An Iowa man asked Best Buy's Geek Squad to fix his laptop after a gravy spill. He ended up in handcuffs, police said.
Robert Leo Watson, 54, was arrested Wednesday after employees at the electronic store discovered documents they suspected were child pornography, the Des Moines Register reported. Watson brought his laptop to Best Buy in an attempt to save his files after he spilled gravy on the device.
The Geek Squad employees made the disturbing discovery while they were transferring the files from the "gravy-covered computer" to a new device, the report said. They contacted police, who took both laptops as evidence and arrested Watson on 10 counts of child porn possession.
Watson described several of the images found on the laptop and admitted to labeling the files as "13 year old" and "14 year old's," Des Moines Register reported.
[
Gravy huh...
Was it white?
Quite possibly so
I wonder where he got the sauce files from?
Quote from: "Odinson"
Was it white?
:beurk:
Quote from: "cc"
An Iowa man asked Best Buy's Geek Squad to fix his laptop after a gravy spill. He ended up in handcuffs, police said.
Robert Leo Watson, 54, was arrested Wednesday after employees at the electronic store discovered documents they suspected were child pornography, the Des Moines Register reported. Watson brought his laptop to Best Buy in an attempt to save his files after he spilled gravy on the device.
The Geek Squad employees made the disturbing discovery while they were transferring the files from the "gravy-covered computer" to a new device, the report said. They contacted police, who took both laptops as evidence and arrested Watson on 10 counts of child porn possession.
Watson described several of the images found on the laptop and admitted to labeling the files as "13 year old" and "14 year old's," Des Moines Register reported.
[
Is he ever stupid.
I wouldnt be surprised if he walked out of that court-room without any kind of punishment..
Thats a very suspicious way to acquire evidence.. Might render everything inadmissible.
Cops need warrants, permits and all that to acquire admissible evidence.
That laptop is private up until the point the judge says its not..
You raise an interesting point...however, not for the reason you cite.
If the files are viewed during a lawful process, then the evidence is admissible. Courts hold the view that offering your device to a third party for repairs gives tacit (implied) consent to them to do what is necessary to complete the required work. If, during that process offensive material is viewed, then it's fair game.
However, if he gave them the laptop to clean the screen and keyboard, and the repairers decided to view the files without just cause, then he may have an argument. I'm pretty sure these days that any evidence of child sexual abuse must be reported by law. This is why the Catholic Church and their moronic "confessional" is at odds with governments everywhere; they will be compelled to report confessions of child abuse, thus losing the sanctity of the confessional booth. Not before time, I might add.
There is another wrinkle; it can be argued by the defence that the laptop was used by others when it was not in the defendant's possession. In other words, the repairers either put the files there erroneously or deliberately. Remember, the defence only has to create reasonable doubt...not proof of innocence.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
That all sounds correct to me in terms of local law here. But it also reminds me that there is a really dirty forensic cop here who is an expert at loading stuff on people's computers without ever touching them. And there is other stuff that will gag even you. I'd like to tell you about him and his son, but not on a public thread. Just curious whether you might have insight into something he overlooked.
I'm not aware of any such controversy. Planting evidence is not a new phenomenon, by any means, however.
Dirty cops know all about doing that
Dirty cops know all about doing that
Quote from: "Peaches"
Quote from: "Bricktop"
That all sounds correct to me in terms of local law here. But it also reminds me that there is a really dirty forensic cop here who is an expert at loading stuff on people's computers without ever touching them. And there is other stuff that will gag even you. I'd like to tell you about him and his son, but not on a public thread. Just curious whether you might have insight into something he overlooked.
ac_dunno
If a repairer, or anyone for that matter, puts files on they would also have to have the ability to re- date them in a way that could not be traced
Setting the clock back no longer works as they have ways to spot it
Seems today, for illicit every move there is a way to spot it
Quote from: "cc"
Setting the clock back no longer works as they have ways to spot it
Seems today, for illicit every move there is a way to spot it
I wasn't sure how it worked. You seem more tech savvy tjan I am.
At the end of the day, the prosecutor still has to prove "actus reus"...the guilty action.
If there is reasonable doubt that it was not the defendant who committed the act, he walks.
However, that said, in this case I would back a pretty stiff gaol sentence.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
If there is reasonable doubt that it was not the defendant who committed the act, he walks.
However, that said, in this case I would back a pretty stiff gaol sentence.
He is guilty.
I would have thought so, but so is Jussie Smollett.
Quote from: "Bricktop"
The pedophile is not a celebrity though.
Nor black.
He's screwed.