US Pilot arrested on possessing and making indecent images
Discussion
EX US Air Force captain Robert Prussak, 57, is charged with possessing and making indecent images of a child
Not a common name, but I am sure I have heard it before somewhere.
Found it
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/29/fo...
Not a common name, but I am sure I have heard it before somewhere.
Found it
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/29/fo...
Edited by mick987 on Wednesday 30th October 11:42
In the news just yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o
The story is very odd. There seems little doubt that he took the girl from Harrods and the girl was still with him later when he was arrested by a Policeman outside the Israeli embassy (about 1 mile from Harrods).
However, the jury acquitted him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o
The story is very odd. There seems little doubt that he took the girl from Harrods and the girl was still with him later when he was arrested by a Policeman outside the Israeli embassy (about 1 mile from Harrods).
However, the jury acquitted him.
ralphrj said:
In the news just yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o
The story is very odd. There seems little doubt that he took the girl from Harrods and the girl was still with him later when he was arrested by a Policeman outside the Israeli embassy (about 1 mile from Harrods).
However, the jury acquitted him.
The older I get the more convinced I become you can tell if someone is guilty of something from their mugshot. When I heard of his acquital on the other thing and then saw a picture of him I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o
The story is very odd. There seems little doubt that he took the girl from Harrods and the girl was still with him later when he was arrested by a Policeman outside the Israeli embassy (about 1 mile from Harrods).
However, the jury acquitted him.
Just imagine how that jury is feeling now though. Not to mention the victim.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
The older I get the more convinced I become you can tell if someone is guilty of something from their mugshot.
Christopher Jefferies?I also accept that under the current system we need other proof/evidence, but I'm convinced I could do better than a jury that spent weeks/months listening to evidence just by looking at the suspect for various types of high profile crime (tv licence evasion or whatever not so much, as they don't tend to publish pictures so I haven't internalised the offender profile physiognomy yet).
Somewhatfoolish said:
It's a nuanced art. Yes, he looked odd, but he didn't have the creepy smile of this guy. With my now extensive experience looking at mugshots of people I wouldn't have been fooled.
I also accept that under the current system we need other proof/evidence, but I'm convinced I could do better than a jury that spent weeks/months listening to evidence just by looking at the suspect for various types of high profile crime (tv licence evasion or whatever not so much, as they don't tend to publish pictures so I haven't internalised the offender profile physiognomy yet).
Username checks out.I also accept that under the current system we need other proof/evidence, but I'm convinced I could do better than a jury that spent weeks/months listening to evidence just by looking at the suspect for various types of high profile crime (tv licence evasion or whatever not so much, as they don't tend to publish pictures so I haven't internalised the offender profile physiognomy yet).
Somewhatfoolish said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
The older I get the more convinced I become you can tell if someone is guilty of something from their mugshot.
Christopher Jefferies?I also accept that under the current system we need other proof/evidence, but I'm convinced I could do better than a jury that spent weeks/months listening to evidence just by looking at the suspect for various types of high profile crime (tv licence evasion or whatever not so much, as they don't tend to publish pictures so I haven't internalised the offender profile physiognomy yet).
We can do away with all these juries and solicitors and whatnot.
Think of the money we can save just by sending you a photo (you need more than one?) of the accused and you can quickly decide on their guilt or innocence.
I’m also a strong believer in the science of phrenology. You can certainly tell a burglar as they all have ‘burglar’s heads’.
I’m certain we are all delighted to finally get rid of juries and can now sensibly proceed on the fact that the defendant looks a bit of a wrong ‘un.
jdw100 said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
The older I get the more convinced I become you can tell if someone is guilty of something from their mugshot.
Christopher Jefferies?I also accept that under the current system we need other proof/evidence, but I'm convinced I could do better than a jury that spent weeks/months listening to evidence just by looking at the suspect for various types of high profile crime (tv licence evasion or whatever not so much, as they don't tend to publish pictures so I haven't internalised the offender profile physiognomy yet).
We can do away with all these juries and solicitors and whatnot.
Think of the money we can save just by sending you a photo (you need more than one?) of the accused and you can quickly decide on their guilt or innocence.
I’m also a strong believer in the science of phrenology. You can certainly tell a burglar as they all have ‘burglar’s heads’.
I’m certain we are all delighted to finally get rid of juries and can now sensibly proceed on the fact that the defendant looks a bit of a wrong ‘un.
Somewhatfoolish said:
More research is required.
TBF it would has the makings of an undergraduate psychology project.Subjects come from either 'I can tell a wrong 'un by their appearance' or 'I can't tell a perv by appearances alone'. Present each group with mugshots of people convicted of paedophila and a control group.
Null hypothesis - there is no difference between the results from the the self declared paedo radars and the control group.
Somewhatfoolish said:
You need to think bigger. My method would allow pre-emptive intervention and even rehabilitation before the crime has even been committed. Although I'm not sure I could pick up burglars reliably enough, they are a diverse group even if mostly with the same few hair cuts. More research is required.
What a frightening scenario you are depicting.I truly hope there aren't too many like you.
Eric Mc said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
You need to think bigger. My method would allow pre-emptive intervention and even rehabilitation before the crime has even been committed. Although I'm not sure I could pick up burglars reliably enough, they are a diverse group even if mostly with the same few hair cuts. More research is required.
What a frightening scenario you are depicting.I truly hope there aren't too many like you.
KAgantua said:
What an odd story. How on earth was he not convicted of the Harrods thing?
Reading the articles during the trial, it seems his explanation for the delay was:article said:
He later said he was "surprised" to learn that the girl was in his flat for as long as two hours.
He said he "absolutely regrets" not calling the police sooner, saying it was because he did not know "what response I would get" and was afraid "they'd send the cavalry and ambulance and everything".
Which obviously doesn't make much sense, because he said he took her back there to research how to call the emergency services. Quite why it took him two hours and why his solution was to walk to a fire station...He said he "absolutely regrets" not calling the police sooner, saying it was because he did not know "what response I would get" and was afraid "they'd send the cavalry and ambulance and everything".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4d4pzgz1no
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyv6715xvno
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c749480ygdmo
After an hour of deliberation it seems the jury sent a note to the judge asking if there was any DNA evidence of assault (there was now) which suggests they weren't paying much attention to the evidence...
The only explanation is that the jury believed that he never had any intent to kidnap/abduct and was just misguided, and she was lying. Crazy stuff. It must be one of those trials where the prosecution thinks they have at least one offence in the bag but are left aghast.
Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 31st October 12:02
Would not be hard to do some image based prediction modelling and test it. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a difference in expressions that could be picked up but the problem is how you maintain that when criminals practice the "look" of someone who did something or whether it is morally right to punish people on the basis of an ML model that may not be detecting what you want it to detect (it isn't).
KAgantua said:
What an odd story. How on earth was he not convicted of the Harrods thing?
It's bizarre. He takes her to his home for 2 hours, and she ends up drugged. How is that not kidnap?Any sane bloke that found a lost child would try to alert someone (police, shop staff etc). You would not wander off with the child.
I wouldn't even be comfortable wandering around the same shop looking for the parent!
jdw100 said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
The older I get the more convinced I become you can tell if someone is guilty of something from their mugshot.
Christopher Jefferies?I also accept that under the current system we need other proof/evidence, but I'm convinced I could do better than a jury that spent weeks/months listening to evidence just by looking at the suspect for various types of high profile crime (tv licence evasion or whatever not so much, as they don't tend to publish pictures so I haven't internalised the offender profile physiognomy yet).
We can do away with all these juries and solicitors and whatnot.
Think of the money we can save just by sending you a photo (you need more than one?) of the accused and you can quickly decide on their guilt or innocence.
I’m also a strong believer in the science of phrenology. You can certainly tell a burglar as they all have ‘burglar’s heads’.
I’m certain we are all delighted to finally get rid of juries and can now sensibly proceed on the fact that the defendant looks a bit of a wrong ‘un.
limpsfield said:
Eric Mc said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
You need to think bigger. My method would allow pre-emptive intervention and even rehabilitation before the crime has even been committed. Although I'm not sure I could pick up burglars reliably enough, they are a diverse group even if mostly with the same few hair cuts. More research is required.
What a frightening scenario you are depicting.I truly hope there aren't too many like you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff