FromTheRafters wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>>
>>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a
>>>> substitute teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and
>>>> had been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another
>>>> student at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the
>>>> laptop at a bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was
>>>> stolen, and turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for
>>>> $60. Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at
>>>> Kiefer,
>>>> says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the
>>>> laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a new one.
>>>> She asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>>
>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow,
>>>> had recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart,
>>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just purchased.
>>>>
>>>> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
>>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>>
>>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is
>>> gonna fly.
>>
>> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.
>
> The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in
> court.

Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to
present for a case to go forward.

> The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
> of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.

Actually, people aren't found innocent. They are found "not guilty."

Consider OJ Simpson. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard
to meet.

http://www.google.com/search?q=beyon...w=1324&bih=876

or the short form:

http://preview.************/3jocxbe

On the other hand, having the charges dropped often means the case was a
non-starter.

>> The issue now is something entirely different, and she has a good
>> chance of winning.

They went too far, but she's allowed her embarrassment to get the better
of her. On the other hand, if it's handled correctly, it wil establish a
standard.

> Right, now she is not the defendant and the charge is not stolen
> property.
> I suspect they will be found guilty because of how they handled the
> information rather than how they gained it.

In civil cases, guilt is not the issue. It's all about liability. In
this case, that liability should turn on both issues.