Pantagraph.com | News | 5 years later, man gets stolen watch back

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Linda Kingery wrote on Mar 22, 2007 4:30 PM:

" when is this ANNUAL TOWN AUCTION??? Is it advertised in advance ????? "

Michelle again wrote on Mar 22, 2007 4:25 PM:

" If the watch was listed on the policy, is there any reason that an insurance company wouldn't pay out the claim in a case of theft? I can't see not insuring something so valuable, and if it was legitimately stolen then wouldn't the insurance pay the claim if there were a policy on it? "

To Michelle wrote on Mar 22, 2007 2:05 PM:

" Not paying the claim and reporting a stolen item are two different things. "

To: "To Michelle" wrote on Mar 22, 2007 1:31 PM:

" The article says that it wasn't. Quote: "After checking with the man's insurance company to be sure a claim had not be paid, Warner said the watch was returned to the man." Unless the insurance company denied the claim, or it wasn't listed on the policy, a payout would have been paid to the owner if it had been turned in. "

just wondering wrote on Mar 22, 2007 12:50 PM:

" if this owner bought the watch on the secondary market. The serial number can be traced by Rolex Watch USA to the jeweler it was originally invoiced to. If the jeweler keeps records or puts that serial # on an appraisal, the original purchaser is easily found. If he bought it on the secondary market it would be pretty tough to track back to him. "

Great wrote on Mar 22, 2007 12:03 PM:

" Makes me wonder if my stolen laptop, camera, XM radio, etc. ended up lining the pockets of the police department instead of them bothering to check if they belonged to me. And yes, I DID have all the identifying numbers. And no, it's not the police department's call whether or not they return an item based on insurance being paid. That's between the insured and their company. The police may report it, but they don't get to make the decision. I'd love to know when this auction is as I'm sure my stuff was stolen for drug money. "

to:wrong perspective wrote on Mar 22, 2007 11:37 AM:

" So your saying that someone who gets rich off of selling crack should get to keep everything becuase, hey, he earned it. Great attitude. I guess we should just let George Ryan go then huh. How the watch came to NPD, weather purchased from the original owner or from the person who stole it, doesn't matter. It is siezed at that time, and as they are doing now, if it is found to be stolen, they return it to the owner or the insurance company if the item has been replaced. I don't think Normal PD was trying to Scam anyone. And as someone stated earlier, the stolen watch can't be tracked between departments unless the owner had the serial number, and only then can it be entered into a national database. "

To Michelle wrote on Mar 22, 2007 11:19 AM:

" Who says it wasn't? "

Michelle wrote on Mar 22, 2007 10:58 AM:

" Why wasn't the theft of a $10,000 watch reported to the insurance company in the first place? "

Wrong Perspective wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:35 AM:

" Police should not be allowed to seize personal property, regardless of the situation. The fact that they can seize property if the case is labelled as a drug case, just encourages more cases to be labelled as such. "

Pink Floyd wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:35 AM:

" There's no watch in my opinion worth $10,000. "

DUH wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:29 AM:

" Task Force 6 is a combined effort among many local agencies! "

Agree with Illegal Funds wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:24 AM:

" The "purchase" of the watch with illegal funds was void before one even considers what types of funds were used. Since the watch was stolen, the seller didn't have title to the watch in the first place. Therefore, the sale is void regardless of the where the funds came from. Title remained with the owner from the start. Please correct us if we're wrong here. "

Illegal Funds wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:59 AM:

" The story says, "Law allows police to seize items "obtained with illegal funds." Warner said the watch had been purchased with money from drug sales." If the owner knowingly sold the item to the buyer for the illegal funds, I could understand the seizure coming into play here. This is different though. The watch was stolen prior to the sale for the illegal funds. That watch never should have been subject to seizure. I don't think the Pantagraph dug deep enough here. "

To Answer wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:57 AM:

" This model Rolex, especially with its features, is by no means a common theft item in town. I feel it should have been easy for the Police to match it up with its owner. "

Again wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:33 AM:

" Why is Normal PD trying to sell a watch seized by Task Force 6? Shouldn't the Task Force have had the watch to sell? Sounds like they got caught with their pants down and now they are trying to pass the buck. "

To: I knew it wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:01 AM:

" NPD wouldn't "profit" from the sale. Drug assest forfeiture money goes back to helping fight the drug problem. Unless you would rather Normal raise your taxes. "

What? wrote on Mar 22, 2007 7:44 AM:

" What's the relavence of whether an insurance claim had been paid? The watch does not become the property of the police if the man was compensated by an insurer, it becomes a matter between the insurer and him and ultimately likely becomes the insurers property. Looks like the police got bit by spinning how clever they were too much!! "

to 'I knew it" wrote on Mar 22, 2007 6:05 AM:

" The police don't profit from this type of thing....the people do, because it's revenue into the police dept that doesn't have to come from your tax $$ "

To: QUESTION wrote on Mar 22, 2007 4:02 AM:

" The owners filed a police report on the stolen watch in Bloomington 5 years ago. It would not be reasonable for us to expect that the Normal police go through every theft/burglary report of all area police departments over the past 5 years looking for some reference to a stolen men's Rolex wrist watch. "

ANSWER wrote on Mar 21, 2007 10:34 PM:

" Read the story again, it should be pretty clear. The guy didn't care enough about the watch to record his serial number and provide it to police. If you can't prove it's yours, why would they give it to you. You should always write down your serial numbers and keep them in a safe place. "

i knew it wrote on Mar 21, 2007 10:11 PM:

" Well, I made this claim when the article first posted. I'm gald the man and his watch are back together again. I don't think the PD should profit from these types of sales. Why not donate to charity when they rightfully don't account for in the budget in the first place. "

QUESTION wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:22 PM:

" IF the man filed a police report, why didnt the police check their records for stolen watches in the first place before trying to make a profit of it? Sounds like the cops were more interested in making a quick buck than returning the watch to its rightful owner. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Scientific Graphing Software

Maintenance Professionals

DAB Car Rentals