One body. One suspect. Two theories. A laptop. A birdcage. A bloody crime scene. Two trials. Two hung juries. No convictions. One unsolved mystery.

From Investigation Discovery:

"When a beloved music professor -- David Stagg -- discovers the dead body of his long-time partner, Bill Jennings, he claims he's walked into the aftermath of a tragic suicide. But as investigators descend on the scene, they immediately realize that this reported suicide is clearly a homicide. Is it possible the professor is behind this vicious crime, or has he been falsely accused? The forensic experts on each side battle it out. Which side will you agree with?" (60 min. - First aired 9/14/2009 on Investigation Discovery / Discovery ID's "Forensics: You Decide)

Suicide letter, or coverup?

Friends from the couple's active social group were in total disbelief. Few could imagine David Stagg involved in the murder of his long-time partner. Forensic evidence was inconclusive. Though blood evidence was found throughout the crime scene, no blood or defensive wounds could be found on David Stagg. An unknown set of fingerprints were found at the scene. Computer evidence from Jennings' laptop showed--at least from Jennings' perspective--a tumultuous relationship. But, enough to justify a motive for murder?

There were also a series of suicidal emails and typed letters left by Jennings that charted a history of both love for Stagg, and deep emotional turmoil. And, one final letter--typed on April 24, 2004, the night of the murder--would become one of the most contested pieces of evidence that two juries would have to consider.

On one thing, both sides agreed: Bill Jennings did not take his own life.

The embedded four-minute clip above is edited from the one-hour Investigation Discovery episode dedicated to the Bill Jennings murder, investigations, and trials.

I have worked for both attorneys, Tom Bath and Scott Toth, had many encounters with the Johnson County Crime Lab and the Heart of America's Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory (HARCFL), and kept in contact with other experts from both sides. This case demonstrates that, even when some of the best experts from the most highly technical fields agree on the evidence, it still may not be enough to tell a jury who's responsible.

My entire interview was shot early in the morning on February 28, 2009 in Las Vegas, NV. I was scheduled to meet the crew in Los Angeles the day after I finished a trial in Vegas. The trial ran so long that I missed my return flight and needed to come back to court first thing the next morning. I purchased a razor and a toothbrush on the way to my hotel, and steamed my suit in my shower at the Golden Nugget. The crew from Siren's Media was, coincidentally, in Las Vegas on the 27th interviewing someone else, and seemed overjoyed to stay a little longer.

The B-roll was "reenacted" in the wee hours of the morning before the court opened, in the server room of a client's law office, across the street from the Clark County Regional Justice Center. (No, that is not actual work product in the background.) The interview was shot first--in a quiet space about the size of a walk-in closet. My client--who asked to remain nameless--was kind enough to send someone to let us in before office hours.

In the "credit where credit is due" department: The video was captured to a thumb-drive from live television using a $99 stand-alone Pinnacle Video Capture device. It was edited using Avidemux a free open-source video editing program that I highly recommend. The entire process took about an hour and a half in a coffee shop, from raw MP4 video to YouTube upload.

You've been punked!!!

How German filmmakers hijacked part of California, stole its identity, and used it to scam an entire country.

I think I've finally figured out the origin of the expression, "If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you": Bluewater, California.

The "bridge" to which I refer crosses the Colorado River, and connects Bluewater, California with its sister-city, Bluewater, Arizona. According to the city's web site, downtown Bluewater offers a range of bars and restaurants where you can dine on seafood fished from local waters, get locally-grown produce from the Farmer's Market every Wednesday and Saturday, and enjoy summer poetry in the park.

Imagine the shock when KVPK7, Bluewater's own local news channel reported that the tiny city had become the target of an attempted suicide bombing by a German rap group known as “Berlin Boys”? Who on earth could conceive of such an event hitting a small town in America?  Only Hollywood. Or, in this case, a group promoting the German film, "Short Cut to Hollywood."

The group, according to Wired, set up fake web sites for the "city" (actually, an unincorporated, and largely uninhabited, part of San Bernardino County, CA), the news station, and even a Wikipedia page further authenticating the fictitious news station. They simulated news footage, and even posted local Skype phone numbers on the fictitious web sites. After receiving a tip, journalists in Germany found the fake city web site, and used the phone numbers listed to confirm the tip and interview city officials. Those numbers, of course, went right back to the pranksters in Germany. From there, the story spread through the German press.

The hoax might have lasted longer had news agencies, hungry for additional information, not called the superseding county, San Bernardino, for comment.

Think it couldn't happen here? Well, it practically did. If a handful of German artists who know how to write web pages can fool the entire German press, it certainly doesn't bode well for the common folk who rely on them. And, if part of  California can have its identity stolen, that doesn't bode well for the rest of us either. Just imagine what could have happened if the state still had its credit rating.

By the way, anyone know the German translation for "Punk'd"?

Source: PoeticPixel.info

Twitter's co-founder says your tweets belong to you. Now read the fine print.

For as long as there's been a World Wide Web, there has been debate surrounding the question, "Who owns what users post online?"

Adding fuel to the fire, popular sites like Facebook have written (and withdrawn,) controversial statements into their Terms of Service (ToS) that seemed to suggest that they were asserting ownership over users' content, including photographs, and it's users' "likeness and image". After a massive user outcry, and even some backlash, Facebook was forced to rewrite its TOS, and even allowed users to vote between two versions.

Now, in an apparent attempt to get in front of this kind of momentum, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone announced in a blog post that new changes to the company's ToS would assure that -- though Twitter is allowed to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute" its user's Tweets -- "they are your tweets and they belong to you".

While basking in the warm and fuzzy feelings, I decided to give it a read. Thanks to some very helpful tips placed strategically throughout the document, it wasn't hard to find the right section. The specific paragraph to which Mr. Stone refers can be found below the heading, "Your Rights", and just above the sentence:

The paragraph in Twitter's current ToS reads:

"You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)."

While "ownership" typically presumes a form of exclusive right or control, nowhere in the paragraph above does it even imply that "what's yours is yours", or that "you own your content". Instead, this paragraph grants, not only license to Twitter, but the right to sublicense.

The statements above are followed by a single paragraph, apparently discussing the rebroadcasting of Tweets via Twitter's Application Programming Interface (API), and then the following paragraph:

"...additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

Which, both explicitly and implicitly, could entitle Twitter to an,

"...irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use the Share Service in order to link to, use, copy, publish, stream, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part), summarize, and distribute the content...". (Language removed from Facebook ToS.)

Ironically, when defending this language and in response to the uproar, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted the following statement on his blog:

"Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with."

Just a day after Zukerberg's blog post, PCWorld summarized their reaction to the statement in the following sentence:

"Something doesn't quite add up."

Yet, this morning PCWorld posted the following headline on their web site:

"Twitter: Your 'Tweets' Belong to You"

Followed by the statement,

"Twitter has modified the terms of service that govern the proper user of the microblogging and social-networking site to state unequivocally that messages posted belong to their authors and not to the company."

I wonder if PCWorld's author has ever actually read Twitter's ToS. I am well aware that, in order to provide the services that social networks provide, they need to have the right to distribute their users' content. (Though, perhaps not in perpetuity.) The issue that I have is not with Twitter, or even Facebook. It's with the tech media.

The endless posting and re-posting of particular events on social networks by the "citizen media" has, frankly, given many stories an undeserved and false sense of elevated, or "popularized" significance. But, I would hope that -- so long as they're employed -- those who do work for professional media services would make an effort to, at least, follow their own links before mindlessly re-posting corporate PR.

Of course, if you are a "citizen journalist" (or even if you aren't), please feel free to mindlessly re-post the heck out of this article.

Twitter: Your 'Tweets' Belong to You

News Corp.'s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch is mad--perhaps literally and figuratively. Presumably, billions of dollars in losses will have that effect on a person. Not surprisingly, he's looking for ways to stop the bleeding--or, he's just looking for revenge. It's hard to tell.

First, he's ordered an end to the free ride. That means, no more free online news. Yes, FoxNews.com too.  (Hey, that's fair and balanced, right?)  Then, he negotiated with Amazon.com, a higher revenue share for Wall Street Journal electronic Kindle subscriptions. And, finally, he issued an ultimatum: Give us the names of Kindle subscribers, or we walk.

During his fiscal-year-end earnings call with analysts, Murdoch said, "...we don't get the names of the subscribers. Kindle treats them as their subscribers, not as ours, and I think that will eventually cause a break with us."

Murdoch also made it clear that News Corp had no intention of competing with the Kindle e-reader, but instead stressed the need for News Corp properties to "return to their old margins of profitability... Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting."

Still, Kindle subscribers have already been paying for the Wall Street Journal, despite the fact that The Wall Street Journal Online has been giving away the same content for free. But, apparently, Murdoch is willing to give up that revenue for what appears to be a turf-war over the ownership of personal subscriber data.

The whole fight begs the question: Do Kindle owners see themselves as Amazon subscribers or Wall Street Journal Subscribers, and--in the end--does it matter how they see themselves?

As for Murdoch's state of mind: Is he howling mad, or is he crazy like a Fox News Host? That remains to be seen. But, if he messes with Amazon subscribers, I pity the fool.