backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 148 comment(s) - last by Ajax9000.. on Oct 8 at 8:22 PM


Here's a picture of the sweatshirt that Simpson was wearing, including the "suspected explosive device."  (Source: CNN.com)
A valuable lesson can be learned here -- don't wear electronics to airports unless you want to be jailed

Think your Friday was bad?  Well, you should listen to the story of 19 year-old MIT student Star Simpson's eventful Friday at the Logan Airport.

Star Simpson was arrested by police who mistook a piece of tech-art for an improvised explosive device.

Simpson entered the airport wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a light beige circuit board mounted to the front.  The circuit board featured wires, green leds, and a battery.  Friends of Simpson say the shirt was a homemade tech-art statement and that she frequently wore the shirt.  According to Simpson's friends, she was headed to the airport to pick up a friend before 8 a.m..

Another one of her friends adds:
MIT students don't really do mornings, or worry about what they're wearing, so I can't imagine she'd even think about her clothes before heading out to pick up a friend at the airport before 8am."
Well someone else certainly became very worried about what she was wearing.  Simpson approached an airport employee and inquired about the 8:00 a.m.  incoming flight from Oakland.  At the time she was also holding a putty-like substance that was later determined to be playdough.  When the employee asked about the device on her shirt, she responded that it was art and walked away.

Outside the terminal she was surrounded by police holding machine guns.  They told her to stop, raise her hands, and make no movements, so they could see if she was "trying to trigger the device".  Simpson obeyed the orders and was subsequently arrested.  Police quickly realized that the device she had been wearing was entirely harmless.

Simpson was charged with possessing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.  She was arraigned at the East Boston Municipal Court. She was later released on $750 cash bail and ordered to return to court October 29.

Major Scott Pare of the state police felt that Simpson was lucky that the police had not used deadly force.  He had this to say of the incident:
"Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... I’m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."

Simpson lists the following self-description on her website -- the website seems to be either down or to have too much traffic:
"In a sentence, I'm an inventor, artist, engineer, and student, I love to build things and I love crazy ideas."
According to police, Simpson never did fully explain why she had brought the playdough to the airport.

The incident is a warning to those who might wear LED shirts or other blinking electronic devices into the airport--you will likely get arrested at gunpoint.  For now, Simpson is likely wishing all the unwanted legal attention will blow over, so she can get back to what she does best ... inventing.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mooninite 2.0
By ChoadNamath on 9/24/2007 10:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad to see that the Boston authorities learned a lesson from the Mooninite "bombs" in January. Oh wait, here they are again talking tough ("Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue") when they should be trying to downplay an incident that makes them look bad. It's amazing how a city that is so well-known for its level of education is served by such morons.




RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By masher2 (blog) on 9/24/2007 10:55:12 AM , Rating: 5
I do love the opportunity to disagree with TomZ...it happens so rarely.

You're forgetting one important factor here. This sweatshirt wasn't the only part of the picture. The woman was also holding a large block of play-doh, a substance which (assuming she chose a neutral color) identical on sight to many plastic explosives.

Plastique-like material...wires...a battery. All the components needed for a bomb. I don't want to get into the issue of whether or not the police used inappropriate force, but this student clearly intended a bomb facsimile.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you think it is strange that the police didn't show the play-doh? I searched through tons of articles and I couldn't even find a single picture of the play-doh. Maybe the police made a "mistake" in saying that she had play-doh.

I'll agree with you that, if she had a clump of play-doh in her hand, that's pretty suspicious. But if it was just the circuit board, then the police clearly overreacted.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By arazok on 9/24/2007 11:59:27 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but even without the play-doh, walking around an airport with a contraption like that on your shirt is begging for trouble.

Everybody knows these are locations where security is hyper sensitive to anything even remotely suspicious. They don't take any chances, and everyone knows it. I'm not sure that charges are appropriate in this case (they are if she did have play-doh in her hand), but certainly taking the person in for questioning isn't out of line.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 2:17:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but certainly taking the person in for questioning isn't out of line

I agree, which is what they should have done, but they didn't. They hauled her away at gunpoint and charged her with multiple felonies and are continuing to prosecute her.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By arazok on 9/24/2007 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
If the play-doh allegations are true, then I would say that felony charges and an armed takedown are warranted.

Any one of the pieces by itself I could understand not pressing charges (the gadget, or the play-doh in hand). Put together, and you have either a very stupid person, or somebody willingly testing the alertness of authorities. I question if this person was truly surprised that she got arrested with that combo.

Who walks around with a bomb looking gadget strapped to them and then feels compelled to play with a ball play-doh at the same time???


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Micronite on 9/24/2007 4:49:39 PM , Rating: 3
I say regardless of play-doh, they did the right thing.
I'm trying to determine what I would do if I saw that contraption on her chest:
Hmmm... let's see, oh, you have an op-amp here, an LED controller here, a few wires here, caps, resistors... Ah must be a piece of art. Very nice.
Yeah right! Sorry, I'm EE and even I wouldn't do that.

Suppose it was a terrorist. Then gunpoint would have been completely accpetable. Should we drop the charges because it may have been a mistake? Think what this exercise cost taxpayers? Should they not have responded this way because she said it was "art"? The public should not have to pay for her oblivion.

The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes...
1) The girl gets charged, fined, and everyone realizes that you shouldn't bring something that looks like it could be a bomb to the airport. (Duh!)
or...
2) The girl gets them to drop the charges, the police get lax in security for fear of another embarrassing situation.

Think about it, which would you prefer?


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Alexvrb on 9/24/2007 6:30:51 PM , Rating: 4
You sir, are a naive fool. Explain to me exactly what a bomb looks like. A stuffed teddy bear can be an explosive device. Do you know what substance they use to simulate plastic explosives, due to its texture and appearance? Play Doh. She had something that looked like a plastic explosive, and a battery capable of detonating said material.

Also keep in mind this airport has not been devoid of previous incidents. Think back... you'll remember who else has been to this airport and WASN'T CAUGHT.

What's your next excuse? She was a harmless girl? She could have been a brain washed cultist for all you know.

I've lost a lot of respect for you today, sir.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 7:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think the police made up the play-doh bit. They mentioned it "in passing" in the press conference on Friday, but they never showed it or released any photographs of it AFAIK. I also was not able to find the criminal complaint or any other official documentation which is usually released to the media for high-profile cases.

This would be a convenient way to dupe the public into adopting the attitude that you have regarding this case.

To me, I find it hard to believe that a sophmore at MIT Engineering would, just for the heck of it, make a fake bomb and wear it to the airport while picking up her boyfriend. Something stinks about that story - it doesn't seem plausible, and I'm guessing it was a naive mistake she made which drew an overreaction by the police, who then felt it necessary to "embellish" the story a bit to cover their butts.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2007 9:57:34 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, authorities shouldn't be allowed to do anything unless explosions actually happen and at least a minimum of five people are dead. Only THEN can they do anything (but of course will be blamed for something happening).

The only solution is one of those things that turns back time with everybody still remembering what happened the first time so that only those who actually will successfully blow folk up are grabbed (and even then probably will be accused of violating rights if the first time-path isn't able to be recorded and/or be lawfully enterable into court actions).


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By kyp275 on 9/24/2007 11:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no idea what a real bomb looks like, but I don't think it's a plastic board with a 9-volt battery on it.


If you have no idea what a real bomb looks like, then how can you say something "doesn't" look like a bomb? :rolleyes:


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 5:32:57 PM , Rating: 5
I would prefer they surround her, even take her in for questioning if deemed necessary, and then drop it when it is known that it was not a bomb. Continuing to prosecute after it is known that it was just a piece of art is ridiculous imo. I think it is time that some common sense was brought back into play.

To answer your question: Yes, we should drop charges because it was a mistake.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By Screwballl on 9/24/2007 10:15:58 PM , Rating: 3
agreed... Thats what I was wondering, how the hell are they getting away with continuing to press charges for something that she is not guilty of.
Now if she pulled a stunt like that moron that questioned Kerry then I can see disorderly conduct but she cooperated every second with the police and the device was found to be exactly what it was and what she said it was, ART.
As for the playdoh, theres only a few mentions of it, no evidence, no further information. It could have been one of those stress squeezy things. Some crap is just taken way out of proportion. If they do continue to press charges, she should have the right to counter sue for false arrest and whatever else they can find they did wrong.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 5:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also, what exactly DID this cost tax payer? Not saying it didn't, I don't know for sure, but it would seem that regardless of whether she did what she did, these same people and resources are being paid for anyhow.


RE: Mooninite 2.0
By elgoliath on 9/24/2007 6:07:48 PM , Rating: 3
One last point regarding how much money was wasted by her actions, I'd bet it is far less money than it is going to cost to prosecute...