Unwise — Search History of Murder Methods 532
nonprofiteer writes "Mark Jensen's home computer revealed Internet searches for botulism, poisoning, pipe bombs and mercury fulminate. A website was visited that explained how to reverse the polarity of a swimming pool — the Jensens had a pool — by switching the wires around, likening the result to the 4th of July. The State pointed out the absence of Internet searches on topics like separation, divorce, child custody or marital property. Julie Jensen died as a result of ethylene glycol in her system, an ingredient found in antifreeze. On the morning of her death, someone attempted to 'double-delete' (apparently unsuccessfully) the computer's browsing history, which included a search for 'ethylene glycol poisoning.'" What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
works the other way, too (Score:4, Interesting)
When I wanted to kill someone, I researched methods to do it. Then I realized that I couldn't do it, because the footprints were all over the internet. Time passed, I got over it. Asshole's still alive, but I'm doing better than him now.
Re:Rule number one for breaking any law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
If I'm not mistaken, you're condoning the murder of his wife?
Wow, talk about missing the point...
How was what he said in any way condoning murder? Pointing out that there are any number of reasons someone might have rather incriminating things in their search/browser history doesn't translate to condoning murder. Nor does it suggest that it was unusual, unfair, or an invasion of privacy to look at the suspect's search history in this context. It merely points out that going the other direction - finding something "suspicious" in someone's search history does not mean they are up to no good (also shows how easy it might be to poison someone's results if you were trying to frame them).
Really; you somehow read into his comment that he somehow condones murder? Utterly bizarre.
Re:Police Doing Actual Police Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
They live in the same house... do they have access to the same computer? Could this be suicide and she was hiding the method she would use? Or was the attempted deletion after the fact?
Of interest is - how is a deleted history available or if it was "attempted" - how would they know? The facts of the murder vs suicide are a bit spacious but I would like to know more about how they uncovered the history.
NOT Google (Score:5, Interesting)
NaNoWriMo is your friend (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the perfect excuse: "I was doing research for the novel I'm writing". Just be sure you've got enough of a first draft of that novel on your drive to be convincing.
(I am a writer. I have all kinds of weird stuff in my browsing history. Which gives me an idea for a crime thriller series, about a hit-man (or perhaps serial killer?) who writes mysteries. Or perhaps its been done. Anyone remember this [imdb.com] movie?)
Re:Polarity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, more likely, if there is sufficient conductivity from the light housing to the water, some other fixture in the pool will provide a ground path. Household voltages are dangerous, but not nearly as much as people like to think, especially the 110 volt stuff.
Great example: some idiot wired a lamp installed in my bathroom backwards. The lamp had a metal housing that the installer had intended to ground to neutral. Unfortunately, the installer mistook the black wire as neutral, and connected it to the ground post and neutral post on the lamp. The neutral wire was connected to hot on the lamp. The lamp worked fine of course - AC current isn't really directional, and wiring something backwards usually just results in serious safety issues... But it did produce the result of providing an electrically hot conductor that was easy to reach while standing in the bathroom, or even worse - turning the facet on in the sink. Damn thing was wired up like this for a couple of years, occasionally zapping someone before I finally pulled it apart to fix it.
In my teens I spent a lot of time playing with electricity, and was shocked more times than I can count. Never caused any issues.
Re:timothy... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, I'd hate to think what the police would think if they dug into my browsing history. As somebody who is currently writing a trilogy of sci-fi novels that involve the military (the Earth military), in the past couple of months, I've searched for:
In short, my searches would make me look like the sort of person who you'd expect to find holed up in a compound in flyover country, which is downright hilarious since I've never even owned a gun.
The point is that the evidence described in this story, although it sounds bad, is circumstantial, and could possibly occur innocently. More imprtantly, the Slashdot summary doesn't tell the whole story. There was other evidence in addition to this. Although the browser history might have contributed to a conviction, it was not the sole reason for the conviction.
For how long? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I'm more curious about, is what is the statute of limitations, so to speak, of the police having consent. I was the victim of an (attempted) armed robbery a few years ago in the apartment I currently live in (he didn't think anybody was around, and ran out after threatening me.. it sucks waking up from a nap to an intruder with a gun standing over you), and I sure as hell didn't mind the police searching my apartment then.. but when is that consent removed? All they found was the guy's jacket, the case is still open.. could they still come back and search without a warrant, even if they were interested in a different case? Or do they have to re-establish consent after the first search?
Re:timothy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Similar problem, I write murder mystery roleplaying games, and as a result frequently search for information on how various methods of murder could be detected or concealed.
Re:Polarity? (Score:3, Interesting)
In my teens I spent a lot of time playing with electricity, and was shocked more times than I can count. Never caused any issues.
The rule of thumb I was taught was that if your fingernails didn't turn black, then you're fine, if they do, then go ahead and mosey on down to the ER.
Always served me well.
Though I suppose there should be a proviso that if it causes an arrhythmia, then again you should see a doc, but that only happened to me once, so it's a low probability outcome.
Re:timothy... (Score:4, Interesting)
What exactly is the reason for indicating you've never owned a firearm? And what exactly does living in "flyover" country have to do with anything? Do you have this impression that everyone not living on the coasts is some radical gun touting redneck? Because that is how your statement reads to me and that indicates to me that you are one ignorant asshole. Not exactly a ringing endorsement to read your books, but I guess you really aren't targeting those millions that live in "flyover" country eh?