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?

IANAL, but.. why not?

Re:Huh?

Careful what you're clicking! [google.com]

Re:Huh?

About halfway down:

How to Commit War Crimes With a Straight Face

um.....
wow, didn't know you needed a guide to do that.

Re:Huh?

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.

Re:Huh?

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.

Re:Huh?

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?

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?

I read TFA. It states that a forensic analyist went through at least one of eight computers that the defendant is suspected of using. The one in question is from her home, if I recall. If the report is accurate (probably close enough) and complete (who knows), neither her ISP nor Google were involved in determining what the person using that computer was searching for.

Re:Huh?

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?

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:Huh?

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.

Re:Huh?

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.

Re:Huh?

As a regular watcher of "Law and Order" and "CSI: Miami", I can assure you that the law does not work that way.

Re:Huh?

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?

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?

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

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?

IAALS? I am a lawyer's sidekick?

It was on her computer.

Actually, she didn't have the savvy to flush her cache.

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:It was on her computer.

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:It was on her computer.

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

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.

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?

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:Yeah--No Kidding!

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!
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.

Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

Hi,

if my wife gets murdered, will it make me a suspect if I've googled for "ReiserFS"?

bye,
Till

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

"I routinely get searches that hit on my site where people are looking for "15 year old vagina", or something along those lines"

I do too and I redirect all traffic with stuff like that in it's querystring to the pedophilia article on wikipedia.

Source

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

Re:Ludicrous

Sure you can. But you might be in trouble when your ex-wife is found tied up in a grave with an ether smell coming from the box.

Alternative

Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?

Somehow that seems simpler to me.

Cost of murder

It says she bought the prescription at Walgreens, it would have been much cheaper if she had bought them elsewhere [freakonomics.com]. She got caught, and she didn't get the best deal, what a fool.

Heh

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 :\

Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

Or, just clear your history

Note that the police and prosecutors apparently didn't need to subpoena Microsoft or Google for search records, but rather recovered the search URLs from the browser history.

Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

1. "Steve Ballmer" + Zune + squirt + Naked
2. Walrus Porn
3. enriched uranium for sale
4. "girl" + "myspace" + "16 and under" + "sex" + "I am not an FBI agent"
5. Latex frog fetish
6. "How can I keep the feds from discovering my vast marijuana growing operation?"
7. "genital warts" + "cures" + "sandpaper"
8. "nitroglycerin" + "subway schedule" + "best escape routes"
9. anthrax + "crop dusting license"
10. "Cowboy Neal in Bondage"

- Crow T. Trollbot

Her last search ....

should have been 'Just Kidding'

Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

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.

ask jeeves instead

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

Before you shoot someone, do a bunch of searches for "poisons". That way the cops will expect you to poison someone and when they find the body they will be all like "Welp, he wasn't poisoned, so I guess you didn't do it".

Re:Pro-tip for murdering

Or better yet, try Googling for "how NOT to shoot someone". That will throw the cops off your tracks.

Just a question

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.

How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

Well, having had my computer taken by the cops as "evidence", I've learned several important lessons:

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 witho