Dumb Criminal Update

Remember these guys? They were arrested last year after their story of finding antique coins and currency buried under a tree turned out to be a cover for stealing antique coins from some lady's attic. They're back in the news today, seeking dismissal of the charges against them, apparently on the theory that since the lady didn't know the stuff was on her property, it was "abandoned" for legal purposes and these guys could claim it. Allow Bostonist to call bullshit: Way back in 1874, the Supreme Judicial Court said that "the finder of lost goods, who, at the time of first taking them into his possession, has a felonious intent to appropriate them to his own use and to deprive the owner of them, and then knows or has reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining who is the owner, is guilty of larceny." So if you, find valuable coins in some lady's attic, do you have reasonable means of knowing who owns the coins? Um, yeah - you found them in someone's house! And even if you're not sure, it's probably more reasonable to ask the lady whose house it is than take the coins, make up a story about finding them somewhere else, and pose for dumb-looking pictures (above). We're glad their lawyer is working overtime to give these guys a fair shake, but seriously, abandoned items on someone else's property? If the plumber is in Bostonist's house and discovers a missing toy that Toddler Bostonist has left behind the toilet, can the plumber just claim the toy as his own? (Would he even want to?) We think not.