It is different. But even if Giz wasn't behind the planning or didn't direct the person as to where they could find the Apple engineer (and what he looked like, when he would be there, etc) the finder would still have to take a number of steps to steal the phone from the engineer that don't really seem plausible. They would need to:
-Find the right group of Apple employees to watch
-Find the right employee in the group to focus on, being the one that has the top secret, disguised prototype
-Get close enough to this person to see that the UI of the phone he was using was subtly different than a stock OS3 or a jailbroken iPhone. A person carrying a top secret device that is not allowed to be seen by anyone might just be a little wary of stranger staring at their top secret device up close.
-Find an opportunity to bump up to the engineer and lift the phone from his pocket without the engineer or anyone from his group noticing.
This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch, unless the thief was very, very good and very experienced. And if he was, does it make sense that he would shop it around to multiple parties and risk exposure (as this person did) or that he, as an experienced thief, would go directly to the most likely party to pay immediately? This all just pushes the bounds of reality. It doesn't make sense. Some one actually invoked Occam's Razor to show this was the most reasonable series of events for the phone leaving the bar (except they also assumed Giz directed it all).
I suppose if the master pickpocket and thief wasn't fully aware of exactly how to identify a disguised iPhone prototype and exactly which Apple employee had a phone out that night (if at all) we might expect he would have been picking a lot of pockets trying to score the right one. We haven't heard any reports of mass thefts that night/week in the area. That also would have been a quick way to get caught. Faster even than calling a bunch of strangers to ask them if they want to buy it.
If it was stolen from the bar, the only explanation that makes any sense is that it was a simple crime of opportunity. They didn't know what to do with the strange device afterwards, realized it might be a prototype and shopped it around. Perhaps they had heard that some tech site was offering a bounty for early iPad access but weren't sure which, so they call the ones the could think of...Wired, Engadget and Gizmodo. Sure as hell makes more sense than the convoluted fantasies others have proposed.
Or a drunk dude left it behind at a bar.
Occam's Razor, indeed.
I agree with your last paragraph. That's the only reasonable explanation. and later, when he found out that he could get money for it, he jumped at the chance.
It's interesting that Engadget also published some pictures of the phone before Gizmodo did that this guy had sent, or they took themselves, I forget which. But they aren't in trouble, because they didn't buy the phone, and didn't take it apart.
I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.
Police departments probably don't do a whole lot of investigation regarding lost property that is turned in. If the finder had turned in the phone shortly after finding it, it might have gone in a bin as just another lost phone, the police would have made their public notice that no one reads. Who knows if Apple would ever reported it lost or inquired at the PD...it seems they didn't after 3 weeks of it being missing. This is what a truly honest finder would have done. I believe that finder in this case was unscrupulous. He likely realized that even if it all worked out well for him by turning it in and becoming its owner after 90 days, that would have essentially been in the time frame that it has generally been assumed the new iPhone would be announced or released. He could ebay it at that point, legally, but the value would have dropped substantially. Depending on how far away from the launch it was, he could have legally sold it to Giz for a substantial amount.
I didn't being up the whole 90 limit to give anyone a pass or to argue how they might covered themselves legally. It was simply someone asked how long a person has to turn in lost property after finding it (a day, a week, a month)? There is no specified time. I brought up the 90 day limit, as it is the only time limit specified in the civil lost property statutes. It hasn't even been 90 days since it was lost, so it isn't like this could be used to defend anyone. Simple a part of the discussion on the statutes involved.
I can't agree with that. Apparently Apple showed up at this guys apartment before the police did. It's very likely that they did a quiet search before getting the police involved so as to attempt to keep the publicity down. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered some money at first. That's usually how this works. Once they knew it was going public before they could find it, they would be forced to go to the police.
The fact that they didn't do so right away means nothing in a case like this.
Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
You're doubting it, so YOU should make that call. Of course, right now, with all this going on, they have likely had a number of pranks.
Tomorrow, I'm going to an Apple store here in NYC to get my 3G iPad. I'll ask about reporting a lost piece of Apple goods such as an iPhone that has a serial number, and must be registered with Apple before it works, to see how they will respond. I would ask the manager, but they will be too busy. I'll ask him when we have our next Mac User Group meeting there.
I can't agree with that. Apparently Apple showed up at this guys apartment before the police did. It's very likely that they did a quiet search before getting the police involved so as to attempt to keep the publicity down. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered some money at first. That's usually how this works. Once they knew it was going public before they could find it, they would be forced to go to the police.
The fact that they didn't do so right away means nothing in a case like this.
They may have shown up at the finders residence the same day or day before the police searched Chen's place (the fact that Apple showed up at all to search a private residence is sort of scary/weird), we don't really know when.
But it isn't that they didn't check with the PD right away. They didn't for at least 3 weeks. If they wanted to keep it a secret, they could have just had Gray report a lost phone, no mention of it being an Apple prototype. Not really relevant anyway. Finder didn't turn it in and Apple didn't report a lost phone. Lots of ways to play what-if, but it doesn't really mean anything as to what actually occurred and the ramifications.
Apple does not have a formal flagging process for reporting stolen property. If you have lost or found an Apple product, please contact your local law enforcement agency to report it."
If you find an Apple product, you can call AppleCare and give them the serial number and they will forward your contact info to the last registered owner but Apple will not give you any info of the owner.
In this case, AppleCare would look it up and see the serial number was not valid and likely either simply make a note of it in some database or tell them it's not a "real" Apple product.
I guess if you kept insisting it was something "different" but you are sure it is an Apple product, they may pass it on to a supervisor.
They may have shown up at the finders residence the same day or day before the police searched Chen's place (the fact that Apple showed up at all to search a private residence is sort of scary/weird), we don't really know when.
But it isn't that they didn't check with the PD right away. They didn't for at least 3 weeks. If they wanted to keep it a secret, they could have just had Gray report a lost phone, no mention of it being an Apple prototype. Not really relevant anyway. Finder didn't turn it in and Apple didn't report a lost phone. Lots of ways to play what-if, but it doesn't really mean anything as to what actually occurred and the ramifications.
There are no ramifications. We don't even know how long it was before he reported it. They guy who had it wasn't clear as to how long he had it before it was locked.
But it doesn't matter anyway. They obviously did an investigation first, as would be expected.
Apple does not have a formal flagging process for reporting stolen property. If you have lost or found an Apple product, please contact your local law enforcement agency to report it."
If you find an Apple product, you can call AppleCare and give them the serial number and they will forward your contact info to the last registered owner but Apple will not give you any info of the owner.
In this case, AppleCare would look it up and see the serial number was not valid and likely either simply make a note of it in some database or tell them it's not a "real" Apple product.
I guess if you kept insisting it was something "different" but you are sure it is an Apple product, they may pass it on to a supervisor.
hat's Applecare. But this guy said they gave him a trouble number or something to that effect. I see no reason to dispute that. Apple must have a legal policy in place. They don't want thousands of people expecting them to find the owners of lost property. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if you came in with it. As I said, I'll ask tomorrow.
There are no ramifications. We don't even know how long it was before he reported it. They guy who had it wasn't clear as to how long he had it before it was locked.
But it doesn't matter anyway. They obviously did an investigation first, as would be expected.
The Giz story said the phone was deactivated by the morning after he found it. Apple may have done an investigation immediately, but it must have been mainly internal, if they didn't check with the PD for any lost items.
By ramifications, I meant ramifications of what actually occurred, i.e. him selling it to giz and the subsequent story, theft report and search warrant.
Apple does not have a formal flagging process for reporting stolen property. If you have lost or found an Apple product, please contact your local law enforcement agency to report it."
In light of these recent events they should add the following:
"If you find a potential Apple product, please DO NOT sell it to a tech website, or we will come after you"
In other news, this may be the quickest way to get on Apple campus and maybe meet El Jobso
I've been away from the computer for several hours, and now see several interesting articles about this on DaringFireball.
Apparently this guy, now identified as Brian J. Hogan, never contacted Apple as he said he did originally, when he was still anonymous. Now he says that a friend OFFERED to call. What a mess. Scroll down a bit for the articles:
I've been away from the computer for several hours, and now see several interesting articles about this on DaringFireball.
Apparently this guy, now identified as Brian J. Hogan, never contacted Apple as he said he did originally, when he was still anonymous. Now he says that a friend OFFERED to call. What a mess. Scroll down a bit for the articles:
I stated before that I believed the Gizmodo story was lacking in some key elements. This is just the first.
The interesting thing will be when they check phone logs to see if the 'finder' had been in contact with Gizmodo before he went into the bar. I'm betting that they had - and that this wasn't a case of simply finding a phone someone dropped. I think that Powell was targeted.
I can't agree with that. Apparently Apple showed up at this guys apartment before the police did. It's very likely that they did a quiet search before getting the police involved so as to attempt to keep the publicity down. [snip]
From what I've been reading, the finder's roommate turned the Apple representatives away, being that they're (the people at the apartment) are under no obligation to allow them in to search even if they do represent a large corporation.
They were probably there to imply a "just give it to us and we'll let the whole thing go quietly", but it's still creepy and weird.
I stated before that I believed the Gizmodo story was lacking in some key elements. This is just the first.
The interesting thing will be when they check phone logs to see if the 'finder' had been in contact with Gizmodo before he went into the bar. I'm betting that they had - and that this wasn't a case of simply finding a phone someone dropped. I think that Powell was targeted.
From what I've been reading, the finder's roommate turned the Apple representatives away, being that they're (the people at the apartment) are under no obligation to allow them in to search even if they do represent a large corporation.
They were probably there to imply a "just give it to us and we'll let the whole thing go quietly", but it's still creepy and weird.
I don't blame them for doing their own checks first. That's what security and detective agencies are for.
I don't blame them for doing their own checks first. That's what security and detective agencies are for.
I would fully expect them to do their own investigation and information gathering. But, showing up and asking to search a private residence gets into an area I don't like. Imagine some investigators from a corporation showing up at your door and asking to have a look around. At that point it starts to get a bit creepy. When the Hon Hai/Foxconn employee committed suicide a while back, part of what the company was being looked at for was the search of Sun's home. They should have left attempted home searches to the police.
I would fully expect them to do their own investigation and information gathering. But, showing up and asking to search a private residence gets into an area I don't like. Imagine some investigators from a corporation showing up at your door and asking to have a look around. At that point it starts to get a bit creepy. When the Hon Hai/Foxconn employee committed suicide a while back, part of what the company was being looked at for was the search of Sun's home. They should have left attempted home searches to the police.
I don't mind them asking. I can always say no. You can bet that if I did agree, I would have them sign a paper that I would write very carefully.
Of course, if I were guilty, and had the evidence there, I wouldn't let them enter. Then gain, I wouldn't be doing something like this in the first place.
I don't mind them asking. I can always say no. You can bet that if I did agree, I would have them sign a paper that I would write very carefully.
Of course, if I were guilty, and had the evidence there, I wouldn't let them enter. Then gain, I wouldn't be doing something like this in the first place.
oh hell, if you had done something like this and you did have evidence laying around, probably the best thing you could do would be to let them in. What better way to taint any evidence they find than by having the victim be the investigator?
But in the more likely case that you had nothing to do with anything but you weren't home. Maybe your 18 year old daughter or nephew was housesitting or you had a roommate. If the housesitter/roommate let them in to rummage through my home, I would have a major problem with that. And they story that we have so far says that the roommate was home and they asked him for permission to enter and search.
oh hell, if you had done something like this and you did have evidence laying around, probably the best thing you could do would be to let them in. What better way to taint any evidence they find than by having the victim be the investigator?
That's taking a big chance. It's likely they know the law pretty well.
Quote:
But in the more likely case that you had nothing to do with anything but you weren't home. Maybe your 18 year old daughter or nephew was housesitting or you had a roommate. If the housesitter/roommate let them in to rummage through my home, I would have a major problem with that. And they story that we have so far says that the roommate was home and they asked him for permission to enter and search.
Well, my daughter was always told to never let anyone in the house unless they were expected, or friends of ours. Even at 18, when she's home, she wouldn't do it. If they were police with a warrant, then it would be different. But she wouldn't let someone from the gas company, or from any other company in. I told her that even if they ask to use the bathroom, to say that she was told to say no for her own safety.
We do let our mailman in though, as he's sort of a friend. But she wouldn't.
That's taking a big chance. It's likely they know the law pretty well.
It is taking a big chance, yet they asked anyway. What good could have come of it for them? The story was already out. Them, just searching, would make anything found on the premises then or later questionable at trial.
Edit: also, they might be very convincing to a young adult, with claims of them investigating a possible crime, even without a warrant.
Comments
It is different. But even if Giz wasn't behind the planning or didn't direct the person as to where they could find the Apple engineer (and what he looked like, when he would be there, etc) the finder would still have to take a number of steps to steal the phone from the engineer that don't really seem plausible. They would need to:
-Find the right group of Apple employees to watch
-Find the right employee in the group to focus on, being the one that has the top secret, disguised prototype
-Get close enough to this person to see that the UI of the phone he was using was subtly different than a stock OS3 or a jailbroken iPhone. A person carrying a top secret device that is not allowed to be seen by anyone might just be a little wary of stranger staring at their top secret device up close.
-Find an opportunity to bump up to the engineer and lift the phone from his pocket without the engineer or anyone from his group noticing.
This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch, unless the thief was very, very good and very experienced. And if he was, does it make sense that he would shop it around to multiple parties and risk exposure (as this person did) or that he, as an experienced thief, would go directly to the most likely party to pay immediately? This all just pushes the bounds of reality. It doesn't make sense. Some one actually invoked Occam's Razor to show this was the most reasonable series of events for the phone leaving the bar (except they also assumed Giz directed it all).
I suppose if the master pickpocket and thief wasn't fully aware of exactly how to identify a disguised iPhone prototype and exactly which Apple employee had a phone out that night (if at all) we might expect he would have been picking a lot of pockets trying to score the right one. We haven't heard any reports of mass thefts that night/week in the area. That also would have been a quick way to get caught. Faster even than calling a bunch of strangers to ask them if they want to buy it.
If it was stolen from the bar, the only explanation that makes any sense is that it was a simple crime of opportunity. They didn't know what to do with the strange device afterwards, realized it might be a prototype and shopped it around. Perhaps they had heard that some tech site was offering a bounty for early iPad access but weren't sure which, so they call the ones the could think of...Wired, Engadget and Gizmodo. Sure as hell makes more sense than the convoluted fantasies others have proposed.
Or a drunk dude left it behind at a bar.
Occam's Razor, indeed.
I agree with your last paragraph. That's the only reasonable explanation. and later, when he found out that he could get money for it, he jumped at the chance.
It's interesting that Engadget also published some pictures of the phone before Gizmodo did that this guy had sent, or they took themselves, I forget which. But they aren't in trouble, because they didn't buy the phone, and didn't take it apart.
I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.
Police departments probably don't do a whole lot of investigation regarding lost property that is turned in. If the finder had turned in the phone shortly after finding it, it might have gone in a bin as just another lost phone, the police would have made their public notice that no one reads. Who knows if Apple would ever reported it lost or inquired at the PD...it seems they didn't after 3 weeks of it being missing. This is what a truly honest finder would have done. I believe that finder in this case was unscrupulous. He likely realized that even if it all worked out well for him by turning it in and becoming its owner after 90 days, that would have essentially been in the time frame that it has generally been assumed the new iPhone would be announced or released. He could ebay it at that point, legally, but the value would have dropped substantially. Depending on how far away from the launch it was, he could have legally sold it to Giz for a substantial amount.
I didn't being up the whole 90 limit to give anyone a pass or to argue how they might covered themselves legally. It was simply someone asked how long a person has to turn in lost property after finding it (a day, a week, a month)? There is no specified time. I brought up the 90 day limit, as it is the only time limit specified in the civil lost property statutes. It hasn't even been 90 days since it was lost, so it isn't like this could be used to defend anyone. Simple a part of the discussion on the statutes involved.
I can't agree with that. Apparently Apple showed up at this guys apartment before the police did. It's very likely that they did a quiet search before getting the police involved so as to attempt to keep the publicity down. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered some money at first. That's usually how this works. Once they knew it was going public before they could find it, they would be forced to go to the police.
The fact that they didn't do so right away means nothing in a case like this.
Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
You're doubting it, so YOU should make that call. Of course, right now, with all this going on, they have likely had a number of pranks.
I can't agree with that. Apparently Apple showed up at this guys apartment before the police did. It's very likely that they did a quiet search before getting the police involved so as to attempt to keep the publicity down. I wouldn't be surprised if they offered some money at first. That's usually how this works. Once they knew it was going public before they could find it, they would be forced to go to the police.
The fact that they didn't do so right away means nothing in a case like this.
They may have shown up at the finders residence the same day or day before the police searched Chen's place (the fact that Apple showed up at all to search a private residence is sort of scary/weird), we don't really know when.
But it isn't that they didn't check with the PD right away. They didn't for at least 3 weeks. If they wanted to keep it a secret, they could have just had Gray report a lost phone, no mention of it being an Apple prototype. Not really relevant anyway. Finder didn't turn it in and Apple didn't report a lost phone. Lots of ways to play what-if, but it doesn't really mean anything as to what actually occurred and the ramifications.
Tomorrow, I'm going to an Apple store here in NYC to get my 3G iPad. I'll ask about reporting a lost piece of Apple goods
-> How to report lost or stolen Apple product?
"Last Modified: August 05, 2008
Article: HT2526
Old Article: 300066
Summary
How to report lost or stolen Apple product?
Apple does not have a formal flagging process for reporting stolen property. If you have lost or found an Apple product, please contact your local law enforcement agency to report it."
If you find an Apple product, you can call AppleCare and give them the serial number and they will forward your contact info to the last registered owner but Apple will not give you any info of the owner.
In this case, AppleCare would look it up and see the serial number was not valid and likely either simply make a note of it in some database or tell them it's not a "real" Apple product.
I guess if you kept insisting it was something "different" but you are sure it is an Apple product, they may pass it on to a supervisor.
They may have shown up at the finders residence the same day or day before the police searched Chen's place (the fact that Apple showed up at all to search a private residence is sort of scary/weird), we don't really know when.
But it isn't that they didn't check with the PD right away. They didn't for at least 3 weeks. If they wanted to keep it a secret, they could have just had Gray report a lost phone, no mention of it being an Apple prototype. Not really relevant anyway. Finder didn't turn it in and Apple didn't report a lost phone. Lots of ways to play what-if, but it doesn't really mean anything as to what actually occurred and the ramifications.
There are no ramifications. We don't even know how long it was before he reported it. They guy who had it wasn't clear as to how long he had it before it was locked.
But it doesn't matter anyway. They obviously did an investigation first, as would be expected.
-> How to report lost or stolen Apple product?
"Last Modified: August 05, 2008
Article: HT2526
Old Article: 300066
Summary
How to report lost or stolen Apple product?
Apple does not have a formal flagging process for reporting stolen property. If you have lost or found an Apple product, please contact your local law enforcement agency to report it."
If you find an Apple product, you can call AppleCare and give them the serial number and they will forward your contact info to the last registered owner but Apple will not give you any info of the owner.
In this case, AppleCare would look it up and see the serial number was not valid and likely either simply make a note of it in some database or tell them it's not a "real" Apple product.
I guess if you kept insisting it was something "different" but you are sure it is an Apple product, they may pass it on to a supervisor.
hat's Applecare. But this guy said they gave him a trouble number or something to that effect. I see no reason to dispute that. Apple must have a legal policy in place. They don't want thousands of people expecting them to find the owners of lost property. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if you came in with it. As I said, I'll ask tomorrow.
There are no ramifications. We don't even know how long it was before he reported it. They guy who had it wasn't clear as to how long he had it before it was locked.
But it doesn't matter anyway. They obviously did an investigation first, as would be expected.
The Giz story said the phone was deactivated by the morning after he found it. Apple may have done an investigation immediately, but it must have been mainly internal, if they didn't check with the PD for any lost items.
By ramifications, I meant ramifications of what actually occurred, i.e. him selling it to giz and the subsequent story, theft report and search warrant.
-> How to report lost or stolen Apple product?
"Last Modified: August 05, 2008
Article: HT2526
Old Article: 300066
Summary
How to report lost or stolen Apple product?
Apple does not have a formal flagging process for reporting stolen property. If you have lost or found an Apple product, please contact your local law enforcement agency to report it."
In light of these recent events they should add the following:
"If you find a potential Apple product, please DO NOT sell it to a tech website, or we will come after you"
In other news, this may be the quickest way to get on Apple campus and maybe meet El Jobso
Apparently this guy, now identified as Brian J. Hogan, never contacted Apple as he said he did originally, when he was still anonymous. Now he says that a friend OFFERED to call. What a mess. Scroll down a bit for the articles:
http://daringfireball.net/
I've been away from the computer for several hours, and now see several interesting articles about this on DaringFireball.
Apparently this guy, now identified as Brian J. Hogan, never contacted Apple as he said he did originally, when he was still anonymous. Now he says that a friend OFFERED to call. What a mess. Scroll down a bit for the articles:
http://daringfireball.net/
I stated before that I believed the Gizmodo story was lacking in some key elements. This is just the first.
The interesting thing will be when they check phone logs to see if the 'finder' had been in contact with Gizmodo before he went into the bar. I'm betting that they had - and that this wasn't a case of simply finding a phone someone dropped. I think that Powell was targeted.
I can't agree with that. Apparently Apple showed up at this guys apartment before the police did. It's very likely that they did a quiet search before getting the police involved so as to attempt to keep the publicity down. [snip]
From what I've been reading, the finder's roommate turned the Apple representatives away, being that they're (the people at the apartment) are under no obligation to allow them in to search even if they do represent a large corporation.
They were probably there to imply a "just give it to us and we'll let the whole thing go quietly", but it's still creepy and weird.
I stated before that I believed the Gizmodo story was lacking in some key elements. This is just the first.
The interesting thing will be when they check phone logs to see if the 'finder' had been in contact with Gizmodo before he went into the bar. I'm betting that they had - and that this wasn't a case of simply finding a phone someone dropped. I think that Powell was targeted.
I still don't believe the targeting bit.
From what I've been reading, the finder's roommate turned the Apple representatives away, being that they're (the people at the apartment) are under no obligation to allow them in to search even if they do represent a large corporation.
They were probably there to imply a "just give it to us and we'll let the whole thing go quietly", but it's still creepy and weird.
I don't blame them for doing their own checks first. That's what security and detective agencies are for.
I don't blame them for doing their own checks first. That's what security and detective agencies are for.
I would fully expect them to do their own investigation and information gathering. But, showing up and asking to search a private residence gets into an area I don't like. Imagine some investigators from a corporation showing up at your door and asking to have a look around. At that point it starts to get a bit creepy. When the Hon Hai/Foxconn employee committed suicide a while back, part of what the company was being looked at for was the search of Sun's home. They should have left attempted home searches to the police.
I would fully expect them to do their own investigation and information gathering. But, showing up and asking to search a private residence gets into an area I don't like. Imagine some investigators from a corporation showing up at your door and asking to have a look around. At that point it starts to get a bit creepy. When the Hon Hai/Foxconn employee committed suicide a while back, part of what the company was being looked at for was the search of Sun's home. They should have left attempted home searches to the police.
I don't mind them asking. I can always say no. You can bet that if I did agree, I would have them sign a paper that I would write very carefully.
Of course, if I were guilty, and had the evidence there, I wouldn't let them enter. Then gain, I wouldn't be doing something like this in the first place.
I don't mind them asking. I can always say no. You can bet that if I did agree, I would have them sign a paper that I would write very carefully.
Of course, if I were guilty, and had the evidence there, I wouldn't let them enter. Then gain, I wouldn't be doing something like this in the first place.
oh hell, if you had done something like this and you did have evidence laying around, probably the best thing you could do would be to let them in. What better way to taint any evidence they find than by having the victim be the investigator?
But in the more likely case that you had nothing to do with anything but you weren't home. Maybe your 18 year old daughter or nephew was housesitting or you had a roommate. If the housesitter/roommate let them in to rummage through my home, I would have a major problem with that. And they story that we have so far says that the roommate was home and they asked him for permission to enter and search.
oh hell, if you had done something like this and you did have evidence laying around, probably the best thing you could do would be to let them in. What better way to taint any evidence they find than by having the victim be the investigator?
That's taking a big chance. It's likely they know the law pretty well.
But in the more likely case that you had nothing to do with anything but you weren't home. Maybe your 18 year old daughter or nephew was housesitting or you had a roommate. If the housesitter/roommate let them in to rummage through my home, I would have a major problem with that. And they story that we have so far says that the roommate was home and they asked him for permission to enter and search.
Well, my daughter was always told to never let anyone in the house unless they were expected, or friends of ours. Even at 18, when she's home, she wouldn't do it. If they were police with a warrant, then it would be different. But she wouldn't let someone from the gas company, or from any other company in. I told her that even if they ask to use the bathroom, to say that she was told to say no for her own safety.
We do let our mailman in though, as he's sort of a friend. But she wouldn't.
That's taking a big chance. It's likely they know the law pretty well.
It is taking a big chance, yet they asked anyway. What good could have come of it for them? The story was already out. Them, just searching, would make anything found on the premises then or later questionable at trial.
Edit: also, they might be very convincing to a young adult, with claims of them investigating a possible crime, even without a warrant.