Charges Pending Against Super Target Robbery Suspect

The family of 27-year-old Joshua Danielson claims he has been wrongly accused in the crime; they've hired an attorney in an attempt to clear his name.

Charges were still pending against a Murrieta man named the suspect in an iPad robbery from Super Target.

Murrieta police arrested Joshua Ryan Danielson, 27, on Oct. 12 in connection with the Sept. 27 strong-armed robbery at 27818 Clinton Keith Road.

The suspect in the incident allegedly punched a Target sales associate in order to make off with two iPads valued at $599 each, according to Murrieta police.

Police on Oct. 12 announced Danielson had been positively identified as the suspect through a crime flier and surveillance video they had distributed to law enforcement agencies and local media.

Danielson, who does not show a felony criminal record in Riverside County, posted $30,000 bail within hours of his arrest.

His family claims Danielson has been wrongly accused in the crime; they've hired an attorney in an attempt to clear his name.

"This is a 100 percent mis-identification case," said Murrieta-based attorney John Pozza. "In my 18 years defending citizens' constitutional rights I have never seen such a rush to justice with so little substance or probable cause."

Murrieta police contend there was probable cause in his arrest, and are preparing the case for submission to the Riverside County District Attorney's Office.

Murrieta police Lt. Tony Conrad, who oversees the department's detective bureau, gave this statement to Patch:

"The Murrieta Police Department Detective Bureau continues to investigate this case. As with any felony case that comes into the Detective Bureau, we handle the case with relentless follow up and look at all aspects of the case. 

"The reality is, the Police Department’s arrest of Mr. Danielson was made on the basis of probable cause. The investigation does not conclude after the arrest until all leads and/or evidence available to us is examined. At the conclusion of this process, the case will be presented to the District Attorney for prosecution. 

"The prosecution decision lies with the District Attorney’s Office. The Murrieta Police Department always has and always will investigate our cases at the highest level possible. This case is no different. 

"We do encourage anyone in the Target store or in the Target parking lot on the night of this incident (Sept. 27 between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.) to come forward. Detective Sgt. Phillip Gomez is the point of contact for this case. Sgt. Gomez can be reached at 951-461-6356."

Joshdontneedtosteal November 10, 2012 at 01:49 AM
Josh was nowhere near that target and works for a living.
Tonie November 10, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Well Paul did come up with the same measurements the experts did!!! What really would of helped here is if Target would of followed there policy and called the police the NIGHT it happen!!! Not days later!!! That would of helped the police find the correct robber....
Paul November 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM
My Comment #1 on Unreliable Eyewitness Identification “Although scientific studies have shown that mistaken identity is a common phenomenon, jurors give very strong credence to eyewitness testimony particularly where the eyewitness is resolute in believing that their identification of the defendant was correct.” Quoted from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistaken_identity according to another commentor one or more witnesses selected Josh's picture Even if the arrested suspect were the same height as the robber shown in the video there could be problems with that identification. With the arrested suspect 6 to 8 inches taller than the robber in the video even more questions are raised. Eye Witness Identifications are often unreliable and have resulted in many innocent persons to be imprisoned. And even today when it is used many jurisdictions do it in ways that are more likely to provide invalid results. We are reading about many cases where “The Innocence Project” and several other groups have succeeding in getting a number of men released that were serving long terms in prison for rapes or murders committed years ago. These men were identified by eyewitnesses at their trials, and were confined for years in prison. Some have now been released and exonerated with modern DNA tests done on rape evidence that was collected at the time, but only after legal and investigative help from one of the innocence groups.
Paul November 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Here are some comments from the web site of the “innocence project” http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php “When witnesses get it wrong “In case after case, DNA has proven what scientists already know — that eyewitness identification is frequently inaccurate. In the wrongful convictions caused by eyewitness misidentification, the circumstances varied, but judges and juries all relied on testimony that could have been more accurate if reforms proven by science had been implemented. The Innocence Project has worked on cases in which: “A witness made an identification in a “show-up” procedure from the back of a police car hundreds of feet away from the suspect in a poorly lit parking lot in the middle of the night. “A witness in a rape case was shown a photo array where only one photo of the person police suspected was the perpetrator was marked with an “R.” “Witnesses substantially changed their description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect. “Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they “thought” the person “might be” the perpetrator, for example), but at trial the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect.
Paul November 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Here are several easy-to-implement procedures have been proven to significantly decrease the number of misidentifications. These are recommended by the Innocence Project. Several states have adopted these procedures and one California County However, acceptance of these changes has been slow. But logically they should be adapted everywhere. http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Eyewitness-Identification.php “Blind administration: Research and experience have shown that the risk of misidentification is sharply reduced if the police officer administering a photo or live lineup is not aware of who the suspect is “Lineup composition: “Fillers” (the non-suspects included in a lineup) should resemble the eyewitness’ description of the perpetrator. The suspect should not stand out (for example, he should not be the only member of his race in the lineup, or the only one with facial hair). Eyewitnesses should not view multiple lineups with the same suspect. “Instructions: The person viewing a lineup should be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup and that the investigation will continue regardless of the lineup result. They should also be told not to look to the administrator for guidance. “Confidence statements: Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness should provide a statement, in his own words, articulating his the level of confidence in the identification. “Recording Identification procedures should be videotaped
Paul November 16, 2012 at 12:27 PM
This additional method below also makes a lot of sense. But some jurisdictions resist this method. They get fewer identifications. Well DUH! That is the idea; they should not get wrong identifications. The studies show that that the number of wrong identifications is reduced a lot more than the few valid ones that are missed. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Sequential_Presentation_of_Lineups.php “SEQUENTIAL PRESENTATION OF LINEUPS “The Innocence Project endorses as a reform the sequential – as opposed to simultaneous – presentation of lineup members to the witness. This endorsement is based on both scientific research and “real world” experience of jurisdictions that use sequential presentation. “A large body of peer-reviewed research conducted over the last 20 years demonstrates that sequential presentation, when coupled with a “blind” administrator, greatly minimizes the likelihood of incorrect identifications. An increasing number of jurisdictions across the country are using this practice and find it highly effective in improving the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness identifications.
Tonie November 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Paul, thank you. Getting on that web site helps a little understand how someone could identify the wrong person completely.. Hopefully this whole mess will be over soon. Thank you for your positive comments..
Paul November 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Thank you Tonie for thanking me! I do try to make positive comments and be helpful. I will post several more examples of faulty eye witness accounts, or faulty police handling of eye witness identification, and often incorrect testimony at trials. There are probably thousands of such cases, but the accounts of prisoners being released after a long time in prison then being released do make it into newspapers. Sometimes it is evidence samples that were collected years ago before DNA testing but now the prisoner's attorney gets permission to have the DNA tested. Sadly many departments fight against allowing that. Sometimes it is where recanting testimony of the eye witness recants and admits to not getting a good look, and/or police fudging their testimony to get a conviction. Again I state that I do not know Josh, his parents or friends, but I watched the video provided by the store carefully and with a lot of stopping on frames. I posted a few comments above, and posted more comments about the height of robber in the video being much shorter than Josh in the previous article in Patch. Don posted in the previous article several other ways to judge the height of the robber in the video that also come up with the robber height of 5 foot 8 to 5 foot 10 inches range.
Paul November 20, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Here is an example of a person in prison for over 25 years after faulty eyewitness identification (Example #1) Frank O’Connell was in prison about 27 years for a murder in 1984 and maintained his innocence all along. He was sentenced to 27 to life. Centurion Ministries, a non-profit group that try’s to help innocent persons in prison took up his case years ago. This 2012 judge found Frank's right to a fair trial in 1985 had been violated. The eyewitness recanted, and the police detective had failed to turn over evidence that might have cleared him. There was another known possible suspect that had a similar physical description to Frank's and had been suspected of trying four years earlier of trying to kill the same victim whom he knew. The detective did not tell either the prosecution or defense about this. The 2012 judge set aside the 1985 verdict and released Frank on bail. Daniel, the prosecution’s star witness had identified Frank as the gunman from a photo lineup & testified at the 1985 trial he was sure Frank was the killer. In a 2011 hearing Daniel testified under oath that he had not been wearing his glasses and barely caught a glimpse of the gunman’s profile. Daniel said he felt pressured and intimidated by the investigators and the justice system and therefore never admitted that he really didn’t know whether O’Connell was the man he had seen. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/21/local/la-me-murder-overturned-20120421
Tonie November 21, 2012 at 03:55 AM
Paul, thanks again for your information.
Paul November 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM
EYEWITNESS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PERSUASIVE IN FEDERAL COURT RULING (Paul’s Example #2) “Posted on October 17, 2012 by Nancy Petro In a ruling that may influence other courts in evaluating eyewitness testimony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld Western District U.S. Magistrate Judge Victor Bianchini’s decision to grant defendant Rudolf Young’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and vacate his conviction of robbery and burglary. “A 2010 study, persuasively used by the Innocence Project in this case, was from ““Evaluating Eyewitness Identification” by Brian Cutler and Margaret Bull Kovera: ““…only 27 percent of eyewitness identifications of perpetrators wearing a hat were accurate versus 45 percent when the perpetrator was hatless.”” “The New York Law Journal article noted that Judge Parker mentioned the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent reference in State v. Henderson to many of these same studies as “the gold standard” of social science research applicable to the law. http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/10/17/eyewitness-scientific-research-persuasive-in-federal-court-ruling/#more-7363
Paul November 21, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Eyewitness Identification Problems ( Paul’s example #3.) In State v. Guilbert, the Connecticut Supreme Court, September 4, 2012, REVERSED the historic current practice and held that EXPERTS COULD testify about the fallibility of eyewitness identifications in appropriate cases. The historic practice and court rulings had generally prohibited its use because “(1) the average juror was already familiar with the factors that affected the reliability of eyewitness identifications and (2) it impermissibly interfered with the jury's fact-finding role.” On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court considered the continuing vitality of the existing rule. It looked at the “near-perfect scientific consensus” and widespread judicial recognition that eyewitness identifications are potentially unreliable in a variety of ways that are unknown to the general public but can lead to mistaken identifications. The strength of the scientific findings and bases for other courts rulings allowed the court to reach conclusions on the admissibility of evidence concerning a number of factors. The court also considered and rejected the general premise that jurors could be adequately educated by counsel's opening and closing statements, cross-examination, and the trial court's jury instructions. The above is based on a summary by Susan Price, Senior Attorney, published in OLR Research Report, September 18, 2012 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0415.htm
Paul November 21, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Connecticut Supreme Court Case, September 2012, Eyewitness Identification. More from the above summary “SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH “The Court rejected the trial court's finding that expert testimony on factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony did not meet the threshold standard for admission of scientific evidence. Instead, it conducted an extensive review of studies and literature and found a “near perfect scientific consensus” that eyewitness identifications were often unreliable. It pointed to the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, books, journal articles, and meta-analyses that “abundantly demonstrate the many vagaries of memory encoding, storage, and retrieval; the malleability of memory; the contaminating effects of extrinsic information; and the influence of police interview techniques and identification procedures” (Guilbert, at 237, quoting State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 283 (2011)).
Paul November 21, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Research-Supported Factors Affecting Memory for eyewitness identification. The Connecticut Supreme Court in the State V. Guilbert case, 9-04-2012 concluded that the strength of existing scientific studies supported the admissibility of competent expert testimony on eight issues. 1. Witness confidence. There is at best a weak correlation between a witness' confidence in his or her identification and its accuracy. 2. Weapon focus. The reliability of identification can be diminished by a witness' focus on a weapon. 3. Stress. High stress at the time of observation may render a witness less able to retain an accurate perception and memory of the observed events. 4. Race. Cross-racial identifications are considerably less accurate than same-race identifications. 5. Memory decay. A person's memory diminishes rapidly over a period of hours, rather than weeks, after an event. 6. Simultaneous or sequential lineups. Identifications are likely to be less reliable in the absence of a double-blind, sequential identification procedure. 7. Unwarranted confidence. Witnesses are prone to develop unwarranted confidence in their identifications if they become aware of post-event or post-identification information about the event or identification 8. Transference. The accuracy of eyewitness identification may be undermined by unconscious transference, which occurs when a person seen in one context is seen in another http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0415.htm
Paul November 23, 2012 at 03:10 PM
My comment here is about whether the suspect in the November 19 robbery of the U.S. Bank inside the Von’s store on Rancho California, in Temecula could be the robber in the Murrieta Super Target Robber of two Ipads on September 27. The description of this BANK robber was described by detectives who viewed surveillance footage as a white man, 18 to 25 years old, apx. 5 foot 9 inches tall. The suspect fled on foot from the bank. A suspect with this description, Mathew Rey, 20, was found a few hours later, and fled on foot from an officer but was caught. He was also suspected of parole violation. The article and his booking picture can be seen at: http://temecula.patch.com/articles/temecula-bank-robbed-sunday-police-say http://temecula.patch.com/articles/temecula-bank-robbed-sunday-police-say#photo-12252884 The point is that surveillance footage is available of Matthew to see if he has a unique walk and run similar to that of the robber seen in the Super Target Robbery Video. The video of the Super Target Robbery can be seen at http://murrieta.patch.com/articles/police-seek-suspect-in-super-target-ipad-robbery#video-11663374 A Patch article with the Target video states the police were looking for a white man 20-25 years old and 5 feet 8 inches to 10 inches tall. http://murrieta.patch.com/articles/police-seek-suspect-in-super-target-ipad-robbery#c
Paul November 23, 2012 at 03:13 PM
The Target Robber video was made on September 27. The booking picture of bank robbery suspect Mathew was made November 19. So Mathew’s hair looking a little shorter on November 19, than the Target robber looked on September 27. I am not saying I think Mathew should be a suspect in the Target robbery. The detail available in the Target Robbery video as seen in the article is not clear enough. I am suggesting there appears to be enough similarity made public that Murrieta detectives should at least review the Temecula Von’s store, U.S. Bank video, and pursue that possibility further if appropriate, if they are not already doing that.
Paul November 23, 2012 at 03:39 PM
The Target Robber video was made on September 27. The booking picture of bank robbery suspect Mathew was made November 19. Mathew’s hair looks a little shorter on November 19 than the Target robber's hair looked on September 27, so that should not matter. I am not saying I think Mathew should be a suspect in the Target robbery. The detail available in the Target Robbery video as seen in the article is not clear enough. I am suggesting there appears to be enough similarity made public that Murrieta detectives should at least review the Temecula Von’s store, U.S. Bank video, and pursue that possibility further if appropriate, if they are not already doing that.
Tonie November 23, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Paul, thank you again.. I believe the police are looking into several different things. Josh was no where near this Target at the time of the robbery nor was he in the same town.. It would seem that you have some great information for us family and friends to help understand how the wrong person could be arrested. Please keep feeding our minds with information that people should know about our Justice System!!! Thanks again Paul!!!!
Paul November 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM
PROBLEMS WITH EYE WITNESS IDENTIFICATION, COURT ALLOWS EXPERT WITNESSES. (Paul’s example #4) Here is another point from the very important Connecticut Supreme Court in the State V. Guilbert case, September 4, 2012. The court concluded after the study of much material and testimony that the strength of existing scientific studies supported the admissibility of competent expert testimony on the frequent inaccuracies of eyewitness identification The quotes below are from a summary of the case written by Susan Price, Senior attorney in the OLR Research Report” http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0415.htm "USURPING THE JURY'S FACT-FINDING FUNCTION "The Supreme Court also rejected the proposition that allowing experts to present scientific testimony about the fallibility of eyewitness identifications usurps the jury's fact-finding functions. INSTEAD, IT FOUND EXPERT TESTIMONY TO BE A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARD AGAINST MISTAKEN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS. [caps by Paul] It cautioned that experts should only be permitted to testify about factors that generally have a negative effect on the reliability of such identifications. The scope of their testimony must be further limited to factors and variables known to affect the reliability of the type of identification being challenged. The ruling expressly bars experts from giving opinions about the credibility or accuracy of eyewitness testimony presented at the specific trial in which they are testifying."
Paul November 25, 2012 at 12:58 PM
More of the Connecticut Supreme court's conclusion, September 4, 2012. "REVISED LEGAL STANDARD "The court concluded that the existing law was out of step with widely accepted scientific evidence and other jurisdictions' evidentiary rules. It overruled Kemp and McClendon, finding their holdings inconsistent with its view that the presentation of expert testimony is an effective way of educating jurors about the risks of eyewitness misidentifications. "It directed that the admissibility of evidence of this type be governed by standards applicable to the introduction of all forms of scientific evidence….(more).
Paul November 25, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Yes! It is remarkable how many persons have been arrested and convicted and are in jails and prisons, due frequently to incorrect eyewitness identifications, and usually accompanied by incomplete investigations or bias by the police investigators, and/or prosecutors. I will cite a few more true examples to make the point clearly. In some states they thought prisoners were doing too many appeals and passed a law that any appeals have to be made within 21 days. If they find out new important evidence that would clear them a year later they still will not allow retrial. The Innocence Project has now succeeded in getting the 300th long-term prisoner released. It usually takes a lot of work to get the case back into court. They get over 6,000 letters a year from prisoners asking for help. That Corinthian Project has also got many prisoners exonerated. They worked on one of those cases for nearly 10 years to get back into court I think that was the case I commented on Nov. 20. One or more other states have passed laws that allow cases where new DNA evidence is processed that would show the prisoner did not commit the crime (Especially rape cases where DNA shows someone else did it) to be brought back into court no matter how long ago the conviction occurred Dallas County Texas has had so many of these 20 some year old rape cases the current prosecutor admits it was a result of “overzealous prosecution” years ago, and does not fight releasing these prisoners
Tonie December 14, 2012 at 02:44 AM
Thanks for all the support everyone!!!
wrongly accused January 24, 2013 at 05:07 PM
People look like others I know this if they have no other evidence then chances are they have the wrong man.In my case I fully cooperated and they found no evidence because there was none.They do go after the wrong person sometimes like I said people have twins.REASONABLE DOUBT
trisha Lepore February 25, 2013 at 06:24 AM
His. NOSE is not the same AT ALL......!!
trisha Lepore February 25, 2013 at 06:26 AM
I Feel They Need To Show The Front of his Face. IS This Story Even Real!! On here.
Paul February 25, 2013 at 09:33 AM
Read the follow-ups to this story at. Patch Article Dec 14, 2012. “Lack of evidence clears Murrieta Man“. (DA does not file charges, citing lack of evidence) 24 comments http://murrieta.patch.com/articles/lack-of-evidence-clears-murrieta-man-once-implicated-in-super-target-ipad-robbery?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001 If you go there it will display links on the right side to these earlier stories, 1. Patch, Oct 10, 2012, “Police Seek Suspect in Super Target iPad Robbery” The robbery occurred Sept. 27, 2012 18 COMMENTS The article links to a VIDEO several minutes long showing the man entering the store, grabbing the iPads, and running out the door. Police are looking for a man about 5 feet 8 to 10 inches tall and 20-25 years old. The video shows a man about 5 feet 8 to 10 inches tall entering the doorway. 2. Patch, Oct 12, 2012, “UPDATED: Suspect in Target iPad Robbery ID’d” 219 COMMENTS. That’s right, there were 219 comments, mostly supporting Josh.. The link to the VIDEO is in this article too. 3. Patch, Oct 23, 2012, Charges Pending against Super Target Robbery Suspect 88 COMMENTS, 4. Patch, Dec 14, “Lack of Evidence Clears Murrieta Man.” 24 comments SEE ABOVE FOR A LINK TO THIS STORY
Paul February 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Yes trisha, this is a real story! I have posted references below to some more PATCH articles in this tragic story. It could have ended worse much, but it is bad enough. It was a bad experience for Josh and his parents. There were also expenses for bail, then hiring an attorney even though he had not yet been charged by the DA. Hopefully it was a bad experience for the detectives in their rush for judgement and they will have learned something from this. Eye witness identifications are frequently not very good. Just Google "Eye witness identification" and you will find a large body of information. Someone gave the detectives Josh's name, The detectives showed witnesses his driver's license picture and they alledgedly said yes that is him. So they went and arrested Josh. The detectives had watched the video, or should have. I think they should have stopped and NOT arrested Josh as soon as they saw Josh in person and then just talked with him and maybe verified his alibi for their report. It should have been obvious to them that he could not possibly be the alledged robber in the video. I, and several other persons, explained in detail in the various comments how a 6 feet three inch high man = 75 inches tall passing under the door way frame that is about 81 inches high with 6 inches to spare is obviously not how how a 5 foot 8 inch man looks (a 67 inch tall man under a 81 inch door frame, with 14 inches to spare).
Paul February 25, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Here is a further comment on this article. Patch, Oct 12, 2012, “UPDATED: Suspect in Target iPad Robbery ID’d” 219 COMMENTS. That’s right, there were 219 comments, mostly supporting Josh. The link to the VIDEO is in this article too. Police have arrested a man that most persons posting comments say does not look like the suspect in the VIDEO OR PICTURE and is said to be 6 foot 3 inched tall. Some one gave Josh’s name to police; they showed his Driver’s picture to witnesses that allegedly said that is him. Police went out and arrested Josh even though he is 5 to 7 inches TALLER than the robber in the video and was in another town at the time. The top of the door frame at the Target Stores in this area are lower than the door frames at some of the other stores, for example Home Depot and Lowe’s are higher. A tall man passing under the top of the doorframe with 6 inches to spare simply does NOT LOOK LIKE a shorter man passing under the frame with 14 inches to spare. Perhaps they should have just gone out and interviewed him. Then observing he did not look like the man face or build in the VIDEO and was obviously so tall he could not look like the video suspect looked passing under the top of the entrance doorway they should not have arrested him, but just interviewed him for their report, and perhaps checked out his alibi.
Paul February 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM
IF the link above to the Patch Article does not work, use this one. "Lack of Evidence Clears Murrieta Man." http://murrieta.patch.com/articles/lack-of-evidence-clears-murrieta-man-once-implicated-in-super-target-ipad-robbery?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001
Josh Danielson May 07, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Kekia u know where I live loser, I never did nothing little gamer and shit talker!!!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »