×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Criminal Photoshops Himself Into Charity Photos In Bid For Leniency

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the shopping-daryl-in-a-crowded-theater dept.

Crime 108

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

108 comments

Bald-faced (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32965766)

I guess he liked to shave.

Another idiotic summary/article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966728)

Complete MISUSE of the term, bald-faced.

Professional (4, Funny)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Professional (4, Funny)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966446)

No, he should have asked this graphic designer:
http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html [27bslash6.com]

Re:Professional (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967610)

Oh man, this and some of the others (I have lots of juicy reading left) have brought tears of laughter. It's been a while.

I love cats mind, but I can see the funny side of, well, comedy :)

Re:Professional (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32970644)

Meh. Somethingawful copycat. Pointless abuse of random people is so naughties. I suppose a person like this is looking for some kind of award for being "shocking" or "offensive".

Re:Professional (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#32973186)

Doesn't look very random to me. People who send him letters asking for things, people who live in his apartment building, people he works with, "friends", etc.

Truly creative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32965862)

Now I know how those politicians do it!

What really gave him away was the picture... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#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:What really gave him away was the picture... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966556)

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:What really gave him away was the picture... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32967464)

Duh. Nobody wants to save the Ewoks.

Re:What really gave him away was the picture... (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967714)

Well it didn't help that he also included Keyboard Cat in the back ground.

He read a book (3, Funny)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32965876)

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

Re:He read a book (2, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#32969718)

He almost got away with it, but the judge could tell by the pixels and by having seen quite a few shops in his time.

pic or it didn't happen... (4, Insightful)

kodr (1777678) | more than 3 years ago | (#32965920)

Too bad there aren't any photos in TFA, I wanted to have a good laugh too...

Re:pic or it didn't happen... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966050)

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

TTIWWOP!!!

Different definition of "maximum"? (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966028)

Maximum original sentence perhaps, which got changed to include the extra fraud? Probably specified somewhere in the article

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (4, Interesting)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32969674)

Could be an inaccuracy in the article. These days, online articles are rushed to be the first out with the scoop and get the clicks!

If you pause to cross check every single fact, someone will post their less-than-perfect version before you.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#32973666)

Hmm, or perhaps the court was in contempt, creating some sort of sucking sound that only Mexico can fix...

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966058)

They were not so much "guidelines" but more like a "suggestions."

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966064)

Maybe his crappy Photoshops were a crime and added to his sentence?

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966072)

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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966098)

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

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968098)

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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966158)

Well this story was published in the Post, so I wouldn't really take any part of it at face value.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966178)

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 elected and his constituents approve.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967010)

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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

tattood (855883) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967128)

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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (4, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966388)

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!

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966576)

According to some of the other articles floating around the web they added more charges as a result of the attempted fraud, including obstruction of justice.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966916)

"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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966976)

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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

Kidbro (80868) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967396)

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.

Re:Different definition of "maximum"? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968280)

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.

Pics or it didn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32965954)

EOM

My thanks to... (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966000)

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.

Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (4, Insightful)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966052)

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:Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (2, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966654)

The convict is probably asserting copyright over his creative works.

Re:Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967224)

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.

Re:Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32969862)

being submitted in court does not make it public domain. Otherwise companies suing each other would lose rights anything they present as evidence.

However in this case the pictures could be confiscated as evidence for the prosecutor for charges in regards lying in court and that would open them up potentially as public records.

Side note public record is not public domain either.

Re:Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (1)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966828)

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?

Re:Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966930)

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?

Re:Why are articles so stingy with pictures? (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32973184)

Pictures means more bandwidth, and means a much higher chance of getting slashdotted.

Bold faced, not bald-faced. (-1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966054)

What idiots write these stories? It amazes me how many journalists and people in general will use phrases that they clearly have no understanding of when they speak or write. Its clear they have no understanding because they don't even say it right.

Please kids, for the love of god, know what the words you are saying mean before you use them.

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (4, Informative)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966222)

Maybe it is you who does not know what he is talking about.

A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it. The phrase comes from 17th-century British usage referring to those without facial hair as being seen as particularly forthright and outwardly honest, and therefore more likely to get away with telling a significant lie. A variation that has been in use almost as long is bold-faced lie, referring to a lie told with a straight and confident face (hence "bold-faced"), usually with the corresponding tone of voice and emphatic body language of one confidently speaking the truth.

cited from wikipedia "lie" [wikipedia.org] . There are several more site that discuss this if you do a simple Google of bald-faced.

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (2, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966512)

What idiots write these comments? It amazes me how many slashdotters and people in general will use phrases that they clearly have no understanding of when they speak or write. Its clear they have no understanding because they don't even say it right.

Please kids, for the love of god, know what the words you are saying mean before you use them.

(My apologies to the original poster, I couldn't resist, and it felt fitting.)

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (1)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967354)

Be glad you don't work for my boss. I cringe every time she says, "For all intentional purposes..."

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#32967674)

That's not as bad as 'for all intensive purposes' which doesn't even make sense.

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (2, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968190)

OT, but some of my favorites (collected from various co-workers):

I'd like to emphasize that I am NOT making any of these up.

"He was reeking haddock with the system."
"It's not that cold on the thermometer, but don't forget the wind shield factor".
"OK, all of these things are important, but what takes present tense?"
"Hopefully this has got your creative juices floating..."
"There's no pot of gold at the end of the tunnel."
"He was out last week for surgery. He had a pollack removed."

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968618)

In all fairness, there isn't a pot of gold at the end of the tunnel, because it's at the end of the rainbow.

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (1)

angst_ridden_hipster (23104) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968628)

I've heard:

"This takes us to the crotch of the matter" (which, I suppose, might make sense in contexts other than the one in which it was delivered).
"Nothing more to talk about -- it's a mute's point"
"He was essentially in involuntary certitude"
"More changes are coming down the pile"
"We'll come to that bridge when we get to it"
"You need to think outside the blocks"
"There's no 'me' in 'Team'"

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (1)

dabudah (577924) | more than 3 years ago | (#32970000)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968332)

Yes, and from what you posted from Wikipedia, which one of those actually fits, hmmm?

Re:Bold faced, not bald-faced. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966490)

Need a -1 Clueless mod.

Seriously, did you consider checking the etymology of the phrase before posting here? Maybe you would have learned something (as opposed to simply being taught by the other poster) instead of appearing as an ignorant wanker.

JPG or it didn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966068)

Interesting story, but without a picture, there isn't much to say.

Perjury. (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966106)

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 :)

result of cheating in college and high school (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966214)

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 question but how to fake a good answer" then you have created monsters, who, even if they are successful at their tricks, wind up not even knowing who the hell they are themselves

eventually, you become fake to even yourself. a truly and horribly empty shell of a person

Well... (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966224)

At least the attempt is more creative than the common American custom of "Finding Jesus" shortly before one goes to meet the parole board...

Wrong Format (2, Funny)

ctchristmas (1821682) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966368)

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?

Two things: (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966484)

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:Two things: (0, Troll)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966602)

"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.

Re:Two things: (1)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966948)

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

Re:Two things: (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968602)

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?

Re:Two things: (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966640)

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.

Re:Two things: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966748)

ok when someone murders a loved one, we will be 110% sure that they get a soft bed in a private room with expanded HD cable and a xbox 360

fuck him let him rot, think he gives a shit about all the people he has hurt?

This looks shopped. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966552)

I can tell from some of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few shops in my time.

I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32966586)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Maybe he'll do a better job next time (5, Interesting)

bfwebster (90513) | more than 3 years ago | (#32966626)

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..

Re:Maybe he'll do a better job next time (4, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#32968086)

He'll learn all that and more from sitting in the slammer with other criminals while getting his PhD in forgery anyway. Proper response would be to lean back and laugh "That? Jeez, that was just the first list of stuff you got wrong. I was just getting started. You're strictly a small-time amateur, pal" and walk away, shaking your head with amusement.

Is there a link to the photos submitted anywhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32967994)

Is there a link to the shopped photos submitted anywhere? I think like most people here I want to see his handy work. Maybe its just me.

Queens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32968102)

Two years ago, he was found in Queens.

In federal prison, 'queens' found in you!

Pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32969210)

Pics or it didn't happen ... oh wait

WTF? (2, Insightful)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 3 years ago | (#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? (2, Insightful)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...