SAP executive pleads 'not guilty' in LEGO-theft case Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Aug 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm
A Palo Alto software company executive accused of switching barcodes on the tags of LEGO toys rejected a plea bargain and pleaded not guilty in Santa Clara County Superior Court in Palo Alto on Tuesday morning, Aug. 14.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 1:04 PM
Posted by Jake, a resident of another community, on Aug 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Great excuse! I hope he gets convicted and he gets max sentance allowed for actualy attempting to excuse his crimes. Another rich educated crook who thinks they are above the law and his high priced lawyer will get him a slap on the wrist.
Seems he has too much money and ego and not enough integrity to step up and take responsibility for his actions.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm
It's a little scary how the way we have set up the incentives for success in America we seem to preferentially reward psychopaths and criminals, and then they rise to the top and set the tone for the whole country ... and no one had to fire a shot from a hostile country either ... kind of sad.
Posted by Overzealous Prosectors, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 7:21 am
How enlightening to hear the "Let's give him a fair trial and then hang him" crowd sound off on this story. It is possible, of course, that the prosecutors are right and this mass of charges is justified. It's also possible that this gentleman is guilty of a less serious crime that deserves a lesser punishment. He might even be "guilty" only of making a mistake, as he claims.
What is true in our system is that he is innocent until proven guilty, that he deserves a fair hearing, and that nothing the prosecutors say has been tested in court.
If any of these commenters is called for jury duty in this case, I hope they will be educated by the court on the responsibilities of a "jury of his peers."
Posted by MemberName, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 10:29 am
Yes...I would not be what this "gentleman", as you refer to him, would want on his jury. Most certainly! As I see the facts that PA Online has provided, on this date and on the previous PA Online reporting of this 'gentleman', and at that time, readers were able to view the eBay account as it was showing all the active ebay auctions. I'll try to find the link to the original article and post it here, later. He was selling only 'rare' or hard to find LEGO sets. What is this 'gentleman' with the title of VP doing selling LEGO items he has been seen on TARGET footage switching barcodes?
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 11:50 am
Hmmmm... if "he switched the barcodes out of curiosity, to see if it really worked" then why didn't he check the receipt when he left the store to see if it worked??!! Surely that would have been utmost on his mind at the time!
Posted by Gethin, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Although innocent until proven otherwise based on the police story and his pitiful excuses I can't see any other result than a guilty verdict. By refusing a plea he is potentially making it worse for himself and wasting our money and time in the process.
Posted by dave , a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Overzealous Prosectors [sic] resident of D/St Francis neighborhood ..."only guilty of making a mistake"??? It seems he made quite a few "mistakes" if the evidence of multiple bar codes and unopened sets of Legos are any criteria.
And he was curious to see if it (switching bar codes) worked? So he tried again and again because he was still curious? The man is delusional as a poster said above.
Posted by Overzealous Prosectors, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 4:52 pm
By all means, let's try this case in the media, right here, right now. The prosectors are trying to do just that, which, by the way, will make it much harder to empanel an unbiased jury, if this case does go to trial. Evidence? Until it's tested in court, we have no evidence, only the say so of the police and prosecutors. And we've only heard the prosecutor's version of the gentleman's--yes, gentleman's--story.
I'm glad this individual is making use of his right to a fair trial. It may be that the prosecutors will take another look at the charges and reduce them to be in line with the actual amount of the alleged theft, rather than use a string of assumptions to maximize the charges beyond what the evidence will bear. But we don't know, any more than we can easily figure out this gentleman's mental state, Paul Losch. Much as I like your blogs, I'm not sure you are wise to do psychological analysis based on news reports.