Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nothing in that statement is evidence, and if it was it would be self incriminating, so the person isn't compelled to give up that information.
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there. In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there.
In the sense of "I'm not going to give you more evidence to send me to prison for ever".
Yes it's perfectly legal for a defendant to not self incriminate.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nothing in that statement is evidence, and if it was it would be self incriminating, so the person isn't compelled to give up that information.
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there. In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
Anything the police claimed they knew was on there because of the suspect's statement would probably be considered hearsay. They don't actually know first hand what's there... Just because the suspect said they know doesn't constitute proof.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
This is all theory in your head, the defendant was obviously charged due to some other amount of information. The police wanted to dig for more and targeted his computer so they could prosecute him for additional instances.
His computer is clearly encrypted, and the password is in his own head, how you feel one should be compelled to give up their password is the same that you should be compelled to give me your bank account details.
It doesn't add up or make any sense.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nothing in that statement is evidence, and if it was it would be self incriminating, so the person isn't compelled to give up that information.
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there. In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
Anything the police claimed they knew was on there because of the suspect's statement would probably be considered hearsay. They don't actually know first hand what's there... Just because the suspect said they know doesn't constitute proof.
Hearsay is likely, but a statement during an investigation isn't always weak or strong. It could some times be very strong evidence.
The issue comes from the fact that the police are attempting to force the defendant to compelled speech. Which is illegal under the constitution.
He cannot be forced to say something, period. Regardless of what he's accused of doing.
-
Think of the children: FBI sought Interpol statement against end-to-end crypto
TL:DR The DOJ is asking Interpol to support backdoors in end-to-end encryption.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there.
In the sense of "I'm not going to give you more evidence to send me to prison for ever".
Yes it's perfectly legal for a defendant to not self incriminate.
Except that in no way reflects anything I said. I'm not sure who you are answering.
I'm saying he self incriminated. Plain and simple. What he is allowed or not allowed to do is a different discussion.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nothing in that statement is evidence, and if it was it would be self incriminating, so the person isn't compelled to give up that information.
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there. In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
Anything the police claimed they knew was on there because of the suspect's statement would probably be considered hearsay. They don't actually know first hand what's there... Just because the suspect said they know doesn't constitute proof.
Doesn't it? It's proof that he admitted to anything that they say is on there. That's admission. And admission does not require further proof.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
This is all theory in your head, the defendant was obviously charged due to some other amount of information.
It's not a theory, I read what he stated. It is what it is. He admitted to what was on there. Why would they need to prove what he already admitted to?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
how you feel one should be compelled to give up their password is the same that you should be compelled to give me your bank account details.
How you think I said anything related to that is confusing. I never spoke about him giving up his password, only that they didn't need his password since they had his admission already.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
I'm saying he self incriminated. Plain and simple. What he is allowed or not allowed to do is a different discussion.
No, he made a statement, he wasn't compelled to say anything, but he chose to tell the officers "We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Anything that the police believe to be on there, and force the defendant to provide is compelled speech. As he clearly isn't willfully giving up the password to his encrypted computer system.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Doesn't it? It's proof that he admitted to anything that they say is on there. That's admission. And admission does not require further proof.
So if you make a statement when you get pulled over "No officer, I only drink on days that end in Y" does that mean the officer should be able to charge you with a DWI for every day of the week before he pulled you over?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
How you think I said anything related to that is confusing. I never spoke about him giving up his password, only that they didn't need his password since they had his admission already.
It's incriminating to the point that, they have charged him with something and as a defendant he cannot be force to incriminate himself in additional crimes.
It's the DOJ's job to get into the system by breaking the encryption or by the defendant willfully giving up his password.
You're missing the fact that he's been charged with something, the police want to charge him with potential other things that they SUSPECT he's done, but cannot prove with the evidence from his computer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nothing in that statement is evidence, and if it was it would be self incriminating, so the person isn't compelled to give up that information.
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there. In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
Anything the police claimed they knew was on there because of the suspect's statement would probably be considered hearsay. They don't actually know first hand what's there... Just because the suspect said they know doesn't constitute proof.
Doesn't it? It's proof that he admitted to anything that they say is on there. That's admission. And admission does not require further proof.
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list... it could literally mean anything, he didn't admit to having anything on there. We all know there's drivers and a filesystem, nothing incriminating about that. The defense would ask if the police have been in his computer and seen something incriminating, as soon as they said "well... no," the entirety of their claims would mean nothing.
-
@bnrstnr exactly.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
You're absolutely wrong here.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
The defense would ask if the police have been in his computer and seen something incriminating, as soon as they said "well... no," the entirety of their claims would mean nothing.
And they'd say "that's irrelevant because we already have established proof from the defendant that they know what is on there, how they know doesn't matter since it is established that they know."
It's like saying you are in the room, but asking someone to prove how they know that you got there. But that doesn't matter, the witness saw you in the room. The question isn't "how did you get here", it's "are you here."
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
No he didn't he stated.
""We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
