This is fine line or argument, but don't you think it belongs in a courtroom, being made to a jury that has been shown all of the evidence and who will also hear the accused make his own arguments for his innocence?

This is a modern day wanted poster. I think it's completely fine. He hasn't been convicted to any material degree: He's still free, unhurt, and in possession of the item.

The website appears to have been created in response to the inability of the police to bring the person, allegedly responsible, into a courtroom to explain why he is in possession of a stolen laptop.

Isn't possession of stolen property prima facie proof of guilt of ... possession of stolen property?

Is buying stolen property, which you seller does not tell you is stolen, over Craig's List equivalent to stealing the item? Should the buyer be jailed?

No. The police possess a great deal of stolen property. The entire police force would collapse into a blue hole if they had to arrest everybody in possession of stolen property. The crime is knowing it is stolen and having no intent to return it.

Yeah.. that was pretty much what I was going for, there.

That's definitely required before bringing the resources of the state to bear in punishing the person.

If you're not doing that, then no, it needn't be.

In this case it seems unlikely but bear in mind that it's possible to be in possession of stolen goods without knowing they're stolen.

Of course it's possible to be in possession of stolen goods without knowing they're stolen... but that does not remove the rights of the "owner" of the laptop to remotely control his equipment. If you buy a Blackberry for cheap off of Craigslist, it sucks when the owner bricks it after a week and you loose all your photos/contacts/sms messages. But legally its still his phone, he can do what he wants with it.

This guy also has every right to collect and publicize any information collected by the laptop which will help him locate it. He's titled it "This guy has my MacBook", not stole, and he hasn't posted anything irresponsibly that I've seen.

He has every right to collect the guy's personal information, too, but that doesn't mean he can use his credit card or publish his social security number.

What makes it seem unlikely?

The fact that he's shown driving away with the laptop shortly after stealing it.

I don't see any evidence that Person B stole Person A's laptop or that Person B is even aware than the laptop was stolen. Or maybe that was the point you were making?

How about the bit where he shows the person deleting his profile?

2.5 Thief logs onto ebay and sells laptop to Person B

Conclusion?

Person B is still in possession of stolen goods (which has certain legal consequences at least in Australia)