A doorbell cam captured the confession of a suspect accused of murder

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 2,866   +746
Staff member

According to Texas authorities, a video doorbell similar to Amazon’s Ring captured the confession of a murderer.

Former college football player Michael Egwuagu was apprehended on Friday for allegedly stabbing his sister to death last week. An autopsy revealed that 32-year-old Jennifer Chima Ebichi was stabbed multiple times and was three-months pregnant at the time of her death.

Fox News notes that the former University of Texas at San Antonio football player was captured by a doorbell cam leaving his sister’s house shortly after the murder uttering the words, “I killed Jennifer.”

Neighbors said they heard screams and yelling at the woman’s house. When they went to investigate, they claim to have heard Egwuagu’s unrealized confession. The eye-witnesses also told KEYE-TV he was smiling when he left the house carrying a bloody kitchen knife.

A Travis County Sherriff’s Office spokeswoman told reporters that first responders attempted to resuscitate Ebichi and her unborn child but were unsuccessful.

A judge indicted Egwuagu and set his bail at $500,000.

Earlier this year, Amazon’s Ring doorbells were the center of a privacy controversy when it was revealed that a company policy allowed police to obtain video footage from the devices when requested. Privacy advocates, including the ACLU, view it as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Amazon admitted that it currently has video-sharing partnerships with more than 400 US law enforcement agencies.

Masthead credit: BrandonKleinVideo via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 4,618   +4,971
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

I will NEVER buy any of this stuff: Alexa, apple Speaker, Cortana, whatever and put it in my house - in my various rooms to allow the government to spy on me on my own dime.

Orwell would never believe we would do this to ourselves.

We just saw a RING used to spy on a little girl in her room - where a guy was perv talking to her.

We already know these social media companies are competing for our personal data and information.

Now you want me to potentially snitch on myself by paying for my own surveillance?

Try again CIA.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,663   +6,033
Using evidence in the event of a crime is not the same as invading our privacy. Sadly though if a camera exist, the authorities will want to use them in monitoring our every move. Which is invading our privacy. The moral of the story is they don't trust us and we don't trust them.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 3,876   +2,931
Using evidence in the event of a crime is not the same as invading our privacy. Sadly though if a camera exist, the authorities will want to use them in monitoring our every move. Which is invading our privacy. The moral of the story is they don't trust us and we don't trust them.
Actually, the moral seems to be that they don’t trust us but we DO trust them.... hence the sales of these items....

Of course the real moral is: people are stupid!
 

quadibloc

Posts: 263   +160
I buy a camera to look away from my front door to protect myself from porch pirates, and naturally I don't care about their privacy, and don't really feel I have anything to hide that would make the police interested in my own innocent comings and goings. It's hard to convince me that this is a menace, and this story shows how such a camera may help Jennifer Ebichi obtain justice.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,267   +1,427
Security, CCTV and cellphone cameras have been used to help solve crimes long before IoT devices were even a thought. But because the camera is on private property and connects to the internet, you think your camera is special? People are weird.
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,953   +2,716
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

I will NEVER buy any of this stuff: Alexa, apple Speaker, Cortana, whatever and put it in my house - in my various rooms to allow the government to spy on me on my own dime.

Orwell would never believe we would do this to ourselves.

We just saw a RING used to spy on a little girl in her room - where a guy was perv talking to her.

We already know these social media companies are competing for our personal data and information.

Now you want me to potentially snitch on myself by paying for my own surveillance?

Try again CIA.
I agree with this except your smartphone is also tracking you, a lot.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,001   +6,775
I don't recall ANY of these manufacturers advertising the fact they have sharing agreements with local police or any other authorities. If nothing else, ACLU needs to hammer them for that and insist that this is prominently displayed and conveyed to each and every user. I don't think deceptive advertising protects the companies, nor should it.
 

ShagnWagn

Posts: 1,297   +1,083
There is absolutely NO reason why these cameras can't store your personal data from cameras on your own device. They should NOT be sending everything to the internet. This is my problem. If you want cameras for your own security and use, of your own property, then great. When you start recording everything and sending it out to the internet - that is the big problem.

Add to not just these cameras, but everything else that these manufacturers build to spy/capture in your home. Let's not forget about baby monitors and TVs. Not only is security poor on them, but they are sending your data out to the internet. These companies, the people that work there, and people that hack into their networks can now do what they want with your info. What an evil world we live in.
 

BigRedPDX

Posts: 104   +91
All of these "smart" devices send out past your gateway. If it offers a mobile connect option, it goes out. Even your nest device is sending diagnostic data out. Even being a tech guy, I don't bother with anything that monitors my daily activities in my own home. If I want to turn my lights on, I don't need the world to know it.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,672   +2,011
and don't really feel I have anything to hide that would make the police interested in my own innocent comings and goings.

And THAT is the problem. The "government" will use the "if you don't have anything to hide, why would you care" logic to convince, then create a law that says you MUST have this.
How many times do you see where an officer pulls over someone and says "do you mind if I search your car"? If you don't have anything to hide, why would you care.
 

bviktor

Posts: 357   +637
I don't recall ANY of these manufacturers advertising the fact they have sharing agreements with local police or any other authorities. If nothing else, ACLU needs to hammer them for that and insist that this is prominently displayed and conveyed to each and every user. I don't think deceptive advertising protects the companies, nor should it.

They don't have to. It is called law.
 

Fox God Records

Posts: 53   +37
“You are being watched.
The government has a secret system:
A machine that spies on you every hour of every day.
I know because I built it.
I designed the machine to detect acts of terror,
But it sees everything;
Violent crimes involving ordinary people, people like you.
Crimes the government considered irrelevant.
They wouldn’t act, so I decided I would.
But I needed a partner, someone with the skills to intervene.
Hunted by the authorities, we work in secret.
You’ll never find us, but victim or perpetrator,
If your number’s up, we’ll find you.”