On the day she allegedly stole a $175,000 winning lottery ticket, Dora Leal was a confused, emotional wreck, mourning the loss of her "baby" dog Pablo, Leal testified in a Cook County courtroom Tuesday.
In fact, Leal's attorney would later tell jurors, Leal was so shaky that had she been "working in a nitroglycerine factory, she could have blown up the whole town."
If that was a plea for sympathy or an explanation for why Leal didn't realize she held a winning lottery ticket, jurors didn't buy it. In less than two hours, a jury found her guilty of stealing the ticket from a group of Chicago traders who'd pooled their money and sent Leal, a clerk, to check for a winner.
Leal and her defense team argued: she never knew she had a winning ticket; perhaps she lost the ticket; maybe one of the traders lost it; or perhaps it's still in the convenience store on South La Salle where it was purchased.
Conflicting testimony
"This is so wrong," Leal said as she tightly hugged her sobbing daughter moments after the verdict was announced. Leal, who had been free on bond, was immediately taken into custody.
It was a noticeably different Leal from the woman who, just hours earlier, was chatty, engaging and smiling -- even as prosecutor Lori Rosen tried to trip her up on the witness stand.
Leal testified that while she was in the convenience store checking the tickets in December 2003, no one ever told her she held a winning ticket.
On Monday, the store owner testified she told Leal she had a big winner. Another witness testified he congratulated Leal and high-fived her. But Leal said that never happened. On the stand, Leal repeatedly said, "Oh, no," shaking her head emphatically.
'I never lose things'
Leal said after checking her tickets, she put them all in her pocket, left the store and then gave them to her boss, one of the traders.
As Leal made denial after denial Tuesday, Rosen turned away from her and occasionally frowned.
But at one point, Rosen asked Leal if she felt "really bad" about the whole incident.
"Yes, because I never lose things," Leal replied.
Rosen didn't ask any more questions.
In closing arguments, Rosen reminded jurors of Leal's testimony.
"By her own admission, she has never lost anything," Rosen said. "By her own admission, she is very organized."
But Leal's lead attorney, Robert Kuzas, said Leal didn't fit the profile of a thief. There's no evidence she ever tried to hide the winning ticket, Kuzas argued. Besides, Kuzas said, the traders eventually received their winnings from the state lottery.
To this day the ticket has never turned up.
Should have stayed home
"This is the kind of case where you can feel good about doing the right thing, and finding my client not guilty," Kuzas said.
At one point Tuesday, Leal testified that she should never have gone to work on that day she is accused of pocketing the ticket.
"I should have just stayed with my girls, and mourned our baby [dog]," she said.
Sentencing is set for Jan. 9. Leal faces probation or a prison term of up to 15 years.
What a great Country? If she never got the money. If the ticket was never cashed in. If the ticket never showed up anywhere.
What is she guilty of?
How can losing a piece of paper or even intentionally taking a piece of paper be a crime if there is no benefit from that paper?
The moral is: don't ever go and check lottery tickets alone. Don't ever lose any papers, notes, emails, etc;
Note: If I take the worst case and assume she took the ticket intentionally, I do believe that is wrong. But without her (or someone) cashing in the ticket, I do not believe a crime has been commited. If I was on the jury, not guilty would've been my vote.
Whether it was a stolen ticket or not. She never cashed it in, the others got their money, and she's probably out of a job. (forced or harassed into quiting) Do I believe that she was in morning over her lil baby dog? No. BUT......what is she guilty of? If she's guilty of not cashing in a jackpot, I better go turn myself in too! I've NEVER cashed in a jackpot! lol
Personally, I think that her and her attorney were not on the same page. He was working the angle of her being shakey and distraught. She was adament about never losing anything. Basically he said she won, but lost the ticket. She's claiming it never happened! Sounds STUPID to me! lol
Taking something that belongs to someone else even if you never benefits from it is still steeling. Holding a lottery ticket worth $175,000 that she thought belonged to 16 guys who didn't know what they had and were too dumb, lazy or busy to check for themselves and would never be any wiser if she didn't tell them is probably what made her a little shaky. A little time in jail will fix that.
They didn't throw those tickets away but gave them to her to check and she should have known at least one of those pool members would have a copy of the tickets and would recheck who ever checked those tickets, win or lose.
If only they had video of her giving that witness a high five in the store!!!
HOGWASH!!!
The only reason she didn't cash the winning ticket in was because she knew she wouldn't ever get away with it. There was too many witnesses at the store when the ticket came up a big winner. She kept that ticket with the sole intention of stealing that money.
Let's say someone kidnapped a wealthy person's baby and held it for ransom. They see for whatever reason that they aren't going to get away with it so they return the baby unharmed.
No harm, no foul? I don't think so.
She is a dumb thief who needed a better lawyer.
First she gives the information to the retailer to say that they sold the winning ticket. She high fives everyone. Tells her boss that he only won $17. He finds out some other way. IL lottery is paying him and his co-workers. She claims the ticket was lost. The ticket never gets cashed. (this all from the media....can't say it's fact)
He obviously didn't trust her that he only won $17 so he checks himself. If he never trusted her, he shouldn't have sent her to check the tickets to begin with.
The bullsh!t is definitly thick in this case. Whatever the truth is doesn't matter anymore because they found her guilty. Maybe she really did lose it. Maybe she stole it and changed her mind.
I guess what I'm saying is.....I'm placing my money on the fact she's not going to be doing jail time. The people got their money. She's going to get probation and time already served.
Here's what I think: if you have a lottery pool, do not send someone from outside the pool to check the numbers. Especially a relatively poor person with children. Leal had essentially become like any poor convenience store clerk, someone who had the ticket to a new life in their hands, if only they could get away with taking it. It was only the legal freight train barrelling down on her that caused the ticket to be "lost" instead of cashed in. She is guilty, but some of the guilt should be spread to those day traders (who are obviously above her in rank and pay) who put her in that position by assigning her to check the ticket.
These stories have persuaded me to never join a lottery pool. My 1 ticket a drawing may never win me the big one, but if I do win I don't have to worry about crap like this.
Not only does she not get the $175,000.... she probably has to pay $175,000 in legal fees, .....lose here job.... have a criminal background record....and spend some time in the pokey.......where as, if she had given them the winning ticket they might have tipped her for going to check,,,,and she would still have he job...she probably cant produce the wining ticket because she signed it with her own name and it would have made her instantly guilty......you'll never see the ticket again.....
Circles back to the same point we've made before that if it's important enough to spend money on the ticket, then check and verify the numbers yourself. Don't trust anyone else to look out for your best interests especially when lots of money is at stake.
Less than $10k after taxes and even less after lawyer fees.
I, personally, would have let it drop seeing that the lottery was going to pay me anyways. Then I would have guilted her into finding a different place to work!
(again, I'm betting she's not going to do time over this)
Rule #1: Do not EVER play in a lottery pool UNLESS you have a photocopy of ALL the tickets BEFOREHAND.
Rule #2: See Rule #1
Bottom Line: Dishonesty will punish you
I am actually one of the 16 traders involved in this case. I found this site while searching the internet after a friend of mine told me he saw my name in the paper. I testified at this case on Monday. Read my other posts in the thread discussing yesterday's articles for a summary of the events that happened on Dec 31st of 2003. I am all for healthy cynicism, but she is guilty. If you knew the details of the case you would agree. She stole the ticket with criminal intent. She had every intention of cashing that ticket secrectly so that none of us found out. There were at least ten people who saw her win. Three of those people testified in court. I was one of those people. Her boss defended her until there no longer was any shadow of a doubt that she was guilty. Seriously read my other posts for more details. She was overwhelmingly guilty. She destroyed the ticket after she knew she was busted. She doesn't have to attempt to cash the ticket to prove guilt. Imagine if ten people see your employee steal your car. You ask your employee about it but she pleads ingorance. You would press charges, right? And the employee would be found guilty of larceny, regardless of whether or not you got the car back two years later. That's exactly what happened to us. Our lawyer does have the money, but I still don't. I/we will be paid, but only after lawyer fees and two years of headaches. She had every opportunity to do the right thing. She could've simply given us the ticket that day. We would've forgiven her. If she would've brought us the ticket after she won, we would've cut her in. 'Cus that's the type of people we are. She knew that. Also the lottery commission at first told us they wouldn't pay us, so that wasn't exactly a foregone conclusion. We had to hire a lawyer to prod the commission into paying. Her guilt had nothing to do with her lack of money. I don't know where she got the cash, but she had a good lawyer working for her, not just some public defender. Maybe he did it for the press coverage. If you want to get pissed at someone for taking advantage of her, the lawyer could be a good target. I was told by the prosecutors that the judge strongly suggested she enter a plea of guilty and save the court their time and money. Again, it was obvious that she was guilty. Apparently he declined, possibly because he wanted the press coverage associated with a trial by jury verdict--regardless of the outcome. At least that was one theory flying around the courthouse.
Thanks Awesomo2000 for your version of what happened. I did go back and read what you had to say. It shed some new light.
I feel for you and the other traders. It was a bad call on your boss to let anyone else aside from the lottery pool to go and check. Things happen and we all have to move on. I'm glad you are getting the money you rightfully won. (minus lawyer fees and such)
That being said, she's going to walk. I'm sure you would like to tie her up and stone her to death for all the sh!t she put you through, but it's not going to happen. You even said the judge wanted her to plead guilty to get this case over with. He's not going to be wasting anymore time on it.
She's in jail now waiting for sentensing. She'll get 3 years (max) probation and time already served. I believe this, because apparently she doesn't have a criminial record. She was a productive citizen before all of this. The wrong has been "righted". (meaning you get your money) And she'll probably have to pay resitution for all the lawyer fees. I'M IN NO WAY CONDONING WHAT SHE DID!!!! Thought I would clarify that. BUT there isn't anything more that can be done to her. She won't EVER become a prison b!tch for 15 years (for this case). There are worse things she could have done to get a sentencing like that.
Again...sorry it happened. You should be glad it's over.
sounds like awesome knows what hes talking about. fact is it was a spur of the moment thing she probably got caught up in the moment thought she could steal the ticket when she realized she couldn't she got scared and just thought she good discard the ticket.
She's pretty dumb for not doing the right thing if she had the oppurtunity. the way the system works she'll probably get community service. I think she did do something wrong and should be punished.
"Thou Shall Not Steal" She is guilty!
I am actually one of the 16 traders involved in this case. I found this site while searching the internet after a friend of mine told me he saw my name in the paper. I testified at this case on Monday. Read my other posts in the thread discussing yesterday's articles for a summary of the events that happened on Dec 31st of 2003. I am all for healthy cynicism, but she is guilty. If you knew the details of the case you would agree. She stole the ticket with criminal intent. She had every intention of cashing that ticket secrectly so that none of us found out. There were at least ten people who saw her win. Three of those people testified in court. I was one of those people. Her boss defended her until there no longer was any shadow of a doubt that she was guilty. Seriously read my other posts for more details. She was overwhelmingly guilty. She destroyed the ticket after she knew she was busted. She doesn't have to attempt to cash the ticket to prove guilt. Imagine if ten people see your employee steal your car. You ask your employee about it but she pleads ingorance. You would press charges, right? And the employee would be found guilty of larceny, regardless of whether or not you got the car back two years later. That's exactly what happened to us. Our lawyer does have the money, but I still don't. I/we will be paid, but only after lawyer fees and two years of headaches. She had every opportunity to do the right thing. She could've simply given us the ticket that day. We would've forgiven her. If she would've brought us the ticket after she won, we would've cut her in. 'Cus that's the type of people we are. She knew that. Also the lottery commission at first told us they wouldn't pay us, so that wasn't exactly a foregone conclusion. We had to hire a lawyer to prod the commission into paying. Her guilt had nothing to do with her lack of money. I don't know where she got the cash, but she had a good lawyer working for her, not just some public defender. Maybe he did it for the press coverage. If you want to get pissed at someone for taking advantage of her, the lawyer could be a good target. I was told by the prosecutors that the judge strongly suggested she enter a plea of guilty and save the court their time and money. Again, it was obvious that she was guilty. Apparently he declined, possibly because he wanted the press coverage associated with a trial by jury verdict--regardless of the outcome. At least that was one theory flying around the courthouse.
Welcome to Lottery Post, we hope you'll stay!! Thanks for filling us in on the details.
Hope you and your lottery pool win something very large again. Good Luck!!
Yeah, none of the lawyers seemed to think that she would get actual prison time. I could really care less. As long as I never see her again, and perhaps get my lawyer fees back. However it is possible that the judge has taken quite a distaste for Dora Leal. Not sure how it works...does the judge decide the sentence after the jury finds guilty? The ASA Lorie Rosen told me that the judge has a personal thing against disloyal people. Dora is the definition of a disloyal person. Her boss testified that with the onset of electronic trading and advanced computers, etc, that Dora's job had become obsolete. He only kept her on as an employee so she could have an income as well as medical insurance for her family. I stood next to him in the OEX pit every day for 18 months. He really is a good guy. He even gave her a severence package after she stole from him, and embarrassed him in front of his coworkers, the exchange, and the world. Also she wasted the court's time, or at least that is the way the judge sees it. So it'll be interesting to see what he decides. Jan. 8th is sentencing. Stay tuned.
By the way, in Spanish, Leal means loyal.
Circles back to the same point we've made before that if it's important enough to spend money on the ticket, then check and verify the numbers yourself. Don't trust anyone else to look out for your best interests especially when lots of money is at stake.
I agree.
I run a pool and it amazes me that the other members rely on me to check the numbers. While I wouldn't cheat them and they have emails from me with the numbers we played, you'd better believe if I was them, I'd still check the numbers myself.
By the way, in Spanish, Leal means loyal.
Wow! How ironic is that?
Yeah, none of the lawyers seemed to think that she would get actual prison time. I could really care less. As long as I never see her again, and perhaps get my lawyer fees back. However it is possible that the judge has taken quite a distaste for Dora Leal. Not sure how it works...does the judge decide the sentence after the jury finds guilty? The ASA Lorie Rosen told me that the judge has a personal thing against disloyal people. Dora is the definition of a disloyal person. Her boss testified that with the onset of electronic trading and advanced computers, etc, that Dora's job had become obsolete. He only kept her on as an employee so she could have an income as well as medical insurance for her family. I stood next to him in the OEX pit every day for 18 months. He really is a good guy. He even gave her a severence package after she stole from him, and embarrassed him in front of his coworkers, the exchange, and the world. Also she wasted the court's time, or at least that is the way the judge sees it. So it'll be interesting to see what he decides. Jan. 8th is sentencing. Stay tuned.
granted he only kept her on because she needed the income and medical insurance for her family and I'm not saying what she did was right; but everybody doesn't live high on the hog like you. Next time buy your own tickets and check for yourself.
I am actually one of the 16 traders involved in this case. I found this site while searching the internet after a friend of mine told me he saw my name in the paper. I testified at this case on Monday. Read my other posts in the thread discussing yesterday's articles for a summary of the events that happened on Dec 31st of 2003. I am all for healthy cynicism, but she is guilty. If you knew the details of the case you would agree. She stole the ticket with criminal intent. She had every intention of cashing that ticket secrectly so that none of us found out. There were at least ten people who saw her win. Three of those people testified in court. I was one of those people. Her boss defended her until there no longer was any shadow of a doubt that she was guilty. Seriously read my other posts for more details. She was overwhelmingly guilty. She destroyed the ticket after she knew she was busted. She doesn't have to attempt to cash the ticket to prove guilt. Imagine if ten people see your employee steal your car. You ask your employee about it but she pleads ingorance. You would press charges, right? And the employee would be found guilty of larceny, regardless of whether or not you got the car back two years later. That's exactly what happened to us. Our lawyer does have the money, but I still don't. I/we will be paid, but only after lawyer fees and two years of headaches. She had every opportunity to do the right thing. She could've simply given us the ticket that day. We would've forgiven her. If she would've brought us the ticket after she won, we would've cut her in. 'Cus that's the type of people we are. She knew that. Also the lottery commission at first told us they wouldn't pay us, so that wasn't exactly a foregone conclusion. We had to hire a lawyer to prod the commission into paying. Her guilt had nothing to do with her lack of money. I don't know where she got the cash, but she had a good lawyer working for her, not just some public defender. Maybe he did it for the press coverage. If you want to get pissed at someone for taking advantage of her, the lawyer could be a good target. I was told by the prosecutors that the judge strongly suggested she enter a plea of guilty and save the court their time and money. Again, it was obvious that she was guilty. Apparently he declined, possibly because he wanted the press coverage associated with a trial by jury verdict--regardless of the outcome. At least that was one theory flying around the courthouse.
If you were one of the 16 Traders you would have said: "I am one of the 16 traders involved in this case." instead of "I am actually one of the 16 traders involved in this case."
She is a dumb thief who needed a better lawyer.
The problem I have with this case is the sheer stupidity of the "Traders" themselves.....They should have hired an Attorney or simply gone together as a Group and turned the winning ticket in themselves, instead of giving it to her to do it. If the Group didn't want the Publicity then the Attorney representing them would have handled everything legally, without all this unnecessary Drama........It's sheer Stupidity on the part of the "Traders" .........
This a sad case of the worst in human nature coming to the fore.I thought that she would walk, but we now find out that her testimony was inconsistent, her lawyers entered that phoney "distraught " excuse and the case got bungled to say the least. The defense failed to convice the jury, so justice was served.
A word to the wise: stay away from Lottery Pools. It seems like a good idea on the surface, until the Jackpot is hit. Nothing but TROUBLE. I buy my own tickets and check them online myself. People don't take the Lottery seriously until there is a Hit then, the Lawyers arrive like the Cavalry....
awesomo2000
> Read my other posts in the thread discussing yesterday's articles...
I did. Previous to the verdict. I will grant you she was/is stupid/dumb. But I stand by my previous statement. I would find her not guilty - since the crime of actually stealing the money never happened. No matter what reason is used for the disappearance of the ticket - stolen/lost - it was nothing but a piece of paper. I don't think people should end up with a criminal record over a piece of paper. The Police should have set up a sting with the Lottery Commision.
NOW...had you/everyone/police allowed this to play through and she or anyone did attempt to turn in the ticket and get the money...then you could find her guilty.
I expect to see people punished for illegal things. I don't expect people to be dragged through the legal system for trivial things. We have got some of the dumbest laws/excuses for arresting people. And there have been several cases fairly recent and in recent years.
We had a guy utter some foul words in the presence of women and children, while canoeing. Criminal offense? You betcha, in Michigan. Forget about similar language on TV, movies and songs. This guy has a criminal record now.
Just remember when the shoe is on the other foot...some little misdeed by you and it could be you in jail! We've got too many laws and yet not enough laws to protect us from the really bad guys.
I am not big on conspiracy theories but you can see this being played out right now. (A) The Government wants everyone to have an ID - like an embedded electronic chip or bar code. (B) Arrest everyone for the slightest thing - and it's the next best thing. Their names and fingerprints and DNA will be in the database.
Nobie,
I agree with you that we should have forseen that any winning would potentially be pilfered by a low income Dora. If you've read my other posts you would know that I had no idea Dora was checking my tickets until after I reported she won the lottery to the group. This situation and particularly the lottery commission's response to it made me mad enough that I haven't played the lottery since, whether in a pool, or alone.
Raven,
You sleuth!! You are exactly right. In my free time I search the internet for opportunities to impersonate victims in publicly profiled cases for attention.
Let me make something clear. I am not arguing about opinions here. I am dictating facts that people may not have otherwise known, and could find interesting. I don't need to win an argument with you regarding who I am. I have already won the court case, and can now collect my lottery winnings (two years after the fact). I didn't want anyone to mistakenly assume Dora was a victim of a heartless court system. Dora is undeniably guilty. That is fact. Don't believe me?--then read the articles. They do a decent job of presenting the main facts in the case. I think it is hilarious that she tried to basically claim temp insanity because of her dog. I didn't know that until this morning. They don't allow witnesses to watch the trial, as they feel it could taint the testimony. When I left court on Monday evening, I was under the impression that she wouldn't testify. In short she stole, lied, and decieved the people that considered her to be a loyal friend, or at the very least a trusty employee. She acted like a criminal throughout the entire process, and was justly convicted. Nuff said.
Raven,
The word "actually" appearing in Awesome's post is YOU playing with semantics in a big way.
The judgement came against her as it should have and the background that Awesome has provided precludes your conspiracy theory that Awesome had nothing to do with it. He/she was the first one to say that she was found guilty on this thread, and I already knew it this morning when I read this thread, also being from the Chicago area and getting the same newscasts. No one in this thread seemed to know that. What does Awesome gain by lying about his/her involvement? Notoriety...hah! Lawyer's fees...Yeah!
The judgement WAS made yesterday as televised on Chicago news as Awesome said. Awesome provided detailed descriptions of websites, facts and figures to prove his/her point.
The semantics game doesn't make sense to me here. Do you have a problem with Awesome that we are not aware of?
Since when does New Jersey do better news coverage of the IL lottery than WGN?
No matter how you cut it, it's sad!
Rich crooks, get away with millions daily.
Heaven help, a poor person who, even tries.
I have always found it interesting the the amount of money and energy,readily exspened,
too make sure poor people never get something for nothing.
Right or wrong its sad!
He's mad cause I called him an idiot yesterday.
Thank you awesomo2000 for your details on this case.
I certainly would never call you a liar. Clearly you are telling the truth. Some people are just...well...don't worry about it.
Thanks. Interesting.
awesoom2000 i worked at the bot pools all over .i would run for traders and if they won every one won most people will never have that feeling or trust at a job prob988 sounds like a trader also
Always require photocopies of all tickets be given to all pool members way BEFORE the drawing.
My final comment on this is...she looked guilty as sin coming out of the courthouse yesterday. If I was accused of this and innocent, you can bet I'd be talking to every camera and microphone within 100 feet. She couldn't do it. She stared at the sidewalk and slithered to her attorney's car. I don't see an appeal in this case.
Our justice system might have its problems, but it served its purpose in this case. The JURY decided it, not the DA, Defense Attorneys or Judge or money.
And that IS the American way...barring a few exceptions that I can think of where people got away with murder because they had the big money to do so for their legal "defense' and a jury that was totally incompetent and blind to the facts. (DNA?)
Whether it was a stolen ticket or not. She never cashed it in, the others got their money, and she's probably out of a job. (forced or harassed into quiting) Do I believe that she was in morning over her lil baby dog? No. BUT......what is she guilty of? If she's guilty of not cashing in a jackpot, I better go turn myself in too! I've NEVER cashed in a jackpot! lol
Personally, I think that her and her attorney were not on the same page. He was working the angle of her being shakey and distraught. She was adament about never losing anything. Basically he said she won, but lost the ticket. She's claiming it never happened! Sounds STUPID to me! lol
how about if it was your money would you feel the same way? probably not !
What a great Country? If she never got the money. If the ticket was never cashed in. If the ticket never showed up anywhere.
What is she guilty of?
How can losing a piece of paper or even intentionally taking a piece of paper be a crime if there is no benefit from that paper?
The moral is: don't ever go and check lottery tickets alone. Don't ever lose any papers, notes, emails, etc;
Note: If I take the worst case and assume she took the ticket intentionally, I do believe that is wrong. But without her (or someone) cashing in the ticket, I do not believe a crime has been commited. If I was on the jury, not guilty would've been my vote.
I actually posed this very question to the Assistant to the State's Attorney. I, like you, was unsure of the legality of charging someone with larceny if the ticket had yet to be claimed for money. She assured me that a lottery ticket, being a bearer share which means that anyone who bears it owns it, is the same as the cash equivalent of its winning prize. Therefore once she attempted to steal the ticket, whether she was successful in cashing it in or not, she committed grand larceny. The burdon of proof therefore is for the state's attourney to prove that she had criminal intent in keeping the ticket as opposed to innocently misplacing it as her lawyer suggested. I am not sure how they get this point across to the jury though. I am sure that the jury had the same issue in their collective head as you. However the fact that the lottery ticket is a bearer share and therefore treated like the actual money in the eyes of the law is established. I believe that the judge goes through these issues with the jury at some point during the case. Therefore, "it was just a piece of paper" and therefore no crime is not a valid or acceptable reason to vote not guilty as a juror. A juror must judge the defendant within the confines of established law.
First she gives the information to the retailer to say that they sold the winning ticket. She high fives everyone. Tells her boss that he only won $17. He finds out some other way. IL lottery is paying him and his co-workers. She claims the ticket was lost. The ticket never gets cashed. (this all from the media....can't say it's fact)
He obviously didn't trust her that he only won $17 so he checks himself. If he never trusted her, he shouldn't have sent her to check the tickets to begin with.
The bullsh!t is definitly thick in this case. Whatever the truth is doesn't matter anymore because they found her guilty. Maybe she really did lose it. Maybe she stole it and changed her mind.
I guess what I'm saying is.....I'm placing my money on the fact she's not going to be doing jail time. The people got their money. She's going to get probation and time already served.
Sure but was it worth all the embaressment, not only did she humiliate herself but her whole family.
She should serve time just for ruining the Leal name
My final comment on this is...she looked guilty as sin coming out of the courthouse yesterday. If I was accused of this and innocent, you can bet I'd be talking to every camera and microphone within 100 feet. She couldn't do it. She stared at the sidewalk and slithered to her attorney's car. I don't see an appeal in this case.
Our justice system might have its problems, but it served its purpose in this case. The JURY decided it, not the DA, Defense Attorneys or Judge or money.
And that IS the American way...barring a few exceptions that I can think of where people got away with murder because they had the big money to do so for their legal "defense' and a jury that was totally incompetent and blind to the facts. (DNA?)
I agree
By the way, in Spanish, Leal means loyal.
Thanks Dora now look what you did, Now this is what people all over america will think of "Leal" why don't you use your married name
This was a failed theft of $175,000. Her witnessed signature on the back of the ticket would prove that, hence Dora likely put it through the paper shredder! Trying to excuse her criminal actions on being upset over a dog (and also trying to compare a dog to a baby) is just pathetic. Jail, where she is, is exactly where she belongs!
Raven,
The word "actually" appearing in Awesome's post is YOU playing with semantics in a big way.
The judgement came against her as it should have and the background that Awesome has provided precludes your conspiracy theory that Awesome had nothing to do with it. He/she was the first one to say that she was found guilty on this thread, and I already knew it this morning when I read this thread, also being from the Chicago area and getting the same newscasts. No one in this thread seemed to know that. What does Awesome gain by lying about his/her involvement? Notoriety...hah! Lawyer's fees...Yeah!
The judgement WAS made yesterday as televised on Chicago news as Awesome said. Awesome provided detailed descriptions of websites, facts and figures to prove his/her point.
The semantics game doesn't make sense to me here. Do you have a problem with Awesome that we are not aware of?
Since when does New Jersey do better news coverage of the IL lottery than WGN?
You are a lottery player right? What is the probability that one of the actual
Traders would appear at Lottery Post to discuss the case? Pretty low considering the population of the Earth.
When it comes to communication both written and spoken semantics plays an important part, particularly the way words are used or misused. The study of Human Behavior tells us that when attempting to deceive another, unnecessary adjectives will be used (such as actual) to validate what the deceiver knows in their own mind to be untrue.
It's like the scammers that send out emails they start out with: "This is not a scam..."
It's like Awe... said: "I'm an actual Trader..."
Anyone can surf the websites and present them as proof.
awesomo2000
There are problems with making analogies in the legal system - setting that aside. Suppose you gave her a check for $190 to go and purchase the tickets. A check would be similar to a lottery ticket. It can be altered and exchanged for cash. Then suppose she lost the check. Would you then have her arrested because you believe - due to inconsistencies - but with no real proof - that she pocketed the check? Or would you just stop payment on the check and perhaps fire her?
Some people are criminals. Some are scum of the earth. Perhaps many deserve a criminal record and prison. Some deserve the death penalty. I think this was extreme for all my previous reasons.
By the way, jurists have voted in defiance of a particular law many times. It's one way they can exercise their authority and show their displeasure with the system.
This is my last comment for this topic.
He's mad cause I called him an idiot yesterday.
People that are mad enter into communication using insults.
A fellow with the smallest mind is the one who is usually most willing to give someone a piece of it.
Sorry. Had to pull a "Raven"
LOL
I'm kidding! I like your psycho-anaylzing little one liners. Their cute.
hehehe