Reviews

Ok...likely a stupid question and probably asked before...but...assuming LE gets to them...and we know they can...can a review written here or elsewhere be used against you after the fact as evidence?

Good question for ShysterJon, but here is my take on it:

1. It is hearsay evidence at best, how does the prosecutor show that a review was an actuall occurence? Either you or the lady are going to have to testify that the session took place.

2. All of this is just a fantasy anyway.

3. How does the DA link your name to your handle? The work to do that for a simple prostitution case is more than the DA wants to go through.

4. Now, if a serious felony occurs, a murder perhaps, that is linked to your review, then it may be worth the DA's time & effort to do all the spy spoof stuff you see on CSI & NCIS to bust your ass.

tigercat beat me to the punch, and I agree with everything he wrote, but here are my views.

I don't think your question is stupid, but, yes, it's been asked many times before.

The short answer to your question is "Yes, but it's highly unlikely." Here are some reasons why this is so:

1. As we all know, everything written here is pure fantasy (except when I write that LazurusLong is one cheap mofo -- haha).

2. Before a written review would be admitted into evidence at trial, a proper foundation must be established that it's authentic -- here, that it is what it purports to be. For example, if John Jones, whose ECCIE handle is IrishPussyLover, is on trial for prostitution, the prosecutor must establish that (1) Jones is IrishPussyLover and (2) Jones wrote the review. That would be hard, unless Jones is a total dumbass and admitted his handle is IrishPussyLover and he wrote the review.

3. In the real world, the primary evidence used to make a prostitution case consists of admissions or other damaging statements by the defendant to LE. As I've written before, the common fact in all the prostitution cases I've handled over 28 years is the defendant either talked about a specific sex act and/or a specific dollar amount with the undercover 'provider' or the UC 'john.' In other words, the Laws don't need a 'fantasy review' to make a prostitution case because the defendant makes it for them by voluntarily placing his or her own empty head in the noose.

4. The defendant may properly object that a written review is inadmissible hearsay, which is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. (The 'truth' here is the defendant committed prostitution.) However, the prosecution may reply that the review is non-hearsay because it's a statement against interest because a person does not admit committing a crime unless it's true. However, do not confuse the hearsay objection with the authenticity requirement. The prosecutor would have to overcome both objections.

The bottom line is: If you hobby, you're engaging in criminal activity. Engaging in criminal activity involves the risk of criminal prosecution therefor. If you want to lessen your risk, don't write reviews. But you'd have to be borderline paranoid to think that way. Instead, write reviews, but be discreet and use common sense.

tigercat beat me to the punch, and I agree with everything he wrote, but here are my views.

I don't think your question is stupid, but, yes, it's been asked many times before.

The short answer to your question is "Yes, but it's highly unlikely." Here are some reasons why this is so:

*****

2. Before a written review would be admitted into evidence at trial, a proper foundation must be established that it's authentic -- here, that it is what it purports to be. For example, if John Jones, whose ECCIE handle is IrishPussyLover, is on trial for prostitution, the prosecutor must establish that (1) Jones is IrishPussyLover and (2) Jones wrote the review. That would be hard, unless Jones is a total dumbass and admitted his handle is IrishPussyLover and he wrote the review.
Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Agree completely with everything, except that the proving up the identity of the handle may not be THAT difficult.

State would subpoena records from eccie's internet service provider (ISP) > gather all posts by Mr./Miss Handle > get the IP address from all posts > get the identity of the IP address from Mr./Miss Handle's ISP > Mr. George Bush.

There are some other issues, and it takes work, but that's what police investigators get paid for. Once it's proved that Mr./Miss Handle is really Defendant George Bush, the postings are no longer hearsay. Statements made by a Defendant are not hearsay, and they can be introduced as evidence against him at his trial.

The police do this every single day in child porn cases. Also, don't forget this folks: If it's on your screen, it's on your hard drive. The police can most certainly get a warrant to seize your computer. This posting is sitting right now in your internet or windows cache. Once the police have your computer, proving that Mr. Handle is really Mr. George Bush is a walk in the park.

Another problem, which I don't recall being mentioned, is when George Bush takes the stand to testify. Suppose the prosecution or police were lazy, and they didn't do the work necessary to prove that Mr. Handle is really George Bush. The prosecutor knows handle's identity; however, he also knows that he can't introduce his postings as evidence because he can't lay the foundation. It may still end up being tossed around at trial by the prosecutor for impeaching the credibility of the defendant. This is a whole new ball game.

In fairly short order, the prosecutor will ask Mr. Bush something to the effect: "Do you belong to an internet site eccie.net?" Things could get ugly fast.

In short, if you have a million internet postings that may incriminate you, taking the stand to testify at your trial can be very dangerous.

I'm sure that Sky_wire meant to say that statements made by a defendant (such as these reviews) ARE legally defined as hearsay but can be introduced under one of the many exceptions under the rules of evidence. The question is not whether these reviews are admissible but why they're being admitted.

As ShysterJon stated earlier, these reviews will be the least of your concerns because the prosecution possesses better evidence (e.g. LE testimony). So, if the prosecution does end up relying on these reviews, then you've done something horrendous to warrant the extra mile. Say you end up being accused as the EECIE killer, then your reviews and PMs could be used to prove opportunity, habitual behavior, or state of mind. But if this was the case, then these reviews WILL STILL be the least of your concerns.

At the end of the day, you write reviews to gain trust from verified providers and other members. The more that you contribute to the community, the more likely you'll be granted with information that allows you to avoid detection.

Do you really think the police and/or DA would go to that much effort and expend $$$ and resources to prosecute a low level misdemeanor case in which there is no victim?

Agree completely with everything, except that the proving up the identity of the handle may not be THAT difficult.

State would subpoena records from eccie's internet service provider (ISP) > gather all posts by Mr./Miss Handle > get the IP address from all posts > get the identity of the IP address from Mr./Miss Handle's ISP > Mr. George Bush.

There are some other issues, and it takes work, but that's what police investigators get paid for. Once it's proved that Mr./Miss Handle is really Defendant George Bush, the postings are no longer hearsay. Statements made by a Defendant are not hearsay, and they can be introduced as evidence against him at his trial.

The police do this every single day in child porn cases. Also, don't forget this folks: If it's on your screen, it's on your hard drive. The police can most certainly get a warrant to seize your computer. This posting is sitting right now in your internet or windows cache. Once the police have your computer, proving that Mr. Handle is really Mr. George Bush is a walk in the park.

Another problem, which I don't recall being mentioned, is when George Bush takes the stand to testify. Suppose the prosecution or police were lazy, and they didn't do the work necessary to prove that Mr. Handle is really George Bush. The prosecutor knows handle's identity; however, he also knows that he can't introduce his postings as evidence because he can't lay the foundation. It may still end up being tossed around at trial by the prosecutor for impeaching the credibility of the defendant. This is a whole new ball game.

In fairly short order, the prosecutor will ask Mr. Bush something to the effect: "Do you belong to an internet site eccie.net?" Things could get ugly fast.

In short, if you have a million internet postings that may incriminate you, taking the stand to testify at your trial can be very dangerous. Originally Posted by sky_wire

Do you really think the police and/or DA would go to that much effort and expend $$$ and resources to prosecute a low level misdemeanor case in which there is no victim? Originally Posted by Cpalmson

You've lost sight of the fact that they don't consider this (or any other crime) to be victimless . . . and yes, they have spent the money and resources (especially when TRYING to establish any precedent [good old boy policy] on what MAY be admissible in future prosecutions in a specific jurisdiction) . . .

Jon and sky_wire are both correct . . . if you'd like to see a case study in reviews being introduced as evidence (on MANY different "levels"), do a search for the Desert Diva's case in Arizona and enjoy reading volumes . . .

Kisses,

- Jackie

Thanks to all...and not I'm not so paranoid as to stop writing reveiws, but any knowledge it good knowledge and should be put to work.

Thanks for the time to answer!

Flyboy, I took your question and started a thread in Dallas Coed:

Can a review be used as evidence in a prostitution case?

You and other readers of this thread might want to check it out.

One correction - it is NOT necessarily hearsay since you wrote it. It could be (I am not saying for sure it would, but a good argument could be made in court) used as direct evidence of a crime. This is one reason (among a number) that I never, ever, ever post reviews. Let's assume (and this is PURELY fictional in case you were wondering) that I and a provider spent some time together. While it is just for "their time" (insert long clearing of throat here) we all know what is likely going to happen. However, at this point we could both say that we spent the time talking and no case could be made.

Once I have posted a detailed account of my illegal actions with a provider however, I place not only myself but also the provider in some fairly serious potential legal jeopardy. Writing a review and writing a confession have always seemed like the same thing to me. I am publicly telling people I don't really know about all the illegal shit I just did with someone else that I don't really know who did it for a "donation". The fact it was uploaded from your own IP would be enough foundation to have it admitted in court.

Don't be fooled, it isn't heresay, nor is it at all difficult to get your personal information from Eccie. All they have to do is slap a subpoena on them and they are legally required to provide the information, and, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, the authorities don't even have to say WHY they need it - they just have to mutter the words "possible terrorism" a couple of times. They could then use your own self published words against you. It has happened before. Its pretty rare, and they are probably after people that they are after in this way for something more serious than just seeing a provider. However, I feel that posting reviews with any significant details is always a bad idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by "correction," Liketobelicked. I clearly stated in my first post that admissions against interest are non-hearsay:

4. The defendant may properly object that a written review is inadmissible hearsay, which is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. (The 'truth' here is the defendant committed prostitution.) However, the prosecution may reply that the review is non-hearsay because it's a statement against interest because a person does not admit committing a crime unless it's true. However, do not confuse the hearsay objection with the authenticity requirement. The prosecutor would have to overcome both objections. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

The fact it was uploaded from your own IP would be enough foundation to have it admitted in court. Originally Posted by Liketobelicked

I disagree, at least under the interpretations of the evidence rules by Texas courts. Courts in this state have required FAR more than an IP for admission of internet evidence in a criminal case.

Don't be fooled, it isn't heresay, nor is it at all difficult to get your personal information from Eccie. All they have to do is slap a subpoena on them and they are legally required to provide the information, and, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, the authorities don't even have to say WHY they need it - they just have to mutter the words "possible terrorism" a couple of times. They could then use your own self published words against you. It has happened before. Its pretty rare, and they are probably after people that they are after in this way for something more serious than just seeing a provider. However, I feel that posting reviews with any significant details is always a bad idea. Originally Posted by Liketobelicked

What "personal information" could LE get from ECCIE about a member? Their IP, I guess. We've already talked about that. You mean a member's name? I don't think so. My real name isn't ShysterJon. I don't recall ever filling in a field with my real name when I registered on ECCIE. Did you? I'd be concerned about that.

Agree completely with everything, except that the proving up the identity of the handle may not be THAT difficult. Originally Posted by sky_wire

You start with the premise that it may not be THAT difficult to link a SHMB handle with a RW person, then you describe what seems to me to be a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming process to make the link such that few LE agencies would do it to build a plain-vanilla prostitution case.

TY Jon as always for your learned insights