doesn't that p0ison their case against him?
post <-- letters
An Ohio man pleaded not guilty today to charges that he hacked into a pair of police websites in Salt Lake City, Utah in January. John Anthony Borell III, a 21 year old from Ohio, made the plea at an arraignment hearing in Salt Lake City today, AP reports. He faces up to ten years inside and a $250,000 fine if found guilty on …
post <-- letters
If you're dumb enough to poke a tiger with a stick, expect to get your arse bit.
Even if we accept without proof that the website was actually hacked in the first place - ssomething that legally must be proven at trial first - this specific individual is only a suspect, you legally cannot say that he did it unless he has been found guilty.
Otherwise you are being prejudicial, may be in contempt and may cause a mistrial.
You would expect a police spokesperson to know that.
It is alleged that this guy hacked the site. That is all.
I'd also expect a police spokesperson to know how to spell "media enquiries" (or "media inquiries" if you want to get American about it).
Twitter is turning us into a planet of fuckwits.
"Alleged X" instead of "X"
Something the US media really needs to learn how to do.
We shouldn't be too hard on Salt Lake's finest, police always assume Guilt and the US are worse than Canada or UK, but still, if you don't think someone is guilty, it's a bit difficult to justify arresting them.
The idea that someone is innocent until prooved guilty just does not penetrate the mind of your average LEO, they tend to work on Occam's Razor. Remember folks if your management is elected on being tough on crime and providing a low cost service, then innocence is an expensive inconveniance to your next electoral campaign, as the UK is probably about to find out.
Mind you if you work in a job where 90% of the people you deal with are hiding something, it can be very difficult to be totally objective.
There must be some very naive folks here if you expect perps to admit guilt. Pirates and hackers don't even believe the laws apply to them so how could they possibly admit guilt?
If I was the alleged hacker's lawyer, I'd use that Tweet to my advantage, that's for sure.
You would have to show that the tweet could influence a jury, and given that Tweeting is generally the domain of the nerds, and the particular Twitter channel is unlikely to be perused by anyone other than law enforcement and ne'er-do-wells/criminals, that is a very unlikely outcome.
"Tweeting" isn't a domain for nerds, and never has been.
Unless Katy Price is a nerd, in which case I no longer understand what the word means.
"Your honor my client is not guilty of hacking because of a Tweet." Duh.
Maybe he'd have more success pleading guilty of stupidity and offering up that he's a TWIT?
given that they're using a tweet as evidence for his guilt, it'd be rather fitting