["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
On 2011-09-02, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
> "unruh" <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnj5vvrm.6b3.unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca. ..
>> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present
>>>> for
>>>> a case to go forward.
>>>
>>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>>
>> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
>> is up to the state.
>> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
>> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.
>
> Which also means that the "I didn't know it was stolen" claim went
> untested on that charge. Despite picking nits, I still don't think it flies.
> The price, and the source, and the serial number being obliterated
> seem to be enough clues for anyone.

It was tested, by the prosecutor. Who is a lawyer.


>
>