Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Criminal Photoshops Himself Into Charity Photos In Bid For Leniency 108

Posted by samzenpus
from the shopping-daryl-in-a-crowded-theater dept.
38-year-old Daryl Simon decided it would be a good idea to submit fake pictures of himself at charity events, and forged letters of support from various charitable organizations to the court before he was sentenced for credit card fraud. Unfortunately for Daryl, he is as good at Photoshop as he is at credit card scams, and Judge Stephen Robinson was not amused. Simon was sentenced to 285-months in prison — 50 months more than the maximum under sentencing guidelines. From the article: "Daryl Simon's bald-faced move included sticking a picture of himself into a shot with a physical-therapy patient, then flipping the image and placing it next to a teen student. 'Evidence that his image was inserted and flipped can be seen by examining the single detail on his shirt above his fingers — that detail appears on the left side of the shirt in the top photograph, and on the right side of the shirt in the bottom photograph,' prosecutors wrote."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Criminal Photoshops Himself Into Charity Photos In Bid For Leniency

Comments Filter:
  • Bald-faced (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I guess he liked to shave.
  • by Starteck81 (917280) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:13PM (#32965856)
    He should have paid a graphic designer to do it for him. I'm sure he could have found one that accepts credit card payment.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:14PM (#32965872)

    ...Simon presented of him standing next to Admiral Ackbar. The judge determined the photo was a fake, as the Admiral was overseas fighting the clone wars at the time Simon claimed the photo was taken.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You can't be serious! Next you're going to tell me that the Save the Ewoks Foundation that Simon told me about isn't a real charity!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Duh. Nobody wants to save the Ewoks.
    • by NetNed (955141)
      Well it didn't help that he also included Keyboard Cat in the back ground.
  • by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:14PM (#32965876) Homepage Journal

    "How to Piss off your Judge, for Dummies". Unfortunately, it was meant as a parody book.

  • by kodr (1777678) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:17PM (#32965920)
    Too bad there aren't any photos in TFA, I wanted to have a good laugh too...
    • by jeffmeden (135043)

      I think that's why this is in idle... nothing more than another dumb criminal story.

      TTIWWOP!!!

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:18PM (#32965940)
    If 235 months was the maximum sentence, then wasn't the judge breaking the law by sentencing him to 285? Obviously, either 235 wasn't *really* the maximum or the judge is looking for a good way to get removed from the bench. I suspect the former.
    • by kestasjk (933987) *
      Maximum original sentence perhaps, which got changed to include the extra fraud? Probably specified somewhere in the article
    • by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:23PM (#32966048)

      What he did could be considered an act in contempt of court, which could easily be another charge to tack time to his sentence.

      • by Thing 1 (178996)
        Hmm, or perhaps the court was in contempt, creating some sort of sucking sound that only Mexico can fix...
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They were not so much "guidelines" but more like a "suggestions."
    • by maxume (22995)

      It depends on if the guideline is a gray area resulting from communication among police, prosecutors, judges, parole boards and other elements of the justice system, or if the guideline is established as law.

    • "Guidelines".
      meaning that if you really piss them off they can hand down more.

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        A max sentence however is a max sentence. I'm guessing that the judge tacked on extra for something else not mentioned in the article. If there's one thing news papers are good at it's ensuring that the court case that happened does not reflect what actually happened.

    • by nomadic (141991)
      Well this story was published in the Post, so I wouldn't really take any part of it at face value.
    • by Jahf (21968)

      Lying under oath is a criminal offense that can carry many -years- of penalty. It's called perjury. Most perjury cases only get a few months to a couple of years but in most jurisdictions it can carry up to 30 years. And guidelines are just that ... guidelines. Higher courts can overturn the sentence because of them, and if it was a federal case the judge might get in hot water, but it wouldn't be an automatic dismissal in most cases. And if it is a state judge it could even work in his favor if he is elect

      • Perjury is also the key way that you can convict politicians. All you need to do is convict them of a crime when it goes to court they will be considered guilty for perjury... Why... Because they are Politicians and they always lie.

      • by tattood (855883)
        Is it still considered perjury, if he wasn't on the stand when he submitted them? I believe he had already been convicted, and he was waiting for sentencing, and that is when he submitted the photos.
    • by russotto (537200) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:41PM (#32966388) Journal

      There's the maximum under the law, then there's the maximum under the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines take into account things like the severity of the offense (to a finer degree than the law itself) and any prior offenses by the defendant. The judge can't exceed the maximum under the law, but he can decide the guidelines are too lenient, though doing so usually invites an appeal of the sentence. Sounds like he had good reason this time!

    • by dcollins (135727)

      "If 235 months was the maximum sentence, then wasn't the judge breaking the law by sentencing him to 285?"

      Read carefully, from the article: "50 months more than the maximum under sentencing guidelines".

      They're guidelines. The guidelines have a minimum and a maximum recommendation. The judge is free to bypass those guidelines when it seems warranted.

    • Simon was sentenced to 285-months in prison -- 50 months more than the maximum under sentencing guidelines.

      Is it just me, or does calling them guidelines mean that it's okay to break them?

      It's like when people say please, that just makes it a request, not a command.

    • Perhaps they're sentencing guidelines, and not sentencing requirements.

    • by Kidbro (80868)

      Keyword: guideline. Also note that sentences may be adjusted (up or down) for several different reasons, one of which is obstruction of justice, which this may count as.

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Instead you should suspect shitty 'journalism', which would be the actual case here.

      He committed multiple crimes. The guidelines were for only one of the crimes, not all of them combined.

    • Witness things like "Super Maximum Security Prison" and the like. People don't understand words very well, I think. Here is something I saw on a parking meter:

      "Time limit: 3 hours maximum"

      What they really mean: "Time limit: 3 hours" or "Time: 3 hours maximum".

      What that actually means: "The time limit varies and will never exceed 3 hours." The limit for your particular spot might happen to be one hour when you park there, for example.

  • The prosecuting attorney(s) for their keen eye and to Judge Stephen Robinson for his lack of "amusement". I just hope the extra time does not lend any assistance to this idiot for getting and appeal.

  • by Carnth (609080)
    The judge could tell by looking at the pixels.
  • by catmistake (814204) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:23PM (#32966052) Journal
    I don't get it. There are rarely any photos that accompany news on the internet. What is up with that? If anything, it's only one lame ass photo... but... why not 50 lame photos? If news was done right on the internet, every story would have 5 pro germane and current photos, and pages of amateur cell phone photos and video. If a news site existed that did this, that didn't sell news but reported it... ah, what am I .... pipe dreams
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by erroneus (253617)

      The convict is probably asserting copyright over his creative works.

      • I thought once documents were submitted to the court they became a matter of public record, and thus weren't subject to copyright restriction in regards to news usage?

        IANAL, so I could be wrong.

    • probably because they need permission to publish a photo that belongs to someone else (even if it belongs to a jackass on his way to the slammer). side note: do they call it the slammer cause of cell doors slamming or because...well, y'know?
    • You mean that instead of sound bytes prescribing (and sometimes proscribing) how to feel, community news instead should showcase the information the community itself has to offer?

      Oh, and isn't there a GIMP plugin to do this with built-in speckling/add-entropy so that the prosecution/judge can't notice so easily?

    • Because the internet and multimedia don't mix. Wait a minute...

    • by Psaakyrn (838406)
      Pictures means more bandwidth, and means a much higher chance of getting slashdotted.
  • by Jahf (21968)

    While the defendant got 50 months more than maximum sentencing for what he was accused of ... he could have also gotten a lot MORE than 50 extra months if brought up on perjury charges. It would be a good idea for him to just take it and not complain :)

  • this is why you have to have a zero tolerance policy for cheating in college and high school

    because if you let people cut and paste their term papers and google answers during multiple choice tests, you breed idiots like this fraudster

    you create a whole class of people who believe the way to a better life is to fake everything

    of course it always goes on: fake resumes, lies during first dates, etc. but when the stink rises to this kind of problem solving philosophy: "the challenge is not how to answer this q

  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:31PM (#32966224) Journal
    At least the attempt is more creative than the common American custom of "Finding Jesus" shortly before one goes to meet the parole board...
  • Why exactly are all of the photos you submitted for review PSD files? Oh and you forgot to merge the layers...

    ...And did I mention the shadowing is all wrong here?
  • 1. I expected to see the images in question when clicking the link in the FA.
    2. 24 years is a little excessive for fraud. Make the guy repay his debts and some. I guess people think that as long as we aren't executing people we are being humane in the care of criminals. Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be stuck in jail for that period of time?
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by couchslug (175151)

      "Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be stuck in jail for that period of time?"

      YES. That's why I don't do crimes. :)

      Some folks don't get the hint, so they can go sit in stir where they won't bother me. I don't care what happens to them as they have not earned my concern.

      • Sure you do. There are 10's of thousands of laws on the books. Everyone is a criminal.
         
        --
          Free Windows Codecs [windowsmediacodec.com]

        • by ScentCone (795499)
          Everyone is a criminal.

          And does everyone deliberately commit credit frand (like this guy), the jump bail (like this guy), then lie to the court (like this guy), and then try a bunch of BS as a last-minute stunt to reduce his sentence (like this guy), and in the process of mocking the court and the process, really demonstrate contempt for everyone involved? Did I mention the part about deliberately stealing money from people?
    • Yea, that is why I dont commit crimes...
    • 2. 24 years is a little excessive for fraud. Make the guy repay his debts and some. I guess people think that as long as we aren't executing people we are being humane in the care of criminals. Have you ever thought about what it would be like to be stuck in jail for that period of time?

      Fraud, then he jumped bail and then he insulted the judges intelligence and lied to the court. 24 years for all three.

  • by bfwebster (90513) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @12:53PM (#32966626) Homepage

    Some years ago, I acted as an expert witness in a civil case that involved forged pages inserted into the only extant signed copy of a contract. I testified on the stand at length as to all the various evidences that these specific pages had been deliberately changed and had likely been retyped and then printed: they were printed on an ink-jet printer vs. a laser printer for the original pages; there were words misspelled that had been correctly spelled in the most recent electronic version of the document; there were three lines of text completely missing on one of the altered pages, likely due to similar line endings (i.e., the typist looked at the hard copy, typed the text in, then looked back and inadvertently skipped down three lines); and so on.

    After I had testified, I was excused from the courtroom along with the alleged forger so that the lawyers could argue some motions before the judge. Out in the hallway, the alleged forger turned to me and said, "Your testimony was very interesting; I learned a lot." I thought, "Oh, great. Now he'll know what to avoid in the future." :-) ..bruce..

  • Another suspicious photo has his head stuck on a bikini clad Sarah Palin's body.

  • I can tell by the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time!
  • WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordVader717 (888547) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @07:17PM (#32972216)

    24 years? Can someone explain to me how this works? People get away with less prison time for murder. Not to mention corporate fraudsters who never seem to be punished for anything.

  • Sentence much? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nanoakron (234907) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @09:08PM (#32973152)

    23 years for scamming.

    That's 23 years just for taking money that isn't his.

    I knew you Americans liked your long and excessive sentences, but this takes the biscuit. I've heard of murderers and rapists getting less time.

    Just shows you what your court system is really there to protect - the good old green.

  • that detail appears on the left side of the shirt in the top photograph, and on the right side of the shirt in the bottom photograph

    Perhaps if the submitter had included a link to the photos we could judge for ourselves?

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...