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
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.
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.
He's mad cause I called him an idiot yesterday.
People that are mad enter into communication using insults.
The only communications you have entered into since I called you an idiot have been to expose me as a liar. Give up your vendetta Raven. Also, as you noticed before, it is true that I joined this forum specifically to discuss this case. Never had a reason to post on a lottery forum before. I have "actually" never posted on any forum before this. Analyze that line. I found this forum as I was searching the internet to see if they used my name in any of the articles, as my friend told me. I haven't yet found it. I've stated it many times before: it doesn't matter if you believe me or not. The facts in the case are still the same. The media has done a decent job of presenting the main facts.
To the guy who worked at the bot (Chicago Board of Trade): As you rightfully noted, most people don't realize the leniancy that people down there grant their coworkers. (I actually worked at the bot for 6 months in the 5-year T-bond options pit. Another one for you to analyze Raven.) You have to absolutely trust your team to run a successful trading operation, whether you are brokers or market makers. Pools are a way of life on the floor. Not just lottery pools, but all sorts of sports pools and whatever other types of pools the traders can think of. A common type of pool is called a square pool, in which a page is divided into 100 squares. The squares are then sold to traders on the floor, usually via a young hot runner chick (she always gets paid something at the end regardless of who wins). The winner is then randomly chosen using the last digits in sporting event scores. I once heard of a $10,000 per square Super Bowl pool (that's right, $1 million in cash) in which the guy at the Merc collecting money was never seen again. Not sure if that's true. A clerk's job description is pretty loose. Most of them spend a lot of time doing whatever the trader needs done, so that he doesn't have to leave the pit. Checking lottery tickets would be a normal part of a clerk's job, as would buying water, gum, food, etc. The trader ALWAYS buys the clerk food if he brings you your food. I learned afterwards that Tobin had given Dora our lottery pool tickets to check multiple times before. It is possible that she had been stealing little winners from us for a while. Also as you noted, if the runner/clerk brings back a big winner, everyone in the pool throws him/her some cash. We probably would've given Dora $2 to 3 hundred each, just for safely escorting the ticket back to us. We were never given that opportunity.
Here's a few interesting facts about Dora. During the trial, I was speaking with the owner of the A & B Tobacco store. She told me that since Dora bought maybe 50 waters a day (since she had no real job all she did was go buy waters for people in the OEX pit all day), she negotiated a better price that the $1 that most people paid. She then kept the difference, charging the traders $1 and only paying 75 cents to the people at the A & B Tobacco store. She may not have had a criminal history, but she did have a history of being dishonest. That was not mentioned in the trial (as far as I know).
Also, no , she dressed like a street walker. Her outfits were so revealing and so gross that when she was on the escalator going to the CBOE floor, every trader behind her would turn around, so as not to accidentally catch a glimpse of something ghastly.
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.
Your analogy with the check is exactly the same analagy he lawyer used. Only she said a lottery ticket would be similar to a check made out to cash, that someone stole from you. Only, while it can be canceled so the thief may not be paid, it can only in select situations be rewritten (we got lucky). We did put a lien on the ticket when this happened. We sent the commission a statement, which we all signed. This, coupled with a police report, convinced the lottery commission to refrain from paying the ticket (in the case that it did show up) until the courts got to the bottom of the situation. Unfortunately the commission for over a year and a half simply told us that we wouldn't be paid. So not only had over $10 thousand in lottery winnings been denied to each of us, but we were out lawyer fees as well. So we did incur definate damages due to, in your opinion the not guilty, Dora Leal. The State's Attourney told us that she had rarely prosecuted such a one sided case. It was only after the Judge (who is really quite the rational, fair, take no type) saw the evidence was overwhelming against Dora and for us that he highly recommended to the commission that they pay us. That was six weeks ago. We still never saw our money until she was convicted though. I have yet to collect my check from the lawyer, but he does have them. No harm, no foul is absolute Bullsh*t in this case. She almost cost me more than $12 thousand.
Even when Cleveland's Elecia Battle falsely claimed she lost the $162,000,0000 MegaMillion ticket, she never touched or signed the ticket or claimed the money but she broke laws and was punished. When Dora Leal tried to steal those lottery winnings, her scheme was a crime and she should be punished. I get the idea from some of the comments made that some people think stealing lottery winnings isn't the same as stealing real money and people who try it aren't real crooks. Trying to steal anything that doesn't belong to you make you a crook and Dora Leal is a crook that got caught. She may not spend much time in jail, but she will aways be a crook that got caught.
Even when Cleveland's Elecia Battle falsely claimed she lost the $162,000,0000 MegaMillion ticket, she never touched or signed the ticket or claimed the money but she broke laws and was punished. When Dora Leal tried to steal those lottery winnings, her scheme was a crime and she should be punished. I get the idea from some of the comments made that some people think stealing lottery winnings isn't the same as stealing real money and people who try it aren't real crooks. Trying to steal anything that does belong to you make you a crook and Dora Leal is a crook that got caught. She may not spend much time in jail, but she will aways be a crook that got caught.
Even when Cleveland's Elecia Battle falsely claimed she lost the $162,000,0000 MegaMillion ticket, she never touched or signed the ticket or claimed the money but she broke laws and was punished. When Dora Leal tried to steal those lottery winnings, her scheme was a crime and she should be punished. I get the idea from some of the comments made that some people think stealing lottery winnings isn't the same as stealing real money and people who try it aren't real crooks. Trying to steal anything that doesn't belong to you make you a crook and Dora Leal is a crook that got caught. She may not spend much time in jail, but she will aways be a crook that got caught.
"RJ".........Where does it say that the Prosecution was able to "prove" that she stole the winning ticket and has it in her possession???....She never personally claimed the winnings...She claims she lost the ticket.....
Her Defense Team was poor, I'll give you that.....And I'm not sanctioning stealing anything.......
Even when Cleveland's Elecia Battle falsely claimed she lost the $162,000,0000 MegaMillion ticket, she never touched or signed the ticket or claimed the money but she broke laws and was punished. When Dora Leal tried to steal those lottery winnings, her scheme was a crime and she should be punished. I get the idea from some of the comments made that some people think stealing lottery winnings isn't the same as stealing real money and people who try it aren't real crooks. Trying to steal anything that doesn't belong to you make you a crook and Dora Leal is a crook that got caught. She may not spend much time in jail, but she will aways be a crook that got caught.
RJOh is right; she's a crook who got caught, and she needs to do some time.
Even when Cleveland's Elecia Battle falsely claimed she lost the $162,000,0000 MegaMillion ticket, she never touched or signed the ticket or claimed the money but she broke laws and was punished. When Dora Leal tried to steal those lottery winnings, her scheme was a crime and she should be punished. I get the idea from some of the comments made that some people think stealing lottery winnings isn't the same as stealing real money and people who try it aren't real crooks. Trying to steal anything that doesn't belong to you make you a crook and Dora Leal is a crook that got caught. She may not spend much time in jail, but she will aways be a crook that got caught.
"RJ".........Where does it say that the Prosecution was able to "prove" that she stole the winning ticket and has it in her possession???....She never personally claimed the winnings...She claims she lost the ticket.....
Her Defense Team was poor, I'll give you that.....And I'm not sanctioning stealing anything.......
She was convicted of lying about never having the winning ticket that witnesses testified she checked at the store terminal and was told it was a big winner which she never told the actual owners of the ticket. Had she just lost the ticket and told her boss she confirmed it was a winner before she misplaced it, the real owners using their photo copy of the tickets could have collected their money two years ago and there would have never been a trial.
I'm sure if the real ticket owners had not had proof that the ticket was among the tickets they purchased, she would have later claimed those winnings for herself. She created a lot of unnecessary trouble for herself and the real owners of the ticket. She's a dumb crook.
Libra,
Are you related to Dora, or simply playing Devil's advocate? She had an entire store full of people who witnessed her win the ticket and take possession of it. We put a lien on the ticket after it was "lost" so that Dora couldn't try to cash it. So, she never tried to cash it because after we found out about her plan we took that option away from her. Get it? After winning in the store, she went around to everyone still in the store and said something like, "Please don't say anything to anyone about this." Problem is I witnessed her win and reported it to the group. I left the store too fast for her to give me that BS line. After confronted, her first story to us was that her friend won, not her. No doubt that was an attempt to differentiate the winning ticket from our tickets so she could cash it (then cut her friend in for her efforts). Then when it became clear that everyone knew she won, she just sat there and said, "I don't know what you are talking about? What $175 thousand? What ticket are you talking about?" She lied over and over again, changing her story every time her last one was proved wrong. These facts are mighty incriminating. When multiple witnesses testify to their truth they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she had criminal intentions and used lies and deception to go through with her plan. We gave her every chance to do the right thing. Only after she continually claimed ignorance were we forced to bring the cops into it. At that point the process couldn't be reversed. She is no victim. Her trial was fair, SHE IS GUILTY!! She cost me time, money, and headaches. She's a horrible person who brought a horrible situation onto herself. I don't know anything about people being guilty until proven innocent. Fortunately that wasn't an issue in this case, because she did steal from us. A lottery ticket is as good as a stack of cash equal to its winnings. Whether she ever gets the chance to spend the cash is irrelevant. For a long time it looked as though we (the 16 traders who bought the tickets) wouldn't be paid, at all. We are still out about $20 grand in lawyer fees that we wouldn't have had to pay for if not for Dora's moral lapse.
RjOH is 100% right in that if she simply came forward at any time and either gave us the ticket back or admitted to destroying it noone would've pressed charges and we would've had our money 2 years ago. She lied, cheated, and stole. Then was never able to admit her error, which would've saved her all this trouble. The prosecutor easily proved her guilt because it was obvious. Don't know how it can be more clear. Dora's lawyer might have been poor, but he was no public defender. He was a regular $250 per hour lawyer. You want to know why they used the sick dog defense? Its becasue they had nothing else. She's GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.
If only they had video of her giving that witness a high five in the store!!!
The ticket is the video. Let's say you take 50 tickets in for validation. I'm sure there is a PC somewhere saying ticket number x, validated at store y, worth amout z, validation time-and-date. <-- probably to tenths of a second.
It is highly unlikely that you would:
a. validate tickets 1 through 23 then
b. get out of line then
c. someone else gets in line, has the winner, finally
d. you get back in line and validate tickets 24-50. Opps, only $17.00 won, guys!
the time-date stamp will show the lag (or lack of) between groups of tickets. Think about how they know where a winning ticket was sold. Do they rely on video? Witnesses? No.
We tried to get the video. Turns out they haven't recorded anything on their camera since 1997. The camera is only for show.
If only they had video of her giving that witness a high five in the store!!!
Crime Scene
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.