Who was Ted Bundy?

Ted Bundy was amongst the most prolific and notorious serial killers to exist within the United States; while undertaking a murderous rampage spanning almost a decade – in addition to 6 individual States – a finalized determination of Ted Bundy’s Victims has yet to be set forth. Law enforcement agents suggest that Ted Bundy’s Victims may span from 25 to 115 individuals. Subsequent to his conviction, Ted Bundy was sentenced to death in the Starke Correctional Institution in the State of Florida; he was executed by electrocution on January 24th, 1989.

Who was a Ted Bundy Victim?

A Ted Bundy Victim is classified as females ranging between the ages of 20 and 25; typically, a Ted Bundy Victim was enrolled within a local college or university; the following is a list of Ted Bundy’s victims:

Joni Lenz – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1974)

Linda Ann Healy – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Donna Gail Manson – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Susan Elaine Rancourt – – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Roberta Parks – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Brenda Ball – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Georgeann Hawkins – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Nancy Wilcox — Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Melissa Smith – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Laura Aime – Ted Bundy Victim; assault and abduction (1974)

Carol DaRonch – Ted Bundy Victim; assault and abduction (1974)

Debra Kent – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Janice Ott – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Denise Naslund – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1974)

Caryn Campbell – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Julie Cunningham – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Denise Oliverson – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Lynette Culver – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Susan Curtis – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1975)

Lisa Levy – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Margaret Bowman – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Karen Chandler – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Kathy Kleiner – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Cheryl Thomas – Ted Bundy Victim; assault (1978)

Kimberly Leach – Ted Bundy Victim; murder (1978)

Who is Ted Bundy?

Ted Bundy, who was born as Theodore Robert Cowell, was a serial murderer who was convicted of the murder, rape, and kidnapping of his victims; Ted Bundy’s murderous spree lasted approximately 10 years from its inception until his arrest in the State of Florida. Although Ted Bundy had confessed to approximately 30 murders, reports have been issued citing Ted Bundy’s guilt in murders ranging from 26 to 115 in number.

Ted Bundy Profile

The following outlines the life and crimes of Ted Bundy

Date of Birth: Ted Bundy was born on November 24th, 1946 in Burlington, Vermont; he executed by the State of Florida on January 24th, 1989

Residence: Ted Bundy is recorded as changing locations and residences with regard to the location of the murders that he had committed; typically, Ted Bundy would target females enrolled in local colleges and universities located in the area of his residence – his residences have included between 5 and 6 States

Year of First Killing: Due to the heinous nature of his crimes, as well as his methods of the disposal of his victims, there has never been an official determination as to the year in which Ted Bundy’s first murder had taken place; currently, 1974 is considered to be the most accurate year in which his murders began – this involved an 18 year old female student at the University of Washington on January 4th, 1974

Year of Apprehension: On February 15th, 1978, Ted Bundy was arrested in the State of Florida subsequent to him traveling in his vehicle and undergoing a traffic stop by a Florida State Trooper; upon investigating the make and model of the vehicle, Ted Bundy’s care was reported as being stolen – after a briefly resisting physical apprehension, Ted Bundy was placed under arrest

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Ted Bundy; in addition, these case details were made mention within Ted Bundy’s criminal trial:

Prior to his execution, Ted Bundy’s lawyer had mentioned that Ted Bundy may have been responsible for an abduction offense possibly occurring in 1969; however, this was never proven

Ted Bundy’s psychological assessment performed by a court psychiatrist had attributed depression, psychotic episodes, and rage to be the primary facilitators of his crimes; Ted Bundy had expressed that his grandparents – individuals who were responsible for his caretaking – were emotionally abusive

Locations of the Murders: Ted Bundy confessed to murders taking place in Washington State, Florida, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Colorado

Victims:  Ted Bundy was charged for the murder of 12 murders; however, he has been linked to as many as 115 murders

Status as a Serial Killer: Ted Bundy is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Ted Bundy was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month

Nature of Victims: Ted Bundy’s victims were classified as females, who ranged in age; his primary victims were female students enrolled in local universities

Punishment and Conviction: On February 7th, 1980, Ted Bundy was sentenced to life imprisonment – as well as the death penalty – to be served in the Starke Correctional Facility, which resides in the State of Florida; he was executed by electrocution on January 24th, 1989

What is a Murder Trial?

Murder Trials are legal proceedings in which the alleged activity involving the murder of one individual at the hands of another individual – or individuals – undergoes judicial review. Within the realm of a murder trial, the classification of murder must present that the suspect partook in the homicide of another individual in an intentional, premeditated, and purposeful fashion; murder trials finding that the suspect acted with the intent to kill may vary with their respective classification of the murder:

Who is Jack Abramoff?

Jack Abramoff is an individual considered to be both an entrepreneur and lobbyist who undertook relations with a wide variety of Congressmen in the United States, such as Bob Ney, J. Steven Griles, and David Safavian; furthermore, Jack Abramoff retained his seat as the Chairman for the College Republican National Committee in the early 1980s. Jack Abramoff’s political ties are presumed to be responsible for his criminal activity, which involved a multitude of political-based corruption and fraud. Although Jack Abramoff was accused of a variety of fraudulent criminal activity, perhaps the most prominent was both his participation and masterminding of fraudulent conspiracy involving the misappropriation of over $85 million in illicit earnings with regard to Native American Gaming Institutions and Casinos:

Jack Abramoff, who acted as a lobbyist for the Native American Gaming Industry, participated in the receipt of illicit and unethical donations and bribes with regard to serving as a proponent for the inception of gaming facilities

Jack Abramoff also enacted a scheme in which millions of dollars were usurped from interest-based earnings rendered from the Native American Gaming Institutions for which he had purportedly served as a lobbyist

The Case Profile of Jack Abramoff

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of Jack Abramoff, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: Jack Abramoff was born on February 28th, 1958

Date of the Crime: Jack Abramoff’s many crimes – including lobbyist scandals involving Native American Gaming Institutions and Guam – took place between the 1980s and 2002 upon his apprehension

Criminal Charges: Jack Abramoff was found guilty of the following Financial Fraud:

Conspiracy; the involvement and participation of two or more individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to commit a crime; an individual charged with conspiracy does not necessarily need to be at the scene of the crime to be found guilty

Money Laundering; the deceptive presentation of a source of income in order to conceal its origin

Legal Classification: The domain of both Financial Law and Administrative Law:

Criminal Law; a legal specialty that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors

Administrative Law; the legal field in which the interactions between the Federal Government and its citizens are regulated and subject to judicial review and oversight

Financial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on legislation applicable to the activity, exchange, and the circulation of monies or currency

Date of the Trial: March of 2006

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Jack Abramoff; in addition, these case details were made mention within Jack Abramoff’s criminal trial:

In addition to Jack Abramoff, a variety of accomplices were indicted with regard to their participation

Jack Abramoff was convicted of Tax Fraud, which is a type of fraud conducted by Jack Abramoff in which illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent activity was undertaken in order to avoid the payment of taxes

Verdict Delivered: Jack Abramoff was found guilty on November 15th, 2006

Punishment and Conviction: Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in a minimum security prison camp in Cumberland Maryland; he was released from prison on December 10th, 2010

The Background of Near v. Minnesota (1931)

J.M. Near, a Minnesota resident who undertook the publishing of his newspaper ‘The Saturday Press’ was arrested as a result of the content of his publication, which was presumed to be comprised of racist, prejudiced, and objectionable hate-speech; as a result, he was arrested in accordance with his violation of The Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, which was an ordinance passed prohibiting media considered to serve as potential to cause public disturbance and civil disorder; this classification resulted from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota – however, Near dismissed charges that his publication contained any intent of criminal behavior.

The classification of public censorship with regard to necessary or unnecessary censorship exists in tandem with the notion of the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs both in accordance to locale and content

Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm

The Case Profile of Near v. Minnesota

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Near v. Minnesota’:

Date of the Trial: January 30th, 1930

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by J. M. Near – the owner and operator of the publication titled ‘The Saturday Press’ against the State of Minnesota within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

J. M. Near cited that the State of California had violated both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights upon his arrest; he explained that his expression was neither illegal nor criminal in nature

As a result, the process under which he was arrested was in direct violation of his freedom of expression. explaining that incendiary, vulgar, or profane expression absent of criminal intent cannot be deemed as criminal acts

United States Reports Case Number: 283 U.S. 697

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 1st, 1931

Legal Venue of Near v. Minnesota: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Near v. Minnesota case:

J. M. Near; Plaintiff – Near v. Minnesota

The State of Minnesota: Defendant – Near v. Minnesota

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near, stating that the Minnesota Gag Law was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between incendiary expression and incendiary acts – Near’s sentiments expressed within his publication were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm.

Associated Legislation with regard to Near v. Minnesota: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Near v. Minnesota trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

In 1984, in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey, a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana; the acronym ‘T.L.O’ was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The arrest occurred after the student was caught smoking Marijuana; subsequent to her being caught, the high school administration enacted a search of both her and her belongings – as a result of the search, they discovered that she was indeed in possession of paraphernalia presumed to be drug-related:

Within the student’s trial, she maintained that the school had violated her 4th Amendment rights, which provide for the protection of citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and investigative measures undertaken by law enforcement and authoritative entities

The student maintained that the school retained no right to search her belongings, which resulted in what she had cited as an expressed violation of her privacy

The Case Profile of New Jersey v. TLO

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘New Jersey v. TLO’:

Date of the Trial: March 28th, 1984

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by ‘TLO’ against the State of New Jersey:

Although the student was caught smoking illegal narcotics on school grounds, she had maintained that her right to privacy had been violated as a result of the investigation undertaken by the school’s administration

United States Reports Case Number: 469 U.S. 325

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 15th, 1985

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the New Jersey v. TLO case:

The State of New Jersey was the plaintiff of the case

‘TLO’ – the acronym given to the high school student who was classified as a minor – was the defendant in the case

Verdict Delivered: The student was to remain guilty as charged; the Supreme Court stated that not only did her being caught smoking illegal narcotics serve as probable cause for the investigation, but events occurring on public school grounds are required to both be in adherence to legislation, as well as at the discretion of the institution

Associated Legislation with regard to New Jersey v. TLO: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the New Jersey v. TLO trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

Probable Cause is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual; this concept is rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being

The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s – 14th Amendment Rights:

Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue bias and damage

The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’:

Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The State of California; Defendant – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Verdict Delivered:

Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

What is Picture Editing?

Picture Editing is the procedure of altering, modifying, and adjusting visual images or pictures, which can include drawing, photographs, film cells, or paintings. Within the realm of artistry and media, Picture Editing can take place in a variety of settings absent of political or ideological methodology; in contrast, Picture Editing taking place within the realm of censorship will tend to do so in accordance to the applicable authoritative guidelines latent within a particular – or jurisdictional – institution.

What Causes Picture Editing?

Within the act of Picture Editing lies a variety of classification parameters undertaken by both the administration mandating the Picture Editing, as well as the subject matter of the picture being edited; regulations and ideologies may range in nature with regard to religion, intended audience, public – or private – guidelines of acceptability, and statutory legislation. For example, the following circumstances in which Picture Editing took place differ both in the setting of the Picture editing, as well as the authoritarian reasoning behind the Picture editing:

Picture Editing of the Photograph of Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov (1940)

In 1920, following a speech given by Vladimir Lenin, a photograph of Joseph Stalin was taken with cabinet leader Nikolai Yezhov; however, in 1940 – subsequent to Yezhov’s execution – Stalin ordered that Yezhov be removed from the photograph. Due to the fact that two versions of the photograph were in existence, this type of Picture Editing incited concern on the part of Russian citizens that arose with regard to the integrity of the information and media provided to them by the Russian leadership.

Picture Editing of the Cover of National Geographic Magazine (1982)

In 1982, National Geographic magazine had features the Pyramids of Egypt on the cover of their publication; however, prior to the pressing of the issue, editors had noticed that the distance between the two pyramids would disallow for both pyramids to fit onto the cover of the magazine. As a result, the editors enacted measures of Picture Editing that altered the natural distance between the two pyramids in order to successfully allow them to fit on the cover:

Subsequent to the release of the issue of the magazine, National Geographic found themselves to be the subject a vast array of debate with regard to both the integrity of their photojournalism, as well as the legality surrounding the Picture Editing employed

Arguments were presented questioning the authority of a magazine considered to be rooted within factual and truthful portrayal of media to be permitted to depict fallacious imagery

Critics of National Geographic argued that legislation regulating the integrity of pictures  advertised as fact should be uniform with the legislation regulating text advertised as fact

Picture Editing Legislation

The National Press Photographers Association, which is also known by its acronym NPPA, has instated a code of ethics and procedure with regard to both the process and procedure of Picture Editing; this code was enacted in order to ensure that images rendered through photojournalism would be presented in authentic and factual manners in conjunction with the subject matter.

Who is Colin Ferguson?

Colin Ferguson is a convicted mass murderer responsible for the murder and injury of commuters on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), which took place in a single killing spree on December 7th, 1993. On the day of the murders, Colin Ferguson purchased a train ticket at New York’s Pennsylvania Station and boarded a commuter train; at approximately 5:30 pm on that day, he was reported as walking down the aisles of the train car and executing passengers at random – after he had killed 6 passengers and injured 19 others, he was subdued by 3 of his fellow passengers.

Colin Ferguson Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Colin Ferguson

Date of Birth: Colin Ferguson was born on January 14th, 1958

Residence: Flatbush, Brooklyn in the State of New York

Year of First Killing: Colin Ferguson’s only reported killings took place on a single day on December 7th, 1993

Year of Apprehension: Subsequent to being subdued by other passengers on the train, Colin Ferguson was apprehended the same day as the shootings took place

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Colin Ferguson; in addition, these case details were made mention within Colin Ferguson’s criminal trial:

Both parents of Colin Ferguson had died within a short time of each other; as a result, Colin Ferguson was reported as being unable to obtain a sufficient work visa – this was said to have frustrated Colin Ferguson with regard to his lack of gainful employment

The defense team offering representation to Colin Ferguson stated that he had acted out of ‘Black Rage’ – a term adopted by the defense in order to associate racial motivation to Colin Ferguson’s killings

Locations of the Murders: A train passing through Garden City, which is a village on Long Island, in the State of New York

Victims:  Colin Ferguson was charged for the murder of 6 individuals and the injuring of 19 from gun shot wounds

Status as a Serial Killer: Colin Ferguson is not classified as a serial killer, but instead, he is classified as a mass murderer; this is due to the fact that he murdered upwards of 4 people in a finite period of time – a serial killer is defined as a n individual responsible for killing 3 or more people in a month’s time prior to killing again

Nature of Victims: The 6 victims of Colin Ferguson’s murder spree were commuters on the Long Island Rail Road car named as: Amy Federici, James Gorycki, Mi Kyung Kim, Maria Magtoto, Dennis McCarthy, and Richard Nettleton – all of Colin Ferguson’s victims were listed as being Long Island residents.

Punishment and Conviction: On February 17th, 1995, Colin Ferguson was convicted of the murder of 6 individuals, as well as the attempted murder of 19 other individuals; prior to his trial, he was held in incarceration without bail or bond. Colin Ferguson is currently serving his 315 and ½ year sentence at the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York; he is considered to be serving a natural life sentence, which presumes that he will live out the duration of his natural life incarcerated,