December 1, 2025
A Major Flaw In The System
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
-Edmund Burke
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This edition has less to do with DF/IR than it does with the criminal justice system as a whole. I’ve become aware of the hole in the system through work as a Digital Forensic Expert, both for the prosecution and independently.
When The Puzzle Is Incomplete
Recently, I was watching an HBO documentary about a Colorado murder of a well-loved mortician. Very long story short, the ultimate murderer was never prosecuted, only an alleged accomplice was, and that person was offered a plea bargain with no jail time. At the end of the 3-part series, the Chief Prosecutor (District Attorney) – who was interviewed throughout the program – stated the following:
“There’s so many rabbit holes in this case to chase down that I suspect if we were to re-open the case, there’s additional evidence that we would find that would just be more than we could deal with.”
He said the quiet part out loud.
Meanwhile, a man is dead. A family and friends are grieving. And ostensibly, there could be a killer out in the community. People like to talk about “closure”, but it’s not the job of law enforcement or prosecutors to provide closure, per se. However, it is their job to protect the public and if there’s a killer potentially on the loose and there is potential evidence that could lead to the apprehension of the killer, shouldn’t that be pursued? Isn’t that… YOUR JOB?
If you think this is a one-off example from TV, I’m sorry to bring the cold hand of reality smacking against your face… It is not. In just my independent DF/IR practice alone, I’ve seen multiple instances of murder defendants being acquitted and the case ends there. No further investigation, no additional suspects sought after the defendant is acquitted, no emphasis on the part of the government on catching the correct killer.
Case Study #1: Commonwealth v. Bolling
I’ve written about this case in previous articles for my prior company and for NACDL. It stems from an April 2020 murder of a young woman in Richmond, VA, Francesca Harris-Scarborough (aka, Fran). Fran was found in her running car one April morning shot twice in the back with a .45 caliber weapon clutching a bag of marijuana and slumped over the center console. She was involved in an affair with the person who would become my client – Everett Bolling. Fran used to work for Everett and they struck up a romantic relationship. Everett was married with children and a successful car business, so this was naturally a somewhat controversial relationship.
About 3 weeks before she was shot, digital evidence showed Fran found out she was pregnant, ostensibly with Everett’s baby. Not long after this notification is alleged to have taken place, Everett bought a pre-paid phone at Walmart, but then returned it the same day, all of which is documented on video. Records presented at trial showed that a day or so later, two unknown gentlemen purchased a burner phone from a different Walmart and that phone was activated and used solely to communicate with Fran up until her death. Fran’s phone was never located, nor was the murder weapon or the burner phone. Records from the phones involved in the case were presented as a prominent tie between Everett’s legitimate phone and the second burner phone using historical cell site location information.
At trial, several missteps were made by the prosecutorial team. There were also several rulings by the judge in their favor. Ultimately, the historical cell site location data did not weigh as heavy with the jury as the prosecution probably would have liked, and there were other bad facts such as a lying witness or two and DNA evidence that eliminated Everett as being in the car the night of the murder (his mail was found in the car).
After a 5-day trial and some deliberation, the jury acquitted Everett of murder. There just wasn’t enough compelling evidence. What’s more, there was a very viable suspect that wasn’t investigated as fully by the police. One who had made open (online) threats to Fran. One who previously lived with Fran and with whom Fran allegedly was helping to deal marijuana. He also was arrested during the lead-up to the trial for shooting a hotel clerk in Georgia and bore a striking resemblance to Everett. Most of this information wasn’t allowed to come out a trial, but it was known fully to both prosecution and defense.
The [paraphrased] question my students ask every semester when we review this case is this: Now that Fran’s accused murderer has been acquitted and there’s a viable second suspect, did the police continue to search for a murderer? The simple and accurate answer is no.
The harder question is why not?
Case Study #2: Commonwealth v. Hickerson
In 2010, 23-year-old Shane Donahue went missing from his Northern Virginia home. He lived nearby his parents and friends. He was a known prescription drug abuser, but otherwise a seemingly normal 23-year-old guy. His disappearance, and likely murder, were the fodder for a lot of publicity by the family, who understandably wanted justice for their son. Shane’s body was never found, but investigators had a suspect in mind – Shane’s friend Timothy Hickerson.
By documented accounts, Hickerson and Donahue were friends, but only a little. They hung out, but also were involved in the prescription drug scene together and all of the negative byproducts that come along with it, including Hickerson allegedly breaking into Donahue’s home days before his disappearance. The day Shane was last seen, he and Hickerson spent time together, were seen at Shane’s parent’s house together and records showed they likely hung out that day.
The case lay cold-ish for 15 years, until Hickerson was arrested in 2024 for Shane’s murder, concealment of a body and associated charges with regard to Shane’s disappearance and likely murder. The only substantive evidence brought forth was 1) the alleged burglary by Hickerson into Shane’s home 2) the known prescription drug usage at the time and 3) historical cell site data which showed general locations and movements of both Hickerson’s and Donahue’s phones leading up to and after Shane’s disappearance. The most emphasis was placed on mutual connections to one cell site in a relatively rural area, which is the last connections from Shane’s phone and in the area of Hickerson’s then-family farm. That’s it.
Timothy Hickerson was recently acquitted of murder of Shane Donahue. Shane’s mother is quoted in the linked article upon Hickerson’s acquittal as saying “… We have hope that one day we will see justice for Bubba (Shane).”
Ostensibly law enforcement and prosecutors left no stone unturned in this investigation. They brought in the FBI CAST team for historical cell site analysis, they recently used more modern technology to attempt to locate Shane’s body and likely spent millions of dollars on Hickerson’s prosecution. And it took 15 years to arrest someone, who has now been cleared of criminal culpability in this case.
So now what? Now what for the Donahue family? Now what for Shane? Now what for a potential killer still out in the community?
Everyone Has A Job To Do
It is not my goal in this article to bash law enforcement and/or prosecutors. Through 25 years of both my time in LE and in the private sector, I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside some of the best, most proactive prosecutors. I’ve also been on the receiving end of their personal jabs testifying for clients in the private sector. I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside some of the brightest and most savvy criminal defense attorneys. And I’ve been the recipient of their ire on cross-examination. This isn’t meant as a “boo you” or “yay us” post, it’s meant to bring out a serious lapse in the system – What happens when “justice” isn’t served for victims and their families? Shouldn’t there be some follow-up, some additional investigation, some after-action debrief and points for further action? Or do they just walk away, throw up their hands and say they gave it their best shot?
And more to the point, was it their “best shot”?
Every case has bad facts for both sides. Whether your murder victim was a wife-beater and drug abuser, or your defendant client was a pedophile, each case is taken on the facts and the evidence. Ostensibly, all of the evidence is shared between parties, although there’s several instances I can cite where this doesn’t happen. Regardless, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to make an informed and appropriate decision about how to proceed. Why? Because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty and it’s not their responsibility to prove they didn’t do what they are accused of doing. If the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof (i.e., guilt), I submit that it is their responsibility to the public safety to keep searching for those responsible.
This isn’t a monumental undertaking. The Colorado prosecutor quoted earlier told us what’s involved, but he also said why they won’t do it. Paraphrased: It’s too much work.
But I’ll also submit that when you have a seemingly endless budget with personnel ready to assist and no firm timeline for completion, it’s never too much work. Sure, other cases take priority. Hot ones, good ones, open-and-shut ones, and the occasional APE case – Acute Political Emergency. But none of that matters to Fran’s family and friends, nor her unborn baby. None of it matters to Shane Donahue’s family.
They just want to see their loved-one’s killer held to account, and the rest of us just want to see the killers off the street.
About the Author:
Patrick Siewert served 15 years in full-time law enforcement and investigated hundreds of high-tech crimes to precedent-setting results, Patrick is a graduate of SCERS & BCERT and is a court-certified expert witness in digital forensics, mobile forensics and historical cell site location analysis. He has published dozens of articles and is cited in numerous academic papers. He was the Founder & Principal Consultant of Pro Digital Forensic Consulting, based in Richmond, Virginia (USA) and currently serves as Director of Digital Forensics and E-Discovery for a Nationwide (US) provider of DF/IR and e-disco litigation support services, while keeping in touch with the public safety community as a Law Enforcement Instructor in multiple disciplines.
Email: Patrick@ProDigital4n6.com
Patrick Siewert on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-siewert-92513445/
Patrick Siewert on X/Twitter, Discord & Reddit : @RVA4n6
Pro Digital (old) blog site : https://prodigital4n6.blogspot.com/