Woman found guilty of stealing winning lottery ticketPrevious TopicNext Topic

They wouldn't need any witnessess, cameras, etc. The time-stamp is the witness. The winning ticket was most likely validated milliseconds before and after other tickets the group purchased. That and a photo copy of just some of the tickets would be pretty good proof.

Only this year NY online tickets started using a time-stamp.

It seems that with or without a time stamp on the ticket, lotteries would have a record in their internal data base of when a particular ticket was sold, and that information could be subpoenaed. 

Exactly. I meant internal time stamps at the central office (CO). Plus the physical tickets have control numbers on the front AND back. If these guys used 5 or 10 playslips, all 25 or 50 of their numbers were produced together. The CO would know these tickets (and the winner) were purchased together. Once that ticket was validated again with it's 'siblings', she was toast like quiznos. This is the kind of person who would take their cell phone to a hold-up and wonder how they got caught.

God's gift to the world.

Hi Rick & RJ,....12/20/05

As I wrote to "Awesome2000" a few days ago, many of us initially formulated our opinions from the information provided in the two(2) combined stories about this incident reg: Dora Leal and those accountings didn't go into full detail of the incident as he did in his Postings.....I told him having read all his Postings....I for one stand corrected, Leal didn't deserve any defense. But, the stories never gave the total picture of what actually happened....I am pleased he did explain everything in detail thru his postings because now we have a truly accurate picture.

You only get to make a good first impression once, and I did not get a good first impression. (or 2nd, or 3rd)

In the thread following the news post announcing the start of the trial the consensus was that of a lynch mob (hanging without due process of law) instead of a fair trial (the judicial examination of a case in a court of law) for the defendant.

I received a PM from another Lottery Post Member in regard to the the beginning of the trial, so after reading the entire thread I decided to reply. (At that time their was no Post by Awe...) After composing & posting I first saw the post by A..., and I thought to myself what a coincidence that one of the participants in the case should appear on Lottery Post. I read some other posts, then awhile later I saw that A* had made an additional posting about the trial: The additional post was a personal attack on yours truly, which made me suspect of the legitimacy of the author, considering the authors previous membership status at LP, the hour of the day, and the writing style in A...s posts. A... was given the benefit of the doubt, but did not make use of it.

exactly.

this woman was so in the wrong, it's disturbing.

is it just me, or is that how most video cameras are today -- except for the ones attempting to catch upskirts?  a lot of 'for show', but when the video is actually needed, it doesn't exist.

but the real thing is that, as was posted above you by time treat, the ticket IS the video camera.  time treat broke that down perfectly.

The elements of theft or larceny are as follows:

1. Taking of personal property - Example: lottery ticket was taken from       another person.
2. The taking was without permission of the owner - Example: lottery ticket was taken beyond what was permitted. Ticket should have been returned.
3. Asportation - moving the personal property from one place to another, no matter how short the distance. Example: ticket may have been moved from one place to another.
4. Specific intent on the part of the taker to permanently deprive the owner of the personal property, or the benefits from the personal property. Example: taker intended not to return the ticket to rightful owner, but instead intended to claim the prize for herself.

Each of these elements must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. If one element is not proved, no theft.

Necessarily, the defense has to combat the prosecution's case by showing:

1. There was no taking of personal property. Example: lottery ticket is not in the possession of the defendant
2. The taking was with permission of the owner. Example: ticket was given to defendant, but defendant either returned the ticket to the owner, lost or misplaced it.
3. Ticket was not moved from one place to another by defendant. Example: who knows where the ticket is.
4. Defendant did not intend to permanently deprive owner of the ticket, nor the benefits thereof. Example: Owner was not deprived of the prize of the ticket and defendant never claimed the prize, disproving defendant's evil intention.

Ultimately, after all testimonies and evidences have been scrutinized and evaluated, the jury decides the case. Whose story makes more common sense.

Please note: The specific intent of the defendant to deprive the owner of the property is the element of the crime. Whether or not defendant herself benefitted from the taking is not an element, nor her change of heart.

WGN is a Superstation (like Ted Turner's from Atlanta), so it doesn't necessarily focus on IL.