Man Accused of Stealing Buzzy's Clothing from Disney World Arrested

[gustaftp]

I don't know why you insist on believing unsourced claims over an official statement from the Orange County Sheriff's Office.

Because police are never, ever wrong. Right?

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Know who would read that story? Some Disney fans... Know who would share a story about Evil Corp flexing muscle chasing people over a wig? Millions...

Disagree. And that's fine. I think it would be easy to snapshot and headline this loser. I'm not going to take the time to mock something up for you, but that's my opinion.

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

So people who claim to have inside knowledge of Disney parks, provide no source to back their claim, and don't correct anything when they're wrong are more trustworthy? Is that what you're arguing?

The police said Buzzy has been stolen. It's not up for debate anymore.

Of course cops can be incorrect or get facts wrong. But at this point it seems like WDW has reported Buzzy stolen and that's what the OCSO are simply stating.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't disagree about the sensationalism.

I am just saying "Guy who had it All, steals more." Is pretty Sensational.

I imagine if he had it all... he wouldn't have been working a menial job at WDW or walked into a police station by himself like an idiot

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

I imagine if he had it all... he wouldn't have been working a menial job at WDW or walked into a police station by himself like an idiot

Then you're in for a surprise.

 

[flynnibus]

Then you're in for a surprise.

So you're saying because you know he has wealthy parents you know how much they supported him and what kind of resources and funds they would give him?

You expect all wealthy families to treat everyone as trust fund children? You're in for a suprise

 

[justintheharris]

I’m sorry, but it’s impossible for us to — without the evidence that the OCSO has to fully determine if the buyer that had the 18 times should even be arrested. There needs to be a probable cause for the OCSO to even determine if the buyer of the 18 items would even need to have charges filed against them, which I can say at this juncture that it’s unlikely. The buyer as per the affidavit has been cooperating with the OCSO, and would IF charges get filed, they would be to a lesser charge due to the cooperation. Patrick Spikes has proven especially with his actions in the with the affidavit that he is an unreliable person, with the intentional modification of the search warrant to skew the perspective into them bullying him. With that, I do believe that within the burden of proof especially with the lack of documentation that we have which the OCSO has —which again is part of multiple ongoing investigations— that it’s unlikely that the buyer knew the items were stolen to begin with. We do not know how they communicated nor if there is an middle man in between them or what was exactly communicated between them. All we know overall is that this person bought merchandise off someone, whom in this case is Patrick Spikes and that in this case, Patrick Spikes represented himself to the buyer as someone who had legally obtained this merchandise, and as learned over time, Patrick Spikes will do anything to anyone to make himself look good such as misrepresentation of legal documents and acting as a victim when there was probable cause to secure his phone to search it given the facts the OCSO had to skew the public opinion. When going forth in your comment, “There's no way the buyer didn't know it was stolen” can be seen even within this context as a potentially uninformed comment, as we can extend that to once was ThemeParkConnection and MouseSurplus, as we have no proof that the items that they sold were stolen as well. All we knew is that outside of the items, that they were being presented as being authorized to have them and thusly can conclude that they had permission to sell them from Disney, at one point ThemeParkConnection sold attraction manuals. So as of this juncture, the buyer being guilty doesn’t pass the litmus test. Patrick Spikes gave him an the explanation was plausible, as we know with MouseSurplus and ThemeParkConnection did have Disney merchandise for sale that was legally obtained, that in my opinion the state won’t be able to sustain its burden of proof that the buyer knowingly received stolen property.

Well I see it very differently. If a middle man existed, the affidavit would have almost certainly mentioned it. And maybe if the Haunted Mansion dress was the only item, I would be willing to believe that the buyer thought Spikes had obtained it legally. But he had bought EIGHTEEN ITEMS from him and I’m going to assume they were all very different and distinct items from around Disney World. And he paid high prices for them so he was aware of their value. You’re right in the regard that they would reduce the charges but I think this buyer has sold off more items at an even higher price. Does evidence need to prove it? Yes. And I believe it’s there if the police look.

 

[flynnibus]

buying stolen property (if you don't intend to transfer it or dispose of it) is not illegal in FL. Only 'trafficking' is.

 

[justintheharris]

buying stolen property (if you don't intend to transfer it or dispose of it) is not illegal in FL. Only 'trafficking' is.

He’s clearly not some clueless victim. And why was the dress being held at his mother’s house? Almost as if he knew he shouldn’t have it in his possession?

 

[flynnibus]

He’s clearly not some clueless victim. And why was the dress being held at his mother’s house? Almost as if he knew he shouldn’t have it in his possession?

I repeat what I said.. buying isn't illegal. Trafficking is.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

I think we may have to agree to disagree, either way, we'll probably never know if a confidential settlement is reached or whether it was just dropped anyway (and none of us will probably remember or care, if we were able to dig up information in a few years to determine one way or another).

In other news, I was taking a look at the twitter archive account (@BDDarchive) and remembered this old post from his account. I didn't question it originally, because who would be stupid enough to post something they shouldn't be in possession of from an attraction on social media for the world to see, but if the actions described in the police report are true, I wouldn't be surprised by anything with this guy now:


Given the recent revelations and that he simply gave away this prop for free, I wonder how much stuff he has from Jungle Cruise or other attractions around the parks that he'll have to come up with an explanation for!

The person who won the shrunken head, I have buddies that know them. As per them, the winner never received the item.

 

[justintheharris]

I repeat what I said.. buying isn't illegal. Trafficking is.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

View attachment 374482

And that falls into burden of proof. And I can pull a quick google search too:

Florida courts have established a number of “rebuttable inferences” of a defendant’s knowledge under certain factual scenarios. These include:

• Proving possession of property that was recently stolen. Unless it can be satisfactory explained, there is an inference defendant knew – or should have known – the property was stolen.
• Proving the item was purchased or sold at a price that is substantially below fair market value. The burden of proof will be on defendant in this case to provide a reasonable explanation for this.
• Proving the sale or purchase of the property by a dealer was out of the regular course of business or without the usual indications of ownership. Here again, the burden of proof is on defendant to offer an explanation that is reasonable.
• Proving a dealer who regularly deals in used stolen property was in possession of stolen property, particularly where the name, phone number or other identifying information of someone other than the person offering is displayed somewhere on the property.
• Proving possession of a motor vehicle wherein the ignition mechanism has been bypassed or broken.

Possible Defenses to Dealing in Stolen Property
There are a number of ways our experienced Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyers can assist defendants in these types of cases. Some possible defense strategies include assertion that:

• Property was not stolen;
• Defendant mistakenly believed he or she had rights to the property;
• Defendant had no knowledge the item was previously stolen;
• Defendant pawned items at the request of another, not realizing they were stolen;
• Defendant believed property was gifted or abandoned;
• Alleged victim made a false claim of ownership;
• Satisfactory rebuttal of inference to the “knowledge” requirement;
• Lack of evidence.

And the buyer, not only cooperating and handed the items over, also if charged would argue:

• Defendant mistakenly believed he or she had rights to the property;
• Defendant had no knowledge the item was previously stolen;
• Defendant believed property was gifted or abandoned;
• Satisfactory rebuttal of inference to the “knowledge” requirement;

And cheers to the class of Google Law School of May 21st, 2019!

 

[justintheharris]

And that falls into burden of proof. And I can pull a quick google search too:

As I said earlier, I’m well aware the police need to prove the buyer knew the items were stolen. Of course there’s a chance (a very slim one) that he’s just a big buffoon and actually thought all the items were obtained legally. But I still think he knew Spikes was stealing them considering how Spikes love to brag and photograph his antics. And I’m willing to bet if they investigate him, they can find proof of that.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

As I said earlier, I’m well aware the police need to prove the buyer knew the items were stolen. Of course there’s a chance (a very slim one) that he’s just a big buffoon and actually thought all the items were obtained legally. But I still think he knew Spikes was stealing them considering how Spikes love to brag and photograph his antics. And I’m willing to bet if they investigate him, they can find proof of that.

I honestly don’t think the buyer knew Spikes stole it. Spikes has a checkered past to make himself look good. Spikes likes to brag and photograph his antics, yes. But he has changed his story more times than marvel has rebooted their comics. Spikes has a questionable integrity and you can’t not from what we have learned can take anything at face value. Spikes will do anything and everything to make himself look good, and to say the least, and that’s where the state has one of their strongest cases. Spikes will maintain his innocence, and claim every which way to Sunday that he did not steal anything, yet the actual evidence in terms of messaging and photographs are his downfall in addition to the logs they have from the Disney system. That’s why they aren’t charging the buyer, because they cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that they knew that the merchandise was indeed stolen, given the actions and everchanging statements of spikes.

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

where do i go if i just want to talk about buzzy and not argue, i really just want to talk about the aa.....

How much do we think he actually weighed?

And could Buzzy fit in a baby stroller?

 

[justintheharris]

I honestly don’t think the buyer knew Spikes stole it. Spikes has a checkered past to make himself look good. Spikes likes to brag and photograph his antics, yes. But he has changed his story more times than marvel has rebooted their comics. Spikes has a questionable integrity and you can’t not from what we have learned can take anything at face value. Spikes will do anything and everything to make himself look good, and to say the least, and that’s where the state has one of their strongest cases. Spikes will maintain his innocence, and claim every which way to Sunday that he did not steal anything, yet the actual evidence in terms of messaging and photographs are his downfall in addition to the logs they have from the Disney system. That’s why they aren’t charging the buyer, because they cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that they knew that the merchandise was indeed stolen, given the actions and everchanging statements of spikes.

You basically made the case that the buyer should know Spikes is a criminal. And I refuse to believe there’s not some logged communication of Spikes bragging to the buyer “Look at me! I stole this! Wanna buy it?”
But only time will tell.

 

[flynnibus]

View attachment 374482

You shouldn't let google be your brain. The crime is to deal or traffic in.. you should look further into what it means to 'deal'.

I'll give you a spoiler alert... it has to do with selling, transferring, or disposing. Buying only comes into play if you are buying with the intent of transferring further or disposing of.

 

[NormC]

I honestly don’t think the buyer knew Spikes stole it. Spikes has a checkered past to make himself look good. Spikes likes to brag and photograph his antics, yes. But he has changed his story more times than marvel has rebooted their comics. Spikes has a questionable integrity and you can’t not from what we have learned can take anything at face value. Spikes will do anything and everything to make himself look good, and to say the least, and that’s where the state has one of their strongest cases. Spikes will maintain his innocence, and claim every which way to Sunday that he did not steal anything, yet the actual evidence in terms of messaging and photographs are his downfall in addition to the logs they have from the Disney system. That’s why they aren’t charging the buyer, because they cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that they knew that the merchandise was indeed stolen, given the actions and everchanging statements of spikes.

Spikes has NO integrity as evidenced by the bolded statements.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

You basically made the case that the buyer should know Spikes is a criminal. And I refuse to believe there’s not some logged communication of Spikes bragging to the buyer “Look at me! I stole this! Wanna buy it?”
But only time will tell.

Negative. I’m making the case that Spikes is the criminal that will do anything and everything to fraud someone with deceptive practices.