Man who killed his family after his wife sought a divorce is set for execution in Florida
Edward J. Zakrzewski, II, is set to die July 31 in the ninth execution scheduled for this year in the state. He pleaded guilty in 1996 to three counts of first-degree murder and received three death sentences in the killings of wife Sylvia Zakrzewski, son Edward Zakrzewski, 7, and Anna Zakrzewski, 5.
The man beat his wife with a crowbar and machete and strangled her to death and killed the children with a machete June 9, 1994, in Okaloosa County.
He eventually turned himself into law enforcement after the case was profiled on the television show 'Unsolved Mysteries,' according to court documents.
Another man on death row, Michael Bernard Bell, 54, is set to die by lethal injection July 15 at Florida State Prison. He's convicted of killing two people outside a bar.
Thomas Lee Gudinas, 51, who was convicted of raping and killing a woman in Florida, was executed following a lethal injection at the same prison last week.
The state also executed six people in 2023 but only carried out one execution last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
39 minutes ago
- CBS News
Man in his 20s shot and killed on Chicago's South Side
A man in his 20s was shot and killed in Chicago's West Pullman neighborhood early Wednesday morning. Just before 1 a.m., Chicago police said a man, around 20 to 25 years old, was inside his car in the 12000 block of South LaSalle Street when a dark vehicle approached. Police said someone inside the dark vehicle pulled out a gun and fired multiple shots at the victim's vehicle. The man was shot in the head and taken to Christ Hospital, where he died. Chicago police said a weapon was recovered from the scene. No arrests have been made. Police are investigating.
CNN
42 minutes ago
- CNN
Fireworks warehouse explodes in California
Fire crews responded to a large explosion at a fireworks warehouse in California on July 1st. Several explosions could be seen from the building, which sparked additional spot fires. The sheriff's office said a one-mile evacuation order was put in place around the area where the fire was burning.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Lululemon claims Costco knocked off its designs. Online, the big-box retailer has already won
On June 27, Lululemon filed a lawsuit alleging that Costco has infringed on its copyright with several 'knockoff' athleisure products. It's just the latest chapter in a story of dupe design that's plagued Lululemon for years. According to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Lululemon takes issue with a number of Costco products that it says are intended to mimic its popular designs, including the $128 Define jacket, the $118 Scuba oversize half-zip hoodie, and the $128 ABC trouser. The documents lay out an in-depth explanation for Lululemon's identification of these 'dupes,' pointing to details like the ornamental lines on the front of the Define jacket and the construction of the ABC pants' back seam as examples of intellectual property copied by Costco in its own line of jackets and pants. As details of the lawsuit emerge, the overwhelming majority of commenters on social media are landing firmly on Costco's side of this debate. It seems that dupe design culture is becoming so normalized that many consumers view it as standard practice. Lululemon and the rise of dupe culture In recent years, dupe design culture has been taking over the way we shop. From makeup brand copycats to luxury furniture look-alikes and fragrance knockoffs, it's likely that if you've been in the market for a higher-end product recently you've stumbled across a cheaper version of said product that seems suspiciously familiar. For Lululemon, this cycle is turning into a tale as old as time. On TikTok, the hashtag #lululemondupe currently yields more than 11,000 videos; videos of affordable dupes of Lululemon products routinely garner hundreds of thousands of views. Lululemon points to this trend in its suit against Costco. 'There is even a hashtag 'LululemonDupes' on social media platforms such as TikTok that social media influencers use when promoting these copycat products,' the documents read. 'The Infringing Products create an improper association with [Lululemon's] authentic products.' According to the U.S. Copyright Office, copyright infringement occurs 'when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.' That can look different depending on the industry, but in the fashion world it generally protects patented clothing designs that are artistic rather than utilitarian in nature. For example, Lululemon argues in its lawsuit that the ornamental features of the Define jacket are 'not essential to the function of the product,' meaning those features are not a 'competitive necessity' for other companies' apparel products, and therefore should belong to Lululemon alone. This isn't the first time Lululemon has stood up against alleged copycats. Back in 2021, the brand filed a lawsuit against Peloton—a former collaborator— arguing that the fitness company had stolen its women's athleisure designs, a claim that was ultimately settled out of court in 2022. Lululemon then took a softer tack against dupes in 2023, when it hosted an event encouraging consumers with Lululemon dupes to trade them in for the real thing. 'It's a trend we don't see going away anytime soon. So we decided to actually lean in and embrace it, rather than pretend it's not there,' Nikki Neuburger, Lululemon's chief brand officer, told Fast Company at the time. The internet sides with Costco Now Lululemon is once again objecting to what it sees as infringing designs, but in the court of public opinion, it appears the brand has already lost. On TikTok, one video from the user @thatssority explained Lululemon's argument that Costco's alleged infringing products might cause customer confusion. Per the actual legal filing, 'Upon information and belief, some customers incorrectly believe these Infringing Products are authentic lululemon apparel while still other customers specifically purchase the Infringing Products because they are difficult to distinguish from authentic lululemon products.' (Potential customer confusion is often the basis for trademark infringement litigation as well.) Several commenters took issue with Lululemon's assertion that Costco's products might be confused for theirs: 'Not a single person has ever been confused about if they're buying lulu or kirkland,' one comment with more than 30,000 likes reads. 'Boycott lululemon because I don't play about Costco,' another adds.
