Stolen Camera Alert: Roleiflex Automat & Pentax Super Program

The cameras have been seen and I have a description of the guy.
I spoke to the eBay seller. He claims he'll get the Rolleiflex back for me. I told him I will pay him back what he spent to buy it. I'll get the money back from Crime Victim's Restitution if I can. It was only $20.00.
He says he refused the Pentax because he only wanted "old" cameras.

If the eBay guy does come through I'll give him a pass. If the cops catch the guy, we BOTH want to see him burned at the stake.

PARTIAL RECOVERY!

Just recovered the Rolleiflex! The Gossen Meter, too!

I have a description of the guy who probably took the stuff.
Know his name. Know where he lives. (It's only a couple blocks from here.)
He has been seen walking the streets. Matches the descriptions.

Items still missing:
Pentax Super Program & Lens.
Winder.
Pelican case.
Random filters and accessories.

Cops have been notified.

Let's hope this scumbag goes to jail!

Worker 11811 said:

I told him I will pay him back what he spent to buy it. I'll get the money back from Crime Victim's Restitution if I can. It was only $20.00.

Click to expand...

The guy is buying Rolleiflexes for $20?! I've heard of all kinds of flea market deals but I've never heard of anyone purchasing a well maintained fully functional Rolleiflex for $20. This was considered legit? Obviously I need to get out more.

Worker 11811 said:

I get asked all these questions like, "Was it locked?" "Where was it parked?" "Why was your camera in the car?" It's like people are saying I'm not allowed to be upset because its my fault. Well that's BS, I say! I shouldn't have to live in a locked down fortress be cause of some thieving dirtbag!

Click to expand...

I don't think any sane person is saying that. I think first of all the cops need to ascertain the exact circumstances of the disappearance in order to find the guy and figure out charges. They also want to eliminate insurance fraud. Other people probably just want to gauge how bad the neighborhood is. For me someone breaking into a locked car, disabling the alarm and having a rummage around the trunk is different than someone opening an unlocked door and plucking a GPS unit off the dash from a car parked on the street overnight.

Depending on your source 40% of residential burglaries involve the thief simply strolling into the house through an unlocked door or window.

Police say more than 40 percent of the burglaries reported in 2012 involved homes with unlocked doors and windows.

Click to expand...

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...as-Shoreline-residents-on-edge-214221391.html

I think saying you don't want to "live in a locked down fortress" and then keeping a loaded assault style rifle under your bed might be confusing to a lot of people. I don't want to get all political but securing your property with appropriate locks will do more to prevent a repeat of this type of thing than an assault style rifle. And that strategy would be cheaper and safer.

I live in a high crime area at the moment. A couple of people got shot two blocks away from where I live. I have never had a problem or a gun. I live in a secure building and always lock my front door and car door. I never leave ANYTHING in plane sight in my car. Someone would have to go on a fishing expedition breaking into cars if they wanted to discover whether my trunk was empty or not. I just make my home and car as unappealing a target as possible. The thieves move on to the unlocked doors and cars with goodies in plain sight.

I am not perfect though. I have a false sense of security. I still haven't written down all my serial numbers and photographed my equipment. Your story brought up a great discussion and I need to get that stuff taken care of ASAP. We can all learn from this and help each other out. I am glad you at least had a partially good result. I am disheartened at how ineffectual the police are though. You would hope once you did all the preliminary work and told them where they could find some of your stuff they would be over there the same day sweating information out of people. I understand they have a tough job to do but this case was gift wrapped for them.

The police should talk to the ebay seller. As a matter of fact, that seller may have some difficulty for receiving stolen goods.

You really should not have to buy-back something that was stolen from you.

glad u got your rollei back -- that's the biggie, and you are doing the right thing to reimburse the guy his $20 -- what the heck, small price to pay. Karma will smile on you.

to those saying he should be brought up on charges of receiving, or should have smelled something -- ease up -- if I found a rollei for $20 at a yard sale I'd probably plunk down the double sawbuck too -- it's an instinctive thing.


in this case, the guy did the right thing, cut him some slack.

as to whether yu should be criticized for leaving the stuff in ur car -- up to you, but in this day and age -- sorry if this feels like criticism -- but you really are asking for trouble if you leave stuff in a car. Nobody wants to live in a fortress world, but welcome to reality.

summicron1 said:

glad u got your rollei back -- that's the biggie, and you are doing the right thing to reimburse the guy his $20 -- what the heck, small price to pay. Karma will smile on you.

to those saying he should be brought up on charges of receiving, or should have smelled something -- ease up -- if I found a rollei for $20 at a yard sale I'd probably plunk down the double sawbuck too -- it's an instinctive thing.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify I said receiving the Rollei for $20 was a bit suspicious. A bit suspicious is a long way from "should be brought up on charges." I am just talking about my statements here not other people's. And stumbling across a Rollei for $20 at a grage sale is different than being a known trafficker in vintage goods and having someone walk through your door with a sack full of cameras and offer you a Rollei for $20. This guy does seem to sell a hodgepodge of stuff but a quick search of ebay does not reveal any working Rolleis selling for $20.

I think paying the guy was a good idea just to get the camera back. Why haggle over $20? The cops drag their feet on stuff like this and I would do anything reasonable to get the camera back. I wouldn't pay the $20 as good will. I would do it to get the camera before it is sold to someone else or the seller disappears. Really the cops should have showed up at the sellers place in 24-48hrs and started getting to the bottom of things. This case was handed to them on a silver platter.

For the record, the rifle is back in the safe. It has been for three days.
It was there just to be a security blanket, so to speak. The gun stuff is over, now.

So, how did this guy from an antique store end up with a Rolleiflex for only $20?
The guy is a "picker." He goes around to garage sales and flea markets and buys stuff he thinks he can sell. He doesn't know much about cameras. Just that he thinks he can make a buck. Buy low and sell high. He didn't know what he had except that it was an "old camera."

I took the tip that clayne gave in an above post and followed up on it.

clayne said:

Throwing some stuff out there (based off of the seller's name, which I'm not reposting here):

https://www.facebook.com/TerrisTreasures814
http://national.citysearch.com/profile/43649491/erie_pa/terri_s_treasures.html
http://local.yahoo.com/info-49614767-treasures-erie

Click to expand...

Got a hit of that third link. I knew where that store was located. I dressed in shitty clothes, went there and acted like just some schmoe. I saw an old Kodak movie projector, picked it up and said, "Cool projector!" Found a Bell & Howell, Double-8 movie camera and fussed with it.
I asked him if he ever got any camera stuff. He said, he only buys "Old, German cameras." (Ding! Ding!)
I pulled a copy of the picture of my camera out of my pocket and showed it to him. The guy just about shit himself.
He called this other "picker" guy who came right over. I showed him the picture and he turned white as a ghost.
I asked him if he was "814treasures55" I thought he was going to piss his pants.

I told the guy that, if I got the camera back, I would just tell the cops I found it. He promised to bring the camera the next day.

He told me that this scroungy looking guy came in the store and tried to sell both cameras. He didn't want the Pentax because he only wanted "old" cameras." I got a description of the scumball and the woman he was with.

The picker guy gave the Rolleiflex back to me, today. It's here with me right now.
He might be an idiot and a little bit slimy but I don't think he's an outright crook.

I had a Yashica-D that I got from a neighbor in exchange for some work I did for him. I have better cameras than that, so I don't use it. It's been on my shelf for a couple of years. I traded him the Yashica for the Rollei.

So, your question is, "Why did I give the guy ANYTHING?" I don't owe him anything.
Okay, maybe I felt a little sorry for the guy... Only a LITTLE. I did it mostly just to keep a leg up on him.
I could have had him busted. I could have had that junk store shut down. But, now, I've got him in my pocket.
I still have one camera missing. I can call in that favor if I need to.

I was outside, last night, and I talked to a neighbor about the problem. He told me that he saw some scroungy looking guy walking around the neighborhood and he knows where he lives. I gave him the description and he confirmed. I even know the guy's name and address.

As to the garage, it's an detached, outdoor, wood frame garage. If you rattle the door hard enough it can be pushed open.
Since it's a wood frame, I could buy a $1,000 lock but, if you can push, sideways, against the door frame the bolt won't engage the latch. In order to prevent that door from being forced open, I'd have to put in a reinforced door frame. Do do that, I'd probably end up rebuilding the whole garage.
That's why I made that "fortress" comment.

I'm still looking for the Pentax camera and the other stuff.
I still haven't spoken directly to the detective in charge of this case but it's a holiday weekend. The trail is probably getting cold.
It would be great to get everything back but, for now, I'm just happy to have the Rollei.

What I don't get back, I'll talk to my insurance company about.
What I don't get back from insurance, I'll apply for Crime Victim's Assistance and Restitution.

Will keep updating when there is more news.

Thanks!

Scumbag Will be Charged!

Just got a call from the police detective, about an hour ago.

They have a guy. (The above-mentioned "scroungy guy" that I told them about.) They have spoken to him. They are going to charge him with theft and receiving stolen property. The guy gets arraigned tomorrow.

Now, I have to talk to my neighbors and some of the other people I spoke with in order to get them to call the detective and give them statements. If they call in and give statements or testify, the thief will be charged with theft AND stolen property. If they can't get corroborating evidence they'll have to drop the theft charge.

The scumbag is supposed to appear, tomorrow, at the District Justice to face charges but if he doesn't show, they'll get a warrant.

Question: Can failure to appear be considered presumptive evidence of guilt of that one theft charge that's still up in the air?

Worker 11811 said:

Question: Can failure to appear be considered presumptive evidence of guilt of that one theft charge that's still up in the air?

Click to expand...

Not around here.

But police love failure to appear convictions, because a record for that makes it extremely unlikely that any future arrests will be followed by Judicial Interim Release - known in most parts of the world as bail.

So if he is caught again, he waits in jail!

Thanks.
I was confusing a couple of concepts: Failure to appear vs. a fleeing suspect. (If a person runs away from a police officer he can presume that the person has a reason to run. e.g. Was caught in a criminal act.)

I thought I was getting things mixed up but I wasn't sure.

Well done for being alert and noticing the sale of the Rollei.

Round here the clear-up rate for break-ins is 3%, and those ones are only where the drunk or drugged thief falls asleep on the job (slight exaggeration, but not by much). I think I'm going to be re-photographing my gear this weekend . . .

Get photos. Record serial numbers. Write down when and where you bought stuff. Record the value. Make note of condition issues or special features. Everything.

Talk to all your neighbors. Ask them if they have seen anybody suspicious in the neighborhood. Tell people that your house or car was broken into. Remind them that they could be next. That will get them involved. Take names and make notes of everything your find out.

This was instrumental in getting my stuff back. I gave the info to the police and printed pictures to spread around to all the antique shops, pawn shops and junk stores in the area. I pounded the pavement for a week and sent out e-mails to my camera club and everybody else I knew. It's a shame that anybody has to do that but, if you want your stuff back, you have to get the word out on the street. Everybody who might be in a position to buy the goods needs to know that they might be buying hot merchandise. You need to close all avenues of escape. Either the their will have to ditch the goods or hide them.

I have a computer database of nearly every piece of kit I own. It was merely a matter of printing out the pages and spreading them around.

The police can't do everything. It is an unfortunate truth but you are going to have to do a lot of their work for them.

Another thing that helps is to have connections. My mother happens to be friends with the District Attorney. She is on the political committee that did a lot of work for his election campaign. An e-mail from my mother is all it took. The D.A. made a couple of phone calls that helped get the train rolling.

All I did was send the D.A. all the information I had and, when he called the police detective, the cops put the pieces together. From there it was all a matter of putting the pieces together.

Most crooks aren't too smart. That's whey they are crooks. Right?
If you are smarter than the crooks (which isn't too hard) you will have a better chance of prevailing.

My wife's car was rifled a while ago, and the thief got a pen and pencil set and an old brief case.
The next day, the police called to ask if she had had anything stolen, because they had caught a guy and the brief case had her business cards in it. She went to the station, and the kid was there, and all the stuff he had stolen from several cars was laid out so people could identify it. She said it was pathetic, the whole lot couldn't have amounted to $75. And for this, with about 4 charges against him, he has a record.
That's one thing most thieves have in common, they're morons.

MattKing said:

Not around here.

But police love failure to appear convictions, because a record for that makes it extremely unlikely that any future arrests will be followed by Judicial Interim Release - known in most parts of the world as bail.

So if he is caught again, he waits in jail!

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that... I think what you're referring to is OR (own recognizance) releases where no bail/bond is posted or involved. It's unlikely, with the frequency of FIAs happening in courts, that a judge would not grant bail to someone with a previous FIA. However, it may of course be likely that they won't grant an OR release, though.

If you've been arrested for something minor (or even a non-violent felony), do not have a previous record of serious crime, are not a flight risk, etc., it's highly likely you'll be released on your own recognizance without posting bail.

I was confusing a couple of concepts: Failure to appear vs. a fleeing suspect. (If a person runs away from a police officer he can presume that the person has a reason to run. e.g. Was caught in a criminal act.)

Click to expand...

Neither presume guilt or related charge without probable cause and sufficient evidence, of course.

clayne said:

I'm not so sure about that... I think what you're referring to is OR (own recognizance) releases where no bail/bond is posted or involved. It's unlikely, with the frequency of FIAs happening in courts, that a judge would not grant bail to someone with a previous FIA. However, it may of course be likely that they won't grant an OR release, though.

If you've been arrested for something minor (or even a non-violent felony), do not have a previous record of serious crime, are not a flight risk, etc., it's highly likely you'll be released on your own recognizance without posting bail.



Neither presume guilt or related charge without probable cause and sufficient evidence, of course.

Click to expand...

Hi clayne:

I think these sorts of issues are very regional. Around here, if you have a conviction for failure to appear, it means that the Crown went to the trouble of laying a separate charge, and you were convicted on that charge - sometimes after a separate trial.

Having that conviction on your record does communicate to the court that you are a flight risk, which makes it more difficult to obtain a release pending trial for any future charges.

Even if the Crown doesn't want to lay the charge, they will usually ask for an arrest warrant, and will usually get one. If the accused shows up later, with a plausible explanation, or after the arrest is effected, provides information that might indicate there was either a good excuse or the accused just screwed up on the scheduling, the Crown may request that the warrant be vacated.

Otherwise, the accused's failure to attend will form part of a sort of record, in that it will be available in the future for the court to consider when questions of Judicial Interim Release come up.

By the way, we don't have bail bondsman up here. They are illegal. If the court decides that it is appropriate that there be a money consequence to failing to appear in court in the future, the court is required to choose an amount that the accused can raise, as well as to determine whether that amount is payable up front or just due upon failure to appear. The court may also require a surety for the bail order -someone else willing to sign saying if the accused doesn't show, the surety will pay.

Where there are financial terms to a no-deposit bail order, the court will usually require that the parties who might be liable under the order establish ahead of the time their ability to make good on monies that may become due.

It is much more usual to have the court either order detention, or release on conditions (curfews, no go areas, reporting, maintain school or employment, etc.). They are seen to be much more effective than financial orders.

Update:

Got the Rollei and the Gossen back. Said that before. Still didn't get the Pentax, the winder, the case or the accessories back.

I just got back from the court house and I got a little bit of good news.

As I said, they caught a guy and took him to court. He was charged for misdemeanor receiving of stolen property.

Spoke to the detective, the Assistant DA and the Victim Restitution representative.
Got a chance to talk to the guy. Of course, he denied everything. Honestly, I don't care. I just want my junk back.

After talking, we agreed that, if I got $450 to use to replace my equipment and a promise from the guy to stay away from me and my house, I would drop the charges.

He promised to send money to the District Justice. If that happens, I'm willing to live and let live.

The kicker is that, when the cops arrested the guy, he had just signed a lease on a new place to live. Just that day. When they hauled him off in handcuffs, the landlord tore up the lease. *IF* the charges get dropped, the guy can get his lease back.

I feel certain that this guy did it or knows who did but, given the lack of evidence, I'll take what I can get.

Having the guy lose his place to live, his security deposit (until the case is over) and having to pay me back is a pretty good, AFAIAC.

Replacing the Rollei would have cost $500. I have it back but the leather case is ripped. I'll have to replace that. Probably $50.
The Pentax, the lens, the winder and other accessories. Probably $200.
The case and shipping cost will probably be another $200.
I don't want to make any profit off this but, if I shop carefully and do a little dealing, I should be able to get a better camera than I had before.

It was a lot of fussing around for no good reason but it all seems to be coming out in the wash.
Good enough. Live and let live. Eh?