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.

Huh?

[Lenneth-chan]

IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?

Source

[MattSparkes]

I hope they found this in the auto-finish feature, and not from Google?

Yeah--No Kidding!

[eldavojohn]

IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?

I'm not a lawyer either but if I were in her shoes, I would simply claim I was working on writing my first novel--a murder mystery. I had to do some research and, hence, the searches.

Someone happened to murder my husband in a similar fashion (he was a very detestable man, everyone hated him and as a result I suffered at home). There's your shadow of a doubt.

But, oddly enough, I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses) to prosecute people and, at least in those cases, that's all the evidence they need! 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.

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!

Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[vivaoporto]

All the information used against that woman was obtained by the computer forensic team after they seized her computer using the right procedure, obtaining a warrant first, and keeping the whole chain of evidence rules.

You guys need to remember that only because it is digital it doesn't mean it is less relevant or admissible. Had she asked a doctor what is the lethal dose of a certain substance, or what are the less detectable poisons, or similar suspicious questions like those, this doctor would certainly be called as a prosecution witness, and his deposition would certainly be admissible and relevant. Why then the same pursuit of knowledge would not be admissible or relevant? Because it is not a real doctor that got asked, but the internet?

Notice that I'm not saying that it is sufficient evidence to nail her, as IANAL and I don't know the details of the case. But at least admissible and relevant it is.

Re:Huh?

[cayenne8]

I can't get to the link for TFA....how did they find SHE did these searches? Was it just data still on her own home computer, or was this information somehow attained FROM Google and MSM that tied her searches there to her?

The latter is much scarier IMHO. I don't want anyone to commit murder and get away with it, but, I didn't realize that Google searches could be traced from their systems backwards to you.

Just a question

[Nom du Keyboard]

Just one question here: If the RIAA can't prove who was using a computer for filesharing, how can someone prove who was using the computer for Google searching? Even if you have the computer and the searches still on it, does that say who was at the keyboard? Consider, maybe the husband was researching how to kill his wife, she found out, and got him first.

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[Anonymous Coward]

"Steve Ballmer" + Zune + squirt + Naked

I had to try that one. This came up: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/12year-old-gets -pr0nfilled-zune-for-the-holidays-223213.php [gizmodo.com]

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

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 :\

Don't worry about it. Search away.

I have a felony conviction on my record for possession of illegal explosives. I've flown many times since 9/11 and gone through customs several times, never been selected for searches or been treated differently from anyone else. I always laugh when I see people talking about the little things that will get them extra attention from the authorities. Folks, if the authorities were really that good at collecting evidence and correlating information, 9/11 wouldn't have happened to begin with.

Re:Huh?

[__aamnbm3774]

Man, it sure is easy to frame someone these days.

Re:Huh?

[Brian See]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think there's any need to subpoena Google. Just look at the browser history -- the search terms you google are clearly visible -- so an entry of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+kill+s omeone [google.com] is probably what they found. You authenticate the chain of custody of the computer where you retrieved the browser history (probably via a forensic image of the computer), and you have testimony from the investigator that the computer was retrieved from xyz location and handled in a forensically sound manner, etc. etc.

Once you have the foundation of the browser history entry, then you introduce expert testimony regarding what that history entry means -- in other words, that someone using that computer (and perhaps logged in via a certain user profile) went to Google and searched for those terms.

In this manner, it doesn't go in via the party admission hearsay exception.

On cross-examination, the other side could attack the chain of custody and could probably elicit admissions that the evidence just shows that the computer was used and that it could have been someone besides the defendant doing the searching. And then there's always the possibility of forgery / planted evidence -- but with the forensic image (which is usually hashed) and the chain-of-custody logs, you'd probably have a hard time. All of this stuff goes to the WEIGHT of the evidence, and not to its admissibility.

IAAL.

Re:Huh?

[networkBoy]

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

Seriously 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.
-nB

Re:Huh?

[Asic Eng]

how did they find SHE did these searches?

They were looking at the searches, then using them to investigate what she did. So they found she was searching for instant poisons/undetectable poisons/fatal dioxin doses and also accessing www.walgreens.com/storelocator. Then they used this information to find the pharamacist who filled the prescription for chloral hydrate (written by the accused's alleged boyfriend who happens to be a doctor). So apparently they used the information on her computer as a starting point. I think that's a valid police technique. They don't have proof that the drug in question (chloral hydrate) was actually used on her husband, though. Just from the data given in the article it would also be possible that someone else had purchased the chloral hydrate, or that the chloral hydrate was not used in the murder at all.

During murder investigations police can search personal belongings of suspects. I think it must be a horrible feeling to have this happen to you. On the other hand, it certainly seems reasonable that the police would not just search hand-written things but also data which is on a suspects computer (provided there is a proper legal process in place to prevent arbitrary searches). If they find that someone searched for poisons on the internet, on a computer you have access to, just the day before your spouse was murdered - I think that's valid circumstantial evidence.