I am doing what I was told would help the most. IF you don't like that I really can't help you. That said, I will check into how law enforcement is doing on this today. If it is business as usual, which isn't that good from my experiences, then I will release the name. If it is going somewhere then I might not reveal it. I only have marginal confidence in authorities working in our hobby due to their lack of being able to take cases to help protect us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
This urge towards self-important secrecy with every bit of information is an unfortunate ongoing theme in this hobby. I have never even bid on a signed T206, don't have any, and thus have no stake in whether or not Paddy Livingston (whoever that was) signed a T206. But when it comes to exposing crooks, I believe as Justice Brandeis did:
"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
I notice that reporting on crime in newspapers often speeds up the prosecution of crime. Publicizing the name(s) does not affect an investigation into past crimes one iota: the crimes are already completed and the records of them that are likely recoverable from third parties (like AH consignment records) are already in existence. What it might do is prevent someone from getting ripped off. For example, if the info is out there that Joe Shlabotnick is the person who bought the cards under eBay ID "Ohio Forger" then everyone with eBay inventory can block him. Whatever we can do to cut off and frustrate the crooks is a good thing and it starts with information. We ought to be focused on what might protect the most collectors from further scamming ASAP rather than playing Jr. G-Man, and IMO that is maximum exposure of the culprit(s).
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may differ.
|