Don't Google "How To Commit Murder" Before Killing 387
An anonymous reader alerts us to a murder trial in New Jersey in which Google and MSN searches were used against a woman accused of killing her husband. In the days before the murder, prosecutors say the defendant searched for "How To Commit Murder," "instant poisons," "undetectable poisons," "fatal digoxin doses," and gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Her husband was killed with a gun procured in Pennsylvania. The crime occurred in 2004; of course, people now know to be careful about their searches.
Or, just clear your history (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Source (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the title should read: "If Google'ing 'how to commit murder' before killing, throw harddrives into volcano".
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
IAALS, so this might not be entirely the best answer, but it seems to me the hardest thing will be authenticating the data. Barring a first party admission (who the hell would admit to this?), Google would have to authenticate the search terms, the IP would have to be authenticated as that of the defendant's at that time. So you'd have to subpoena the records from Google, authenticate them, and in they come.
But remember, admitting something as evidence doesn't mean it's not rebuttable. You can bring in an expert to talk about how its cloudy that the IP was hers, etc. In the end, the finder of fact (the jury) determines whether or not its credible. The rules of evidence only keep out the stuff that's really irrelevant, overly prejudicial, hearsay, etc.
Now maybe a real lawyer will correct me if I'm missing something.
Re:But you *can* Google it... (Score:2, Informative)
None of those things will remove the evidence from the PC you used (using the library's computer will, though, assuming the library doesn't keep records). What you actually need is Tor and full-disk encryption (or shred(1), or thermite...).
Re:at least log out of your google account (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah--No Kidding! (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, to explain what has probably been said on slashdot a million times already, the burden of proof in a CIVIL case, like the suits by the RIAA and the MPAA, is considerably lower then the burden of proof in a CRIMINAL case. Now, I cannot recall a case yet, where the RIAA or MPAA have actually won in court. Most of them, as I recall, are settled out of court for considerably less, or the RIAA drops the suit when someone fights back hard enough and starts poking holes in their flaky evidence.
Considering this, am I shocked that a legally requisitioned computer can be submitted & used as evidence? Not really--though I should be. It's a shame what the "Justice System" is becoming these days.
Why should you be shocked? If you commit a crime and are charged with said crime, why shouldn't a legally obtained warrant allow a jurisdiction to seize your computer and review it for potential evidence? If anything, the courts would be keeping up in that regard, instead of keeping notes or writing messages on paper, criminal might be keeping track of information on their personal computer. In this particular case, they obviously determined that she was searching the internet and found out WHAT she was supposedly searching for. It might not convict her by itself, but it would show a level of pre-meditation, if the jury sees it that way.
I guess I could stretch this and look for people who search for "to build a fire" and charge them with all unsolved arsons in their area. Boy scouts & Jack London fans beware!
You have no probable cause. This sort of blanket searching would never fly in most courts and might only be allowed under convoluted items in the PATRIOT ACT. You would first have to suspect the individual of arson, have sufficient evidence to get a court issued warrant, find enough evidence on the PC to get a subpoena for the information from Google, and subsequently add evidence to the case. I am willing to bet this wasn't the beginning of their case.
Re:Or, just clear your history (Score:2, Informative)
In Firefox: Go to Tools --> Options --> Privacy Tab: And enable "Always clear my private data when I close Firefox".
As Ron Popeil says: "Just set it... AND FORGET IT!!!"
Cheers.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
How to avoid having your PC used as evidence (Score:5, Informative)
1) The cops have _no_ sense of humor. Thanks to Fark [fark.com], I had This [landoverbaptist.org], and This [theonion.com] in my cache. Apparently, I'm now into terrorism and child trafficing.
2) EFS doesn't help. Microsoft's Encrypting File System doesn't encrypt anything that can't be broken in seconds with the password (and usually minutes/hours without).
So, especially for farkers, get TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org]. It's free, and open-source. Then, get TCTEMP [truecrypt.org]. It makes it so your temporary files encrypted with a random key. Restart, and they all go "poof". Then get TCGina [truecrypt.org]. You get to encrypt your home directory (and history, documents, etc.) - it automatically mounts it when you login.
Use AES/SHA-1 as your encryption scheme, and pick a good password. If you're _really_ paranoid, grab Shred Agent (wipes files you delete automatically), and Distrust (a firefox addon that automatically deletes your history and cache for you). Nobody is _ever_ going to be recovering your data (even you, if you forget your password).
If you are looking for a quick, easy, fool-proof way to wipe your hard drive so _nobody_ will _ever_ recover _anything_ from it, make yourself a DBAN [sourceforge.net] disk. Easy to use, and it gets the job done right.
It was on her computer. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, she'd have done much better to degauss her hard drive after the dirty deed.
Actually, she'd have done much better not to have killed anyone in the first place.
As a detective friend of mine once said, "Yer criminals'r mostly stupid - it's why they're criminals."
Re:Just a question (Score:3, Informative)
It'd be pretty hard to make a if the Google searching was all there was, because while its evidence from which the jury could infer that a particular person did the search, any one of the searches alone wouldn't prove much.
OTOH, when a number of computers you have access to are used to search for certain things that might relate to plans to commit a murder, when a doctor that is also your lover writes a suspicious perscription that might be used to facilitate the murder that is filled just before the murder at a location of a pharmacy that you had just done a location search for, when the person killed is your husband that you've been having violent conflicts with immediately prior to the murder, then its not just about the searches anymore.
Re:Yeah--No Kidding! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah--No Kidding! (Score:3, Informative)
No, they aren't. The standard (probable cause) for both is the same.
During the actual search of the house, yes, one may be deprived of the use of it. Usually, evidence that may be seized from the house is not integral to and may be seized without seizing the house itself; this less the case with your other example (cars) which, when evidence is found during a search, will more likely be seized themselves, and even less the case with computers, which if evidence is found on them, the physical evidence itself will often be inseparable from fairly critical components of the computer.
Re:It was on her computer. (Score:4, Informative)
Because most crimes are not serious enough to devote the manpower to solving. It may sound crass, but that's the reality. If you wake up one day and find some kids have knocked your mailbox off its post with a baseball bat overnight, do you expect your local police to form a task force to solve the crime through DNA evidence? These types of crimes make up the bulk of crime in this country - petty offenses that often get an afternoon's worth of investigation by a cop knocking on doors, if that.
Serious crimes have a higher clearance rate, though still too low - again, because our crime rates are higher than other industrialized countries and we don't have the manpower to clear them all. Our clearance rate for murder, for example, is around 64% - still well over 50% (your "most" crimes threshold) but below Japan's 96% clearance rate for the same crime.
I think the latter, though, pretty conclusively proves that most criminals are dumb enough to get caught - unless you believe Japanese criminals are dumber than American ones (wouldn't their cops be too, then?). The vast majority of criminal cases could be solved through simple effort and legwork, but often those are resources that are not readily available.
Re:Alternative (Score:3, Informative)
That would suck.
However, that's not what happened here. The searches aren't the only basis for the prosecution; the prior history of violence between the victim and the defendant, the affair, the suspicious prescription written by the defendant's lover and filled at a location of the pharmacy for which the defendant a location search immediately before the prescription was filled and immediately before the murder, etc.
Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence (Score:3, Informative)
Well, kinda. The previous poster should have said "a password." You can always be forced to give up your password or assumed guilty if you don't. A good encryption setup encrypts a chunk of disk. When you enter on password it decrypts as a dummy directory (a few porn images or something). When you enter a different password it decrypts as your real data. This way you can say, "okay, okay my password is 'monkeypoop' I just didn't want my friends to know I looked at porn."
Italy, before (Score:1, Informative)
A guy committed murder and part of the evidence (not the only one of course) was a record of his searches containing phrases like "woman murdered near river XXX" and similars BEFORE the media reported the news.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
I can see here, researching on the internet, shows intent, and a really cold character.
Commission of a murder, during the comission of another felony is first degree by default. I think the logic goes: by robbing that liquor store, you showed a disregard for the clerks life, and therefore a certain willingness to take it, or by fleeing the police in the car, you show a willingness to run over the 6 year old crossing the road, etc.
Second degree would be maybe shaking a baby to death, beating someone to death. It gets hairy here, splitting between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter I understand as accidental, but due to some negligence on your part. 2nd degree murder is accidental, but due to actions taken on your part.
It is confusing. It's easier just not to kill people.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
As a former prosecutor in Louisiana, I can explain this one for you. To begin with, understand that the penalty for Murder 2 is life in prison, no parole. And here in Louisiana, that sentence means you will die in prison. For Murder 1, the penalty is either the death penalty or life in prison.
We don't use the concept of "premeditation" in Louisiana, we use "intent." If you kill somebody, and you had an intent to kill them, that's Murder 2, even if that intent was formed the second you pulled the trigger. You don't have to "lie in wait" or anything like that. In a poisoning case, the only defense, beyond just I didn't put the arsenic in his soup" would be "I had no idea that was arsenic, it came out of the jar labelled 'sugar.'" It's also Murder 2 if you kill someone in the course of committing another crime, such as armed robbery. Say you accidentally drop the gun while you're pulling the robbery, and it goes off and kills somebody. You didn't intend to kill the guy, you didn't pull the trigger, but you did kill him in the course of a robbery, so that's Murder 2.
Murder One is a murder where you intended to kill someone AND one of several aggravating circumstances is present. If you shoot a cop and kill him, that's Murder 1. If you're pulling a robbery AND you intentionally shoot the store clerk, that's Murder 1 (if you had only accidentally shot the store clerk, it would be Murder 2).
You can read the law for yourself:
- First Degree Murder [state.la.us]
- Second Degree Murder [state.la.us]
Note the use of the phrase "intent to kill or cause great bodily harm." That's in there to prevent the murderer from claiming "yeah, I shot him, but I only wanted to wound him in the arm, I didn't mean to shoot him in the heart."Re:It was on her computer. (Score:3, Informative)
Confess and be done with it
Feb 8th 2007 | TOKYO
From The Economist print edition
Almost everyone accused of a crime in Japan signs a confession, guilty or not
A TAXI driver in Toyama prefecture is arrested for rape and attempted rape, confesses to both crimes, is convicted after a brief trial and serves his three years in prison. Meanwhile, another man, arrested on rape charges, also confesses to the two crimes the first man was convicted for. He, too, goes to jail and serves his time. Is this a story by Jorge Luis Borges, a case of trumped-up charges from the annals of Stalinist Russia, a trick question in a Cambridge tripos? None of the above. It is a recent instance, and not an uncommon one, of the Japanese judicial system at work.
On January 26th Jinen Nagase, Japan's justice minister, apologised for the wrongful arrest of the taxi driver and declared that an investigation would take place. After all, the suspect had an alibi, evidence that he could not have committed the crime and had denied vociferously having done so. But after the third day in detention without access to the outside world, he was persuaded to sign a confession.
With too many instances of wrongful arrest and conviction, few expect anything to come from the justice ministry's investigation. But the spotlight has begun to shine on the practices of police interrogation as well as on the court's presumption of guilt. More and more innocent victims of Japan's judicial zeal are going public with grim accounts of their experiences at the hands of the police and the court system.
Now a new film about wrongful arrest by one of Japan's most respected directors, Masayuki Suo, has just opened to critical acclaim. The movie, entitled "I Just Didn't Do It", is based on a true story about a young man who was accused of molesting a schoolgirl on a crowded train--and refused adamantly to sign a confession. Thanks to support from friends and family, the real-life victim finally won a retrial after two years of protesting his innocence, and is today a free man.
The film, which was premièred in America and Britain before opening in Japan, depicts how suspects, whether guilty or innocent, are brutalised by the Japanese police, and how the judges side with the prosecutors. Mr Suo argues that suspects are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and that the odds are stacked massively against them being so proven.
The statistics would seem to bear him out. Japan is unique among democratic countries in that confessions are obtained from 95% of all people arrested, and that its courts convict 99.9% of all the suspects brought before them. Prosecutors are ashamed of being involved in an acquittal and fear that losing a case will destroy their careers. Judges get promotion for the speed with which they process their case-loads. And juries do not exist, though there is talk of introducing a watered-down system called saiban-in for open-and-shut cases. Apparently, members of the public are not to be trusted with cases that might involve special knowledge. Those will still be heard and ruled on--as are all cases in Japan today--by judges alone.
Despite Article 38 of the Japanese constitution, which guarantees an accused person's right to remain silent, the police and the prosecutors put maximum emphasis on obtaining a confession rather than building a case based on evidence. The official view is that confession is an essential first step in rehabilitating offenders. Japanese judges tend to hand down lighter sentences when confessions are accompanied by demonstrations of remorse. Even more important, prosecutors have the right to ask for lenient sentences when the accused has been especially co-operative.
It is how the police obtain these confessions that troubles human-rights activists. A suspect can be held for 48 hours without legal counsel or contact with the outside world. After that, he or she is turned over to the public prosecutor for another 24 hours of grilling.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)