Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Accused Killer Asks For Online Media Users' IDs

Posted by timothy on from the who's-poisoned-which-well dept.

SpaceGhost writes "According to the Houston Chronicle, the attorney for a Texas man charged in the death of a four-year-old 'has asked several local media outlets to provide the names of readers and listeners who commented about his client online,' stating that his client 'was struck by the conclusions people drew about his client and the specificity of some comments that made it appear they came from people with personal knowledge of the case.' Media outlets who have been subpoenaed include The Houston Chronicle, the Conroe Courier, KHOU (Houston area Channel 11, CBS affiliate) and KTRK (Houston area Channel 13, ABC affiliate)."

7 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Okay... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some examples would be nice, because we can't possibly make a call on the validity of the claim without an example of an applicable comment. Of course, the idea that 300 of the comments are really useful is a dumb one...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Okay... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a broad sweep with a huge net, meant to pull in a lot of material that will have maximum confusion value.

      I think you're probably right, but there are two reasons you might be wrong. The first is that this sort of plan has a high chance to backfire and I'm sure the defense knows this. The second is that a lazy defense might reasonably ask for way more data than they need as a delaying tactic, even if there IS some gold in there. They might have just asked for all comments, lacking an intelligent way to ask for a specific one. That would be ridiculous, but seems like something a less-than-technically-astute lawyer might do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Okay... by Erinnys+Tisiphone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      True. Imagine how long it will take the provider to retrieve that sort of data from a technical perspective. If the users only registered their accounts with a hotmail or gmail account, or if all they have is IP data, it could stall the proceedings for months. Who does the burden of correlating IPs to people or accounts fall on? Does the blogging company also have to contact the poster's ISPs, or do they just provide emails and IPs to the legal team?

    3. Re:Okay... by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What exactly do you think "bang on the facts" means? It's an argument for jury nullification, that's what.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  2. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps, although to give the guy (or should I say, his lawyer) the benefit of the doubt, it is entirely possible that of those 300 people, 295 have information about actual witness. Rumors can spread pretty fast -- I would not be surprise if, within a 24 hour people, 300 people heard from "a friend of a friend" some detail about an emotionally sensitive subject like the murder of a child. IANAL so I cannot comment on whether or not this sort of investigation has a precedent or is even legal, but the guy does deserve a fair defense, and I can see this being part of a defense strategy.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  3. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're joking, but it's slowly coming to light that Texas almost definitely executed an innocent man in 2004.

    At the time of his execution, numerous petitions containing exonerating evidence had been filed, and were ignored.

    With any luck, this case will have far-reaching implications. At the very least, the judges and governor need to be put on trial for negligent homicide.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  4. Why is there any complaint? by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's the attorneys job to follow every possible defense. It might get the defendant proven innocent. If he dosn't, it'll be grounds for an appeal based on incompenant defense.

    Seriously, why is there any argument against all the facts being available for a trial? If there is nothing to help him, it'll just ensure his conviction sticks.