Former President Donald Trump reiterated many of claims — without evidence — that his criminal trial was rigged, a day after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Trump repeats claims — without evidence — that his trial was rigged : NPR

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger was back in court for a pretrial hearing on Thursday, in which evidence and cellphone data were discussed.

Attorneys for Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger maintain DA is slow-walking evidence

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg commended the jurors who found former President Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, saying Monday evening that they reached their verdict on &quot;the evidence and the law alone.&quot;

DA Bragg: Trump Convicted on 'Evidence, Law Alone' | Newsmax.com

Cheryl Bader of Fordham University ... is not to have jurors be so focused on the court’s written legal instructions that it distracts them from the evidence and testimony.”...

Trump and allies step up suggestions of rigged trial — with bad evidence - The Washington Post

Evidence is an open source, code-based alternative to drag-and-drop BI tools. Build polished data products with just SQL and markdown.

Evidence

For modern organizations, there is a need for reliable options for storing and managing their digital media assets, such as videos, audio, images, and documents, and cloud storage options such as Dropbox have become increasingly popular with most of them, including public safety & law enforcement agencies. Having a reliable cloud data storage and backup platform is a requirement for most organizations in the contemporary world. Employees working in small and medium organizations rely on cloud storage services such as Dropbox to store and share their files. Dropbox is even being used in some law enforcement agencies and policing. However, you might need more than just Dropbox-like storage for managing digital evidence. Why Dropbox May Not Be the Best Option for Law Enforcement Agencies? Dropbox has a few features that help securely store digital evidence, such as 256-bit encryption and password protection. Syncing is faster, since the process is done in blocks and the waiting period to access files on another device is minimal, and the solution is easy-to-use which is why it is preferred by over 500 million individuals, including 11.9 million paying users. But when it comes to managing evidence, that is as far as the advantages of Dropbox go. The system isn’t designed for digital evidence management, and there are several gaps and challenges for securely storing and managing evidence using Dropbox. Its privacy policies are somewhat controversial; the application can access your personal information and share it with third-party organizations such as Google and Amazon Web Services. Dropbox lacks metadata search functionality so a file cannot be searched according to the file information and the date it was created. Now, there are a lot of better alternatives that are designed specifically to manage digital evidence and cater to law enforcement. 9 Dropbox competitors for storing digital evidence: 1. VIDIZMO Digital Evidence Management System (DEMS) VIDIZMO Digital Evidence Management System (DEMS) is custom designed specifically to ingest, store, manage, and share evidence files. Apart from its storage options, multiple features of DEMS such as access management, security and chain of custody make it the ideal option for law-enforcement and governmental agencies. The platform does not store your personal information and protects your sensitive data such as evidence files from third-parties, malicious attacks and otherwise unauthorized access. You can use an array of features such as role-based access control, end-to-end encryption and user groups for controlling access to data and evidence. You can share evidence for only a limited time or number of use. The platform also provides a powerful search using AI by automatically indexing meta data for a quick search using keywords. DEMS offers public cloud storage services (e.g.: Azure, AWS etc.), as well as on-premises and hybrid deployments for specific client requirements. The platform also offers a wide range of features and options for meeting compliances necessary for law enforcement and criminal justice systems, such as CJIS, FedRAMP and more. Unlike DEMS, if you use Dropbox for storing and sharing evidence, files need to be deleted if one wishes to restrict the access of a particular person. In addition to that, DEMS provides an exclusive feature which allows you to search for frames in the video. Instead of having to view the entire video or audio evidence, one can quickly search and jump to the relevant part in the evidence. VIDIZMO understands that evidence may be recorded using different sources such as dash cams, aerial footage such as drone cams, smartphones, body cams and CCTVs. Users can rest assured that in addition to password protection and secured cloud, compatibility is also an essential feature of VIDIZMO DEMS. 2. Google Drive Google Drive is a file storage service which allows organizations to have all files in one place, share the video evidence files online and access them from anywhere. Google Drive has the largest market share when it comes to providing cloud storage services. Google Drive offers 15 GB of free storage space which is huge in comparison to the 2 GB provided by Dropbox. Google Drive is also the leader when it comes to paid storage. Google charges $99.99 per year, whereas Dropbox charges $119.88 per year for a 2 TB of storage space with Drive. Google Drive’s syncing also supports multiple devices which is also possible via the Backup and Sync application. In addition to the two-factor authentication, Google Drive’s Cloud Identity Feature provides endpoint management services. Unlike Dropbox, Google Drive clearly states the number of certifications it follows which includes standards such as ISO 27017, FedRAMP, FISC Compliance and PCI DSS. However, Google Drive has file size limitations such as a restriction of 1,024,000 characters, upper limit of 100MB for slideshow presentations and 2 MB for embedded images. 3. Amazon Drive The tech giant Amazon has a fair share of the market when it comes to providing cloud-based services and storage of video, audio and image files. Similar to Dropbox and Google Drive, Amazon uses block-level file copying so faster syncing speed is one of its traits. Amazon Drive’s free plan includes 5GB of storage space. In addition to providing web-based access, Amazon’s Drive’s desktop app allows access to all the files. Amazon Drive’s ease of syncing with Android, macOS, Windows and iOS is another commendable feature. A drawback is that Amazon Drive only has 2 plans which the restricts the options available for users. 4. Office 365 Office 365 is an ideal platform for collaboration as it provides the facility of sharing content, storing files and collaborating on documents with external users and colleagues through its three main products: OneDrive, Microsoft Teams and SharePoint. Small industries with 50-200 employees and revenue in between 10-50 million dollars comprise the major chunk of the users of 5. Microsoft One Drive. OneDrive is a platform which allows easy file sharing, integration with Windows File Explorer and accessing files from mobile devices. There are three different types of OneDrive sharing links: Shareable (which allows anyone with the link to share), Internal (allows only people within the firm to share) and Direct (only specific personnel can share). Although OneDrive works seamlessly with Microsoft Office apps, there are limited options available for third-party integrations. Furthermore, OneDrive’s right to scan saved files raises security concerns amongst the users. 6. pCloud pCloud is an encrypted cloud storage platform that offers up to 10GB of free storage space. It supports a large number of platforms, including Windows, Mac, SaaS, Android, iPhone, and iPad. The target audience of pCloud is digital-savvy consumers who work with large files. pCloud offers a subscription-based payment plan with its two main tiers being Premium and Premium Plus. The majority of the 10 million customers of pCloud belong to the following industries: retail, legal, insurance, education, accounting, real estate, photographers, and PR/advertising agencies.pCloud offers faster sync and share as compared to Dropbox. The Rewind feature allows users to restore the previous version of the file. pCloud’s great flexibility in terms of its pricing, a wide array of features, and a strict privacy policy comprise of its unique selling points. However, pCloud uses cloud storage for saving without utilizing space from local systems because of which it gets tricky to get the whole backup when needed. 7. WeTransfer is a file transfer service that allows users to share files without having to create an account because of which it is used by officers for quick file transfer. WeTransfer allows sending files up to 2GB for free (which is huge compared to 100MB per file transfer on Dropbox). WeTransfer There are two ways of sending files via WeTransfer: sending a download link via email or creating a download link that allows anyone with the link to download the files. Additionally, WeTransfer Pro allows the transfer limit to be increased to 20GB with 1TB of cloud storage space and custom expiration dates. WeTransfer scans the uploaded files only if it feels the users are breaking the laws or rules. Although WeTransfer allows ease of file transfer without having the premium version, files get deleted after a week. 8. Sync is a Canadian company providing the option to store, share and access files from anywhere in the world and is preferred by organizations for whom security is the highest priority. The best feature that offers is having zero-knowledge encryption – a security feature that ensures that only the user can read their data, thus always having a secure file.  Files are synced using a “vault” which operates as a secure file archive. Sync.com Sync.com is affordable as it offers a Personal Pro 2TB annual plan which charges around $8 a month. It also offers a flexible 500 GB personal plan for users. It also has a multi-user team sharing built-in feature which is compatible with both iOS and Android. Some disadvantages of Sync are slow syncing and lack of support especially for Linux. Sync.com 9. Zoho Docs Zoho Corporation provides an efficient file management system for various firms. Zoho Docs is an online document management system that allows storing, uploading, creating, editing, collaborating and sharing over 160 file types such as spreadsheets, images, audio, videos, and presentations. Unlike many other cloud service providers, Zoho Docs offers a free trial in addition to a free version. It also provides extensive training options such as through webinars, live online, and thorough documentation. Zoho also allows syncing offline files using the drag and drop feature. Moreover, the files can be attached directly to which is beneficial for organizations that require customized domain in their email addresses. The ioS application for Zoho needs improvement and downloads are limited to 10GB per day for users not opting for the paid version. Zoho Mail Conclusion It can be said that law enforcement agencies and government organizations that are on the hunt for alternatives to Dropbox have a variety of options at their disposal. Evidence management systems appear to be the optimal platform for law enforcement agencies who specifically want a platform for their evidence video files to be stored, accessed, reviewed and analyzed. Simple cloud storage solutions are suitable for storing and accessing video evidence files, but unlike digital evidence management, they do not offer features such as chain of custody, transcription services, redaction, and sufficient security. Furthermore, most of them do not offer the necessary compliances such as HIPAA and FedRAMP required for law enforcement. In conclusion, it can be said that the choice of cloud storage platform depends largely on the nature of the business and organizations need to decide carefully which platform will yield the best results for them.

9 Dropbox Alternatives for Evidence Management in Law Enforcement

Evidence in the SBF Trial Sets Loss Amount Due to Fraudulent at Over $10 Billion 

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 7 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. The Defendant’s Scheme to Bribe Chinese Government Officials In addition to the offenses of conviction, Bankman-Fried was also charged in a severed count with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by engaging in bribery of one or more Chinese government officials. While the Government ultimately determined that it was not in the interests of justice to proceed with a second trial, that was in part because the Court may still consider this criminal conduct at sentencing as the underlying conduct was proven at trial. (Tr. 827-40). In early 2021, the Public Security Bureau in Changge, China froze two cryptocurrency trading accounts held by Alameda on two of China’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges. (Tr. 827-28). Collectively the accounts contained approximately $1 billion in cryptocurrency. (Tr. 828). Bankman-Fried was informed that the accounts had been frozen by Chinese law enforcement authorities as part of an ongoing money laundering investigation of a particular Alameda trading counterparty. (Tr. 827-28). Shortly after the accounts were frozen, Bankman-Fried directed a handful of FTX/Alameda Chinese employees that Bankman-Fried trusted and/or had connections to China to try to get the accounts unfrozen. (Tr. 827). Those early attempts included communicating directly with representatives of the Chinese exchanges; retaining local Chinese attorneys to negotiate with Chinese law enforcement; and with the assistance of Salame, opening new accounts on the Chinese exchanges in the names of Thai sex workers, and attempting to transfer the cryptocurrency from the frozen accounts to the new accounts in an effort to circumvent the Chinese authorities’ freeze orders. (Tr. 829-30). Bankman-Fried was updated about the status of these efforts. (Tr. 830). In November 2021, after several months of failed attempts to unfreeze the accounts, Bankman-Fried directed one Chinese FTX employee to make a multi-million-dollar bribe to government officials to have the accounts unfrozen. (Tr. 830-34, 839-40; GX-1631). BankmanFried told Ellison and another Alameda employee that cryptocurrency transfers should be made to private cryptocurrency addresses provided by the Chinese FTX employee to unfreeze the accounts. (Tr. 832). On or about November 16, 2021, the first bribe payment of cryptocurrency then worth approximately $40 million was transferred from Alameda’s main trading account to a private cryptocurrency wallet. Shortly thereafter, the accounts were unfrozen. After confirmation that the accounts were unfrozen, Bankman-Fried authorized the transfer of an additional approximately $100 million of dollars in cryptocurrency to complete the bribe. (Tr. 832, 842-43, GX-64). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Court Evidence Exposes SBF's Bribe Payments to Chinese Authorities

The New York Times Company v. OpenAI Update Court Filing, retrieved on February 26, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 15. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here I. INTRODUCTION The artificial intelligence (AI) tool known as ChatGPT is many things: a revolutionary technology with the potential to augment human capabilities, fostering our own productivity and efficiency;[1] an accelerator for scientific and medical breakthroughs;[2] a mechanism for making existing technologies accessible to more people;[3] an aid to help the visually impaired navigate the world;[4] a creative tool that can write sonnets, limericks, and haikus;[5] and a computational engine that reasonable estimates posit may add trillions of dollars of growth across the global economy.[6] Contrary to the allegations in the Complaint, however, ChatGPT is not in any way a substitute for a subscription to The New York Times. In the real world, people do not use ChatGPT or any other OpenAI product for that purpose. Nor could they. In the ordinary course, one cannot use ChatGPT to serve up Times articles at will. The Times has sought to paint a different picture. Its lawsuit alleges that OpenAI has imperiled the very enterprise of journalism, illustrating the point with 100 examples in which some version of OpenAI’s GPT-4 model supposedly generated several paragraphs of Times content as outputs in response to user prompts. See Dkt. 1-68 (Exhibit J). The allegations in the Times’s Complaint do not meet its famously rigorous journalistic standards.[7] The truth, which will come out in the course of this case, is that the Times paid someone to hack OpenAI’s products. It took them tens of thousands of attempts to generate the highly anomalous results that make up Exhibit J to the Complaint. They were able to do so only by targeting and exploiting a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) by using deceptive prompts that blatantly violate OpenAI’s terms of use.[8] And even then, they had to feed the tool portions of the very articles they sought to elicit verbatim passages of, virtually all of which already appear on multiple public websites. Normal people do not use OpenAI’s products in this way.[9] Journalism has undergone many changes in the digital age, and may well undergo more with the advent of AI. OpenAI has established important partnerships with many leaders in the news industry—from large enterprises like the Associated Press and Axel Springer to the dozens of smaller and local outlets associated with the American Journalism Project—to creatively explore and implement AI solutions that assist investigative reporting, create enhanced reader experiences, and improve business operations. The Times’s suggestion that the contrived attacks of its hired gun show that the Fourth Estate is somehow imperiled by this technology is pure fiction. So too is its implication that the public en masse might mimic its agent’s aberrant activity. There is a genuinely important issue at the heart of this lawsuit—critical not just to OpenAI, but also to countless start-ups and other companies innovating in this space—that is being litigated both here and in over a dozen other cases around the country (including in this Court): whether it is fair use under copyright law to use publicly accessible content to train generative AI models to learn about language, grammar, and syntax, and to understand the facts that constitute humans’ collective knowledge. OpenAI and the other defendants in these lawsuits will ultimately prevail because no one—not even the New York Times—gets to monopolize facts[10] or the rules of language.[11] For good reason, there is a long history of precedent holding that it is perfectly lawful to use copyrighted content as part of a technological process that (as here) results in the creation of new, different, and innovative products.[12] Established copyright doctrine will dictate that the Times cannot prevent AI models from acquiring knowledge about facts, any more than another news organization can prevent the Times itself from re-reporting stories it had no role in investigating.[13] As Justice Brandeis explained more than 100 years ago: “The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions—knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas—become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.”[14] All of that said, even assuming (counterfactually) the truth of what the lawsuit alleges, several of the theories in the Complaint are not viable, even as pleaded. This Motion asks the Court to trim those at the outset to focus the litigation on the core issues that really matter. In short: The direct copyright infringement claim asserts liability in part from conduct that is timebarred because it occurred more than three years ago. The contributory infringement claim would ascribe liability to OpenAI based on generalized knowledge of third-party infringement, rather than actual knowledge of specific infringements, which the law requires. The claim for violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202 (the “DMCA”) fails for the reasons embraced by every other court to consider indistinguishable claims against generative AI models: the DMCA simply does not address the conduct to which the Times seeks to ascribe liability. And the claim for state common law misappropriation is preempted by the federal Copyright Act. (1) (2) (3) (4) OpenAI respectfully seeks an order dismissing these legally infirm portions of the Complaint, so that the parties can properly and efficiently litigate the balance. Continue Reading . Here [1] Louis Hyman, It’s Not the End of Work. It’s the End of Boring Work, N.Y. Times (Apr. 22, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/opinion/jobs-ai-chatgpt.html. [2] Microsoft, The Impact of Large Language Models on Scientific Discovery: a Preliminary Study Using GPT-4 (Dec. 8, 2023), https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07361.pdf (deployments in “biology and materials design” and “drug discovery”). [3] Ran Ronen, How Generative AI Tools Like ChatGPT Can Revolutionize Web Accessibility, VentureBeat (July 8, 2023), https://venturebeat.com/ai/how-generative-ai-tools-like-chatgpt-can-revolutionize-web-accessibility/. [4] Sheena Vasani, Be My Eyes AI Offers GPT-4-Powered Support for Blind Microsoft Customers, Verge (Nov. 15, 2023), https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/15/23962709/microsoft-blind-users-open-ai-chatgpt-4-be-my-eyes. [5] Adam Gross, I Asked ChatGPT AI to Write a Sonnet, LinkedIn (Mar. 2023), https:// www.linkedin.com/posts/grossadam_i-asked-chatgpt-ai-to-write-a-sonnet-in-iambic-activity-040728019300229120- ZBNa/; Zetolgam, The Chatbot Limerick Writer, AllPoetry (Dec. 2022) https://allpoetry.com/poem/16903411-TheChatbot-Limerick-Writer-by-Zetolgam; Uday Dandavate, How I Used ChatGPT to Write Haiku, Medium (Sept. 2, 2023), https://uday-dandavate.medium.com/how-i-used-chatgpt-to-write-haiku-5904ee96360d. [6] McKinsey & Company, The Economic Potential of Generative AI: The Next Productivity Frontier (June 14, 2023), https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-thenext-productivity-frontier (“generative AI could add the equivalent of $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion annually” to the global economy); see also Goldman Sachs, Generative AI Could Raise Global GDP by 7% (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent.html. [7] Cf. N.Y. Times, Ethical Journalism: A Handbook, https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethicaljournalism.html#introductionAndPurpose (last accessed Feb. 25, 2024) (“we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it”; “Staff members…may not commit illegal acts of any sort.”). [8] OpenAI, Terms of Use § 2(c), https://openai.com/policies/mar-2023-terms (prohibiting use to “infringe[]” others’ “rights” or “extract data”); Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 3d 453, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (courts may take “judicial notice of information publicly announced on a party’s website” if “authenticity is not in dispute”). [9] Francesca Paris & Larry Buchanan, 35 Ways Real People Are Using A.I. Right Now, N.Y. Times (Apr. 14, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/14/upshot/up-ai-uses.html (people use ChatGPT to “[w]rite a [] speech,” “[s]kim dozens of academic articles,” “[a]ppeal an insurance denial,” and “[c]reate new proteins in minutes”). [10] See, e.g., Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1879) (“The very object of publishing a book … is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring guilt of piracy of the book.”); Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 979 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[F]actual information is in the public domain.”). [11] See 17 U.S.C. 102(b); Clanton v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 556 F. Supp. 3d 322, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (“ordinary building blocks of the English language” not protectable); Med. Educ. Dev. Servs. v. Reed Elsevier Grp., PLC, No. 05-cv-8665, 2008 WL 4449412, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2008) (no copyright for “concepts such as rules of punctuation, analogies, vocabulary or other fundamental elements of English composition”). [12] See, e.g., Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014) (fair use to create “digital copies of more than ten million [books]” for search tool); Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. (Google Books), 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) (fair use to scan millions of copyrighted books to create novel tool); Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) (fair use to replicate copyrighted software programming interfaces to create a new mobile platform). [13] See Nicholas Lemann, The Panama Papers and the Monster Stories of the Future, New Yorker (Apr. 14, 2016) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-panama-papers-and-the-monster-stories-of-the-future (noting the Times’s refusal to participate in consortium that broke “Panama Papers” story); Michael S. Schmidt & Steven Lee Myers, Panama Law Firm’s Leaked Files Detail Offshore Accounts Tied to World Leaders, N.Y. Times (Apr. 3, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/leaked-documents-offshore-accounts-putin.html. [14] Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on February 26, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. fingfx.thomsonreuters.com

NYT Hired Hackers to Game ChatGPT Into Giving Evidence For Its Lawsuits Against OpenAI

This story was originally published on by . ProPublica Catherine Rentz An alleged serial rapist was arrested last month with help from evidence saved by a Baltimore County doctor nearly half a century ago. ProPublica highlighted this rare trove of hospital microscope slides in its and inspired a new Maryland law to protect the evidence. Cold Justice series In this case, the evidence was collected from five women who visited the Greater Baltimore Medical Center for rape exams between 1978 and 1986. All said a man had violated them after breaking into their first-floor apartments in complexes within the same mile radius. Police at the time had not yet started saving standardized rape kits. But a prescient doctor, Rudiger Breitenecker, anticipated that one day, science might advance enough to make use of the specimens. Most of the evidence collected by Breitenecker between 1975 and 1997 sat untouched for decades, until a new generation of cops and slowly began to test it. By 2022, Baltimore County police knew four of the cases shared the same perpetrator’s DNA. recognized its value (Initial testing didn’t yield a profile from the fifth, according to prosecutors.) But the suspect’s identity was still a mystery. Enter Detective M. Lane, one of two detectives in the relatively new Special Victims Unit cold case division, who decided to read all of the police reports connected to those slides and link them to other cases. (Lane uses only her first initial on court documents.) She found a reported attack that wasn’t one of the four DNA-linked cases, but which happened just a short walk away from a rape connected to DNA evidence, and just two months later. The report contained an almost unbelievable lead: A woman attacked on Dec. 3, 1978, told police that the suspect told her his first and middle names: James William. He wore a bracelet with “Jim” on it and said that day was his 26th birthday. This June, Lane plugged those clues into a police database and found James William Shipe Sr., a man who had been arrested and charged for a separate attempted rape in 1979. Prosecutors at the time had dropped the case; Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger said it is unclear why. The victim in this later case also reported that her attacker was wearing a bracelet with “Jim” on it. Lane had Shipe’s fingerprints from that case compared to the one pulled from the 1978 crime scene. They matched. Shipe had arrest reports for charges often associated with rapists: trespass and Peeping Tom, for which he served probation. Mugshots from James William Shipe Sr.’s 1972, 1979 and 1989 arrests Credit: Baltimore County Police Department The detective had enough information to request a warrant for Shipe’s DNA. The 70-year-old was living with his wife less than 10 miles away from the scenes of the five attacks. On July 22, Lane got the results: Shipe’s DNA matched those on the doctor’s rape evidence slides, according to court and police reports. Police had now linked Shipe to five cases by DNA or fingerprints. Shipe was arrested 10 days later and is now in jail, facing charges in three of the five rape cases; the two other women who were assaulted have since died, and prosecutors are not pursuing charges in those. ProPublica tried to reach Shipe, who is in a Baltimore County jail awaiting his next court hearing, but could not get through to him by phone. Reached by phone at her home, Cynthia Shipe said her husband has not yet been assigned a public defender. She said the charges against her husband are “totally bogus” and she believes that he is innocent. She said she did not know about the DNA evidence, but that she’s known him for 37 years and that he’s a “wonderful man” who just sent her a dozen red roses for her birthday and that he “doesn’t have a violent bone in his body.” Cynthia Shipe said her husband was a trucker until three years ago, when he had to retire due to heart problems, and she worries about his health now. She said he has not been given the proper medication in jail and she’s seen his health deteriorate. The Maryland Office of the Public Defender said they could not comment on the case at this time. “I am a new person, I feel totally different,” said Linda Shinault, who reported a rape to police in September 1986. She said someone broke into her apartment, severed her phone cord and was waiting for her in the bathroom after she got out of the shower. She said the attack and not knowing who did it had put a “heaviness” on her. When she got a call from a detective nearly 37 years later telling her a suspect had been arrested, she said she was screaming into the phone, she was so happy. She then told everyone she knew. She considers the doctor’s saving of evidence to be a “miracle.” “I feel the doctor is looking over us,” she said. Breitenecker passed away in September 2021. Linda said she wanted to tell her story to help other survivors and questioned why law enforcement was waiting “even another week” to test more evidence if there might be more victims whose cases could be solved. For the Street family, the answer came too late. Dennis Street said his late wife Patricia would have appreciated the answer. “I'm glad the guy was caught,” Street said. “And I know my wife would be happy, too, after all these years. Thank God for DNA testing. But I don’t know what took so long.” Patricia Street reported a rape in September 1978 that police say is the earliest case linked to Shipe by DNA so far. She died in 2021 after two decades of health complications. Baltimore County police say they are continuing to process cold case evidence and investigate whether more cases are tied to Shipe. Most of the rapists who have been caught with the historic hospital DNA have been found to have a long list of other criminal charges on their records, such as other rapes, theft, burglary and murders. Shipe does not have such charges on his record, according to the Maryland Judiciary online records. ProPublica , a 21-year-old college student, by studying perpetrator patterns. Alphonso W. Hill’s DNA has matched 11 hospital slide cases so far, including DNA from the assault of a Goucher student in the same location where Carter’s body was found. helped solve the 1983 murder of Alicia Carter After ProPublica’s investigation and police inquiry, he confessed in 2021 to raping and murdering her. As these cases show, finding suspects who have eluded police for decades often requires more than DNA tests. “You can have all the computers, all the DNA, all these things that you want, but it still takes good old-fashioned police work,” said Shellenberger. Shipe’s is the first arrest from the new effort to test the hospital slide cases, announced by Baltimore County officials in October 2019. Police have been delayed in part due to a backlog inside their forensics lab. Like many other agencies, the Baltimore County police face significant staffing shortages. The department has only two dedicated cold case detectives in its Special Victims Unit, though that is more than a previous cold case effort in the first decade of the century, which had no dedicated detectives. The unit often gets pushed down the priority list for testing even though rape cases notoriously involve serial perpetrators. As of January 2023, police had about 1,300 hospital slide cases. At the rate of testing so far, it could take another couple of decades to finish processing them. However, police have made a recent move that should help expedite testing. The remaining evidence, still at the hospital, is moving to police headquarters where it will be logged and sent for testing at a private lab. They are skipping a pre-screening step in their own lab and shipping the slides directly to a private DNA testing company. A police spokesperson wrote to ProPublica that "The Department looks forward to receiving all available evidence and is doing everything possible to expedite the analysis and investigation of these important cases." Part of that is driven by a new state law passed earlier this year in response to by ProPublica’s investigation. The law classifies the hospital slides as official rape evidence and requires the police department to count them among its rape kit backlog and retain the slides for at least 75 years after they were collected. issues raised Baltimore County police have released Shipe’s mugshots and are encouraging anyone with information on additional crimes to reach out at 410-307-2020. Survivors who would prefer to speak with the department’s victim advocate may call 443-345-7587 or email . aharkins@turnaroundinc.org Survivors can find additional resources at and Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault TurnAround, Inc. Photo by on Warren Umoh Unsplash

Decades Old DNA Evidence Used to Charge a Man With 3 Rapes

Phineas Redux by Anthony Trollope, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . LORD FAWN'S EVIDENCE. here LORD FAWN'S EVIDENCE. A crowd of witnesses were heard on the second day after Mr. Chaffanbrass had done with Mr. Bouncer, but none of them were of much interest to the public. The three doctors were examined as to the state of the dead man's head when he was picked up, and as to the nature of the instrument with which he had probably been killed; and the fact of Phineas Finn's life-preserver was proved,—in the middle of which he begged that the Court would save itself some little trouble, as he was quite ready to acknowledge that he had walked home with the short bludgeon, which was then produced, in his pocket. "We would acknowledge a great deal if they would let us," said Mr. Chaffanbrass. "We acknowledge the quarrel, we acknowledge the walk home at night, we acknowledge the bludgeon, and we acknowledge a grey coat." But that happened towards the close of the second day, and they had not then reached the grey coat. The question of the grey coat was commenced on the third morning,—on the Saturday,—which day, as was well known, would be opened with the examination of Lord Fawn. The anxiety to hear Lord Fawn undergo his penance was intense, and had been greatly increased by the conviction that Mr. Chaffanbrass would resent upon him the charge made by the Attorney-General as to tampering with a witness. "I'll tamper with him by-and-bye," Mr. Chaffanbrass had whispered to Mr. Wickerby, and the whispered threat had been spread abroad. On the table before Mr. Chaffanbrass, when he took his place in the Court on the Saturday, was laid a heavy grey coat, and on the opposite side of the table, just before the Solicitor-General, was laid another grey coat, of much lighter material. When Lord Fawn saw the two coats as he took his seat on the bench his heart failed him. He was hardly allowed to seat himself before he was called upon to be sworn. Sir Simon Slope, who was to examine him, took it for granted that his lordship could give his evidence from his place on the bench, but to this Mr. Chaffanbrass objected. He was very well aware, he said, that such a practice was usual. He did not doubt but that in his time he had examined some hundreds of witnesses from the bench. In nineteen cases out of twenty there could be no objection to such a practice. But in this case the noble lord would have to give evidence not only as to what he had seen, but as to what he then saw. It would be expedient that he should see colours as nearly as possible in the same light as the jury, which he would do if he stood in the witness-box. And there might arise questions of identity, in speaking of which it would be well that the noble lord should be as near as possible to the thing or person to be identified. He was afraid that he must trouble the noble lord to come down from the Elysium of the bench. Whereupon Lord Fawn descended, and was sworn in at the witness-box. His treatment from Sir Simon Slope was all that was due from a Solicitor-General to a distinguished peer who was a member of the same Government as himself. Sir Simon put his questions so as almost to reassure the witness; and very quickly,—only too quickly,—obtained from him all the information that was needed on the side of the prosecution. Lord Fawn, when he had left the club, had seen both Mr. Bonteen and Mr. Finn preparing to follow him, but he had gone alone, and had never seen Mr. Bonteen since. He walked very slowly down into Curzon Street and Bolton Row, and when there, as he was about to cross the road at the top of Clarges Street,—as he believed, just as he was crossing the street,—he saw a man come at a very fast pace out of the mews which runs into Bolton Row, opposite to Clarges Street, and from thence hurry very quickly towards the passage which separates the gardens of Devonshire and Lansdowne Houses. It had already been proved that had Phineas Finn retraced his steps after Erle and Fitzgibbon had turned their backs upon him, his shortest and certainly most private way to the spot on which Lord Fawn had seen the man would have been by the mews in question. Lord Fawn went on to say that the man wore a grey coat,—as far as he could judge it was such a coat as Sir Simon now showed him; he could not at all identify the prisoner; he could not say whether the man he had seen was as tall as the prisoner; he thought that as far as he could judge, there was not much difference in the height. He had not thought of Mr. Finn when he saw the man hurrying along, nor had he troubled his mind about the man. That was the end of Lord Fawn's evidence-in-chief, which he would gladly have prolonged to the close of the day could he thereby have postponed the coming horrors of his cross-examination. But there he was,—in the clutches of the odious, dirty, little man, hating the little man, despising him because he was dirty, and nothing better than an Old Bailey barrister,—and yet fearing him with so intense a fear! Mr. Chaffanbrass smiled at his victim, and for a moment was quite soft with him,—as a cat is soft with a mouse. The reporters could hardly hear his first question,—"I believe you are an Under-Secretary of State?" Lord Fawn acknowledged the fact. Now it was the case that in the palmy days of our hero's former career he had filled the very office which Lord Fawn now occupied, and that Lord Fawn had at the time filled a similar position in another department. These facts Mr. Chaffanbrass extracted from his witness,—not without an appearance of unwillingness, which was produced, however, altogether by the natural antagonism of the victim to his persecutor; for Mr. Chaffanbrass, even when asking the simplest questions, in the simplest words, even when abstaining from that sarcasm of tone under which witnesses were wont to feel that they were being flayed alive, could so look at a man as to create an antagonism which no witness could conceal. In asking a man his name, and age, and calling, he could produce an impression that the man was unwilling to tell anything, and that, therefore, the jury were entitled to regard his evidence with suspicion. "Then," continued Mr. Chaffanbrass, "you must have met him frequently in the intercourse of your business?" "I suppose I did,—sometimes." "Sometimes? You belonged to the same party?" "We didn't sit in the same House." "I know that, my lord. I know very well what House you sat in. But I suppose you would condescend to be acquainted with even a commoner who held the very office which you hold now. You belonged to the same club with him." "I don't go much to the clubs," said Lord Fawn. "But the quarrel of which we have heard so much took place at a club in your presence?" Lord Fawn assented. "In fact you cannot but have been intimately and accurately acquainted with the personal appearance of the gentleman who is now on his trial. Is that so?" "I never was intimate with him." Mr. Chaffanbrass looked up at the jury and shook his head sadly. "I am not presuming, Lord Fawn, that you so far derogated as to be intimate with this gentleman,—as to whom, however, I shall be able to show by and by that he was the chosen friend of the very man under whose mastership you now serve. I ask whether his appearance is not familiar to you?" Lord Fawn at last said that it was. "Do you know his height? What should you say was his height?" Lord Fawn altogether refused to give an opinion on such a subject, but acknowledged that he should not be surprised if he were told that Mr. Finn was over six feet high. "In fact you consider him a tall man, my lord? There he is, you can look at him. Is he a tall man?" Lord Fawn did look, but wouldn't give an answer. "I'll undertake to say, my lord, that there isn't a person in the Court at this moment, except yourself, who wouldn't be ready to express an opinion on his oath that Mr. Finn is a tall man. Mr. Chief Constable, just let the prisoner step out from the dock for a moment. He won't run away. I must have his lordship's opinion as to Mr. Finn's height." Poor Phineas, when this was said, clutched hold of the front of the dock, as though determined that nothing but main force should make him exhibit himself to the Court in the manner proposed. But the need for exhibition passed away. "I know that he is a very tall man," said Lord Fawn. "You know that he is a very tall man. We all know it. There can be no doubt about it. He is, as you say, a very tall man,—with whose personal appearance you have long been familiar? I ask again, my lord, whether you have not been long familiar with his personal appearance?" After some further agonising delay Lord Fawn at last acknowledged that it had been so. "Now we shall get on like a house on fire," said Mr. Chaffanbrass. But still the house did not burn very quickly. A string of questions was then asked as to the attitude of the man who had been seen coming out of the mews wearing a grey great coat,—as to his attitude, and as to his general likeness to Phineas Finn. In answer to these Lord Fawn would only say that he had not observed the man's attitude, and had certainly not thought of the prisoner when he saw the man. "My lord," said Mr. Chaffanbrass, very solemnly, "look at your late friend and colleague, and remember that his life depends probably on the accuracy of your memory. The man you saw—murdered Mr. Bonteen. With all my experience in such matters,—which is great; and with all my skill,—which is something, I cannot stand against that fact. It is for me to show that that man and my client were not one and the same person, and I must do so by means of your evidence,—by sifting what you say to-day, and by comparing it with what you have already said on other occasions. I understand you now to say that there is nothing in your remembrance of the man you saw, independently of the colour of the coat, to guide you to an opinion whether that man was or was not one and the same with the prisoner?" In all the crowd then assembled there was no man more thoroughly under the influence of conscience as to his conduct than was Lord Fawn in reference to the evidence which he was called upon to give. Not only would the idea of endangering the life of a human being have been horrible to him, but the sanctity of an oath was imperative to him. He was essentially a truth-speaking man, if only he knew how to speak the truth. He would have sacrificed much to establish the innocence of Phineas Finn,—not for the love of Phineas, but for the love of innocence;—but not even to do that would he have lied. But he was a bad witness, and by his slowness, and by a certain unsustained pomposity which was natural to him, had already taught the jury to think that he was anxious to convict the prisoner. Two men in the Court, and two only, thoroughly understood his condition. Mr. Chaffanbrass saw it all, and intended without the slightest scruple to take advantage of it. And the Chief Justice saw it all, and was already resolving how he could set the witness right with the jury. "I didn't think of Mr. Finn at the time," said Lord Fawn in answer to the last question. "So I understand. The man didn't strike you as being tall." "I don't think that he did." "But yet in the evidence you gave before the magistrate in Bow Street I think you expressed a very strong opinion that the man you saw running out of the mews was Mr. Finn?" Lord Fawn was again silent. "I am asking your lordship a question to which I must request an answer. Here is the Times report of the examination, with which you can refresh your memory, and you are of course aware that it was mainly on your evidence as here reported that my client stands there in jeopardy of his life." "I am not aware of anything of the kind," said the witness. "Very well. We will drop that then. But such was your evidence, whether important or not important. Of course your lordship can take what time you please for recollection." Lord Fawn tried very hard to recollect, but would not look at the newspaper which had been handed to him. "I cannot remember what words I used. It seems to me that I thought it must have been Mr. Finn because I had been told that Mr. Finn could have been there by running round." "Surely, my lord, that would not have sufficed to induce you to give such evidence as is there reported?" "And the colour of the coat," said Lord Fawn. "In fact you went by the colour of the coat, and that only?" "Then there had been the quarrel." "My lord, is not that begging the question? Mr. Bonteen quarrelled with Mr. Finn. Mr. Bonteen was murdered by a man,—as we all believe,—whom you saw at a certain spot. Therefore you identified the man whom you saw as Mr. Finn. Was that so?" "I didn't identify him." "At any rate you do not do so now? Putting aside the grey coat there is nothing to make you now think that that man and Mr. Finn were one and the same? Come, my lord, on behalf of that man's life, which is in great jeopardy,—is in great jeopardy because of the evidence given by you before the magistrate,—do not be ashamed to speak the truth openly, though it be at variance with what you may have said before with ill-advised haste." "My lord, is it proper that I should be treated in this way?" said the witness, appealing to the Bench. "Mr. Chaffanbrass," said the judge, again looking at the barrister over his spectacles, "I think you are stretching the privilege of your position too far." "I shall have to stretch it further yet, my lord. His lordship in his evidence before the magistrate gave on his oath a decided opinion that the man he saw was Mr. Finn;—and on that evidence Mr. Finn was committed for murder. Let him say openly, now, to the jury,—when Mr. Finn is on his trial for his life before the Court, and for all his hopes in life before the country,—whether he thinks as then he thought, and on what grounds he thinks so." "I think so because of the quarrel, and because of the grey coat." "For no other reasons?" "No;—for no other reasons." "Your only ground for suggesting identity is the grey coat?" "And the quarrel," said Lord Fawn. "My lord, in giving evidence as to identity, I fear that you do not understand the meaning of the word." Lord Fawn looked up at the judge, but the judge on this occasion said nothing. "At any rate we have it from you at present that there was nothing in the appearance of the man you saw like to that of Mr. Finn except the colour of the coat." "I don't think there was," said Lord Fawn, slowly. Then there occurred a scene in the Court which no doubt was gratifying to the spectators, and may in part have repaid them for the weariness of the whole proceeding. Mr. Chaffanbrass, while Lord Fawn was still in the witness-box, requested permission for a certain man to stand forward, and put on the coat which was lying on the table before him,—this coat being in truth the identical garment which Mr. Meager had brought home with him on the morning of the murder. This man was Mr. Wickerby's clerk, Mr. Scruby, and he put on the coat,—which seemed to fit him well. Mr. Chaffanbrass then asked permission to examine Mr. Scruby, explaining that much time might be saved, and declaring that he had but one question to ask him. After some difficulty this permission was given him, and Mr. Scruby was asked his height. Mr. Scruby was five feet eight inches, and had been accurately measured on the previous day with reference to the question. Then the examination of Lord Fawn was resumed, and Mr. Chaffanbrass referred to that very irregular interview to which he had so improperly enticed the witness in Mr. Wickerby's chambers. For a long time Sir Gregory Grogram declared that he would not permit any allusion to what had taken place at a most improper conference,—a conference which he could not stigmatize in sufficiently strong language. But Mr. Chaffanbrass, smiling blandly,—smiling very blandly for him,—suggested that the impropriety of the conference, let it have been ever so abominable, did not prevent the fact of the conference, and that he was manifestly within his right in alluding to it. "Suppose, my lord, that Lord Fawn had confessed in Mr. Wickerby's chambers that he had murdered Mr. Bonteen himself, and had since repented of that confession, would Mr. Camperdown and Mr. Wickerby, who were present, and would I, be now debarred from stating that confession in evidence, because, in deference to some fanciful rules of etiquette, Lord Fawn should not have been there?" Mr. Chaffanbrass at last prevailed, and the evidence was resumed. "You saw Mr. Scruby wear that coat in Mr. Wickerby's chambers." Lord Fawn said that he could not identify the coat. "We'll take care to have it identified. We shall get a great deal out of that coat yet. You saw that man wear a coat like that." "Yes; I did." "And you see him now." "Yes, I do." "Does he remind you of the figure of the man you saw come out of the mews?" Lord Fawn paused. "We can't make him move about here as we did in Mr. Wickerby's room; but remembering that as you must do, does he look like the man?" "I don't remember what the man looked like." "Did you not tell us in Mr. Wickerby's room that Mr. Scruby with the grey coat on was like the figure of the man?" Questions of this nature were prolonged for near half an hour, during which Sir Gregory made more than one attempt to defend his witness from the weapons of their joint enemies; but Lord Fawn at last admitted that he had acknowledged the resemblance, and did, in some faint ambiguous fashion, acknowledge it in his present evidence. "My lord," said Mr. Chaffanbrass as he allowed Lord Fawn to go down, "you have no doubt taken a note of Mr. Scruby's height." Whereupon the judge nodded his head. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Anthony Trollope (2006). Phineas Redux. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18640/pg18640-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

LORD FAWN'S EVIDENCE.

The Noonification: FTC Points to Child-Directed Ads as Evidence of Instagrams COPPA Violation (11/9/2023)

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 33 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here b. Advertising that promotes Instagram and appears on Instagram is directed to children. 758. Under 16 C.F.R. § 312.2, whether “advertising promoting or appearing on . . . the online service is directed to children” is relevant to determining whether an online service, or a portion thereof, is directed to children. 759. Meta’s ads promoting Instagram feature and are directed to children—and ads that Meta hosts on Instagram are also child-directed. 760. Meta has published advertising campaigns for Instagram featuring actors who appear to be children or teens, as shown in the below screenshot from a television commercial for Instagram that aired in April 2023: 761. Meta also posted an advertisement for Instagram on YouTube in October 2021, featuring one or more individuals who appear to be children or teens, as depicted in the following screenshot: 762. These advertisements and others by Meta related to Instagram were directed to children and teens and featured individuals who appeared to be children or teens. 763. And Meta displays advertisements within Instagram that feature children and are directed to children. 764. For example, according to Meta’s Ad Library website, an advertisement promoting the children’s television show “Dinosaur Train” and the “PBS KIDS Prime Video Channel” was run on Instagram and Facebook in July 2023, as depicted in the following screenshot: 765. Also according to Meta’s Ad Library website, an advertisement featuring children’s cartoon characters “the Minions” was run on Instagram in July 2023, as depicted in the following screenshot: 766. Meta’s practice of hosting advertisements targeting children is another way that Instagram is directed to children. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Evidence

evidence.dev

1-10 employees

Since 2021

COMPANY RANKING

EVIDENCE

EVERGREEN INDEX #832

Evidence WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

Evidence

evidence.dev

1-10 employees

Since 2021

COMPANY RANKING

EVIDENCE

EVERGREEN INDEX #832

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE

Evidence WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!