Don't Google "How To Commit Murder" Before Killing

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.

Re:Huh?

[Applekid]

Not much different from admitting evidence suggesting an alleged had checked out a book on poisons from the library when the stand accused of a poisoning death.

What I want to know is whether researching the search histories of the accused is the status quo.

Alternative

[petabyte]

Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?

Somehow that seems simpler to me.

Re:Huh?

[Jhon]

IANAL, but this would support premeditation -- not necessarily that she COMMITTED the murder. This type of evidence could go a long way in changing a murder 2 case in to a murder 1 case.

Heh

[garett_spencley]

I often search for things on wikipedia and google just out of personal interest and curiosity. Every time I search for something related to weaponry or toxic substances etc. I can't help but think to myself "will this ever come back to haunt me?"

For example, the other night I was watching an action movie and it got me curious about exactly what plastic explosives are and how they work. You see them in movies all the time and there's obviously a lot of misinformation and hollywood make-believe at hand so I wanted to find out the real story. I wiki'd for it and had an interesting read.

Now the next time I go to cross the Canada/US border (I live on a border town) I half expect customs to detain me and bring up those searches :\

Re:Huh?

[Eccles]

Why do you think it would not be admissable?

Anything can be forged or faulty, be it pics, documents, or server logs, the possibility that it could be faked is not by itself grounds for inadmissibility.

While it might be hearsay, it would be a statement against interest, which is one of the hearsay exceptions.

IANAL, although my wife is, and I helped her study a little.

Re:Huh?

[sjwaste]

If I was defense, I would argue that it's overly prejudicial when balanced with its probative value, but without more of the facts, I really can't expand on that. I think that's a better shot than hearsay. I don't think its hearsay at all (not really an out of court statement meant as an assertion by a party other than the accused). If it is, though, that's why FRE 807's there, this would probably fall into the residual exception.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says they got it from seized computers, presumably from the browser history or saved form field data.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

wel let me say to you how the internets wurks here . you see the tubez are fillled up with dese numbas that uniqueley identify your PeeCee to the rest of the internstz . if ta machinez you connect to log dis infoz, they can probbbbably track it back to uz. .lollzerz.

Seriously, if the parent post isn't indicative of the vast decline of /., nothing is.

Re:Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[Nom du Keyboard]

You guys need to remember that only because it is digital it doesn't mean it is less relevant or admissible.

Just a whole lot easier to alter after the fact.

Re:Huh?

[Austerity Empowers]

EyePee addresses are traceable only to whatever you have that terminates them, such as a wireless cable/router, or at worst, your computer. They are not stamped inside your head or buried in an RFID in your skin such that they necessarily place your hands on a keyboard/mouse such that you're necessarily engaged with whatever activity was occurring on that link.

In all probability they asked her if she was using her computer at such and such time, and she said yes, allowing it into court. That they managed to get the logs from Google is another matter entirely, but I suspect Google had no choice.

Re:It was on her computer.

[soft_guy]

If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?

Most people who get caught make a bad mistake. Otherwise police couldn't catch them.

The police have a hard job trying to solve most crimes.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[DragonWriter]

Because a computer is a substantially valuable and useful piece of property. Unless the police can convince the warrant judge that it actually has evidence, they can't take it.

No, they have to convince that judge that there is probable cause to believe evidence will be found on it; probable cause is not certainty that evidence is there.

Otherwise, they'd simply sieze your car and house to review for "potential evidence."

Uh, yeah, police get search warrants for suspects cars and houses and all the time, too.

Re:It was on her computer.

[mgblst]

If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?
 
Mostly due to time and resource constraints. If Police forces had the resources to bring in CSI on every crime, we would have a much higher prosecution rate. Also, there is only one Columbo, and he deosn't get around much.

Re:Huh?

[vought]

EyePee addresses are traceable only to whatever you have that terminates them, such as a wireless cable/router, or at worst, your computer. They are not stamped inside your head or buried in an RFID in your skin such that they necessarily place your hands on a keyboard/mouse such that you're necessarily engaged with whatever activity was occurring on that link.

Not yet .

Re:Huh?

[Harlequin]

Clearly, it must have been her husband researching how to kill her! She killed him in self defense after finding out what he was searching for on the internet.

Probably did, but that's not what's important.

[Kadin2048]

They almost certainly did, but what sways juries is testimony, generally explaining or about physical evidence, not the evidence itself. A bunch of files wouldn't do anything by themselves; a good expert can take the evidence and explain it in such a way that it's compelling to the jury.

Re:It was on her computer.

[BBandCMKRNL]

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.

AFAIK, the high conviction rate in Japan is mainly due to the fact that persons accused of crimes in Japan have very few rights.

Re:Huh?

[vux984]

Agreed.

Nearly all evidence is circumstantial. They could find the gun in your hand - all that means is you picked it up. Not that you fired it. They could find gunshot residue on your hand - all that means is you fired it, not that you fired it at the victim.

I'd hate to be that innocent bastard who stumbles over a gun and picks it up only to have it accidently discharge into the floor, before seeing his very recently murdered ex-girlfriend lying just a few feet away.

Similarly, finding this in her browser history doesn't make her guilty but it sure closes the window of 'reasonable doubt' a little more.

Re:Huh?

[Uncle Rummy]

I'm using your router, so while I'm not anonymous I am not me either.

Unless you're extremely diligent about clearing your cookies, it's likely that whatever search engine you frequent can piece together who you are. Remember the AOL logs? If you use gmail or yahoo mail, it gets even easier, as they can cross-reference against your email.


I'm beginning to think that the best defense is to have an open WiFi connection and claim to be a "data communist" when confronted with IP logs.

A friend of mine has the same philosophy. While I agree with it in principle, I think in practice it's rather dangerous in today's world. Imagine what a jury is going to be thinking when the prosecution trots out your ISP's traffic logs showing searches on murder methods, police procedures, firearms regulations, evasion techniques, money laundering and corpse disposal, complete with hard copies of a few choice pictures from ogrish or rotten. Regardless of the fact that you run an open AP, most of the jury members are only going to remember all the disturbing things that were searched and viewed from your connection, and believe that even if you didn't perform those searches and view those pages, you must have some implicit connection with those who did.

Or, imagine that the RIAA sues you for copyright infringement after downloading Britney's greatest hits from somebody leeching your connection. Even if you've never run a P2P client yourself, you're now in the unenviable position of having to defend yourself against a well-financed team of legal bullies. Even if you get them to concede that your open AP casts doubt on their assertion that you were the direct infringer, I wouldn't be surprised if they then decided to change tacks and go after you for contributory infringement or some such.

Re:Huh?

[onemorechip]

it sure closes the window of 'reasonable doubt' a little more

At the same time, it opens up another path for somebody who wants to frame somebody else for the crime.

Re:It was on her computer.

[RyoShin]

but below Japan's 96% clearance rate for the same crime.

That's surprising.

You'd think ninjas would be better at covering their tracks.

Re:Huh?

[harl]

A friend of mine has the same philosophy. While I agree with it in principle, I think in practice it's rather dangerous in today's world. Imagine what a jury is going to be thinking when the prosecution trots out your ISP's traffic logs showing searches on murder methods, police procedures, firearms regulations, evasion techniques, money laundering and corpse disposal, complete with hard copies of a few choice pictures from ogrish or rotten. Regardless of the fact that you run an open AP, most of the jury members are only going to remember all the disturbing things that were searched and viewed from your connection, and believe that even if you didn't perform those searches and view those pages, you must have some implicit connection with those who did.

This is not legal advice.

The idea is that a jury never sees any of what you mention above. You never trust a jury to make the right choice. You control what they see and thus allow them to only make one choice. The one you want them to. Your lawyer should be able to get all of this labeled as inadmissible by showing that multiple MAC addresses regularly and routinely connect to your computer. You did keep those logs right? At that point you supeana the computers of everyone in a 500 ft radius and check for matching MAC addresses. Then you search matching computers for evidence of those searches. If you don't have people regularly and routinely connecting to your computer, and the logs to prove it, then your "data communist" defense is motion denied. The jury will see the pics and searches. You will probably go to jail.

Re:Source

[Achromatic1978]

Why?

Seriously, why?

If I kill someone with a nailgun I buy at a hardware store, is it 'evil' if the hardware store hands over CCTV footage of me buying said nailgun to the police with a warrant?

I'm curious, really, why would or should Google get a free pass in a similar situation?