In this episode of “True Crime News,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Henry Chapman pulled Moncre Moon over and arrested him on an outstanding warrant, but it was Officer Chapman who ended up behind bars. Plus, just days after his wedding, Cody Johnson went missing. Investigators later learned his new bride, Jordan Graham, pushed him over a cliff at Glacier National Park, causing him to plummet over 300 feet to his death.
Source: True Crime Daily
By Ovat Abeng
The Anambra Police Command has launched a manhunt for operatives of Agunaechemba, a recently launched security outfit in Anambra State, who allegedly shot and killed a woman in Nnewi.
The incident occurred on Tuesday evening at Ibeto Junction in Nnewi, Nnewi North Local Government Area.
According to eyewitnesses, road users were trapped in a traffic gridlock when the Agunaechemba operatives arrived, attempting to clear the way for their convoy.
In the process, they started firing gunshots, and a bullet hit a woman, later identified as Chiamaka Okeke, who slumped and was later confirmed dead by a doctor.
Read Also: Death Toll Rises To 3 In Ebonyi Crash
The Anambra Police Command confirmed the incident, with Police Public Relations Officer SP Tochukwu Ikenga saying the command is on top of the situation and has initiated steps to identify the patrol vehicles and operatives involved.
“We have escalated the matter to the leadership of Agunaechemba to help us identify the patrol vehicles that went to Nnewi yesterday and the alleged operative who shot the gun,” Ikenga said.
The Commissioner of Police, CP Ikioye Orutugu, has appealed for calm, assuring that the command is working with relevant security outfits to identify the suspect and ensure justice is served.
“Investigations are ongoing, and further developments will be communicated,” the PPRO added.
The incident has been corroborated by videos trending on social media, showing the victim’s dead body and road users lamenting the incident.
Top judges unanimous decision that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in UK equality legislation mean biological sex
In a dense, 87-page judgment, the Supreme Court has found that UK equality legislation refers to biological sex “as a matter of ordinary language”.
Interpreting ‘sex’ as including trans men or women who have a Gender Recognition Certificate would not have been workable as a matter of statutory interpretation, and “would cut across the definitions … in an incoherent way”.
The decision has implications for public service providers and employers as well as charities and associations. It means, for example, an interpretation of what is a ‘women-only’ space such as a changing room, or of a charity set up to serve women or girls, would be based on a biological definition of ‘woman’ and would not cover transgender men or women with a GRC.
Acknowledging the competing rights that this controversial case highlighted such as for women, for the trans community as well as for lesbian women, Lord Hodge, one of the five justices that heard the case, said, “we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”, reiterating, for instance, that the transgender community is separately protected in the Equality Act 2010.
The case was brought before the Supreme Court after the Scottish Government issued statutory guidance north of the border in relation to ‘positive action’ legislation on gender representation on the boards of public bodies. The guidance says that the definitions of woman and man for that legislation includes those who have been certified as such with a Gender Recognition Certificate.
For Women Scotland, the organisation which brought the case, argued this was wrong and that the UK’s Equality Act 2010 was drafted with the ordinary biological meaning of woman and man in mind and that those definitions should not be read as to include trans women or men with a Gender Recognition Certificate. The Supreme Court has now agreed with this argument.
In a statement, For Women Scotland, said today:
“The Supreme Court has confirmed what women across the country already knew. Sex matters … This ruling restores legal clarity and reaffirms the purpose of the protections written into the Equality Act. This win protects all women, including trans-identifying females, by ensuring maternity rights, women-only spaces, and female-focused services are grounded in reality.”
The 268 paragraphs of complex legal analysis in the judgment (written by three of the five justices, Lady Rose, Lady Simler and Lord Hodge) may make for a challenging read but, say equality legal experts, offer “long-term clarity for businesses”.
Phillip Pepper, employment partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, says: “While this decision will be disappointing for some, it ultimately offers a clear path forward for employers who can now ensure they stay on the right side of law.”
This does mean that separate spaces may have to be created, for instance, for the trans community. Pepper cautions, businesses “may have to rethink their policy towards single-sex spaces in the workplace, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, and ensure that all individuals have a suitable space that they feel comfortable in when needing to use those facilities”.
As Pepper makes clear, these practical applications are now matters for service providers and employers; the judges have done their bit.
As Lord Hodge said, the Supreme Court’s task “was not to make policy on how .. groups should be protected” but only to “ascertain the meaning of the legislation”.
The post Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ has biological meaning appeared first on Legal Cheek.
Source: Legal Cheek
Unfamiliar case names and US spellings among key giveaways
Judicial guidance on the use of AI in courts was updated this week, outlining common pitfalls, recommended practices for available tools, and a glossary of key terms.
The new release updates guidance from 2023, applying to all judicial office holders – court clerks, support staff, court of appeal judges, legal assistants, and more – and was published online to promote “open justice and public confidence”.
The document outlines key signs that a party may have used AI—such as cases that “do not sound familiar” or include “unfamiliar citations (sometimes from the US)”; parties “citing different bodies of case law” on the same issues; and submissions that use American spelling, reference overseas cases, or “do not accord” with judges’ understanding of the law.
Perhaps most interesting is the final indicator: “content that (superficially at least) appears to be highly persuasive and well written, but on closer inspection contains obvious substantive errors.”
Nevertheless, the guidance notes there is no reason AI couldn’t be a “potentially useful” tool, and judges won’t be required to disclose if they’ve used it. Depending on the context, lawyers may not need to either, “provided AI is used responsibly.” However, “it may be necessary… that lawyers are reminded of their ‘obligations’” and confirm they have independently verified the accuracy of any material generated with AI assistance.
The reference to litigants-in-person (LiPs) is slightly different:
“[AI] may be the only source of advice or assistance some litigants receive. Litigants rarely have the skills independently to verify legal information provided by AI chatbots and may not be aware that they are prone to error. If it appears an AI chatbot may have been used to prepare submissions or other documents, it is appropriate to inquire about this, ask what checks for accuracy have been undertaken (if any), and inform the litigant that they are responsible for what they put to the court/tribunal.”
“Fake material” is also discussed: “Judges should be aware of this new possibility and potential challenges posed by deepfake technology”, as well as potentially unintentional forgeries (“hallucinations”) — like citations or quotes from “fictitious” cases, legislation, or legal texts.
Another section advises against legal research and analysis, noting AI often bases its legal “view” on US law. “Anything you type into it could become publicly known”, reads the guidance, advising chat histories to be turned off and to deny mobile app permissions. If something private and confidential is uploaded, judicial office holders are to treat it as a data breach.
Separately, the guidance reveals that Microsoft’s AI tool, Copilot, is now available on judges’ computers. While it does not explicitly encourage its use, it does describe the tool as “secure”. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, has been positive about AI in the past, despite some “silly” examples of bad practice.
This comes with a glossary to help judges and staff navigate the techy jargon.
This comes amidst a rise in AI use by both lawyers and LIPs. On the lawyers side, examples range from Shoosmiths’ £1 million bonus pot for using AI to disbarred US lawyers. Among LiPs, one barrister has warned of risks, while a US pro se litigant employed an AI-generated avatar of counsel.
The post Judges given guidance on how to spot AI-generated submissions appeared first on Legal Cheek.
Source: Legal Cheek
Washington partners drafted in
Hogan Lovells has been drafted in by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice to advise on negotiations with the US over a potentially massive minerals agreement — one that would likely secure US support and investment into Ukraine.
The firm’s involvement was revealed through a filing under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) register, which confirms Hogan Lovells’ US arm will provide legal advice on “international trade and US policy issues” linked to the deal. The formal engagement was signed on 8 April 2025 and submitted to the US Department of Justice the following day.
According to the paperwork, Hogan’s Washington-based partners, Deen Kaplan and Adam Kushner, will lead the work — both billing at $1,500 an hour.
The filing reportedly coincides with the start of technical talks in Washington between US and Ukrainian officials, as part of a wider effort to agree terms for an investment fund that would manage revenue from Ukraine’s mineral wealth.
But politics has complicated the path forward. A planned signing ceremony at the end of February was famously derailed after a heated Oval Office row between Zelensky and Donald Trump, who accused the Ukrainian leader of showing insufficient gratitude for US support and allegedly told him, “You don’t have the cards.” Trump subsequently paused all military aid to Ukraine, and said Zelensky could “come back when he is ready for peace”.
The political backdrop remains tense. Trump has repeatedly claimed the US has given Ukraine between $300 billion (£237 billion) and $350 billion (£276 billion) in aid, and has framed the minerals deal as a way for America to “get that money back”.
Zelensky, meanwhile, has been pushing for the agreement to include a firm US security guarantee, something he views as essential amid continued Russian aggression. No such guarantee has been offered so far, although the published draft text states that the US supports “Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees to build lasting peace”.
This deal will see Hogan’s US heavyweights attempt to pick up the pieces and negotiate against the White House to facilitate the agreement on behalf of Ukraine.
This latest activity by Hogan Lovells follows scrutiny from the Trump administration, which launched a sweeping probe last month into the DEI policies at 20 major law firms, including Hogan Lovells itself. The firm, alongside other global firms such as A&O Shearman and Freshfields, is now facing demands from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to hand over detailed records on hiring and compensation practices.
According to Law.com (£), the firm responded by renaming its “diversity, equity and inclusion” pages to “HL Inclusion”, removing references to LGBTQ+, disability and “institutional racism”, and replacing its DEI video with a message from its CEO.
The post Ukraine calls in Hogan Lovells for US minerals deal appeared first on Legal Cheek.
Source: Legal Cheek
OREGON CITY, Ore. (TCN) — A man and his girlfriend, both 27, will spend time behind bars for killing a 25-year-old man in what prosecutors said was “an act fueled by jealousy.”
In a news release posted April 14, the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office said Cody Denewith pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and first-degree assault with a firearm in connection with the death of Nathan Anderson, his former co-worker. He was subsequently sentenced to 240 months in prison for manslaughter and 90 months for assault. He will serve 27 1/2 years, but prosecutors said a “provision allows him to earn credit that could slightly reduce his term.”
Denewith’s girlfriend, Dominique Britt, previously pleaded guilty in December to first-degree manslaughter and unlawful use of a weapon, and she received a sentence of 150 months in prison.
According to the district attorney’s office, on April 29, 2024, Denewith shot Anderson in the abdomen three times. Anderson was transported to a hospital and pronounced deceased upon his arrival.
Denewith reportedly believed Anderson, whom he had worked with at Dave’s Killer Bread, had been “sexually intimate” with Britt.
Days before the fatal shooting, police responded to Britt and Denewith’s apartment for a domestic call and arrested Denewith. While Denewith was in jail, Britt allegedly claimed Anderson had sexually assaulted her. Prosecutors said Denewith became “consumed by the belief that it had happened” and “fixated” on killing the victim.
On the day of the fatal shooting, Denewith reportedly sent his girlfriend a text message asking her to “pack him clothing and his ‘toy’ from upstairs,” which was their code work for a Sig Sauer P365 handgun. According to the district attorney’s office, Britt told later officials she did as her boyfriend asked and gave him the gun knowing Denewith planned to shoot and kill Anderson.
Denewith and Britt were initially charged with second-degree murder. Prosecutors noted that Denewith was previously convicted in 2022 of felon in possession of a firearm out of Clatsop County and convicted of burglary in Oklahoma in 2016.
Source: True Crime Daily
WATERBURY, Conn. (TCN) – A 32-year-old man who was allegedly held captive by his stepmother for two decades and subjected to malnutrition and “inhumane treatment” has reportedly released a statement.
According to WVIT-TV, the victim, who is referring to himself only as “S,” said, “I am speaking out today to begin the process of reclaiming my life and to have my say in how my story is told.”
Waterbury Police first responded to the scene on the evening of Feb. 17 to a report of an active fire. The Waterbury Fire Department extinguished the flames. There were reportedly two occupants inside the home, 56-year-old Kimberly Sullivan and her adult stepson, who suffered smoke inhalation and exposure to the fire.
According to police, the victim intentionally set his upstairs room ablaze and told officials, “I wanted my freedom” after he had allegedly been held captive by Sullivan since he was around 11 years old.
Detectives reportedly determined the victim had endured “prolonged abuse, starvation, severe neglect, and inhumane treatment.” He was reportedly in a “severely emaciated condition” and had “not received medical or dental care during this time.” Sullivan allegedly provided her stepson with “minimal amounts of food and water, which led to his extremely malnourished condition.”
In the released statement obtained by WVIT, “S” also said, “I am much better and stronger than I was the day the first responders carried me out of my home. I am beyond grateful for the care I have received since then. To all the health care professionals who have helped and nurtured me, thank you. In addition to all of your care, I appreciated the chance to have my first-ever birthday party to celebrate turning 32.”
Part of the statement read, “Much has already been said that tells part of the story of the abuse I endured. Someday, perhaps my whole story will be told.”
Sullivan was charged with first-degree assault, second-degree kidnapping, first-degree unlawful restraint, cruelty to persons, and first-degree reckless endangerment.
“True Crime News” has been following the case since last month.
Source: True Crime Daily
True Crime News Promo Sweepstakes — Official Rules
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN A PRIZE. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING. ODDS OF WINNING ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE ENTRIES RECEIVED DURING THE SWEEPSTAKES PERIOD. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED. The entry period for the “True Crime News & LifeSafe Giveaway” (“Sweepstakes”), sponsored by GTC Productions Inc. (“Sponsor”), begins Friday, January 31, 2025 at 6:00:01 a.m. Pacific Standard Time (“PT”) and ends at 5:59:59 a.m. PT on Friday, February 28, 2025 (the “Sweepstakes Period”). Sponsor’s computer will serve as the official timepiece for the Sweepstakes. All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply.
1. ELIGIBILITY:
The Sweepstakes is open to individuals who meet the following criteria: (a) are eighteen (18) years of age or older and (b) are a legal resident of and physically residing in one of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia (excluding Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, United States territories, possessions, and protectorates, foreign based United States military installations and wherever restricted or prohibited by law) (“Entrant”).
Neither Sponsor nor employees of Sponsor, “True Crime News”, Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Telepictures Productions Inc., GTC Productions Inc. and all of their respective partners, parent companies, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, trustees, advertising, promotion and public relations agencies, and their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, independent contractors, representatives and agencies (collectively, the “Sweepstakes Entities”) are eligible to participate in the Sweepstakes and/or win a Prize (as defined below). Additionally, immediate family members of such employees and persons living in the same household as such employees (whether related or not) are not eligible to win. For the purposes of this Sweepstakes, “immediate family members” is defined as spouse, domestic partner, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, children, siblings and their spouses.
By entering this Sweepstakes, Entrants agree to be bound by these Official Rules and the decisions of the Sponsor, which are final and binding in all respects and cannot be challenged or appealed.
HOW TO ENTER: Online entry via the “True Crime News” website (“Platforms”) is the only method of entry for the Sweepstakes.
Entries received before and/or after the Sweepstakes Period will be void. All entries become the sole property of Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned.
To Enter:
You may enter the Sweepstakes only one (1) time per day per Platform during the Sweepstakes Period. In order to enter:
A. Go to for official rules.
B. Go to www.truecrimenews.com and take the following steps:
Those Entrants who do not comply with all the required fields as listed will be disqualified.
Entrant’s entry must be received by Sponsor between 6:00 a.m. PT on Friday, January 31, 2025 and 5:59 a.m. PT on Friday, February 28, 2025.
Sponsor will accept only one (1) qualifying entry for each day of the Sweepstakes Period per Entrant.
Submission of false or misleading Personal Information will be grounds for disqualification of entry. Entries generated by a script, macro or other automated means will be disqualified. Illegible or incomplete entries, as determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, will be disqualified. Sponsor will not deem proof of submission of an entry as proof of receipt of an entry.
WINNER SELECTION PROCESS:
Sponsor will select at random ten (10) prizewinners (“Winner”). If a potential Sweepstakes winner is found ineligible or fails to comply with these Official Rules, that Entrant’s claim to a prize is forfeited and an alternate qualifying and eligible entrant may be selected, at Sponsor’s sole discretion.
All Prizes legitimately claimed will be awarded.
PRIZE
A five (5) pack of StaySafe All-in-1 Fire Safety Devices valued at $94.95
Total ARV ($949.50)
Sponsor will not replace any lost or stolen products, vouchers, or certificates. In the event of such a loss, Sponsor shall have the right, in Sponsor’s sole discretion, to disqualify the Winner or to award to that Winner the remaining elements of the Prize which shall constitute full satisfaction of Sponsor’s prize obligation to the Winner and no additional compensation will be awarded.
All Winners may be required to review and execute further contracts and releases provided by Sponsor in order to receive the Prize.
PRIZEWINNER NOTIFICATION PROCESS:
The Winner will be notified by Sponsor via email. If a Winner does not accept the Prize and/or fails to return all required documentation and signatures within seventy-two (72) hours following the date and time the Winner is notified by Sponsor, then that Winner will be disqualified and an alternate Winner will be selected at Sponsor’s sole discretion.
The Sponsor may require a tentative Winner to execute a Certificate of Eligibility, Liability Release and Publicity Release (collectively, “Certificate/Release”).
If a Winner does not accept the Prize and/or fails to return any required documentation and signatures within seventy-two (72) hours following the date and time the Winner is notified by Sponsor, then that Winner will be disqualified and an alternate winner will be selected at Sponsor’s sole discretion.
Refusal or return of any notifications, Affidavit/Release or Prize as undeliverable will result in disqualification and an alternate entry will be selected at Sponsor’s sole discretion.
ADDITIONAL PRIZE INFORMATION:
There is no substitution for any Prize or any portion thereof. The Prize is not transferable, assignable or redeemable for cash. All Prize details are at Sponsor’s sole discretion.
Winner is solely responsible for the reporting and payment of any and all federal, state and local taxes any air travel taxes and/or expenses, including applicable departure taxes or fees, inspection charges, and security charges, as well as any other costs and expenses associated with acceptance and use of the Prize not specified herein as being awarded. Winner may be issued an IRS form 1099 based on the ARV of the Prize.
The value of each Prize set forth above represents Sponsor’s good faith determination of the ARV thereof and cannot be challenged or appealed. The Prize consists of only those items specifically listed above as part of the Prize.
PRIVACY STATEMENT:
Entrants’ personal information will be utilized by the Sponsor for fulfillment of Sweepstakes Prizes and to comply with legal requirements. Sponsor has adopted the Warner Bros.-Discovery privacy policy found here: By entering this Sweepstakes, Entrants accept and agree to abide by these privacy policies and terms of use.
OWNERSHIP AND LICENSE:
All Sweepstakes related materials, including submission entries (“Submission”) becomes the property of the Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned. The copyright in any Submission shall remain the property of the Entrant, but entry into this Sweepstakes constitutes Entrant’s irrevocable and perpetual permission and consent, without further compensation or attribution, to use, reproduce, print, publish, transmit, distribute, sell, perform, adapt, enhance, or display such Submission for any purpose, including but not limited to editorial, advertising, trade, commercial, and publicity purposes by the Sponsor and/or others authorized by the Sponsor, in any and all media now in existence or hereafter invented, throughout the universe, for the duration or the copyright in the Submission. Sponsor and/or others authorized by Sponsor shall have the right to edit, adapt, and modify the Submission.
Any use of any of the Sweepstakes Entities trademarks or copyright interest is strictly prohibited and may subject Entrant to civil and/or criminal liability.
PUBLICITY GRANT:
Except where prohibited by law or Sponsor’s Privacy Policy the Prizewinner shall be required to grant Sponsor the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use his/her name, photograph, visual and audio likeness, statements, biographical information, address (including city and state of residence) and any other information contained in his/her entry on a worldwide basis, and in all forms of media now known or hereafter invented or discovered (including, without limitation, on the Sponsors’ web sites), in perpetuity, without further compensation, notice, review or approval.
NO WARRANTIES:
ALL PRIZES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND “WITH ALL FAULTS.” SWEEPSTAKES ENTITIES MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN FACT OR IN LAW, RELATIVE TO THE USE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY PRIZE, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ITS QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES FOR A PRIZE, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, ARE CONTAINED IN THE MANUFACTURERS’ OR SERVICE PROVIDERS’ WARRANTIES, AS RELEVANT.
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. The use of certain companies’ products and services as Prizes does not imply participation in, approval of, or endorsement of this Sweepstakes by such companies.
RELEASE, HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION:
BY ENTERING, ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE SWEEPSTAKES, PARTICIPANT’S HEIRS, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, LEGAL SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS RELEASE AND AGREE TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE SPONSOR AND ALL SWEEPSTAKES ENTITIES FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, LOSSES AND CAUSES OF ACTION FOR ANY DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, AND INCIDENTAL DAMAGES), LIABILITY, LOSS, COST, FEES (INCLUDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES), INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGE TO PERSON (INCLUDING DEATH) OR PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY, DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY REASON OF THE ACCEPTANCE, POSSESSION, REDEMPTION, MISDIRECTION, USE OR MISUSE OF ANY PRIZE OR ANY PORTION OF ANY PRIZE (INCLUDING ANY ACTIVITY OR TRAVEL RELATED THERETO) OR PARTICIPATION IN THE SWEEPSTAKES AND THE ACTIVITIES OR FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS BASED ON RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY AND RIGHTS OF PRIVACY WHETHER ANY OF THESE THINGS ARE CAUSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY THE ACTS, OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE OR MISCONDUCT OF THE SPONSOR AND/OR THE SWEEPSTAKES ENTITIES.
DISCLAIMERS / LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY:
BY ENTERING, ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE SWEEPSTAKES AGREE THAT THE SWEEPSTAKES ENTITIES ASSUME NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR INJURIES OR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND SUSTAINED IN CONNECTION WITH ENTRANT’S ENTRY INTO THE SWEEPSTAKES, THE USE, ACCEPTANCE, POSSESSION OR AWARDING OF ANY PRIZE OR WHILE PREPARING FOR, PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR TRAVELING TO OR FROM ANY SWEEPSTAKES-RELATED ACTIVITY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INJURY, DAMAGE, DEATH, LOSS OR ACCIDENT TO PERSON OR PROPERTY DUE TO AN INTENTIONAL ACT, AN ACT OF NEGLIGENCE OR DEFAULT AND/OR ANY ACT OF GOD.
By entering the Sweepstakes, Entrants agree to waive any right to claim ambiguity with the Official Rules.
The Sweepstakes Entities are not responsible for human errors or for any damaged, tampered with, delayed, illegible, incomplete, inaccurate, garbled, late, lost, forged, misaddressed, misdirected, mutilated, mass machine-generated, unintelligible, incomprehensible, postage-due or stolen mail or entries or entries otherwise not in compliance with these Official Rules. In addition, Sweepstakes Entities are not responsible for any typographical errors in these Official Rules, Sweepstakes content or any advertising materials for the Sweepstakes, or for any kind of computer, electronic, hardware, software, Internet, network, technical or telephone failures and/or problems caused by the Sponsor and/or the Sweepstakes Entities or the user, or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in the Sweepstakes, or by any human, typographical, electronic, network or other error that may occur in receiving and/or processing of the entries in the Sweepstakes, or by infection by computer viruses, bugs, tampering, unauthorized intervention, fraud or technical failure.
If the Sweepstakes becomes compromised, hampered, interrupted, not capable of running as planned, rendered impossible of performance in any way or prevented, including, without limitation, because of any kind of computer viruses, bugs, electronic, hardware, software, Internet, network, technical or telephone failures, tampering, unauthorized intervention, fraud, an event of force majeure or any other cause created by Sponsor and/or the Sweepstakes Entities, the user or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in the Sweepstakes, Sponsor reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to change the Official Rules, to cancel, modify, suspend or withdraw the Sweepstakes or any Sweepstakes offer and/or cancel, modify, suspend or withdraw any method of entry, without notice, and select Prizewinners from all entries received for the Sweepstakes prior to or after the cancellation, modification, suspension or withdrawal. As used herein, an event of force majeure shall be deemed to include, without limitation, an act of God; an act of terrorism, war, riot or civil commotion, fire, casualties, equipment failure, boycott; labor dispute, strike or stoppage (including a strike by the members of any union), labor or material shortage, transportation interruption of any kind, an act, regulation, order or request of or by any federal, state or local authority or quasi-governmental entity (whether or not the act, regulation, order or request proves to be invalid); an epidemic or a pandemic; or any other similar or dissimilar act beyond the Sponsor’s control.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF ENTRY:
All Entrants, as a condition of entry, agree that they have not purchased any kind of Internet service whatsoever in order to participate in and/or enter the Sweepstakes. Entrants agree not to knowingly damage or cause interruption of the Sweepstakes and/or prevent others from utilizing the Sweepstakes. CAUTION: ANY ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE ANY ONLINE OR CELLULAR SERVICE OR WEBSITE OR UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMATE OPERATION OF THE SWEEPSTAKES OR CAMPAIGN VIOLATES CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL LAWS.
IF SUCH AN ATTEMPT IS MADE, SPONSOR AND/OR ADMINISTERING AGENCY MAY, AT THEIR SOLE AND REASONABLE DISCRETION, DISQUALIFY ANY AND ALL SWEEPSTAKES PARTICIPANTS MAKING SUCH ATTEMPT AND SPONSOR MAY SEEK DAMAGES (INCLUDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES) TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, INCLUDING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE:
The parties agree that the Sweepstakes and these Official Rules will be governed, construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law rules (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction) which would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of California. Each participant agrees (i) that any or all lawsuits brought by participants pursuant to these Official Rules or the Sweepstakes will be brought in the courts located in Los Angeles, California and (ii) any and all disputes, claims and causes of action arising out of or connected with this Sweepstakes or any Prize awarded shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action. Sweepstakes participants hereby waive any and all objections to personal jurisdiction. Any and all claims, judgments and awards shall be limited to actual out-of-pocket costs incurred including, without limitation, costs associated with entering this Sweepstakes but in no event attorneys’ fees. Under no circumstances will Sweepstakes participants be permitted to obtain awards for, and hereby waive all rights to claim, indirect, punitive, incidental and consequential damages and any other damages, other than for actual out-of-pocket expenses, and any and all rights to have damages multiplied or otherwise increased.
OFFICIAL RULES:
For a copy of these Official Rules, go to:
_____________________________
For list of winners please send a request to:
True Crime News c/o GTC Productions, Inc.
3000 W. Alameda Ave.
Alameda Building
Suite A300, 3rd Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
SPONSOR: GTC Productions Inc.
c/o
© 2025 Telepictures Productions Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: True Crime Daily
SAN JOSE, Calif. (TCN) — Investigators recently identified a man who died in 2022 as a suspect in the fatal beating of a victim whose body was found outside a home nearly 30 years ago.
On July 16, 1997, the San Jose Police Department responded to a report of an unconscious man on Boynton Avenue and found 28-year-old Karen Gevorkov. Officers said he had been “brutally attacked” and died of blunt force trauma. Despite their efforts, investigators were unable to identify a suspect or make any arrests at the time.
Gevorkov was allegedly last seen alive on the evening of July 15, 1997, walking with a friend near Starbird Park. Police said the surviving friend told officials that he and Gevorkov were “approached by three men when one attacked them” with a bat. The witness wasn’t able to identify the suspects, but investigators named Victor Ferguson as a person of interest.
According to an April 14 news release from police, a breakthrough in the case came in 2024, when, with the help of advanced DNA testing, Ferguson’s DNA matched to the victim’s clothing, “providing conclusive evidence of his involvement in the crime.” Officers also said that in 2016, a former inmate had come forward in 1997, “providing information implicating Ferguson” in Gevorkov’s cold case death, but Ferguson was never formally interviewed.
Ferguson reportedly moved to Kansas after the attack and died in 2022.
Chief of Police Paul Joseph said, “While justice may be delayed, the victim is never forgotten.”
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan added, “Although the truth won’t bring him back, it brings answers and hopefully closure for a family who has been waiting for both for a long time now. I want to thank our police department for never giving up in the pursuit of justice — no matter how long it takes, we can all feel safer knowing that those who harm our community will always be found.”
SJPD Identifies Suspect in 1997 Cold Case Homicide – San Jose Police Department
Source: True Crime Daily
HARFORD COUNTY, Md. (TCN) — A man has been convicted of kidnapping, raping, and killing a hiker on a popular trail in 2023.
On April 14, the Harford County State’s Attorney’s Office announced that a jury found Victor Antonio Martinez-Hernandez guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, third-degree sexual offense, and kidnapping in connection with the death of Rachel Morin, a mother of five. The state intends to seek the maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction.
According to prosecutors, on Aug. 5, 2023, Morin “spent her day as she often did.” She reportedly hung out with her children and boyfriend, went to work out, and then ran errands before taking a walk on the Ma & Pa trail, which witnesses said was “her peace,” and she “never could have predicted that on that day that she would never see or speak to her children again.”
Morin’s boyfriend reported her missing after she failed to return home, and her body was discovered off the trail the following day.
The state’s attorney’s office said that Martinez-Hernandez waited in the woods and then “brutally attacked” the victim, pulling her 150 feet from the main trail into the forest. Morin allegedly “fought for her life,” which was revealed through the health data on her phone and Apple Watch. Prosecutors argued that Martinez-Hernandez “viciously” beat, raped, and then killed Morin.
Investigators recovered DNA evidence from Morin’s body that ultimately matched the defendant’s DNA. Martinez-Hernandez reportedly claimed he had never been to Maryland, but witnesses and business records proved otherwise, revealing that he lived and worked in Bel Air at the time of the attack.
Police announced the arrest of Martinez-Hernandez on June 15, 2024. They said he was wanted in El Salvador on suspicion of murder but fled to the United States. The defendant is also accused of assaulting a 9-year-old girl and her mother during a home invasion in Los Angeles.
Investigators reportedly searched Martinez-Hernandez’s phone and found numerous photos and screenshots of Morin, as well as news coverage related to her death and searches of her name.
MORE:
Source: True Crime Daily