Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 10:28 am

While it's always good to hear that the police have arrested someone that they have good evidence of being responsible for a crime--this article seems pretty devoid of evidence linking the person arrested to this home burglary.

With the car involved being abandoned--then registration/VIN information readily links the car to a person. So, was the person arrested the owner of the car? If the car were stolen, that would have complicated the problem, but there is not information about the car's being stolen. So--who owns the car, and what is that person's involvement in this crime? Or was that person readily identified, and has become a prosecution witness?

And what about fingerprints in the home, on the recovered TV, and the car? Were there any fingerprints recovered?

So .. it might be every interesting to see the timeline of this investigation, to see why it has taken a month to identify at least one of the people involved in this crime.

Posted by Enough!, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 10:51 am

Always a critic. It's not up to us to know all the evidence, it's for the prosecutor. Keep getting these scumbags off the streets. The loser has a job, so you can take that social excuse from him.

Posted by moi, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 10:51 am

Joe --

All good questions.

I read the article hoping it would include the answers. What's the story, PA Weekly?

Posted by JustMe, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 11:22 am

I too read this article and wondered how the dots from the crime to this suspect were connected.

The registration of the vihicle would not be adaquate, there are numerous scenarios where another person could have been using that car. It would be a major clue to be investigated, but it is not conclusive.

Fingerprints at the scene matching the suspect would be far more conclusive. A DNA match from evidence at the scene to the suspect would also be good, but I have a fear of faulty handling and over-reliance on DNA evidence.

I am not ready to climb on the "The police arrested him, that's good enough for a hangin'" bandwagon.

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 11:32 am

I am sure this comment will generate some 'heat", .....but is he an ex-felon? Is he 'legal? For whom did he work? Did his employer check his 'record', if any? Has he worked on other construction jobs that might link him to other homes that have been burglarized? Is he part of a burglary 'ring'? Did he have any connection to anyone who worked in the targeted home- a caregiver, cleaning service, gardener, window washer?? Why was that home and others targeted? Had to be a reason.

Posted by JustMe, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 11:40 am

Kate, luv ya. Good questions.

As far as the "ring", we know there was a driver in the car, at least a second person was involved.

we still need to determine if the arrested person was truly a culprit, there is no sense wringing information from him if he is the wrong guy. At this point, all we can do is sit back and watch as much as we are allowed to see while we let the police do their jobs.

Posted by It's not a 50 Minute crime show, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm

He will get tried in court as our justice system affords him, not in the media.

If you want to see the evidence, go to court and readthe filing documents or perhaps watch the hearings.

The media could go read the court filings also, but they probably wont take the time.

Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm

> He will get tried in court as our justice system affords him

Actually, most people arrested by police do not get a trial. About 95% of those arrested "plead out", which leaves only about 5% ever seeing a trial.

There is a growing concern about the validity of "forensic science", which is outlined in this recent Frontline episode on CSI:

Web Link

Also at issue here is that the media almost never report on cases where charges are dropped when a lawyer is assigned, who is able to demonstrate the inadequacy of evidence before the case goes to trial.

Posted by Gethin, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Great job by the local police!

Posted by Raymond Lucas, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Apr 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm

One down, how many to go? it seems to me their mistake was being too close to home when they committed their crime. Quite a few 'suspects' come from the South or East bay. Did word get out that Palo Alto is an easy place to get away with burglary?

Posted by JA3+, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 1:37 pm

"is he an ex-felon? Is he 'legal? For whom did he work? Did his employer check his 'record', if any? Has he worked on other construction jobs that might link him to other homes that have been burglarized? Is he part of a burglary 'ring'? Did he have any connection to anyone who worked in the targeted home- a caregiver, cleaning service, gardener, window washer?? Why was that home and others targeted?"

+1; agree in full; Kate's post is spot-on.

Disclosure is important in so many things; here, it's crucial. I hope there's more information forthcoming.

Posted by Helen, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Maybe a camera caught him in the act. They do work nowdays to catch people.

Posted by Sue Dremann, Palo Alto Weekly staff writer, on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:17 am
Sue Dremann is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Palo Alto police Sgt. Brian Philip said the investigation is still ongoing, and police are looking into exactly what else Lopez might have been involved in.

Police have very specific evidence linking Lopez to the burglary, but they cannot release any more information about the case at this time, he said.