CRJ320 - WEEK 10 - DISCUSSION 10

"Computer Crime and the Role of Prosecutor"

From the e-Activity, identify at least two (2) effective methods that cybercrime investigators use to investigate computer crime (e.g. hacking, fraud, spam, theft of intellectual property). Next, recommend one (1) effective method that you believe would be beneficial for a company to prevent cybercrime. Provide a rationale to support your recommendation.

Cybercrime is a facilitated intentional crime that uses a computer and internet to complete an act of criminality. These acts are targets, as a weapon or accessory for attacking individuals or property.

For Example

Identity Theft
Denial of Service Attacks
Internet Fraud
Online Predators
Theft of Intellectual Property

The law for cybercrime is complex, diverse as it differentiates in the investigation process of the various states in this country. Three policies cover the dimensions of cyberconflict that is initiated by crime and misdoings and they are as follows: applicable law in itself, policies created to deal with infringement of the law and the discrete facts and how they impact the application of the law to deal with these acts of unjust.

Two methods that cybercrime investigators use to investigate computer crime include the following starting a preliminary investigation, and preserving and securing of crime scene and all digital evidence and data.

Transporting to facility for forensic examination of computer evidence and processing of legal obligations as a result of found evidence and all affiliates.

Another effective method that I believe would be beneficial for a company to prevent cybercrime is extra safeguards to prevent intrusions and a retaliatory receptor cloaked within that senses or activates when invaded.

Purpose is security, and as such knowing the prevalence of the threat is like knowing the likelihood that it will be you one day and due to this knowledge it stands to be prepared vs. lack of preparation or acknowledgement and ignoring a circumstance that is hovering near.

As an owner of a company, since the nature of intrusion is hacking any intrusion should have an alert to notify and address intrusion and a plan to counter because first of all it is an attack and must be treated as an attack.

Track it down and pursue it and press charges to levy as trespass, fraud, intentional sabotage, destruction of internal alias, threat to free enterprise and therefore treason.

It is common knowledge that the role of a prosecutor is to present the state’s case against the defendant in a criminal prosecution. However, the role of the prosecutor entails the enormous responsibility of seeking justice and not merely convicting a defendant. Give your opinion as to why the prosecution bears the burden of proof (i.e., to prove or disprove a fact or demonstrate the defendant’s guilt). Next, support or critique the argument that this requirement should be placed solely with the prosecutor. Provide a rationale to support your response.

The role of the prosecutor is a complement to the legal system established to work in comparative closeness with the police department. He or she is the chief law enforcement official at the county level and works with all levels and departments in the criminal justice field. Therefore, because of the inclusive nature and legal complexity and political significance of the position the prosecutor has a lot of expectancy and weight that will either hinder or allow the smooth act of legal collusion to crime and act and subsequent successful levy.

The nature of proof is highly placed on beyond a reasonable doubt but as relayed these acts or judgments do not always summarily reach this level but are cases won on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the act of reason to doubt hovers as a red flag to consequently prove that a wrong call or judgment may be a prevailing element that causes a “blink” and question.

In consequence, the idea of having a desired “quota” becomes a flashing light and concern. As such the theory of allocating punishment becomes a fallacy if the “so-called offender” is innocent and being railroaded, pressured, intimidated, etcetera or viewed in bias from the preliminary hearing. The intent has to be proved as well as the actual threat, crime has to be visually seen clearly to ascertain and state an act of harm, with threat to life or a state of maim was done. Further if nothing is proved at the Preliminary and no stance a motion to dismiss should be done. Quota does not mean quality or that the hand of the law conducted a true act of Justice.

e.g., United States vs. Wilma D. McCaw
Was this an act of Justice or a hand of Malice?

Being a novice in this field the curiosity plays out what is life without its internalized structured hate, bigotry, discrimination, internalized power and corruption. Lastly, in support of this role the rights of a prosecutor is magnanimous, glorious and threatening to those of illiteracy, impoverish, poor and those considered as having no stature in society.

We as a people (inclusive of all races) have a voice, thought, will, freedom and choice and as such we (ALL) have the ability to protest when an act flagrantly smells of something foul and a deed of underhand.

I have placed an example of my sister’s case which I thought was unfair and render a look of a travesty of justice executed. Also, since the class is near conclusion I am fighting for any underdog that I can tuck under my wing and run with them. Please see my website: feliciaswritingjournal.blogspot.com/. I am in support of all my family and associates there and I am a believer in justice and God as my true love and benevolent one who sent these people to save me and for me to help all I can.

EXAMPLE OF THE THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW A LEAD

APPELLATE PROCESS – FM
FROM: FELICIA MCCAW –989-332-7718

RE: WILMA MCCAW (INTERNET – MI DEPT OF CORRECTIONS - #694421) (MCL NUMBER 750.84) (CASE # - 07-029152 FH)

1. No Weapon Found or Witness of weapon in either hand during fight with complainant (Witness – Latoya Winston): by Markisha Stephens (Witness), Latoya Winston (Witness), Security Guards, Dancers or group of women that accompanied Wilma McCaw (Defendant) at dance held January 7, 2007 at Limelite Club formerly known as Kayla’s Kitchen that supposedly committed crime of 1) Count One - Assault with intent to do great bodily harm, less than murder, 2) Count Two – Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, 3) Count Three – Carrying a dangerous weapon unlawful intent.

2. Tried and convicted based on Witnesses’ Testimony at Preliminary Examination – May 17, 2007.
1. Attorney or Represent Self – or Proxy.
2. Steps in staring procedure.

3. What to expect.
1. Time Frame
2. Notification
3. Follow-up/Touch Bases with Attorney or Representative.
4. Court Case

4. Results of Appeal
1. Notification of Results.
2. Expunge Records.
3. When Released from Prison.

5. Lawsuit for Attorney representing Wilma McCaw
1. Misrepresentation
2. Poor Objectivity/Did Not follow-up on Questioning-Cross Examination of Witnesses.
3. Did not Honor Creed for Attorneys.
4. When lawsuit can be pursued.

6. Remove from Records of being in Jail/Jailed for crime not committed.
7. Expunge Records if possible to enable Wilma to receive grant/loan monies to receive Education.

APPELLATE PROCESS – FM
FROM: FELICIA MCCAW
Page 2

Felicia McCaw – Legwork for Attorney.
1. Internet – Try to obtain records or information to assist in process.
2. Lawbooks.

3. Minutes/Transcripts from Criminal Court Case
1. Able to obtain.
2. Cost.
3. Examine minutes/transcripts/records.

4. Examine pictures of razor cut vs. bottle cut/fingernail cuts or other weapon used in cutting faces or scars caused by instrument used in making cuts
5. Obtain Police Report
6. Subpoena Security Guards.
7. Subpoena Owner (Co-Owner?) and Workers at Party that Night –
January 7, 2007.
8. Subpoena all that came to club (Limelite Club) with Wilma McCaw that
night (January 7, 2007).
9. Cross-Examine – Nichol McCaw.

10. Cross-Examine the supposed Victims that Wilma McCaw allegedly
attacked and cut – (1) MARKISHA STEPEHENS AND (2) LATOYA
WINSTON.
1. Cuts on each supposed victim face – verification of cuts – any
alterations to face since party of January 7, 2007 and visitation to
hospital (when received medical attention ?).
2. Medical records from Hospital went to – subpoena records to verify
when stitches were used to close wounds and bills to reflect when
medical attention was received.

11. Subpoena records from doctor(s) of supposed victims – (1) MARKISHA
STEPHENS AND (2) LATOYA WINSTON who removed stitches and
any medical attention received from doctor(s) since the party of January 7,
2007. Records from the date of January 7, 2007 onwards for any medical
attention received to face, supposed head cuts and bruises.

12. Evaluate Testimony of (1) MARKISHA STEPHENS AND (2) LATOYA WINSTON supposed victims of Crime
of (1) Count One – Assault with intent to do great bodily harm, less than murder, (2) Count Two - Assault
with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, (3) Count Three – Carrying a dangerous weapon unlawful
intent at the Preliminary Examination conducted on Thursday, May 17, 2007.
1. To determine if there is any conflict in between supposed victims’
testimony in Criminal Case conducted at the Preliminary
Examination dated Thursday, May 17, 2007
2. File for Appeal of Sentencing and have Rehearing of Criminal Case.
3. Cross-examine Witnesses (1) MARKISHA STEPHENS AND (2) LATOYA WINSTON and ask additional questions and clear
of ambiguity of responses asked at Preliminary Examination dated Thursday, May 17, 2007.

APPELLATE PROCESS – FM
FROM: FELICIA MCCAW
Page 3

13. See compiled list of questions to be asked at Appeal of Sentencing and have Rehearing of Criminal case of Wilma McCaw (Defendant)
(Case No. 07-1495 FY). Questions will be directed and asked to supposed victims-witnesses-complainants (1) MARKISHA STEPHENS AND
(2) LATOYA WINSTON compiled from the Examination and Evaluation of Preliminary Examination dated and held Thursday, May 17, 2007.
Due to the conflict, ambiguity and unclearness of questions asked and responses received there is no choice but to ask for a Rehearing
of Criminal Case of Wilma McCaw (Defendant) (Case No. 07-1495 FY).

1. Reflected by the Evaluation and Examination of the Preliminary Examination dated and held
Thursday, May 17, 2007 there is reflected a conflict in testimony as to the situational and
dramatization of what occurred January 7, 2007 at the party at the Limelight Club formerly
known as Kayla’s Kitchen.

2. What caused conflict? Re-examination of what caused the Physical altercation to occur and
if there was anything additional that could have escalated this incident to occur.
1. Bumping/josling of Defendant (WILMA MCCAW) and Witness (MARKISHA STEPHENS) on dance floor
at party at the Limelight Club formerly known as Kayla’s Kitchen.
2. Was there a medical reason to cause undue hostility.
3. Stalking and watching defendant while at party that was held at The Limelight Club formerly known
as Kayla’s Kitchen on January 7, 2007. See pages P. 7, P. 8, P.20, P.21 per MARKISHA STEPHENS’
TESTIMONY 9(WITNESS).
4. Check and verify if there is any history of mental illness.
5. Check and verify if there is any history or is on medication.

6. Check to see if there was any alcoholic beverages consumed and
what was consumed and composition of what was mixed in drink.
1. MARKISHA STEPHENS (WITNESS) Testimony - according to Markisha Stephen’s Testimony – She consumed something
called “ hypnotic” which was mixed with some unknown substance. P. 17
2. LATOYA WINSTON (WITNESS) Testimony – according to Latoya Wiston’s testimony – She consumed two alcoholic drinks
called “Hennessey”. P.32

3. Who was going to benefit from conflict?
1. Enemies
2. Friends

14. Jury Trial
1. Black Defendant (Wilma McCaw)
2. Fairness of Jury Members Selection
1. White Only
2. Black Members on Jury?
3. Any other nationality on Jury?

*******************************************************
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
WEEK 10 - DISCUSSION 10
RESPONSE TO CO-STUDENT

Response to 1

I agree that cyber crimes are an advancement in the area of criminality. Just imagine from the basic taking of a bone or lion's tooth to this complex level of digital stalking, manipulation and theft.

Response to 2

I agree that the prosecutor has a huge responsibility but I don't feel that all cases that guilt is proven beyond a shadow of doubt. From evidence to circumstantial evidence both are and should be approached differently as aspects of change denotes whether accuracy is inherent or if a case becomes just a count or quota to look good.
Actually, I feel the preliminary should be able to determine the next step for a hearing to establish guilt judged by jury to be rendered a fair judgment.

Thank you.

Felicia