mom go tinto freinds email, threatened to turn it in

9

99%depressed

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
11
i got online last night and my "freind" was soppesedly online and hes been gone for a while and i was hey!!! well anyways heres the convo: tears started to fall...is me and ~Lil Smurf~ is my friends mom...my question is at the bottom..

tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
OMG
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
I WAS IN HOUSTAN FOR A WEEK LAST WEEK AND COULDNT GET AHOLD OF YOU!
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
anyways Hey
~Lil Smurf~Whats up I'm in H town city of Houston~ says:
My name, this is _____'s mother and I need to talk to you. I have a copy of an email that you sent _____. Stay away from him or I will turn it in to the task force.
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
okay, i will
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
i dont do that stuff anymore
~Lil Smurf~Whats up I'm in H town city of Houston~ says:
I'm really serious about this. ______ is clean now and you are not going to ruin this.
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
thats great...i dont want too
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
i promise i dont want tooo, but i will stay away from him
~Lil Smurf~Whats up I'm in H town city of Houston~ says:
Good luck.
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
thanks
~Lil Smurf~Whats up I'm in H town city of Houston~ says:
Thank you.
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
no problem
tears started to fall down my cheeks as i thought of everything in my life that had broken into pieces with sharp edges says:
im sorry
~Lil Smurf~Whats up I'm in H town city of Houston~ says:
Just stay away from _____ until he has his life back together. Please. Bye.

now please dont tell me how stupid we were yes i already know this, let me tell you ive been beating myself up pretty bad. this email was from a about a month and half ago. talked about what we did and how much, where, and mentioned two names(but i really dont give a fuck about them, there asses and they "dissappered" like 2 weeks ago)

Okay now my question is if she turns this into the taskforce, the taskforce is like a small town DEA, can they do anything to me? like take me to court, im pretty sure they would tell my mom but other than that? anything?
 
99%depressed, I don't know the answer to your question but good luck.

I'm not sure exactly where this should go... shooting off to Legal Q & A, guys if it's not right there I guess next stop is SO?
 
Said email is circumstantial evidence. There is no way to prove who actually wrote the letter, unless that person admits to writing it.
 
^^I agree. She has the email by getting into your friend's account? Who's to say you are the person who sent that email from your account? Legally, I don't see as how you've got much to worry about. Personally, you've got everything to worry about if she takes it to your parents and they are unaware of your history.

I also wouldn't count on her *not* forwarding it to your parents or the law enforcement group. Even if she says she won't, she is obviously doing whatever she can to get her child clean, and she may forward the note hoping it helps you get clean as well - acting on good intentions, regardless of any promise not to forward the letter if you stay away from her kid. I'd be prepared for your parents to find out, just to be reallistic about the situation. But again, legally I don't see as how there is much for you to be concerned about at this point.
 
you words, both spoken and written can be used against you in court. like was previously stated tho, an email is hardly a legal document, and it "could" have been composed by anyone.
i'd be more worried about her talking to your parents, not the law.
 
forgotten said:
Said email is circumstantial evidence. There is no way to prove who actually wrote the letter, unless that person admits to writing it.
Click to expand...

does this also apply to text messages? a friend had a major dispute with his wireless provider because they charged him with sending out like 4 messages a minute, a total of 180 text messages that he NEVER sent out. he didn't even know that he had txt msging on his phone. when they examined how fast he'd have to be to send all those, they saw how it was unrealistic.
i don't trust email at all. i have seen email be sent to me from me that was never done by me, and then it was forwarded to other people that was also never done by me. hackers, viruses, whatever--i don't trust it.
 
She cannot get you in trouble with the DEA. The email was not obtained legally, and like someone else said, they cannot prove that it was you that wrote the email.

the only thing, I would think, that the DEA might be able to do it watch your activity online and monitor your phones for a little bit. but that would seriously be extreme.

the internet can be potentially damaging for anyone who uses it. Emails can be forwarded, intercepted, and misread. My advice...be careful what you write to people on the internet, be careful which sites you go to at work or in a library...and always...always delete your temp internet files and cookies.

Tough luck...I think, honestly, mom was trying to scare you away from her child. I don't know the situation, but she probably fears for her child and wants to protect him from everything she didn't before.

You said you were clean now...CONGRATS! that's so tough
 
actually, they COULD prove the email was from you. Emails are not untraceable. There are actually a few different ways they could prove it was you.

Furthermore, this conversation would be admissible on several different grounds, as well, depending on the legal intricacies of your case.

However, I agree that the mother was just trying to scare you into staying away from her son. Sounds like she just wants to make it all the bad stuff go away, and trying to bust you would be contrary to that intent.
 
autopilot said:
actually, they COULD prove the email was from you. Emails are not untraceable. There are actually a few different ways they could prove it was you.
Click to expand...

?? how ??

(sorry if this should be another thread)
 
no, not all emails are tracable. AOL emails are permanetly deleted. Further, even if your email was traceable, there is no way proving that YOU WROTE THAT EMAIL. ANYONE could've hacked into your account or simply messed with your email while it was in transit before it reached the receiving party and doctored it.
Upon studying about email security, it was summarized the sending email is simply the equivalency of sending a postcard in the postal mail. That is horribly unsafe--anyone can put whatever shit they want on that postcard before it reaches you.
 
as i am not a computer expert, i defer to anyone with more computer experience as to the extent that emails are electronically traceable.

however, the email need not be electronically traced to identify its author. To understand why, it is important to understand the concept of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are the two main categories of evidence.

Direct evidence is evidence which stands to prove a specific fact.

An example of direct evidence would be a witness' testimony under oath about what he saw with his own eyes. If he says he observed something, we can assume that what he saw actually happened. The occurrence of what the witness testifies that he saw is self-evident and indisputable.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is evidence of one fact which suggests another fact.

For example, a witness might testify that he saw a person carry a gun into a 7-11 and then run out carrying the gun, and when the police show up they find 7-11 employer with gunshot wounds. The witness never actually SAW the suspect shoot the employee, but what the witness DID see strongly supports an inference that that the suspect committed the crime.

Now, remember that 99%depressed wrote that he "talked about what [they] did and how much, where, and mentioned two names." This suggests that 99%depressed went into some detail. Some of these details, as circumstantial evidence, might very easily reveal the identity of the author.

For example, 99%depressed may have mentioned a private conversation with his friend. If it can be proven that there was no one else present during this conversation, and that no one else knows about the conversation besides 99%depressed, then that means that only two people know about conversation. Since the author mentioned that conversation, we can infer that 99%depressed is the author.

Granted, this would not not unequivocally prove that 99%depressed was the author, insofar as it could always be hypothetically possible that another person witnessed the conversation and is trying to set up 99%depressed.

However, it is for a jury to decide whether such evidence is persuasive. And certainly, a jury might be convinced from such evidence.
 
I'm unsure as to what the Jury would actually be trying to prove here.

He went out with his mate and they did drugs together. So fucking what? I may be wrong here but surely this is not a criminal offence? If the police came round my door accusing me of taking drugs for personal use I'd laugh and tell them to kiss my arse.
 
well the jury doesn't try to prove anything. the prosecution tries to prove its case to the jury. Likewise, the defense tries to prove its case to the jury.

The conversation that took place may be used as evidence to support a charge of conspiracy, drug trafficking, and drug sales, among others. However, Tranced, I think you are right that the conversation would have very little evidentiary value relating to a charge of possession.
 
I think that the thing he has to worry about here is whether or not his parents find out. Have an excuse ready; just basically deny all knowledge. I highly doubt the police would have much to go by even if they did give a shit.

If the police do get involved, tell them to mind their own fucking buisness and that you will do drugs how and when you want. Some people are far too paranoid about police and drugs.

To be honest, I would go round and see your mates mam. Tell her that your off, he's trying to come off and you're going to do everything you can too help him- with or without her approval, even if it means her telling your parents.

If she says she's going to tell them anyway, backpeddle very quickly and explain you never want to see her drug abusing low life son ever again. You'll just have to keep a low profile when you're with him from then on. ;)
 
ok that's funny that no one points out that people can doctor emails that one has already written to say other stuff. Taking an original email and editing it so that it looks like it's in the same "writing style" of the author. I've seen people do this in email on forums and IM logs. Or somehow a crazy attachment gets attached with your original message that you never did, but since the message is in your writing style, the recepient assumes it's you and in good natured when it turns out to be a virus or some other bullshit.
 
if 99%depressed tried to argue that an incriminating portion of his online conversation was doctored, all the prosecutor would need to do is get the mom on the stand as a witness under oath, and ask her if the transcript of her online conversation with 99%depressed is authentic, and if she said yes, then it would come down to whether the jury believes the mother or 99%depressed.
 
^that's ridiculous if something like this would boil down to his word against hers. If it came down to this, I think it should be left at this. How is she more credible than he? if it's all about character credibility and not this evidence than that's a personality contest and should be even more canceled out. you have to be living under a fucking boulder if you fail to realize how easy it is to fabricate documents and other online communication forms. it's easier than forging checks. After seeing how my friend got his txt message account hacked into, something i never even thought was possible to do, i wouldn't trust shit about this stuff anymore.
 
to clarify a point, i ran into some trouble last june and made a couple bad decisions afterward. I wrote a couple emails to friends describing in great detail what exactly happened to me when i was picked up. i also made a HORRIBLE decision to make a similar post on this website, describing to people what went down.

well, so when i arrived for my trial in september, the prosecution had picked up three of my emails to a certain friend and also had my post here printed up and ready to be used against me. they had my IPs and all my other information as well. unfortunately i was also stupid enough to use my school email account (which has my first initial and last name in it), which i also used to register on bluelight. so i was screwed, duh.

fortunately, we plead and the issue didn't arise. but the bottom line is...WATCH YOUR ASS! PIGS ARE WATCHING!
 
curiouscub......

one of the primary functions of a jury is to judge the credibility of witnesses.

While it is the evidence which directly determines the fate of a defendant, the evidence cannot be accurately evaluated without considering the credibility of the witness who offered the evidence.

For example, if two witnesses offer conflicting accounts of a car accident, the story the jury chooses to believe will be significantly affected if one of the witnesses is the pope (who is not only an uninterested third party, but has an obvious strong motivation to be truthful), while the other witness is a close friend of one of the drivers (because his friendship with the driver constitutes an obvious bias and makes his testimony inherently less reliable, even if he is in fact telling the truth).

remember, you don't have to unequivocally prove a specific fact for the jury to base its decision on the truth of that fact. You just have to make the jury believe that the fact is more likely to be true than it is likely to be untrue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top