Hey, there! Log in / Register
MIT student learns the hard way: If a strange woman asks you to cash checks, don't
By adamg on Fri, 08/23/2013 - 12:00pm
MIT Police are on the hunt for a woman they say defrauded an MIT student twice with the old could-you-cash-this routine:
On August 4, 2013 a MIT student was approached on the St. by a female asking him to cash a check for her. They took the MBTA to victim’s bank in Harvard Sq. where he deposited her check into his account using an ATM and then gave her the cash.
The following day 8/5 the female reached out to him again asking him to cash another check. They met at the same bank and he gave her the cash again. 2 days letter the checks bounced.
If she looks familiar, contact MIT detectives at 617-324-8140.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Book smart
Street dumb
You'd think MIT kids
would be smart enough than to not get caught up in scams like this. Book smart doesn't equate to street smarts.
Raised in Bubbles
Very difficult for an 18 year old to have developed any street smarts when our society does not allow anybody under 18 to test drive their maturity until they are fully responsible.
We also have a culture where many kids are raised in environments where they never go anywhere except to a mall in a car, and then go to college in an urban environment where they are fundamentally lacking in all the survival skills they can't learn at the mall.
It isn't "MIT kids", but the wholesale creeping infantilization of teenagers in the US over the last 20-30 years that is to blame here.
Seems like Europe has a "career path" to adulthood that gives kids increasing rights/freedoms from about age 14 onward that make it possible to make some mistakes before they get to a "have bank account and no street sense" state of existence.
Laws in this Country not Relevant
The laws in this country don't necessarily equate to not having street smarts at the age of 18. It boils down to parenting, always has, and always will, that's the harsh reality that few parents care to face.
The laws are a HUGE problem here
Do you parent teens? Do you try to give them growing up experiences? I do, and I'm constantly running into nanny laws and idiot school administrators who believe that their pronouncements have the force of law. MA isn't the worst of it, either.
When laws or policies forbid kids from getting to or leaving school other than in a car or school bus, they lose valuable independent behavior training opportunities.
When laws forbid kids from practicing their sexuality until they are 18 - and many states do criminalize adolescent sexuality - they inhibit growth.
When laws and customs forbid kids from being able to travel freely about minding their own buisiness without harassment from citizens or authorities or policies of schools, they lose out.
When society prescribes that kids have to spend every waking moment n structured activity, and there is much societal pressure to not let them spend any time just being, doing, or exploring (both on the kids and their parents), they lose out.
When transportation systems forbid people under 18 from travelling unescorted they lose out.
In short, when people can't reach the age of 18 without constant parental escort, direction, and control due to LAWS and POLICIES they lose out.
Yes, THIS STUFF DOES HAPPEN - I know because I am parenting teens and have many friends all over the country who are doing the same. MA is relatively reasonable - many other states have essentially criminalized youth and actively fight and sometimes prosecute parents who want to do what you say parents are failing to do because they don't care.
While I attended a conference in Switzerland, my 17 year old roamed the country and part of France as well. He was old enough to stay alone in youth hostels (in the US they freak out if the kid is not directly attended by an adult at all times), drink beer and wine, stay out as late as he chose, and hop the next train to where ever he felt like going. This is not only legal and common in this area, it is expected.
YOU CANNOT DO THIS IN THE US until you are 18. Laws and schools frustrate parents who want their kids to be able to actively cultivate adult behavior and good sense in their children. I have been fighting this current since mine were 10 and I didn't see why the principal had anything to say about them walking home from school, or taking the MBTA bus to meet me in the city. And, like I said, some states are even worse - like numerous incidents where parents have been hounded by the child welfare system for letting 8 year olds walk to the freaking neighborhood park or people freaking out over allowing 15 year olds to take public transit. There are school systems in the US where administrators monitor social media and would expel my son for having pictures of drinking legal beers in Germany.
This is the stupidity that parents face - not lack of caring, infantalization of youth. I strongly suggest the free-range parenting blogs for a reality check.
Infantilization of US youth
I agree with most of much you said above about overbearing schools, etc. (I've run into this in the daycare arena in particular), but this is a hold over from schools being viewed as in loco parentis and the obligations/responsibilities/liabilities extending therefrom. In that respect, law (i.e., fear of being sued for negligence) is in significant part responsible for the policies you described. I am not sure that the majority of people would like that changed, however.
I am not acquainted, either personally or anecdotally, with the restrictions on unaccompanied travel, etc. that you reference above. I have never heard of an instance where someone under 18 was prohibited from travelling unaccompanied (other than in renting a car, but that is not a legal restriction, but rather a private company policy, and in any event, is a very narrow circumstance), and while there are probably some idiotic places in the U.S. where this is the case, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those places are, essentially, irrelevant (or have at least rendered themselves so by having such idiotic laws/policies in place).
What I really wanted to say was that you left out a critical element that accounts for much of the differences between Europe and here that you discussed. European cities and public transport are simply much safer than in the U.S. Accordingly, there is less for parents, school administrators, et al to worry about, and therefore, children are given much more of the freedom you describe.
I applaud your willingness to let your 17 y.o. roam Switzerland and adjoining France, and I hope to someday have the same opportunity. Again, however, I would point out that Switzerland in particular is one the most orderly and law abiding places that I have ever been (second, perhaps, only to Sweden) and the adjoining parts of France are quite similar. I think that both you and I would be a little more circumspect about letting our offspring roam around freely if they had to transit through, say, Clichy-sous-Bois or Aulnay-sous-Bois.
By the way, I'm not sure if you saw my previous comment (which strangely I can't find just now) asking why it is that the tramways in Zurich work so much better than the Green Line, but I also wanted to ask whether you got to the streetcar museum in Zurich?
I got yer idiotic place right hyar
Amtrak drastically changed its policy re unaccompanied minors in fall 2011. Previously, children aged 8 to 14 had been allowed to travel as unaccompanied minors, with few restrictions, and children 15 and up could serve as companions for younger minors.
Under the new rules, no children under 13 may travel unaccompanied under any circumstances, and companions for restricted minors must be 18 or over. The travel ability of unaccompanied minors 13 through 15 is narrowly restricted with a long series of rules, for example no unaccompanied minors at all may travel on the Downeaster.
Only kids 16 and 17 years old have the freedom to travel that 8 year olds enjoyed just three years ago.
In practical terms, this means no more putting the kid on the train to see Grandpa, and no more taking the train to boarding school after Thanksgiving.
Here is my favorite part of the new policy:
Under 18 but over a reasonable age
Perhaps I should have qualified my earlier statement - I had never heard of restrictions on people under 18, but over a reasonable age.
13 may or not be reasonable for everyone. I, personally, would not put a kid under 13 on an Amtrak train by him/herself anyway - it's not as highly controlled as air travel, where it's difficult to get off at the wrong stop or to be harassed by someone who could relatively easily disappear.
That said, the new Amtrak policy seems a little weird - do you know why there is the particular exception for the Downeaster? Also - taking the train to boarding school - that's a thing?
Reasonable age
I guess people in different families reach a reasonable age at different times. I find the idea of not considering a 12 year old sufficiently mature to ride a train by himself bizarre, unless there's something wrong with him. It was definitely commonplace for years to send kids that age on train trips by themselves. We certainly did things like that in my family.
Amtrak has an exception (no unaccompanied minors at all) for all lines that stop at stations without full-time attendants or workers. You know, because 12 year olds are too dumb to remember where they get off or read what the piece of paper in their hand says. And it would be a horrible, earth-shattering crisis if they ended up in Wells Beach or something.
Taking the train to boarding school, yes that was a thing back in the day. Don't know if it still is. Not that I went to boarding school, but I remember the trains northbound out of NY (this would be in the eighties) being full of unaccompanied kids after Thanksgiving. I guess they have to put staff on all the trains now, or ask for parent volunteers (or perhaps none of the parents can even imagine putting their wee babies on the train).
If you really want to contemplate the dumbing down of American kids, consider the life story of the United States Navy's first Admiral, David Farragut. He joined the Navy at 9, and fought in the War of 1812, when he was 11. He didn't just swab the decks; he was in charge of returning a captured ship to port when he was 12. Or think about what Thomas Edison was doing at 12. Did his mommy pack him up to ride a train all by his little self to Grandma's house? No. He had a job working on trains when he was 12, and there founded his first successful enterprise, a small newspaper called the Grand Trunk Herald.
Days gone by, eh?
my dad regularly rode the
my dad regularly rode the train from DC to Kansas by himself to visit his grandparents from when he was 9 onwards. I regularly talk to people who went on similar trips at similar ages.
The reason for the downeaster is actually a consequence of requiring both the boarding and arrival stations to be staffed.
Your response about Amtrak shows exactly the problem of paranoia. Even Amtrak admits their policy change wasn't in response to any incidents. So, there has not been any issues with kids being harassed or getting off at the wrong stops, but because someone is scared that it could happen, the longstanding and well-functioning policies are changed.
I remember taking an airplane to New York to see my grandparents
I recall taking an airplane to New York by myself to visit my grandparents back in the second grade. My grandparents then lived in Brooklyn, so it was pretty easy.
Even though I grew up in an idyllic Boston suburb, I remember going into Boston and Cambridge on occasion with friends, either to see a movie, for music lessons (by myself), and also accompanying friends who just wanted to do some errands or whatever. Those were fun times, back in the 1960's, when I was a teen, but today's world is rather different than it was back then, so that probably explains why so many kids are overprotected by their parents these days.
While I see that some of the complaints about how children and teens are overprotected and "Infantalized", as some people call it, are legitimate and to the point, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for overprotecting a kid somewhat, like if s/he has some sort of a physical and/or mental handicap that prevents him or her from being as independent as many, if not most "normal" kids.
The School aspect is interesting
Especially how schools treat their students.
Many schools have only one entrance, and every guest has to wait at that one entrance to be let in. Others have open doors where anyone can come in. Some have metal detectors, and others have security guards at the gate. And the location of the school often doesn't matter. Norwood high school had the locked door policy, while Newton North High School has the open door policy. Needham High has a Police officer in the school all day while Brookline doesn't have any cops in the school.
Some schools have open campus where students can go wherever they want when they don't have a class, while others have mandatory study halls where strict attendance is kept.
helicopter parenting
has pretty much killed off the model of awarding children escalating levels of privilege and discretion as they get older based on age, observations of behavior, and parental judgment.
Worst of all, we're setting up adolescents and post-adolescents as a class of citizens that have adult responsibility for their bad behavior without being able to enjoy adult privilege. Twenty one drinking age, "junior operator" driver's licenses that you can't do anything useful or "fun" with, criminalizing adolescent sexuality...but if you get pregnant, or get someone pregnant? Tough sh*t, you're on your own. If you kill someone? We'll be glad to put you on trial as an adult and put you away for life.
clueless kids is not a new thing
I moved into an urban dorm over 25 years ago as a freshman and some rube bought the story of a scam artist outside asking for a couple of bucks and handed him a twenty. The guy was nearly a fixture outside of our dorm for the next couple of months seeking out his mark and any other suckers.
I agree with a lot of what you say, I just think it is a much older story than you portray.
Nope
I remember being warned specifically about the dangers of cashing checks for other people during freshman orientation at BU ten years ago.
It was quite blunt- they had a police officer stand on stage and rattle off all of the various scams going around, kind of like the gym teacher in Mean Girls. "Don't cash checks for people. The Wallet Inspector is not real. XYZ Church is actually a cult. Lyndon LaRouche is not a real presidential candiate, he's a bigot" etc., etc.
Hit the nail on the head
"It isn't 'MIT kids', but the wholesale creeping infantilization of teenagers in the US over the last 20-30 years that is to blame here."
You've hit the nail on the head here. I was going to post that I thought college age kids just seem less mature than when I was that age, but I thought I might get flamed, or maybe I was just getting old. But, let me tell you, I was in my teens and early 20s in the 1970s. The drinking age was 18 here in MA, campus pubs were commonplace, it was pre-AIDS, and YES, we could party with the best of them, and with a freedom that won't be seen again. But, without wanting to overgeneralize, I still find myself thinking we were more serious minded and knowledgeable than much of that age group is today. We were certainly less coddled in the years leading up to college.
I'd bet dollars to donuts
That the generation before you said the same exact things about your cohort (which includes me, I remember the freedom of getting blotto legally at 18). After all, they'd fought the Nazis and won! And what did we do? Get drunk and have lots of sex and stand on people's lawns, dagnabbit. And probably the generation before them said the same thing and so on back into the dim mists of pre-history.
attributed to socrates
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
The attribution of that quote to Socrates is an urban legend, as is perhaps the quote itself; but it is true that every generation bemoans the state of subsequent ones in the same ways: ineptitude, laziness, immaturity, and lack of respect for their elders.
Was this a foreign student I wonder?
Or have Aspergers or be somewhere on the autistic spectrum? Seriously, I'm not joking or being sarcastic. How do you fall for something like this...twice?
Approached on the St.?
Was the street name there at one point and removed or is this some new way to use the abbreviation I'm unaware of?
No, street was never spelled out
I copied and pasted from the original police report, then forgot to put it inside those fancy-shmancy HTML tags that make it look like a quote. Police use abbreviations sometimes.
MIT kids, rocket scientists
MIT kids, rocket scientists inside the lab, barely functional outside.
Yeah think everybody on same
Yeah think everybody on same page with rocket scientist..ru kiding me? Really..ppl.still fall for this n sad part is you're on hook for bounced checks..no fraud ins can bail u out..this is a Nigerian scam that walked up to u..lesson learned? Probably not..but he'll def inventa sweet flying car..this kids are not well rounded, such a shame
Counterpoint
What dialect is that?
What dialect are you using? Obviously it is based on English but it's not a form of written English that I've seen. Interesting.
It would take a Heart of Stone
Not to laugh...
New admissions test questions needed
Authentic currency in hand beats numbers in a computer or fake paper.
That's the oldest scam in the
That's the oldest scam in the book!
How?
I'd love to know what the scammer's line was to convince someone to take a check and then give the scammer cash. What did she say to him? What was the angle?
And I'm not going to look down my nose at this kid (too much) - there but by the grace of God go any of us.
The grace of God?
Hardly. God didn't teach me how to avoid a scam.
Attributing things to God is just an institutionalized scam.
Kaz, I enjoy reading your
Kaz, I enjoy reading your responses and usually agree with you. But on this one I think you're missing the point. Just in case you're not aware, the phrase means that except for having the wherewhithal to recognize the scam any of us could wind up being the victim.
Whither wherewithal? Experience, lessons from parents, watching movies even.
The Grace of God can also mean sheer dumb luck. And to continue the metaphysical theme What do I think luck is? Being in the right place at the right time and having the mental wherewithal to make the right decision. But in this case the kid was on the other end of the scammers luck: being the right person in the right place with just the right limitation of life experience to be vulnerable to the scammer's lie.
I've met scammers who look perfect on the outside. It's not until burnt once or twice is their Dorian Grey face revealed showing that they have the moral rectitude of a slug. Hell, a slug has more moral rectitude than some people. But that is the beauty and ugliness of being human.
*Wooooosssshhhhhh*
(Passing right over anon's head)
The thing about these scams, however, is that they're
more likely to occur at times like this, when the economy is not so good, and people who are desperate enough can and often enough will resort to this kind of scamming. There's no excuse for that kind of disgraceful behavior on the part of scammers, but it can and does happen.
One way to at least minimize one's chances of becoming a victim of such scams is to become a little more streetwise. Walking with a zip, and making it clear that one has a purpose and place to go is one way. Taking some self-defense classes might be another way. Learning how to listen (from a distance, of course) to a person's tone of voice, and to observe his/her overall manner, and to figure out what this person is up to, although way easier said than done, is another way to increase street smarts.
If, however, one is in their car, and another driver tries to scam them by accusing of rear-ending their car, when, in fact, that didn't happen, because the dent or scratch that the scammer tries to accuse the victim of having created was already there, this is a situation that can get a bit more complicated if the victim's not aware of what's happening, fails to get on top of the situation, and to act immediately.
The best thing to do, in this kind of case when someone tries to scam you like that, is to get on top of the situation right away. Call the police and your insurance company right away, and tell them exactly what happened, reconstructing the incident as best as possible. Yet, in any scam, a person should act right away, and contact the proper authorities and tell them what happened. Had the MIT kid been a bit more streetwise, he might've done just that.
The thing about these scams, however, is that they're
more likely to occur at times like this, when the economy is not so good, and people who are desperate enough can and often enough will resort to this kind of scamming. There's no excuse for that kind of disgraceful behavior on the part of scammers, but it can and does happen.
One way to at least minimize one's chances of becoming a victim of such scams is to become a little more streetwise. Walking with a zip, and making it clear that one has a purpose and place to go is one way. Taking some self-defense classes might be another way. Learning how to listen (from a distance, of course) to a person's tone of voice, and to observe his/her overall manner, and to figure out what this person is up to, although way easier said than done, is another way to increase street smarts.
If, however, one is in their car, and another driver tries to scam them by accusing of rear-ending their car, when, in fact, that didn't happen, because the dent or scratch that the scammer tries to accuse the victim of having created was already there, this is a situation that can get a bit more complicated if the victim's not aware of what's happening, fails to get on top of the situation, and to act immediately.
The best thing to do, in this kind of case when someone tries to scam you like that, is to get on top of the situation right away. Call the police and your insurance company right away, and tell them exactly what happened, reconstructing the incident as best as possible. Yet, in any scam, a person should act right away, and contact the proper authorities and tell them what happened. Had the MIT kid been a bit more streetwise, he might've done just that.
Easy, infidel
It's just an expression, that flows nice off the tongue.
My point is, we shouldn't deride this poor kid without knowing the context. Maybe the scammer told a story that would've tricked any of us.
More to the picture than meets the eye
I'm wondering if there is more to this story than we are being told. Notice it says they TOOK THE T to the victim's bank. What could this woman have said to convince a total stranger to take the T to their bank? And then do it all again the next day?? Something smells. I don't care if you are from a farm in the midwest, another country or another planet, no one naive or stupid enough to fall for this scam.
How to convince an MIT student to get on the T
Compliment him on his super-awesome-neato Charlie Card ring that he invented.
So you were never 18, I take it
I was, and while I never fell for this, I could see how it could happen.
Even smart people can be dumb
I'm an MIT brat, and you get a true appreciation for the above mentioned true-ism growing up around such a place.
You'd Be Surprised
Just go ahead and read the crime logs of a University if they are public (most are). You'll be surprised about your "no one naive or stupid enough to fall for this scam" comment.
UPDATE
Mass Most Wanted reports that the woman has been identified as Jillian Walkowicz and has been arrested.
Browsing the site it looks like she was arrested for the same scam in July, and I found a story from last December telling a story about the same scam, so watch out I guess.
http://www.massmostwanted.org/index.cfm?ac=casedet...
http://www.massmostwanted.org/index.cfm?ac=casedet...
http://www.scambook.com/report/view/204384/Jillian...$200.00