House Trashed after Cruel Craigslist Hoax

Originally posted by apc
"Call soandso for a good time 555-1212" in a bathroom stall.

Nice try but will not fly you are trying compare apples to oranges those signs might be seen by one or two hundred if that. When placed on the web chances are the add is or might be read by thousands. Not saying that is the case but certainly possible considering they use the word FREE which we all know attracts readers as compared to one that reads house hold items FOR SALE.

Simple test you can do at home. Take any used piece of furniture place it outside near the curb and put a for sale sign on it. You might get a few that will ask what you want, but if you put it on the curb and Say free I guarantee more then likely it will be gone within a few hours for sure if not sooner. I know I have done it.

Some say requiring ID or regulation is wrong for something like this, but I think different, I would like to see come checks and balances to prevent this.

I also wonder what ever happened to civic pride where neighbors watched out for others property mine do and if they had seen strangers around they would have reported them in a heartbeat. We all do it because we have a neighborhood watch program, something may large metro areas do not.

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by Togetic
I was disappointed when Craig's List said "we're not going to release the name of the person who posted the ad until we receive a subpoena."

Actually, this is the privacy policy that I believe most ISPs/Websites have for their members. This is now in a court's court. A judge needs to issue a subpoena for the information.

Just giving the information would be much more of a shadow on Craigslist, imo. We don't want to undermine the way its supposed to work for a quick convenience, as that starts a bad precedent on the internet.

I think you're right. I think the right thing to do is give them the information once they have a subpoena. But I think they're in the right to want to wait for the subpoena. Anything else sets a bad precedent.

Originally posted by shots
Nice try but will not fly you are trying compare apples to oranges those signs might be seen by one or two hundred if that. When placed on the web chances are the add is or might be read by thousands. Not saying that is the case but certainly possible considering they use the word FREE which we all know attracts readers as compared to one that reads house hold items FOR SALE.

Actually it's comparing itty bitty apples to great big apples. They're still red and delicious, either way.

It's also worth noting I'm hearing reports on the radio that this is not an owner/tenant issue. A woman was kicking her sister out, and the police suspect the sister that got the boot made the posting. The police have also stated there's nothing they could do if they found who did the looting, and are treating it as a family fued.

Originally posted by apc
It's also worth noting I'm hearing reports on the radio that this is not an owner/tenant issue. A woman was kicking her sister out, and the police suspect the sister that got the boot made the posting. The police have also stated there's nothing they could do if they found who did the looting, and are treating it as a family fued.

Yes it would appear you are right I did a search and KING5 is confirming what you are saying

I find it odd though that the police claim there is little they can do because it was a family feud because damaging property that is not yours or stealing it is illegal, and would be subject to laws involving criminal mischief. What I am getting at here is lets assume I walk up to my brothers House smash his window with a baseball bat the police would arrest me for criminal mischief disorderly conduct and perhaps some other charges I do not know about.

Yeah I know now you are going to argue they have to prove it first and yes that is true but never say never one of those witnesses that said nothing earlier might ID one of the family as being on the scene when all the strangers were seen.

Nah I wouldn't argue against that. The case against the looters is a bit sketchy.

On the one hand they have plausible deniability. "The ad said it was OK and the door was unlocked!"

On the other a reasonable person should have concluded that something wasn't right.

But if the prosecuters are telling the cops they don't have a strong enough case to take it to trial, the police won't waste their time charging anyone.

Someone suggested the owner is at fault.....that locking a door would keep someone from just going on in.

I've had locked doors kicked in, (while someone was at home) window screens pulled off and windows prized open (after Mother's obit appeared in the paper, apparently the same as advertising something for free on Craig's).

One burgler boosted his fat self into the window by standing on the lip of the stone and brick underpinning, knocking it away from the house as he went in.....(hope he fell on his face!)

My Mother's yard was vandalized, her flowers dug up and stolen when she went in the nursing home. ( we kept the place mowed, mail taken in....the nearby neighbors would have been among the few that knew she was gone.)

A 'new' neighbor helped themselves to the garden shed and it's contents, after being told by another neighbor that they 'thought' the shed went with her house.....even though the locked door faced our old house!!

It's been my experience that the least little thing will encourage theft/greed. ...if it's locked, it only deters the semi-honest.....

Yes but I thought it was apparent... a locked door and an unlocked door provide two very different aspects to deniability. Kicking a door down, even with support of some ad on the Internet, pushes the case clearly into breaking and entering. An unlocked door with the support of the ad gives way to, "It seemed OK."

The world isn't all nice and fluffy.

The only one's at fault are the people who did the damage, and did the thieving.

The truly reverent would place a phone call to the tenant or property manager after seeing the ad to check it's legitamicy. The truly reverent would not have percieved an ad for free stuff as an invitation to cause damage. The truly reverent would have made sure that the ad was legit.

Thieves and vandals don't need advertisements to do their deeds. They just do it. That is why property owners have the onus to protect their property.

Originally posted by Togetic
I was disappointed when Craig's List said "we're not going to release the name of the person who posted the ad until we receive a subpoena." I understand that they want to protect the privacy of their users; I have used Craig's List a number of times to find roommates and furniture. But I am disappointed that they don't see this as one of those cases where they should release the name. Maybe that sets a bad precedent; am I being overzealous in this?

Raye said she is not sure who posted the ad. She said craigslist officials provided her Thursday with the e-mail address and IP address -- which is used to identify computers connected to a network -- of the person who posted it, and she passed both along to police. She said she didn't recognize the e-mail address.

Source

They did release the IP address when they had all the info as to what happened.

A possible reason the neighbors did not report this; it was a party house with a bad rep. People in & out all the time, fights, etc. Maybe this was the least out-of-the ordinary thing that had happened ther in a long time. The neighbors were probably glad to see the bad sister go.

Originally posted by WellSee
They did release the IP address when they had all the info as to what happened.

A possible reason the neighbors did not report this; it was a party house with a bad rep. People in & out all the time, fights, etc. Maybe this was the least out-of-the ordinary thing that had happened ther in a long time. The neighbors were probably glad to see the bad sister go.

The above post is what makes ATS such a nice community everyone working together to gather every bit of info on the topic no mater what it is or was

You have voted WellSee for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thank you very much

Update

Pierce County prosecutors have filed charges against the niece of a woman whose house was stripped clean after a Craigslist.org posting advertised that everything in the home was free.

The Seattle Times

In case anybody is still following this.

I was putting my money on the owner's sister, the accused's mom. But it makes sense that someone in the family did this. Domestic disputes can get nasty.

Nichole Blackwell, 28, was charged with second-degree burglary, malicious mischief and criminal impersonation

I wonder if it will be hard to get these charges to stick with the internet being involved. Could this turn out to be a precedent setting case?