Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Photo of Stolen Ring Puts Couple In Jail
An anonymous reader writes "A Facebook photo of a stolen 3 carat diamond ring recently helped police solve a jewelry theft. After rings and other items valued at more than $16,000 were taken from a home on Saturday, a friend of the victim's roommate saw one of the items on the social network. 20-year-old Crystal Yamnitzky captioned the photo with the following message: 'Look what Robby gave me I love him so much,' in reference to her 21-year-old boyfriend Robert Driscoll. Yamnitzky's cousin saw the post and told some friends, who alerted police. Both Yamnitzky and Driscoll have been charged in the case."
"Robby", it's more than just his hobby! /I love how they charged the girlfriend (even though she's not just innocent but also oblivious) just so she'll roll on her fiance. //For the record, I'd totally spill my guts, too.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Nothing in the world says "I love you" quite so much as stolen merchandise. I'm so head over heels for my wife that I'm about to go out and knock over a convenience store.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
for solving crimes. Ask any cop.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Assuming the article is accurate, the bride-to-be really had no reason to suspect the ring was stolen.
Now she's permanently tainted with a criminal record for being a victim.
Way to go, justice system.
I thought that philmarcracken's comment was funny.
I have now realized that reality is even funnier, and far more strange.
HermesPod: Free Podcast Download Manager for Windows
I bet she knows all about how "Robby" gets his hands on stuff like this, and appreciates the flow of stolen goods.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Oh handcuffs, you shouldn't have!
No really, you shouldn't have.
It's a crime so she will testify against the ex-boyfriend. Making the case against him stronger.
How many times do we have to read this same type of "Facebook leads to robbery arrest" story? It's getting tired editors.
So, at least according to the police and article author:
1. Dumb woman insists on getting an expensive engagement ring from her boyfriend despite both being broke.
2. Dumb boyfriend steals a ring from dumb woman's cousin's friend's roommate while visiting with dumb woman and her cousin.
3. Dumb boyfriend gives stolen ring to the dumb woman.
4. Dumb woman posts a photo of the ring to facebook.
5. Dumb woman's cousin recognizes the ring.
6. Dumb woman's cousin tells his friends and they call the police.
While (1) to (4) are already incredibly stupid, and (2) is beyond my understanding of stupidity (that is, I can not see the logic, faulty or not, behind making such decision), I have to point out that the person who recognized the ring was dumb woman's cousin AND victim's roommate's friend. Even if dumb woman did not post the photo in (4), he would see her wearing the ring, so (5) and (6) would inevitably follow.
So considering how little importance Facebook has in those events, I have to bring a more important (at least for this site) matter -- SOME PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY STUPID. Stupid to the extent that they choose the worst course of actions available to them in a situation when absolutely nothing compels them to do anything at all. And people like that use technology.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hey, that ring on Slashdot looks familiar...
This is what is so maddening about these crimes. I do not know what the six stolen items were, but I'll bet that some of them had sentimental value to the owners far beyond the intrinsic value of the gold itself, and now they are likely gone forever.
I think receiving stolen property is a crime just so fences can't hide behind saying they unknowingly purchased stolen goods. It also probably has some relevance to money laundering in organised crime. Usually those who legitimately didn't know are just let off.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
If she's dumb enough to be with him, she probably had no idea what it was worth. That, or she thought a $16,000 ring meant he must have mortgaged a kidney, or something.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
I think being a suspect should be a crime, just so criminals can't get away with their crimes. Yeah I know it would put innocent people in jail, but who cares as long as no criminals go free, right?
I still can't figure out why the USA is called the land of the free.
Knowingly receiving stolen property is a serious crime. Receiving it in good faith, without knowledge or suspicion it was stolen is not. It's up to the court to determine which is the case. (you still have to give the property back, and if you paid for it while buying it in good faith you may join the suit against the thief to have your money back)
If she had a good reason to suspect the ring was stolen, she's guilty. But if the boyfriend successfully deceived her into believing this was all legit she'll walk away free.
(yes, she can lie her way out of this one even if she's guilty, if she's clever enough. OTOH she doesn't sound very clever.)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Lets face it, none of the people involved sound all that bright. She was either dumb enough to believe it was legit OR she was dumb enough to post an expensive stolen ring on Facebook.
Concern for guilt or innocence is out of fashion in the DA's office these days. They prefer to just railroad anyone they can for anything they can.
This took place less than 5 miles from where I live. The neighborhood has really gone down hill recently. I know we can't condemn an entire neighborhood because of the actions of a few individuals, but I would bet money that at least one of the members of this couple has cocaine problem.
This is just a case of "cokehead's girlfriend blabs and they both got busted', the facebook angle isn't particularly novel...
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
She's getting married at twenty. She's with a thief. And apparently a druggie. I suspect she already had plenty of experience with the justice system.
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in California it is only illegal to possess something if you have reason to believe it was stolen. "those who legitimately didn't know" aren't "just let off". They simply aren't guilty (according to the letter of the law).
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"I still can't figure out why the USA is called the land of the free."
It's a classic advertising tactic. Take your vulnerability and state it to be otherwise.
Ohhh.. I see what you did there, shame on you
Not to suggest she knew anything about diamonds, but the price for a 3 carat ring can vary a lot depending on its quality and source. A $16,000 3 carat ring is going to look pretty shoddy, even to a someone that doesn't know much about what to look for. Maybe she just figured that he got it at a pawn shop or that it was fake.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
I'm pretty sure she'd have to be found guilty before having a permanent record. However, her name and this article will forever come up in Google searches.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
I hope its more than $16k - or its a very poor quality diamond (bigger is better right?) - there is no way $16k will net you any diamond at 3 carats.
isn't she constitutionally protected against incriminating her partner? or am I thinking of a different country?
isn't she constitutionally protected against incriminating her partner? or am I thinking of a different country?
I'm no lawyer but I think that's only if they are married.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Lets face it, none of the people involved sound all that bright. She was either dumb enough to believe it was legit OR she was dumb enough to post an expensive stolen ring on Facebook.
Or she never matured and grew out of that "attracted to bad boys" stage, so to her it was both proof of his "desirability" AND something to brag about to her friends.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
That much can be derived from her taste in mates alone.
Generally, water seeks its own level.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You're thinking married couples which, in some states, are considered a single legal entity.
These folks aren't married.
well done
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
ah k, that's the confusion, in Australia its "Defacto / married". so if your Defacto in my country you're treated as if you were married... its how the gays here gain a lot of rights by allowing "defacto" relationships without touching the politically destructive "gay's right to marriage" argument.
Robert Driscoll is among the Friends.
Also, she probably created this account - the 3 friends currently in it are common with the above account. My guess is the police have gotten her barred from accessing the first account.
As if that would have ever been an issue for her.
Factor in the 7-month year old daughter too...
I'm hoping that our criminal justice system has a little more to go on than your wager, and that they wouldn't charge her otherwise. I'll reserve judgment since I haven't seen any evidence.
One of them has a kid, though
You insinuated way too much out of that short article. It never states the girlfriend wanted an expensive ring. You called her stupid for no reason, other than not realizing her boyfriend is a thief. She obviously didn't know it was stolen. You had no reason to call her dumb on every line of your post. Bitter angry nerd much?
"In some states?" Pretty sure gp is thinking of the fifth amendment.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Okay...with a not so common name like that, it was easy to find her page. While I feel for her a bit (7 month old, hence the marriage pressure, and the fact that she fell for something like that), I just had to laugh at the current relationship status: It's complicated.
Being charged with a crime isn't being permanently tainted. It's being convicted of a crime that does that.
I don't know how defacto is defined, but nothing in the article mentioned a length of relationship, so common law marriage is out. Does it just mean someone you're fucking?
She definitely had reason to believe it was stolen by her dear Robby McStealerson.
It's more obvious now than it was in the past, but I doubt it's more prevalent. It's the nature of being the prosecutor. If you didn't believe the defendant to be guilty you probably wouldn't have brought charges.
Depends on the crime. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson were both found not guilty.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
3 carat diamond ring is only 16k?
i wish later the police found out the ring is actually fake and they all get double pwn
Actually, what I mean is that it appears that DAs are increasingly willing to bring charges even when it should be obvious the defendant is not guilty, add charges that are clearly inappropriate and insist on the defendant's guilt even when actually proven innocent through forensics. The latter to the point that they have been known to fight the release of a prisoner AFTER they have been unequivocally exonerated.
I suppose all of that could be genuine belief in guilt, but only if the belief has crossed into mental illness, kinda like those guys who genuinely believe the aliens are talking to them in their heads.
It could be that it has always been like that and it just comes to light more often, but that hardly improves matters.
That would be the second case I offered, wouldn't it?
The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable in just 'some states', and even so, only protects oneself from providing incriminating information about them.
What's being referred to is likely what could be called 'spousal testimonial privilege', which would bar the prosecution from compelling a spouse to testify against a defendant (however, the defendant cannot invoke this to prevent testimony against him/her, should the spouse voluntarily be testifying). As far as where it holds true, it seems to be so for Federal cases, and I presume largely varies depending on state for offenses tried in the state, in state courts (Tenth Amendment probably comes in to play here). Largely, though, it wouldn't apply here, since the two were not married--a law allowing a significant other to invoke this sort of privilege without being married would surely bring up the loophole of 'the only witness in the double-murder was my girl/boyfriend', where that person may have been a friend, until the lawyer stepped into the picture. It may also not apply being that both of them are defendants of related crimes (she took possession of property he stole).
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Apples and Moon Rocks. MJ and OJ were celebrities, and with that comes the added spotlight and public discourse. For the common accused criminal, we speak of them in general, and make boogeymen out of stereotypes, but the accused directly sees little ill impact (except from the prospective employer who sees the accusation and goes...ehhhhhh....without caring to know the facts). Celebrities, though, we get snippets of court transcripts that are trimmed and tailored for maximum impact, and whatever the prevailing public opinion largely ends up these guys' view for a while--except for the vocal detractors of that view. Arnie Smith who might have burgled that place last week, though, no one really truly gives a damn.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Well, if she ends up not being found innocent, then she doesn't have a criminal record. If the police have to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" before they can arrest somebody, the justice system might as well not exist. And a reasonable suspicion exists here -- the woman just received a hugely expensive ring from a man who wasn't exactly rich. It is reasonable for the police to think that she might have known that the ring was stolen.
Despite the preview, I messed that one up: s/innocent/guilty/ .
Not to suggest she knew anything about diamonds, but the price for a 3 carat ring can vary a lot depending on its quality and source. A $16,000 3 carat ring is going to look pretty shoddy, even to a someone that doesn't know much about what to look for. Maybe she just figured that he got it at a pawn shop or that it was fake.
I was thinkin that too, right? That's pretty cheap for a 3ct
diamond, by itself... but set? I remember a 1ct VVS1 D
that lightened my pocket for +6.5k, I was like, are you
kidding? Then I was told the supersize was more than
double that.
Please don't buy diamonds people.
If you want to buy an engagement ring,
1) Marry someone smart enough that you can explain the following to them...
2) Diamonds are not rare, they are scooped out of the earth millions of carats at a time each year
[ http://www.infomine.com/minesite/Ekati.html ]
3) Rubies and Emeralds [good ones, non-blood] are far more rare and beautiful
4) Diamonds are worthless as an investment, if you don't believe me, try to sell one.
Try bringing a nice size emerald to a jeweler and watch the salivation begin. Ever see the
"bling" watches? What are they pave with? 2ct of diamonds, that are 2pt in size? Those
100 diamonds are probably worth... $20-$30. Ever see one of those bling watches pave
with rubies or emeralds? You won't. Or if they do use ruby, it'll be synthetic. Or worse,
color treated sapphire.
[yes, I know ruby and sapphire "are the same", however, ruby is considerably more rare]
And for the dbags that say they will never buy a ring.
You're a complete douche man... she's got family and
friends. Do you want her to have to explain to every
single one of them that you're not cheap, you're just
principled? Spend $250... buy a ring.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
I think that if they'd been together / lived together / operated as a married couple for long enough, and the state they were in recognized "common law marriage", she might be able to claim the privilege of not testifying against him. If the poster above who linked to what he thought to be the girlfriend's Facebook page is correct, then they live in Pennsylvania, and Wikipedia says no common-law marriage is available in PA. Of course, I'm too moral a person to be a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice.
Does it just mean someone you're fucking?
De"fuck"to / married...
When I married I made substantially the same arguments. She wanted a diamond solitaire or nothing, it should have been a deal breaker, sigh.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
yes, she can lie her way out of this one even if she's guilty, if she's clever enough. OTOH she doesn't sound very clever.
She doesn't need to be clever. That's what what expensive lawyers are for.
Oh wait, she's broke.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
She absolutely should have suspected the ring was stolen. When someone gives you a $16,000 ring who didn't have the financial means to purchase it in the first place - that is a big red flag.
USA, The land of the free (providing you have lots of money for expensive lawyers)
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
I love how her status is "it's complicated." brilliant
So something that's not a crime (receiving a gift) is made into a crime in order to coerce someone into providing state's evidence. Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's what they taught us in school, yes. But these days you don't even have to be charged with a crime to be detained indefinitely.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Is the "friend of the victim's roommate" also " Yamnitzky's cousin " ? The plot thickens.
Well, there are lab diamonds. They are completely flawless and only about one-third the price, though top out at about a carat. Fancy diamonds hold their value, though they cost a fortune if they are anything but yellow. If you're old fashioned and classy you can go for a star sapphire.
I went the traditional route and while it really made her extremely happy and continues to every time a women complements her on her ring (and in that sense was a good investment), I wasn't too pleased at the financial aspects of it.
I suppose what I did take from the whole experience was that I did learn a hell of a lot about diamonds, which are somewhat fascinating.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Robby, no robbing!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Any background search is going to come up with this incident, she could very well be excluded from getting a job because of this. So although she more then likely won't be convicted of anything she will have this associated with her forever. That seems about right for "not knowing" where her broke boyfriend got a $12,000 ring from.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
That would be the second case I offered, wouldn't it?
An elaboration thereof, yes.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein