is the correct one.

Also, Steve recants his statement within the exchange, from "it's about freedom..." to "It's not about freedom, it's about Apple trying to do what's right for its users."

Complete about face, in Steve's own words no less.

He went from Braveheart to British rule in a matter of paragraphs.

I now realize why all of you post the way you do: You sound just like Steve Jobs. ("You are so misinformed. No one kicked in any doors." - all news agencies reported the door was broken into and the garage open and I believe, though I may be wrong, local news posted images, and I'm willing to bet they sure as hell didn't pick the locks...but no, that didn't happen because I don't believe it did....) As I sit here typing this on my iMac, I am very acutely aware of and also very relieved that I have not sunk to such hero worship that I am attempting to mimic him.

Those are REAL psychological issues there......

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Harley, dude ... give it up.

You are making yourself look like a fool here.

Not much of anything you are saying above is even close to true. I don't enjoy making you look stupid and I'm going to stop now, but please ... try looking at least a few things up before you post.

- You say that "You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. " but then defend Tate for doing exactly that.

- You say that Steve said he wants to "eliminate" porn when he said no such thing.

- You imply that the porn industry is going to get together and destroy Apple? WTF?

You're raving dude. Take a pill or something.

Then you finish off with a complete lie about seeing images of Apple "breaking into" this guys house when anyone can easily check on that and be certain that it never happened.

You're just making crap up willy-nilly here and anyone who engages you in argument is a bigger fool than you, so I'm just going to stop.

Originally Posted by Alfiejr

here are some predictions - we'll see what really happens.

first the DA works out a plea with the thief. he will insist on at least one felony count, grand theft or whatever. the thief of course will have to roll on Giz to avoid jail time.

then with the iPhone's status as stolen established as a matter of law, the DA will charge whoever at Giz actually handed the thief the cash with receiving stolen property. Chen or whoever.

then they either they cop a plea to some minimal charge or dare a trial on major counts in some kind of martyr cause.

given the real chance of being convicted and serving hard time, and that the Giz guys are such obvious weenies (that email was pathetic), they will plead.

apple could then sue Giz, but I can't believe they will. no advantage to them to drag it all out.

in any real business with any ethics, all the Giz people responsible would resign at some point, or be fired. of course, Giz may not meet those criteria. it was all just a teenage prank, right?

Originally Posted by jragosta

Irrelevant and incorrect. Gizmodo's story was that they paid $5 K for it from some guy who found it in a bar and that the guy had allegedly made only a feeble attempt to return it to Apple. Under CA law, that makes it stolen property. As shown by Gizmodo's public story, they knew at the time that they purchased the phone that it did not belong to Hogan.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Sorry, but I'm not the one saying no one knows anything - that's your silly position.

My position is that we know what has been reported. Granted, we don't know if it's true, but we can work on the basis of what is public knowledge. For example, when talking about what Gizmodo knew, we can reasonably rely on what Gizmodo SAID at the time.

In this case, you're pretending that Gizmodo didn't know it was stolen. Let's look at the facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO:

- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy made 'a' call to AppleCare (which would not constitute a reasonable effort to return it by ANY standards)
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone

At that point, it doesn't matter if they KNEW it was Apple's property or a real prototype. Those facts AS PRESENTED BY GIZMODO are evidence that they knowingly purchased stolen property.

I'm just curious why it is that you insist on defending such inane positions (that no one knows anything). Further, why is it that you're making up lies and pretending that I espouse the same silly argument. Does Gizmodo pay well?

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Sigh.

if you are going to espouse facts, please try to keep them factual. Credibility matters to some people. I not arguing that your final analysis is incorrect, just that you shouldn't misrepresent the facts to get there. It shows uncertainty on your part that the actual facts will lead to your conclusion...and in a post where you accuse someone else of making up lies. Never change, SJR, never change.

If you want to look at the facts, as actually presented by Giz (let's stick to the three you brought up) then we can correct your statements as follows:

- They claim that someone found the phone in the bar
- They claim that the guy

[called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person]
- They then claim that they paid $5 K for the phone That single correct matters. if as you say, we rely on what they said, then may have believed Hogan had made multiple good faith efforts to contact Apple. This is not the case, as we know now, but as you said to take their statements at the time, then let's do that instead of twisting it..there really doesn't seem to be a need to twist anything here.

And as I have stated separately, the fact they they withheld a large part of the payment clearly (for a rational mind) demonstrates that they were not initially certain that it was not a hoax.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

TI think it is relevant as the fact that they were not willing to pay everything up front demonstrates that they had at least some reservations about its authenticity at time they received it.

Originally Posted by jragosta

It's not the least bit relevant.

The phone did not belong to Hogan - and Gizmodo knew that. EVEN IF a single call to AppleCare (which apparently never happened according to Hogan) were considered a reasonable attempt to return it, it wouldn't become Hogan's property for 90 days or more.

Gizmodo paid $5 K for it. That means it's now grand theft rather than theft.

Gizmodo purchased stolen property.

Case closed.

Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

No, sorry, you are still wrong. On both 'facts'. It was Lam that Jobs called and it was after the article with the tear down pictures. Notice the stated date of the article (sorry, I should have bolded that to make it easier to read) of 4/19/2010, after which Jobs called Lam. That is the date the the tear down pictures article was published. So, no, Jobs called Lam and called him after the article with the pics was published.

First you call someone out for not know the facts and present false 'facts' in the process, then you reiterate the same again, even when you have been corrected. Funny.

Originally Posted by thompr

There was more than one article posted.

The tear down pictures were posted on 4/20, after Jobs' call, just like I said. Do I need to post a link to that specific article, or will you go ahead and find it yourself?

At that point, Gizmodo should have already had the device prepped and on its way to Apple. Guilty as hell, just like I said. I'm not presenting false facts... I may have missed the name of WHICH Gizmodo person was actually called, not that it matters to my point. But I was correct that even after Jobs made that call, Gizmodo went right on ahead posting stuff. (Nowhere did I state that that was the FIRST post they had made regarding the whole affair.)

Thompson

Originally Posted by Tulkas

April 19, 2010 (I found it myself to save you the time, since as you state, there were multiple articles and you are obviously reading the wrong one)
Notice the pictures of it opened. Notice their description of the internals. Notice their statement that they have disassembled it.

Notice the date of April 19.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

You know, beyond the fact that you posted a comment with no correct/honest information, after you were shown you errors, you could have simply said "oh, my bad, I was incorrect". I do that all the time, we are all human and make mistakes. Instead you decide toprove you were correct, with even more incorrect information.

So, no, you were incorrect with just about everything you posted. Jobs did make a call. You did get that right. I think that was the only thing you got right. I am actually sure it was an honest mistake. But it was a mistake. The only reason I pointed it out is that it was funny to make that mistake in a post where you were calling someone out for being wrong.

Originally Posted by thompr

The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010

This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.



As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.

You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.

Thompson

Originally Posted by thompr

The article I'm referring to is this one: April 20, 2010

This is the great tear down article that Gizmodo went ahead and posted AFTER Steve Jobs' call. And again, I never said this was the first article posted. This is what I was talking about all along.

As I said, Jobs made a call and Gizmodo subsequently posted an article (no, not the first). In my previous post I acknowledged that there were multiple Gizmodo articles and that the one I was referring to was not the first. I even gave you the date of the article to which I referred, but you stopped on the date you wanted.

Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures?

Originally Posted by thompr

You know, if you spent less time being snarky and punching irrelevant holes in other people's arguments (e.g. Lam not Chen, and there were some articles prior to Jobs' call) communication would go a lot more smoothly.

Originally Posted by ny3ranger

I'm actually sick of seeing Jason chen's face on google news in the thumbnail. That is one ugly dude.

Originally Posted by dan2236

Some of these comments (not yours in particular) really confirm my notion that american people can hardly be called "friends". The only thing they do is stay by your side when the sun is shining. I would *NEVER* call the police deliberatelky when I know that one of my friends (e.g.) robbed a bank. I would do all I could without going to prison to protect them.

I would *NEVER*EVER* make the effort and CALL THE COPS TWICE to make REALLY sure they catch them in all what they are doing. She not just called the police/Apple once, because she feared she would be held liable, she called AGAIN to TELL ON THEM when they were removing evidence. That is in NO WAY her obligation to do. They could never pin it on her after she alarmed the cops in teh first place that she was an accomplice to removing serial numbers and whatever.


You know we call this? Blockleiter or Blockwart, thats what certain people did under the Nazis to tell on Jews hiding somewhere, its the exact same analogy YOU ALL are using "its against the law, of course I have to report it". You people make me sick, you know nothing about the word FRIENDSHIP, you would betray your own mothers and children if it would put you even in very low legal risk.

Originally Posted by ascii

It seems that some were giving Hogan the benefit of the doubt until now. But now we see he knew who owned it and was trying to dispose of evidence.

Are these same gullible people still giving Chen the benefit of the doubt? I wonder what will come of police reading the emails on his computer they confiscated?

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.

I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.

Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.

Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.

At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.

Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Your argument now is becoming a bit dodgy. It is sort of like a guy telling a divorce court judge "I had the affairs after we were legally separated." After proof comes out that he fooled around during the marriage he says, "well, I didn't say I didn't do it before...technically I was right/honest, because I did sleep around afterwards too, which is all I said."

Just to be clear, your original statement didn't have the wiggle room you are digging for now.

Notice your use of the limiter 'The'.
Not 'some'. Not 'additional'. Not 'subsequent.

Pretty clear what you meant and there was not even an attempt to qualify it as meaning 'just some, later, afterwards'. You obviously meant that the pics were not posted until after the call from Jobs...your attempt to make them sound like even bigger dicks. Some pics were posted afterwards. But the pictures of it disassembled began being posted before.

Ironic, given your post that I was initially reply to....you remember, the snarky one where you were trying, though not successfully, to punch irrelevant holes in other people's arguments.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

All of which might be true. But that isn't what I clearly was replying to. You said

I simply pointed out the glaring hole in your logic that the story Giz posted was clear evidence that they knew when they paid Hogan that it was not his. Legally, this might not matter. Logically, it is a gaping hole in your narrative.

See, the final payment on confirmation of authenticity demonstrates their lack of confidence that it was an Apple device and therefore that it was not Hogans. That doesn't mean that they didn't purchase stolen property. They may have. I clearly was not saying otherwise in my response to you. You made an error in logic and I pointed it out. You seem to want to argue your hole doesn't exist because they are guilty. Different argument. Try to keep up.

Do you know they knew, when they paid him, that it wasn't his? They might have believed him, but they weren't willing to bet the full amount on it at that time. You think they were convinced right from the beginning and perhaps they were. The fact that they posted their story after examining it doesn't, in anyway logical/reasonable way imply this. The fact that they reserved payment implies otherwise.

Logic and reason should be part of any attorney's toolkit, no? Even a junior associate a couple years out of school, I would think.

Originally Posted by thompr


Just to show you can do it, and now that you certainly know my stance, would you mind addressing the actual point instead of making the debate about my terminology? That is, don't you believe that Gizmodo's actions, coupled with the timeline, are fairly damning?

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Let me save him the trouble of responding:

The pictures on the 19th, at least one of them, show they had already disassembled the phone on the 19th. It's shown in the enlargeable photo of the ribbon cable.

I will admit what I am going to state next was wrong of them, and may be the item that sinks Gizmodo, but the only thing I can surmise is that they had a bunch of photos of a disassembled phone that they hadn't run yet, already planning to run them the next day whether they heard from apple or not, so they said what the hell, go with it, run the story anyway.

It was dumb, but it's what they did. Either way, they had already disassembled the phone BEFORE SJ had called, not after. They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.

In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.

The pictures were run AFTER.

This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try. The proof is the same stories you have referenced, though, AGAIN, you are electing to edit to your own purposes. I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.