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.
Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect? (Score:5, Funny)
if my wife gets murdered, will it make me a suspect if I've googled for "ReiserFS"?
bye,
Till
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think most people know their searches are so easily identified. I routinely get searches that hit on my site where people are looking for "15 year old vagina", or something along those lines. I'd bet it isn't other 15 year olds searching in most cases.
Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect? (Score:4, Funny)
I do too and I redirect all traffic with stuff like that in it's querystring to the pedophilia article on wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Source (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the title should read: "If Google'ing 'how to commit murder' before killing, throw harddrives into volcano".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow that seems simpler to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 l
Cost of murder (Score:4, Funny)
Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
No kidding -- I just googled "man shred" (as in, looking up the man page for the "shred" secure deletion program) while replying to another post in this thread. I'd be screwed if somebody accused me of murdering somebody with a wood chipper!
There's a way around this... (Score:3, Funny)
But you may also want to read up on 'personal lubricant', just in case you get an agent who stops you anyway - then you might REALLY be in trouble.
Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time? (Score:5, Funny)
Or, just clear your history (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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.
Correction: Don't Google X 2 Years Before Killing (Score:2)
See:
Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data (Maybe, After 2 Years or So)
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/03/15/0343250.shtm
Re:Correction: Don't Google X 2 Years Before Killi (Score:2)
Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For (Score:5, Funny)
- "Steve Ballmer" + Zune + squirt + Naked
- Walrus Porn
- enriched uranium for sale
- "girl" + "myspace" + "16 and under" + "sex" + "I am not an FBI agent"
- Latex frog fetish
- "How can I keep the feds from discovering my vast marijuana growing operation?"
- "genital warts" + "cures" + "sandpaper"
- "nitroglycerin" + "subway schedule" + "best escape routes"
- anthrax + "crop dusting license"
- "Cowboy Neal in Bondage"
- Crow T. TrollbotHer last search .... (Score:3, Funny)
google from other accounts or computers (Score:2)
Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The fear is., (Score:2)
E.g. like this poster, wondering if googling about explosives will get him some extra attention at the border : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226677&cid=183 62637 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a whole lot easier to alter after the fact.
ask jeeves instead (Score:5, Funny)
i know he can keep a secret. he helped me out that time i woke up in a strange hotel room in denver next to a dead hooker.
as luck would have it, getting rid of dead hookers is a common problem and there are many useful articles on wikihow. i can tell you from experience that your company's helpdesk is NOT very cooperative in a situation like that.
Pro-tip for murdering (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pro-tip for murdering (Score:5, Funny)
Set up a frame (Score:2)
While the likelyhood that somebody does such is low, it's certainly not impossible.
Just a question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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
future searches (Score:2)
bribing + (jury or juror)
"insanity defense" -twinkie
Ask.com: "how to kill a judge"
"soap-on-a-rope"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of Law & Order episodes [url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that.. kindalike.. you know, the point?
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."
Reiser's book evidence... (Score:2)
Remember that one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence against Hans Reiser was that he had gotten books on homicide investigations? This isn't any philosophically different.
Of course, the searches are probably more damning (but still circumstantial). I can see where an innocent person who is the target of a homicide investigation might want to read up on the process, to make sure they don't make fatal missteps.
easy workaround (Score:2)
(Oddly, the captcha for posting this was the word 'acquit'....)
Don't Click Here before killing (Score:2)
What an idiot. (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
wow, didn't know you needed a guide to do that.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I want to know is whether researching the search histories of the accused is the status quo.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 che
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
At the same time, it opens up another path for somebody who wants to frame somebody else for the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
From several computers that McGuire had access to. A few relevant bits from TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
keep in mind any evidence submitted can be refuted by the defendants lawyer. So it would be within his best interest to find an 'expert' who could say something like 'she had an open wifi terminal, or my daughter was doing an essay.' I dont know the details of the trial but I'm sure the evidence was supporting.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
(trolling, I know)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
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:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:It was on her computer. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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:It was on her computer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think ninjas would be better at covering their tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But, from the article :
Maybe Seymour felt the need to explain how she could trace deleted files because the accused had indeed deleted the files. She might not have had the savvy to degauss the drive though (how many people do?)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Yeah--No Kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0103772/ [imdb.com]
John Correli: Did you kill Mr Boz, Miss Tramell?
Catherine: I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid.
Nick: Writing a book about it gives you an alibi for not killing him.
Catherine: Yes it does, doesn't it?
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.
RIAA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Grandparent wasn't asking about burden of proof. He was asking about
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Otherwise, they'd simply sieze your car and house to review for "potential evidence." Enjoy staying at a homeless shelter for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Uh, yeah, police get search warrants for suspects cars and houses and all the time, too.
Re: (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
Evidence of premeditation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation.
.38 caliber weapon, dismembered his body and placed body parts in three suitcases found in the Chesapeake Bay in May of 2004.
Her testimony was the strongest evidence yet in the state's circumstantial evidence case against the 34-year-old McGuire, who allegedly murdered her husband with a
That's not a strong case I'd say.. but IANAL (as this seems to be the acronym of this post)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably did, but that's not what's important. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ludicrous (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true. There's the Google UID - a cookie that the search giant gives you and uses to trace every search you make. Your IP address is largely irrelevant; they have a method of chasing you, not just the NAT device from behind which you searched. The Only on-topic piece of your post was this:
Re: (Score:2)
1: You were incorrect; logging out of Google services won't help, because
2: There was a tracking method you weren't aware of. And
3:Google's ability to track you is largely irrelevant to this story anyway as the required evidence came from computers seized from the defendant. But that's cool anyway because
4: You mentioned removing evidence from a local machine and I agreed with you.
To Be Evil or Not To Be Evil? That is the question (Score:2)
Or does Google just get off by simply saying, "Well, they had a warrant, so it's not our evil?"
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the crime. This case? Murder. It's generally agreed that that is No.
China? Political dissidents and religious undesirables. That is horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Just say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, if you read TFA, you might notice they did look into more than "the computer you us had this 'searched' on it."
There's also:
1) You were telling others about your violent conflicts with the victim, who was your husband, and
2) A doctor you were having an affair with at the time wrote a perscription for a rarely used incapacitating dru