In Northern Georgia, Davida Kaye Caylor has been convicted of making false statements to a law enforcement officer because her son posted a photo to her facebook wall of his bruised and swollen hand that has been deemed a fake. During the trial, the arresting officer testified that Caylor did not give the photo to the officer and that Caylor was never questioned about the photo. Instead, he was shown the photo by the school nurse who also reported examining the boy's swollen (but not necessarily bruised) hand within an hour of the injury.
Caylor's sentence is 100 hours of community service, $1.5K in fines, 3 years probation and a permanent criminal record.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Photoshopping Facebook is Lying to the Police
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by mindriot on Sunday May 11 2014, @11:57AM
The North West Georgia News [northwestgeorgianews.com] and the Times Free Press (back from March) [timesfreepress.com] have slightly more informative articles about the case.
The latter one states:
Personally I would say that the picture (shown in the former article I linked) is pretty consistent with these descriptions. If so, I wonder how the jury arrived at their conclusion - especially considering that TFA linked in the story states
soylent_uid=$(echo $slash_uid|cut -c1,3,5)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @12:40PM
How is this tech related ??
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday May 11 2014, @01:07PM
Apparently posting to social media in a possibly libelous manner is not a civil issue but can be punished criminally, if there is a large enough difference in social class between the participants. I can't be the only one who assumed its Georgia therefore the victim of the libel must have been white and the suspect of the libel must have been black because in the south the police won't act that way if the races were reversed, but from a glance at the attached photos it seems to be more of a "white trash vs local white aristocrat" type thing.
I don't think there's much commentary because its such a mixed bag. On one hand, its the usual abuse of authority that we claim to dislike while simultaneously intensely supporting (as a culture). On the other hand, anything that makes facebook or social media in general die die die is great news.
So I can't say I'm terribly surprised, although it sounds like more of a Florida story than a Georgia story and I'm surprised there's no racial angle.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:00PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by pendorbound on Monday May 12 2014, @04:30PM
Did you hear? They have Facebook on COMPUTERS now!!!
(Score: 1) by SpockLogic on Sunday May 11 2014, @01:38PM
This is rural Georgia. The article should only be read while listening to the theme tune from Deliverance.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @03:30PM
Oh? Funny, the song I keep thinking about is "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia", particularly the line "don't trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer".
You can bet there is more to this story of the Caylor family getting a ride on the Georgia good ol'boy railroad system then what they are saying. But yeah, Deliverance definitely fits too, particularly when they get dropped off the railroad bridge into the white water rapids below. Going against a good ol'boy network can be rather like being pulled along in whitewater, slammed against the rocks along the way, losing all control and just hoping you survive the ride long enough to find a spot where you can climb out of the water without being shoved back in or under.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:56PM
Those are pretty much the only sources I can find as well. The first of the two does have one extra bit of information that might be meaningful, though (emphasis mine):
So it could be that she went to the police to report the assistant principal's behavior, and decided to give the issue a bit more weight by pointing to the photo on her son's Facebook account. That would explain the charges of lying to the police & obstructing evidence (or whatever the wording was) and why her attorney didn't claim she never mentioned the photo in the first place.
Personally, I have to question just how the police think a kid with a "swollen, tender hand" (which was then put into a brace at the medical center) managed to alter a photo with a smartphone skillfully enough to seem realistic...
(Score: 1) by Magic Oddball on Sunday May 11 2014, @11:13PM
Oops, I screwed up while rushing to write my comment, and should've said that she "pointed to the photo on her wall," rather than her son's Facebook account.
Same photo either way, of course, but...oh, screw it. The screaming tantrum from the toddler visiting next door is making it too hard to think straight. >:-p
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @12:32PM
That's a somewhat confusing summary, at least I have no idea who did what...
(Score: 2) by Jerry Smith on Sunday May 11 2014, @01:00PM
There is no "Taylor" in the original story, it's Caylor, the son's names are Gregory Aaron Black. A principal suspended Gregory, Gregory reacted by reaching for the principals phone, the principal grabbed it. Now, the boy says his hand got bruised by that action, the principal says he hardly even touched the boy. Gregory uploaded pictures of a bruised hand, but the bruises were not on other pictures. Hence the law suit.
So the main question is: why does this get on SN? Because it has the word "facebook" in the original article?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
(Score: 2) by mattie_p on Sunday May 11 2014, @01:29PM
Fixed Taylor to Caylor, that was part of the original submission and we missed it as we posted the story.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by moondoctor on Sunday May 11 2014, @04:55PM
Why here? Yes, precisely because it has 'facebook' in the title, but not as a knee jerk. We here all play with computers and being arrested for doing that is becoming much more common. Articles that talk about what gets a person into trouble in 2014 are very interesting to me and my ruminations on tech ethics and the meeting of tech and society.
(Score: 3) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday May 11 2014, @09:56PM
No, it's because posting images to social networking sites is now to be done with the caveat that it is - apparently - tantamount to making a statement to police.
What lawsuit?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Jerry Smith on Monday May 12 2014, @05:19AM
I thought a requirement for a trial (including judge and jury) was a law suit.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday May 12 2014, @07:42AM
In the case of a civil action, yes. This wasn't a civil action.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by lx on Sunday May 11 2014, @01:06PM
Who goes to the police over a slightly bruised hand?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 11 2014, @04:28PM
Actually, you can be reasonably expected to go to the police over much less than a bruised hand. It is called "assault and battery". Without any physical contact, you can still be the victim of an assault. All the other guy has to do is threaten you in some manner.
People can, and sometimes do, become felons just for making a threat against other people.
Try this: Pick up your telephone, and call the leader of your nation. Suggest that you would like the opportunity to bash his face in. See how far you get with a defense, "But, your Honor, he isn't even bruised!"
(Score: 2) by lx on Sunday May 11 2014, @04:36PM
Whatever happened to manning the fuck up and not being such a goddamn pussy?
I wish that I could have put that in more polite language, but this most accurately reflects my thoughts on the matter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:40PM
we gained enough collective intelligence to realize that stuff like "survival of the fittest" and "might makes right" are things we dont want in our society, so we crafted laws to support our enlightened view.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday May 11 2014, @07:48PM
we gained enough collective intelligence to realize that stuff like "survival of the fittest" and "might makes right" are things we dont want in our society, so we crafted laws to support our enlightened view.
Obviously that's why the most enlightened countries arm themselves up as if the war starts tomorrow; and that's why their leaders sport a thousand-strong, taxpayer-financed, security services that exist only to protect the leader and his courtiers.
In middle ages a king was supposed to be a knight who can fight on a battlefield. Today a king is not required to be personally involved; however his proxies are just as strong. In a truly enlightened society the leader wouldn't need such proxies.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Sunday May 11 2014, @04:57PM
> Who goes to the police over a slightly bruised hand?
The parent of a child whose hand was hurt bad enough to be splinted by a doctor.
And then there is the whole matter of who did it, a school official.
What a fucking pussy, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @05:32AM
Kid put his hand where it did not belong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:27PM
A mother who knows the bruise was made by an assistant principal (while at the school no less).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @02:14PM
the outrageous bit, and why its worth talking about, is that a possibly deceitful internet post is being interpreted as an act of lying to a police officer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @02:29PM
Mmmm... yeah, but this is the way it's presented by the media, I'd be surprised if this wouldn't seem totally different if we actually knew what the hell happened.
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Sunday May 11 2014, @02:30PM
Your Facebook post has been determined to be untruthgood, because Law Enforcement did not like it, Citizen. As punishment, you will now be eligible for induction into the corporate-prison-profit-labor system. (Which is totally not slave labor, because if it was, that would be bad, and nothing the State does is allowed to be bad.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @04:16PM
Just for fun:
Google: corporate-prison-profit-labor system
scary how many things come up.
Say it three times fast:
"I will be a good obedient boy."
"I will be a good obedient boy."
"I will be a good obedient boy."
Yes I served a few months. BTDT
(Score: 2, Funny) by rancid on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:40PM
Don't Google search that term, it will be recorded and stored at the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center that you may question government security polices.
(Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 12 2014, @01:34AM
You provided a known enemy of the state with information that may help them evade detection in the committing of thought crimes against the state. You too will have your information stored.
(Score: 3) by hatta on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:15PM
Lying is free speech. That lying to the police is criminal is itself worthy of outrage.
(Score: 3) by sjames on Sunday May 11 2014, @06:32PM
The cherry on top is that they never even showed the post to be deceitful. It is entirely likely that the bruise became more visible with time. In fact, it's a near certainty.
More likely, the principal is a 'respected member of the community', so if anyone has anything bad to say about him, they must be punished.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday May 11 2014, @08:14PM
> The cherry on top is that they never even showed the post to be deceitful.
From the second article: "Based on an analysis from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Roden also concluded that a Facebook photo supposedly showing a deep, purple bruise on the boy's hand was fake."
But without seeing the GBI's analysis ourselves, who can say? My guess is that this woman sure couldn't afford to pay anyone else to come and do an independent analysis. Perhaps someone here has the expertise necessary. Here's a link to the largest copy of the image I could find (but who knows what kind of processing it's been through between here and the original post to facebook).
http://wrcb.images.worldnow.com/images/21437205_BG 2.jpg [worldnow.com]
(Score: 3) by sjames on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:13PM
Of course, the same detective that said that also claimed that the bruises came from deliberately injuring the hand. He just can't seem to decide which.
(Score: 1) by cafebabe on Monday May 12 2014, @03:11AM
I tried viewing the EXIF data via http://exif-viewer.com/ [exif-viewer.com] , http://exifdata.com/ [exifdata.com] and http://www.verexif.com/en/ [verexif.com] before realizing that, duh, Facebook strips EXIF data. If I could be bothered, I could do a hex dump and see if the JPEG quantize table comes from Adobe software or not. However, that isn't particularly informative. Anyhow, unless Facebook received a subpoena, there isn't much forensic data apart from the pixels - and after doing an edge detect in GIMP, it doesn't look faked or resampled in any obvious manner.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday May 12 2014, @05:52AM
Sorry for the double reply, but if that picture is a fake, it's a rather painstaking one, complete with someone very carefully following the grain of the skin with the airbrush tool. Magnify it and look between the knuckles where it's in focus.
It's hard to tell how much the report might have distorted things without the court transcript, but if this is really based on the detective testifying that the GBI said it's fake, that's hearsay and should never have been allowed.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @06:17AM
There are a lot of ways to modify a photo beyond simplistic use of the airbrush tool. I'm far from an expert, but I would have done a feathered selection and then started playing with the tint - accentuating the darker tones with blue and brown. I might try the airbrush tool to direct some of that tinting but only on the chroma channel, not the luma (which is where most of the fine detail like the grain of the skin is). If you google for photoshop bruise you'll find a bunch of tutorials that are far more sophisticated than that.
If you aren't an expert in the field it is impossible to even know what you don't know. Just because it looks good to the untrained eye doesn't mean it isn't totally fake. For all we know the kid has a friend who is OCD about photoshop that did it for him. Not all that much else to do in rural georgia...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday May 12 2014, @06:40AM
I know there are other ways but none are apparent in the photo either (noting that it has gone through who knows what by now). However, since it is the mother who was convicted, she would have to have done it or caused it to be done and she would have had to present it to the police representing it as unre-touched.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by cafebabe on Monday May 12 2014, @02:26AM
Does this mean false information read by the NSA is also a case of lying to officials?
1702845791×2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 11 2014, @10:09PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 12 2014, @12:55PM
Conclusion: Don't put your identity on any website that can be surfed by assholes.
TmFxIHpueHIgZmhlciBjcmJjeXIgdW5mIGdiIHpueHIgbmEgcn NzYmVnIGdiIGVybnEgZ3V2YXRm ;-)
IGd1bmcgem54ciBjYmJlIHp2YXFmIHRiIG9ueXl2Zmd2cC4=