Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 2:39 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Woman found guilty of stealing winning lottery ticket

Topic closed. 70 replies. Last post 11 years ago by CASH Only.

Page 5 of 5
PrintE-mailLink
time*treat's avatar - radar

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
Posted: December 18, 2005, 6:50 pm - IP Logged

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.


    United States
    Member #379
    June 5, 2002
    11296 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: December 19, 2005, 9:43 am - IP Logged

    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.

      konane's avatar - wallace
      Atlanta, GA
      United States
      Member #1265
      March 13, 2003
      3333 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: December 19, 2005, 9:56 am - IP Logged

      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. 

      Good luck to everyone!

        time*treat's avatar - radar

        United States
        Member #13130
        March 30, 2005
        2171 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: December 19, 2005, 11:11 am - IP Logged

        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.

         

          Raven62's avatar - binary
          New Jersey
          United States
          Member #17843
          June 28, 2005
          49642 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: December 19, 2005, 11:46 am - IP Logged

          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

          God's gift to the world.

            Avatar
            Bethesda, Maryland
            United States
            Member #16901
            June 6, 2005
            446 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: December 19, 2005, 1:41 pm - IP Logged

            The JURY found her guilty. The excuse of a poor defense is just that, a poor excuse, just as her sick dog and other stories made up in the defense in her case.

            I really don't understand the BLIND defense of this woman on this forum. She was caught red-handed, video cameras or not. Are you insinuating that all witnesses in trials are liars? You put your hand on a bible and take the oath. All of these people felt like lying on the witness stand risking jail time for perjury? I think not.

            I hope to God that these "defenders" on this forum are not on any jury involving murder, rape, assault, etc.

            We've seen misjustice before...please recuse yourselves from jury duty so this doesn't become a regular occurrence in our society. In fact, do us all a favor and print this whole thread and bring it to the courtroom when you are being selected for jury duty. I'm sure the Judge, DA and Defense Attorney will agree...you are not qualified to be a jurist.


            I think what we have here are a bunch of people who themselves are free loaders and thieves expressing an opinion from their point of view.  They would probably do the same thing if they had a chance and would expect some sympathy if they got caught because they actually believe people who work and earn what they own have had all the breaks that they never had.

            These are the kinds of people I like to stay as far away from as possible.

            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.

            See Ya!

              Raven62's avatar - binary
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #17843
              June 28, 2005
              49642 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: December 19, 2005, 4:00 pm - IP Logged

              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 Wink 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.

               

              Raven,

              In the other thread related to the Leal case, the first part of your first post was, 'Except in this forum where she is Guilty until proven Guilty...' In another post you staunchly defended Dora Leal on the grounds that she deserved the benefit of the doubt. I agree with that line of thinking, but if you're such a champion for giving people the benefit of the doubt, why don't you give awesomo2000 the same consideration? Sounds hypocritical to me.

               

               

               

              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.

               

                Avatar

                United States
                Member #24503
                October 23, 2005
                159 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: December 20, 2005, 11:30 pm - IP Logged

                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.

                exactly.

                 

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

                  Avatar

                  United States
                  Member #24503
                  October 23, 2005
                  159 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: December 20, 2005, 11:39 pm - IP Logged

                  We tried to get the video.  Turns out they haven't recorded anything on their camera since 1997.  The camera is only for show.

                  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.

                    csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

                    United States
                    Member #15309
                    May 13, 2005
                    307 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: December 22, 2005, 9:31 am - IP Logged

                    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.



                      United States
                      Member #379
                      June 5, 2002
                      11296 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: December 24, 2005, 11:37 am - IP Logged

                      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 Wink 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.

                       

                      Raven,

                      In the other thread related to the Leal case, the first part of your first post was, 'Except in this forum where she is Guilty until proven Guilty...' In another post you staunchly defended Dora Leal on the grounds that she deserved the benefit of the doubt. I agree with that line of thinking, but if you're such a champion for giving people the benefit of the doubt, why don't you give awesomo2000 the same consideration? Sounds hypocritical to me.

                       

                       

                       

                      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.

                       

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