Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Google Your Rights Online

Unwise — Search History of Murder Methods 532

Posted by timothy
from the unless-everybody-joins-in dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unwise — Search History of Murder Methods

Comments Filter:
  • timothy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by angus77 (1520151) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:30PM (#34760512)
    timothy, you're an asshole.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      I wish I could Like you post.

    • by a_nonamiss (743253) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:45PM (#34760678)
      Now, I can kill someone using a devious, undetectable way. When they find my search history, my defense will be that I clicked on an unmarked slashdot link.
      • Re:timothy... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:28PM (#34761058) Journal

        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:

        • Information about famous plane crashes
        • Various law enforcement techniques
        • Thermal imaging cameras
        • Cyanide gas diffusion rates (to find out how much gas someone would have to use to kill someone in a small room)
        • How to use detcord to blow a door off its hinges (to found out how one would do this when breaching a building)
        • The advantages and disadvantages of various types of automatic and semiautomatic firearms
        • Firefighter operations mode on an elevator (to take absolute control of one)
        • Nuclear fusion and theoretical yield (propulsion)
        • Physiological effects of a vacuum on the human body
        • VoIP adapters and remote phone line access

        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.

        • Re:timothy... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Macgrrl (762836) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @09:37PM (#34761588)

          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.

        • Using Firefox? Ctrl+Shift+P initiates a private browsing session. Personally, I think that I would take my chances, because were I writing for a novel, I would want bookmarks and history available should I need it for revisions and editing.
        • Didn't Stephen King mention this as a way to learn murder techniques?

          "Hey, I'm writing a novel, and I'm curious about how you'd most easily completely conceal and bury a ... spaceship. A spaceship the exact shape and size of a Ford Explorer."

        • Re:timothy... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rahvin112 (446269) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @11:49PM (#34762378)

          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?

        • by lwsimon (724555) <lyndsy@lyndsysimon.com> on Wednesday January 05, 2011 @01:13AM (#34762698) Homepage Journal

          As a guy in a compound in a flyover country, only about half of those things are in my search history. I already know how to do the other half :0)

        • by Lord Kano (13027)

          I've never even owned a gun.

          What are you, Canadian?

          LK

      • Guys, lean to leave no trace. Use a live Ubuntu CD for those searches. Use a public hotspot at the public library or coffee shop. There is no recorded history on the PC. The hotspot may have an untracable record of the search.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:55PM (#34761284)
          I think you left out a step or two...

          1) Setup a second home WiFi router (that has no internet connection). Turn logging on, and leave it "open"
          2) Harvest MAC addresses of your neighbors as they try to connect
          3) Use the public hotspot with a Live CD like you said, but set your MAC address to one harvested from your neighbor.
          4) If your neighbor gets arrested, it serves him right for trying to mooch off of your internet connection.
        • by Chyeld (713439)

          "So what you are saying is that possession of this... Ubun2? CD is positive proof of an attempt to research how to kill people?"

    • by hweimer (709734)

      timothy, you're an asshole.

      Hardly. He even resisted to make this a prefetch link.

    • by lanner (107308)

      No no no, we all need to threaten to kill him. That way, when someone finally does it, there are so many suspects that it will take any investigation a couple of decades just to narrow it down for a couple of hundred particularly agitated slashdotters with serious cases of submitter rage.

  • by BondGamer (724662) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:34PM (#34760556) Journal
    How awful is it that detectives were able to discover that her husband searched for information on the exact thing that killed her shortly before her death, along with other methods of killing someone. On top of that he attempted to delete traces of it. This is an invasion of piracy.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Arrrrrrrrgggghhhh!!! He be right! This indeed be an invasion of piracy! Give us all yer booty! Arrrrrrrgh!

    • by niado (1650369) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:38PM (#34760610)

      How awful is it that detectives were able to discover that her husband searched for information on the exact thing that killed her shortly before her death, along with other methods of killing someone. On top of that he attempted to delete traces of it. This is an invasion of piracy.

      Normally in murder cases the significant other of the victim is the primary suspect. As such I would assume (Didn't RTFA so not sure if there is more detail) that it was pretty easy to get a warrant for his house, computer, bank statements, etc. etc.

    • by irtza (893217) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:52PM (#34760750) Homepage

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:35PM (#34760566)

    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.

  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kenshin (43036)

    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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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?

      To be fair to Timothy, he's an idiot.

      • by gilleain (1310105)

        If I'm not mistaken, you're condoning the murder of his wife?

        To be fair to Timothy, he's an idiot.

        This made me laugh so hard :D

        • Sure, but it's no joke.

          timothy, like most self-described "nerds", is probably a tremendous asshole who reckons his own intelligence to be superior to that of those around him based solely on his good taste in video games.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by demonbug (309515) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:52PM (#34760742) Journal

      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.

      • by Kijori (897770)

        I took a very similar inference from the Slashdot post. My thought pattern was basically this: The article describes what sounds like a safe conviction; the wife had been concerned about her husband and had put her fear into writing, she was later murdered and her husband was convicted on the basis of a range of evidence including the fact that he had, apparently, been researching ways to kill her. There was no procedural impropriety in how the police obtained this, and he advanced no alternative explanatio

    • DIY railguns, anthrax, C-4 manufacturing, drug reasearch, including how to extract cannaboids, hydrocodone and other substances from their mixed or natural state, radiant gas heaters, naval bases, and porn are all subjects I have searched for and looked at articles related, in the last 48 hours.
      • DIY railguns, anthrax, C-4 manufacturing, drug reasearch, including how to extract cannaboids, hydrocodone and other substances from their mixed or natural state, radiant gas heaters, naval bases, and porn are all subjects I have searched for and looked at articles related, in the last 48 hours.

        Please do be careful not to mix anything up. Things could go very bad for you.

  • ... and they get crossed on /. all the time. But this one has a certain special stink to it. Is Timothy working on some sort of special asshat merit badge or something?
  • by pushing-robot (1037830) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:40PM (#34760632)

    After Mark Jensen’s wife died mysteriously in 1998, he consented to police searching his home for causes.

    In October 1998, the Jensens’ home computer revealed that searches for various means of death coincided with e-mails between Jensen and his then-paramour, Kelly, discussing how they planned to deal with their respective spouses and begin “cleaning up [their] lives” so they could be together and take a cruise the next year.

    So it sounds like a dumb criminal got caught by police doing their job. Is Slashdot so far toward the anarchist fringe that this is being spun...

    from the unless-everybody-joins-in dept.

    What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?

    as some sort of The People vs. Big Brother thing?

    • by sjames (1099)

      Indeed. Of all the cases out there of police crossing the line and prosecutors going way too far and all the convictions based on truly terrible evidence, this is not any of those things.

      It seems the guy gave WRITTEN permission for the search and that the cache history was a small part of a web of corroborating facts that lead to his prosecution.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      So it sounds like a dumb criminal got caught by police doing their job.

      The woman told people she thought her husband was trying to kill her. Then stayed with him. Then, while she was still alive, someone used a shared computer to search for ways to kill (all of which could be used to kill one's self) and incompletely deleted the searches.

      The defense maintains she was suicidal and laid out a revenge-from-the-grave scenario where he'd get convicted because of her actions. He's either a smart criminal (r
  • Polarity? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brian Feldman (350) <.gro.DSBeerF. .ta. .neerg.> on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:41PM (#34760642)

    How the fuck does a swimming pool have a polarity?

    • How the fuck does a swimming pool have a polarity?

      Perhaps it has a neutron flow.

    • by imadork (226897) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:46PM (#34760690) Homepage
      It's one of those new Star Trek swimming pools. If you ever need to fix it, switching the polarity is risky, but it just might work!
    • by ScentCone (795499)
      How the fuck does a swimming pool have a polarity?

      Obviously it's a holodeck swimming pool. Fool.
    • Re:Polarity? (Score:5, Informative)

      by wiredlogic (135348) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:58PM (#34760800)

      The housing of a pool light is normally grounded. If it is connected to an active circuit the pool becomes a death trap if someone in the water grounds themselves through another conductor.

      • Re:Polarity? (Score:5, Informative)

        by PPH (736903) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:21PM (#34760996)

        It would take significantly more than that. You'd have to bypass the ground fault protection and then see to it that the resulting short to ground didn't actually draw enough current to trip the branch circuit breaker on overcurrent.

        Its pretty difficult to electrocute someone by messing around with the pool electrical equipment.

        Just saying.

        • Re:Polarity? (Score:5, Informative)

          by camg188 (932324) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @09:56PM (#34761696)

          June 9, 1991, Kings Island amusement park, Mason, OH - Around 8:00 PM, a 20-year-old man entered the Oktoberfest pond, apparently to retrieve a lost hat. He was electrocuted instantly, and two people entered the pond to rescue him. Both the man who originally entered the pond and one of the rescuers died at a local hospital, and the other rescuer had serious injuries. The accident was linked to a faulty water pump, which had short-circuited, electrifying the water.
          - http://kiextreme.com/history_timeline.php [kiextreme.com]

          Don't know if it was a polarity problem.

      • Re:Polarity? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Burning1 (204959) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:28PM (#34761050) Homepage

        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by unkiereamus (1061340)

          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:Polarity? (Score:5, Informative)

          by demonlapin (527802) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @10:53PM (#34762066) Homepage Journal
          You're quite lucky. The risk from mains current isn't that 120VAC at some small amperage will cook you; it's that 60Hz AC will throw your heart into ventricular fibrillation. A foot-to-foot connection poses no real risk other than pain, while a hand-to-left-foot circuit very well may kill you.
        • by tompaulco (629533)
          I have been shocked by 110 maybe a half dozen times in my life. I can also attest that it didn't hurt much. Really it was more surprising than painful. In fact, the sensation I would have to say was not pain at all, but more accurately described as "an unpleasant feeling". You know you didn't like it and wouldn't want to do it again, but it didn't hurt like getting pricked by something sharp would. I suspect that the reason it doesn't "hurt" is because the nerves also use electrical impulses to transmit to
        • Household voltages are dangerous, but not nearly as much as people like to think, especially the 110 volt stuff.

          It amazed me how casually an American friend was poking around inside some live kit. A polite reminder that EU mains voltage is 230v (rather than the 110v he was used to), and kills very easily, made him much more careful. And yes, circuit breakers are fitted by law, but you wouldn't want to trust your life to a machine not failing would you :-)
    • I'd guess that a saltwater/ionizing filter has a polarity. And that reversing it would probably produce Brown's gas, which would eventually ignite.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by polymeris (902231)

      How the fuck does a swimming pool have a polarity?

      Exactly my thoughts.. I'll google it!

    • by Punto (100573)

      It's easy, you just couple the plasma relay through the auxiliary photon subcircuits. Any Vulcan child could do it.

  • Aww, those silly globalists and their induced heart attacks...

    Couldn't help laughing at that one.

    • by gilleain (1310105)
      I followed that link too. I remember on b3ta there used to be this guy who posted terrible/awesome photoshopped pictures of Dick Cheney with lasers coming from his eyes with backgrounds of lightning, and zombie George Bushes. We tracked them down to sites like this Rense fellow - I never know whether to laugh or pity them...
  • Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rueger (210566) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:46PM (#34760692) Homepage
    Believe it or not, I'm not new here, but this has to be the most garbled incoherent summary in memory.

    "reverse the polarity of a swimming pool"
    "likening the result to the 4th of July"
    "someone attempted to 'double-delete' the computer's browsing history"

    I guess if I knew who the hell "Mark Jensen" was it might make more sense. Better run out and read some tabloids.
    • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sjames (1099) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @09:43PM (#34761622) Homepage

      We all know that small miracles can be accomplished by reversing the polarity. Sometimes you can even propel your ship into an alternate dimension that way! However, IIRC it was a virus rather than reversing the polarity that won the day in Independence Day.

      As for deletion, double deleting is for hacks, the pros prefer to triple dog delete.

  • consent (Score:5, Informative)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @07:47PM (#34760700) Journal

    Jensen was found guilty of first-degree homicide in 2008 based on this and other incriminating evidence, including a letter written by his wife before her death. He appealed the conviction, arguing for one that the warrantless police search of his computer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not agree as he had signed a consent form.

    Once you give permission to a search, you don't get to retroactively revoke permission once they find evidence against you. It would be a completely different matter if they just barged in without his permission or a warrant. That would be unconstitutional; this however, is just stupidity on his part.

    • For how long? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wanax (46819) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:58PM (#34761306)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They would have to obtain consent (or have a warrant) each time they came to your house.

      • Re:For how long? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by wizardforce (1005805) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @09:12PM (#34761408) Journal

        "I give you consent to search my apartment for the purpose of catching a thief" is not the same as "I give you the eternal right to search my premises for any and all reasons." Once their investigation concludes, the permission you gave them goes away. At least that's what would be sane; we could, of course, have a few idiot judges that failed history class give huge power to the state...

      • Consent to search is a one time thing, they can come in and search upon your consent and when they leave they must have it again to search again. Also you can withdraw consent at any time, there are times, however, when police don't need a warrant or consent to search based on circumstances. They may still ask for consent at these times but if they have a valid search theory outside of consent it doesn't really matter what you say or sign.
    • by Kaboom13 (235759)

      Which is exactly why you never, ever, ever, consent to a search from the police even if you have done nothing wrong. They can't plant fake evidence in your house if they don't have a reason to search it. They can't find things unrelated to the case they are investigating, but which may still be illegal, which you may not even know is illegal, if they don't search. No search can corroborate your innocence, because you can't prove a negative. The absence of evidence just means they haven't looked hard eno

      • Don't open the door for the police, even if you believe that they have a valid search warrant. Slowly approach a window with your empty hands in the air and say, "I'm not armed. If you have a warrant, you'll have to kick the door in. I'll just stand here in the window with my hands visible."

        The point being, if the cops were in your home, the first thing your decent lawyer is going to ask you for is your broken doorjamb. If the cops kicked your door in, it's clear to all parties that consent was not given, a

  • Bravo, timothy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gregmark (750089) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:01PM (#34760826)

    Let the grumpy-pants anarchy-baiters grumble. The system can always use more disorder, whatever its present condition.

  • Another Article (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheCarp (96830) <sjc AT carpanet DOT net> on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:03PM (#34760848) Homepage

    I was curious about this...particularly what it means to "reverse the polarity of a swimming pool"... um, I didn't know they had poles :) (clearly something to do with the wiring...)

    Anyway: http://volokh.com/2011/01/04/interesting-example-of-the-use-of-computer-search-evidence [volokh.com]

    Apparently its an interesting case. I haven't read much yet, about to dive in, but, it does quickly raise the question of... who did the searching? Looks like the defense claim is suicide. I know that if I planed to kill myself by a posion, I would want to know quite a bit about how it worked and what to expect.

    Though, I am not sure thats the one I would choose.... nicotine maybe.... or nitrous oxide... glycol tastes sweet if I remember, its why dogs sometimes die from drinking antifreeze, so seems like a good choice to slip in food or drink... so... hard to say. Have to read...

    -Steve

  • by mysidia (191772) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:04PM (#34760852)

    If you looked back into my search history far enough, you could probably find places where I searched for all those different things in the past.

    I wouldn't need to search for any website to tell me how to reverse polarity of a swimming pool motor, because it's basic electronics..

    And yet, I have not murdered and will not murder anyone using those or any other methods.

    Is it reasonable to suspect people of murder just because they have in the past searched for, found, or viewed material, that might relate to methods used by the murderer?

    How is it even proven that the searches are born of some intent, and not merely idle curiosity, or FEAR for ones own safety?

    • Searches for: botulism. This is something every person needs to know about, because it poses a danger to everyone who eats food. People can protect themselves if they have some understanding of what the danger is, where you could be exposed to the toxin, how it could reach your mouth, how to detect it, how to recognize the first signs, what to do, etc
    • Searches for: poisoning. Same deal; it is a good idea to know what methods people might try to use to poison you, especially if you think someone is after you. A search for poisoning can relate to (as much) detecting/knowing if you're poisoned and/or what to do to protect/preserve life.
    • Searches for: pipe bombs. There were several high-profile media events. It would probably be a good idea for members of the general public to understand what exactly a pipe bomb is, how to recognize it, and who to contact or what to do (LEAVE QUICKLY/RUN), if you think you see what might be an explosive device that could threaten your life.
    • Searches for: mercury fulminate. Again, being able to recognize the signs of mercury poisoning is a good idea. People learn more about a subject by hearing about it, and then looking up materials on the subject.

    Would police have made such a deal of simple searches, if they were done by looking up books on the subject at the library? Would a list of books checked out seriously be used to convict an alleged suspect?

    • by morari (1080535)

      Would police have made such a deal of simple searches, if they were done by looking up books on the subject at the library? Would a list of books checked out seriously be used to convict an alleged suspect?

      Yes.

      Your library records are hardly protected from the fuzz either.

    • by nomadic (141991)
      Is it reasonable to suspect people of murder just because they have in the past searched for, found, or viewed material, that might relate to methods used by the murderer?

      When it is a method by which your wife was killed after you researched this, then yes, yes it is reasonable to suspect you of murder. Are you seriously saying that it's unreasonable? I mean I can't even fathom how your thought processes work here.
    • by bws111 (1216812)

      Evidence does not have a reasonable doubt test, the entire case that the prosecution presents has a reasonable doubt test. Is browser history alone enough to convict someone of murder? No. But when you add in the husband having an affair, emails to his lover that he would get out of his marriage, the wife telling multiple people (including the police) that she was afraid her husband was trying to kill her, etc AND the fact that multiple ways of killing someone (including the way that ultimately caused her

  • NOT Google (Score:5, Interesting)

    by D H NG (779318) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:08PM (#34760888)
    Given that Google was founded in 1998, the same year that Julie Jensen died, it's highly unlikely that Mark Jensen used Google to make these searches.
  • by AJWM (19027) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:16PM (#34760950) Homepage

    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?)

  • by lelitsch (31136) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:22PM (#34761002)

    What on earth is "reverse the polarity of a swimming pool" supposed to mean? That can't be explained by sloppy editing or a less than tenuous grasp on physics anymore.

  • by preaction (1526109) on Tuesday January 04, 2011 @08:23PM (#34761006)
    Someone testified that Mark confessed to him and tried to get him to kidnap a potential witness. His wife was suspicious and told other people such. The search evidence isn't the only thing around this guy's neck.
  • by w0mprat (1317953) on Wednesday January 05, 2011 @01:36AM (#34762776)
    Read books... nobody can monitor what you read, nor look up a history of what you may have read that some service provider has kept a record. Books can be gotten for free, borrowed, and bought for untraceable cash. Possession of the books may be incriminating but that is easy to deal with.

    This kind of highlights why governments and corporates are increasingly running roughshod over our privacy online, trying to push through legislation that's something out of 1984, because it's incredibly tantalizing to be able to track parts of our lives that we're previously very private on such a massive scale.

    The internet is wonderful for the deluge of information you can have on demand. Only problem is it flows both ways.
  • by Genda (560240) <mariet.got@net> on Wednesday January 05, 2011 @06:31AM (#34763640) Journal

    This isn't an issue of reckless browser use. Mr. J obviously thought there was something on his computer worth trying to delete, or he wouldn't have tried twice to delete it. If he was the least bit concerned (and he should have been), go to favorite Geek Store and get a new hard drive for $80, reinstall your OS, put a few programs on to look good, copy enough files from your thumb-drive to make it looked used, and do a few hours of fun browsing for puppy dogs and tickle me Elmos. Then take offending "Old Drive" and give it to and art metal sculpter to be welded and slagged into a work of art.

    Instead, just like everything else in his life. He cut corners, got sloppy, and handled his life without either personal integrity or a clear comprehension of the relationship between actions and consequences. Get married, make babies, and hook up with some young hoochie, you have a limited set of next choices.

    A) Honor your word, clean up the mess you made and rebuild you relationship with your wife and family, and spend the rest of life not being a senseless dick... I'd call this the optimal choice under most circumstances!

    B) Get responsible, decide to make your new partner Mrs. Hoochie... divorce your wife, clean up the mess you make, give her half your stuff plus child support, and suck it up, you chose to follow the little head... but at least you're being a mench.

    C) Or go total cheese-head, murder your wife, give all your money to the lawyer trying to keep the needle out of your arm, have your kids end up in foster homes, and get a letter from the hoochie telling you she's leaving you for a bagger at Wallmart who hasn't murdered anyone recently.

    We need to start adding criminal enhancements for stupidity. For everyone's benefit.

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...