13-Month-Old Shot in Head by Teen

Not sure yet that society is eroding right before our eyes; or that guns kill people at a much faster rate than they protect them? For every story that the NRA can provide that actually helped save a “helpless” single woman; I can provide 20 that take innocent life in cold blood. Just when you think you’ve heard the most horrendous crime—Newtown shootings, Sandy Hook shootings—another seems to pop up; each more shocking than the next; and they are occurring more frequently these days. 

On Thursday morning, Sherry West of Brunswick, Georgia was walking her 13-month-old baby, Antonio, in a stroller near her home. She had just been to post office a few blocks from her apartment when she was approached by 17-year-old De’Marquis Elkins and a 14-year-old boy who asked her for money. “I don't have any money,” she said.  Not satisfied with her response Elkins replied, “Do you want me to kill your baby?” Sherry pleaded with the gun-toting teen; “No, don’t kill my baby!” Sherry thought that the gun was fake, because Elkins fired a warning shot into the ground and she didn’t see a shell casing. The next shot he fired grazed her left ear. He fired a third shot that struck her in the left leg above the knee.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Elkins then did the unimaginable. Elkins proceeded to the stroller and he shot little Antonio in the face, killing him instantly. As Sherry screamed in horror, the two boys ran down London Street, fleeing the scene. Brunswick Police Chief, Tobe Green, said yesterday that 17-year-old De’Marquis Elkins is charged with first-degree murder as an adult. The 14-year-old boy is also charged with murder, but he was not identified because he is a juvenile. Police spokesman Todd Rhodes gave few details about the investigation yesterday, but said no weapon has been found as of yet. 

Sherry told reporters that she’s “always going to wonder what his [Antonio’s] first word would have been.”

 

ABC News’ Diane Sawyer Set to Interview "Amanda Knox"

She has been out of the news for some time now; but don’t think that Amanda Knox is going anywhere anytime soon. Knox’s book, “Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir” is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 by HarperCollins. And on that very day, Amanda Knox has an interview scheduled with ABC’s Diane Sawyer at 10:00 p.m. The interview ahead for Knox is one of great anticipation. It has been almost four years since she last spoke (at her trial, June 2009, on the witness stand) about the night Meredith Kercher was murdered, which did little to clear-up what her involvement in the murder was, if any.

Meanwhile, Amanda Knox’s slander trial has already begun in Perugia, Italy. On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Knox’s lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova requested that the trial be moved from Perugia to Florence, arguing that there is a conflict of interest with the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, over the fact that Mignini is one of the parties involved in making the allegation against Knox. The judge granted Dalla Verdova’s request, ruling that the slander case be moved to Florence, but he did not set a date. Publisher HarperCollins is reported to have paid $4 million for Knox’s story. In the meantime, Italian Prosecutors have appealed Knox’s acquittal and are seeking to have her conviction reinstated.  The Italian Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case this month.

Some Law Enforcement Challenges Dealing With “Computer Crimes”

In recent years forensic computing has greatly evolved, moving from a pseudoscience to a recognized discipline with skilled practitioners and guiding principles relating to the conduct of their activities. The law states that “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” and because computer based data can be so easily and undetectably modified during its collection, impounding, and analysis; certain new “rules of evidence” have been enacted, evolving from more general codes of practice. These new rules deal with a verifiable chain of custodythat must exist in regard to digital evidence. For example, according to the U.S. House Advisory Committee on Rules, its rule 1003 (Admissibility of Duplicates), “a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method which insures accuracy and genuineness.” 

Although these Rules are only required in Federal court proceedings, many State codes are modeled after them, making them comparatively rather consistent. Violations of these rules will surely be the focus of defense attorneys, in an effort to raise suspicion as to the accuracy or authenticity of the digital materials. For many years forensic investigators have tried to keep up with criminals, in regard to new technologies. Law enforcement officials are usually at a disadvantage in this area, because they often fail to recognize the criminal potentiality of budding technologies, giving criminals a head-start in terms of knowledge and know-how. It is hard enough for law enforcement to comprehend the nature of emerging technologies, let alone be able to overcome this without the proper, state-of-the-art technologies at their disposal.

When law enforcement officials execute a search warrant, they are regulated to searching only areas in which the listed object of the search could be found or concealed, known as the “scope” of the search warrant. Moreover, even the smallest hard disk drives and digital drivers can contain tens of thousands of files, making many impossible to find without state-of-the-art technologies. With such technologies, forensic investigators can yield exemplary, concise results. For example, by using software such as “KFF (Known File Filter), which allows users to search with keywords or take advantage of drive indexing using the dtSearch. KFF was actually used in a recent Supreme Court Case, United States v. Mann(2010), and uncovering child pornography in Mathew Eric Mann’s computer. Without this state-of-the-art technology, this information would have never been recovered. 

The Manncase, mentioned above, is a good example of a case in which the forensic investigator failed to follow forensic evidence procedures, which resulted in suppression of certain evidentiary items. In May of 2007, Matthew Eric Mann was working as a life guard when he covertly installed a video camera in the women’s locker room. Detective Paul Huff of the Lafayette Police Department executed a search warrant, the scope of which was regulated to voyeurism of a women’s locker room, and found child pornography as well. Mann filed a motion to suppress the child porn images, but the district court denied the motion, using the “plain view” exception as their reasoning. Mann, however, later appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. They noted that the Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant should describe the things to be seized with sufficient particularity or detail as to prevent general exploratory searches of a person’s belongings. The court held that the files found with the KFF system were to be suppressed, and they suggested that Detective Huff should have stopped his search and sought a search warrant for additional child porn after he stumbled upon the first images.