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)."

32 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Informative

    That stupid skank whore in New York got a court to force Google to give up the ID of someone who hurt her feelings and now everyone will use that precedent to do the same.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here a link to a related story about suing Google. Interestingly, I actually got the link by Googling "stupid skank got google to release user information court case". Man, I really love Google sometimes.

    2. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Albinoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but 300 people having personal knowledge of the case? Did he kill her on stage? Sounds to me like someone clawing for anything to get out of doing his time.

    3. 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
    4. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Two things that case screams to me:
      1. Not really the same issue that we are seeing here.
      2. If you want anonymity, STAY AWAY from blogging services, and more generally, stay away from the web. If you really have to use the web (i.e. because it is more popular than an anonymity-friendly system like Usenet), use a damned proxy server from a different jurisdiction.
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While not admissible, it's certainly worth his lawyer getting their names to check them out. Even if its hearsay, they heard it from SOMEBODY, and maybe that person didn't tell the cops everything, or the witness is telling things to other people.

      Guy is accused of heinous murder... anybody talking to their buddies, and the rest of the internet, and not to the police is not doing their civic duty to get this guy a fair trial. If somebody told different information in an internet post than they told the investigators, that's definitely worth knowing.

    6. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not. you can EASILY be anonymous and be near the blogging services. it simply takes some IQ and knowlege.

      You can go through proxies, use a throw away email service to get the initial login and make it impossible for them to find a single poster that does not use the same path twice.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When in doubt, couch your language and, that does mean typing all your comments while sitting on a sofa using a laptop, that means simply express everything as a opinion not as a statement of factor. The all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world can not touch you unless they can prove that at the exact time you expressed your opinion it was not in fact your true opinion but that you lied about it and falsely expressed your opinion in order to slander someone.

      Whilst this can definitely happen, think of all those astroturfers eg. M$ trolls for example, it is of course impossible to prove.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or just consistently use Tor and don't post shit that can ID you. I have a political blog like that.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    9. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My opinions contain no factors as they are prime opinions.

      --
      I hate printers.
    10. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world can not touch you unless they can prove that at the exact time you expressed your opinion it was not in fact your true opinion but that you lied about it and falsely expressed your opinion in order to slander someone.

      Speaking as a lawyer, I would caution against presuming this is sufficient, to protect yourself against "all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world."

      In my jurisdiction, for instance, 'truth' (by itself) has only been a defence to defmation since 1 January 2006 (and this was, IMHO, a very poorly thought out 'reform'). Prior to that you were required to show more (eg. truth + public interest). In much of the common law word (eg UK) this is still the case. I believe that throughout most of the world, whether the defamatory publication is an honestly held opinion, is not relevant. The question is whether the 'imputation' is defamatory, and whether it is true (and, jurisdicition depending, more than merely true).

      As I understand it, even in the US, the principle in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requiring actual malice to be shown, applies only to public officials. Or do you have any better (more recent) authority which suggests otherwise?

      You might find lawyers more of a threat than you imagine. ;)

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Doug52392 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of the comments in an article about a man who killed a four-year-old on local news websites would most likely be along the lines of "OMG THIS SICK FUCK DOESN'T EVEN DESERVE A TRIAL! JUST SHOOT HIM!"... ... At least that's the trend I notice on local news sites in my area.

    1. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, in Texas, we call that due process.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    2. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by joocemann · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, in Texas, we call that due process.

      Slashdot mods you 'Funny'.

      Texans mod you "Informative"

    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. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's slowly coming to light that Texas almost definitely executed an innocent man in 2004.

      I read the article before, and it certainly is of concern. However, it's a horrendously one-sided article, which covers only the incriminating facts that they can later refute, ignoring the rest of the trial as if it didn't exist, in order to make a point.

      Secondly, just because someone shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence (reasonable doubt), isn't proof of innocence by a long shot.

      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.

      The governor does NOT serve any role in the court system. The fact that he has the opportunity to pardon someone doesn't translate into an obligation for him to determine guilt or innocence.

      And while I'm here, I'd just like to point out my endless frustration with this idiotic mindset that, if you don't execute someone, you can "make it right". It's a load of crap. People on death row are in prison for years, DECADES, before being executed... Releasing someone for a crime they didn't commit after 30 years of torture in prison isn't exactly a "take back" that's going to make it all better. You've still utterly destroyed a person's life, not just for the time they were in prison, but also for all the time after they're released. I'd like to keep the death penalty around, if only for motivating people to improve the rigor of the legal system. Clearly, they wouldn't be nearly as motivated if people were "just" facing a lifetime locked away...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, my guess he's expressing a not unexpected horror that the sick fuck murdered a 4 year old child.

      No, that is once again begging the question. The man's been charged but not yet convicted - you know that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? It looks like he's guilty, yes, but 'looks like' isn't good enough when you're talking about a long life in prison or a much shorter one on death row.

      Due process must of course be followed, but fuckit, there's something to be said for stringing that fucker up and hearing him gurgle.

      Due process is all that stands between YOU and being strung up to gurgle when some kid goes missing and you happened to drive past their house that morning. Witch hunts are bad and don't serve 'justice' in any way.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Secondly, just because someone shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence (reasonable doubt), isn't proof of innocence by a long shot."

      Well isn't that convenient? In this country, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

  3. 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 Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just the standard fishing expedition. The defense doesn't HAVE a defense, so they are trying to confuse the issues. Notice that they don't name just a single paper, or a specific number of users or posts. It's a broad sweep with a huge net, meant to pull in a lot of material that will have maximum confusion value.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe I read this on ./ at some point, and it nails this nicely.

      If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If both are against you, bang on the table.

      It appears they are banging on the table.

    3. 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.'"
    4. Re:Okay... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      SELECT * FROM tbl_Comments
      WHERE userid LIKE '%CHEWBACCA%';

    5. Re:Okay... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, 300 is not a large number of people, at least not on the scale of Internet comments. Is it likely that all 300 have relevant, original information? No. Is it within the realm of possibility that 295 of the 300 got their information from the same 5 people, and that those 5 people have relevant information? Absolutely.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Okay... by e9th · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is an earlier Chronicle article with >300 comments. Decide for yourself how many of them show inside knowledge.

    7. 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?!
  4. A great day in history by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm pretty sure this is the first time people on the internet have ever been accused of disseminating overly-substantial and accurate information.

    But I wonder why this guy did not subpoena the names of any youtube commenters? :/

    --
    When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
  5. sigh by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those who comment generally use pseudonyms, and the lawyer has asked for identifying information on about 300 of them.

    how many people would have ersonal knowledge of the case? probably no where near 300 so they're implying that a smaller number of people went out of their way to voice their opinion about the guy. It seems however, that they are on a fishing expedition with suspicions but no evidence at least indicated by TFA.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. 300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    THIS.... IS... TEXAS!!!!

  7. banging on the table by captnbmoore · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's trying to not be banged on the table.

    --
    The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
  8. 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.

  9. Got you, Simon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I knew you'd slip up sometime!