Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Don't Google "How To Commit Murder" Before Killing

Posted by kdawson on from the gods-themselves-contend-in-vain dept.

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.

4 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Huh? by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  2. Alternative by petabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?

    Somehow that seems simpler to me.

  3. Re:It was on her computer. by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
  4. Re:Huh? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.