The gold standard for an inside job...

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
"...the trial was presented with the prospect that a puck could be concealed in an anal cavity and not be detected by the wand. In preparation for these proceedings, in fact, a security employee actually tested the idea..."
Goodness. Someone needs a raise.
Pictures or it didn't happen.:eek:
 

DickCappels

Joined Aug 21, 2008
10,140
The humorous aspects aside, what bothers me is that a man was charged with and tried for a crime when there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. Such things are not allowed in most of the Western world as far as I know.
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,212
The humorous aspects aside, what bothers me is that a man was charged with and tried for a crime when there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. Such things are not allowed in most of the Western world as far as I know.
That is true. But the circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming.
And still, it remains circumstantial.

In the end, what could sink the accused is the question of where he got the money that was deposited in his account.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,998
The humorous aspects aside, what bothers me is that a man was charged with and tried for a crime when there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. Such things are not allowed in most of the Western world as far as I know.
There's plenty of indicators of a crime. The legal stand in criminal law that untraceable amounts of gold was transported by some dark and ribald method is a direct inference in order to support the truth of an assertion of guilt. It's not much of a stretch to say where and how he amassed his Booty.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,495
In the end...
Insert joke.

I found this compelling evidence that is beyond circumstantial:
"Although the prosecution couldn't definitively identify the pucks Lawrence sold, they did say they matched an exclusive mold the Mint uses."
I don't know how definitive the mold data were, but if they are like fingerprints, the only way he could sell one is to have stolen it beforehand.
 

ErnieM

Joined Apr 24, 2011
8,377
I don't know nothin bout Canadian law but when the victim here, being the mint, cannot show a loss you do not have evidence of a crime to begin with.

Now popping up with 180K without any explanation looks suspicious here in the states we have an absolute right not to incriminate yourself. Here we can stand mute as any and all accusations are presented and offer no explanatation whatsoever.

It is oft not the crime but the coverup that causes ruin, just ask Martha Stewart.


Put me on that jury and I vote not guilty on these facts (while I glare at the prosecutor for mucking up what should be a no brainier conviction).
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,220
I don't know nothin bout Canadian law but when the victim here, being the mint, cannot show a loss you do not have evidence of a crime to begin with.

Now popping up with 180K without any explanation looks suspicious here in the states we have an absolute right not to incriminate yourself. Here we can stand mute as any and all accusations are presented and offer no explanatation whatsoever.

It is oft not the crime but the coverup that causes ruin, just ask Martha Stewart.


Put me on that jury and I vote not guilty on these facts (while I glare at the prosecutor for mucking up what should be a no brainier conviction).
"Possession is 9/10's of the law..."
 
Top