Slashdot Mirror
Unwise — Search History of Murder Methods
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?
timothy, you're an asshole.
Immediately take a drill press to every hard drive in your house.
DBAN [dban.org]
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
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.
How do I do this?
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.
I was just searching for drill presses last night. Really.
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?
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Otherwise we would have had him in a cell much sooner!
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?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
How the fuck does a swimming pool have a polarity?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
... is the polarity of a swimming pool?!?
Aww, those silly globalists and their induced heart attacks...
Couldn't help laughing at that one.
Should have just bought my book instead: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/class-war-a-citizens-guide-to-insurrectionary-warfare/5191975 Would have saved him a ton of searching.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
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.
Three Squirrels
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.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I would think one possible defense on the final day's poisoning search is they were looking for a cure... It happened, "by accident" and they wanted to figure out how to save her...
Hopefully the police have more evidence than merely circumstantial stuff from the internet searches...
Let the grumpy-pants anarchy-baiters grumble. The system can always use more disorder, whatever its present condition.
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
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
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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?
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?
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.
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.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
A search history on a personal computer is a personal document, for whomever did the search. If the defendant is the only person able to access the PC, he has to live with the document. A very similar situation would be a spiral notebook with detailed lists and notes and entries identified by day (a real OC piece of work) all about how to kill your wife, all in the defendant's handwriting. I see no difference in admitting both of these into evidence, given a proper foundation. Murder is a crime and should be punished. The problem is not that the record itself is bad. The problem is that most people do not know how to do searches without leaving behind a broad trail of bread crumbs for whomever might follow.
All is paradox. Retired lawyer, so this is just one more layman's opinion.
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 movie?)
-- Alastair
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.
you haven't been watching enough A&E (aka the law enforcement channel). There are so many "how-to" crime programs on television nowadays it makes me wonder if the powers that be don't actually want us to be criminals.
And yet, I have not murdered and will not murder anyone using those or any other methods.
Plausible deniability... good one!
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.
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.
Bayesian inference.
hahaha. You said Fuzz. You sir are awesome. But seriously, just go look up the book at the library and read it there without checking it out. sheesh, n00bs.
Wow, as someone who has been working on a book (fiction) involving nuclear warfare and terrorist acts, doing research in those areas to retain some level of accuracy, should I be scared Timothy?
There I was thinking the post was advertising a new search engine called Unwise where you could search for murder methods used successfully in the past...
That doesn't work? Well would it be suspicious if I thermite'd my drive then?
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?
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 death) were in the browser history, AND that an attempt was made to clear the history, AND that he told so many lies it took 10 years to uncover them all, then things start to look pretty bad for the husband.
Good point. Hence, some public libraries only keep track of what's checked out; returns are immediately deleted.
On a related note, an option for a library user who is overly concerned about their privacy is to not check the items out, but rather read them in the library - preferably in an area not monitored by security cameras.
Ron
I was just thinking of this, actually. I'm starting a writing project which requires me to look up a lot of seemingly bizarre things--personifications of death, religious views on death, deities related to death, the apocalypse, annual birth rates, annual death rates, norns, fate, etc. Maybe your best defense is "I'm just writing a murder mystery! Honest!"
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Now I will have to postpone my evil plan until that search falls off the end of my browser history!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
OnMouseOver="window.status='http://www.safewebsite.com';"
Sounds fun, but does it really still work in current browsers? In Firefox, it is disabled by default. You can enable it with user_pref("dom.disable_window_status_change", true);
Mercury fulminate is an explosive, but probably poisonous too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury(II)_fulminate
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Contrived examples much?
Mercury fulminate will poison you, but that's not what makes it dangerous. It's a shock sensitive primary explosive. Kinda like nitroglycerine in cartoons... hit it with a hammer... *boom*
But hey, don't let that fake reading you never did get in the way of facts.
He wasnt convicted based on the search, but on actual evidence.
What the search, and attempted deletion thereof, shows is intent.
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.
Seeing as how mercury fulminate like all fulminates are unstable explosives I don't think mercury poisoning is a valid concern.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Some of you are over-thinking this. Do all your nefarious stuff under a VM and when done delete it.
The company Google may not have been founded until 1998 but the search engine existed in the form of BackRub and google.stanford.edu prior to that. Though, I do agree that it is incredibly unlikely that Jensen used any version of Google. More likely he was using Yahoo or Altavista.
Any Star Trek fan can tell you that reversing the polarity will fix any problem, and it is as simple as telling some guy in a yellow shirt to do it! Try it sometime.
Great Intellect...
The point is, taken *alone*, it doesn't. It's admissible as circumstantial evidence. By itself, it would not be enough to open an investigation on him, or to convict him. Given that he was the spouse of the deceased, and it wasn't obviously an accident like a car crash, he's the primary suspect. Even as the primary suspect, he isn't *required* to let them search his computer or house without either permission, or a warrant. He gave them permission. It's fishy that there would be searches in the browsing history for the cause of death shortly before the date of death - enough for them to search for substantial evidence to correlate guilt. Which is what they did, they did not convict him over the browsing history, that he voluntarily permitted law enforcement to search, that his wife may well have looked for herself.
Perhaps not so farfetched.
If we can cross hornets, which may be solar powered http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/12/08/2326235 , with chickens, perhaps we can get solar powered chickens.
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?
Well, not just because. Though when a closely related person dies by an unusual means, and it turns out you've researched that particular means, it's not terribly surprising that the cop wonders if it's significant.
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'm sure you could with mine. I run TrackMeNot (a Firefox extension) on all of my computers, which makes random searches. Even as I write this, several of them are making random searches (the last few searches seem to have been 'wonderful with many organic', '"just about every facet "', 'Historian Hampton Sides coming to Edwards', and 'everyone from pathology residents'. Ooh, there goes 'double hung white vinyl', followed by 'hung white'. Probably nothing incriminating there, unless they're investigating either a hate crime or the porn movie industry, but it goes on 24/7, and it's rare that I search for something that the search pulldown thingie doesn't think I've searched for before.
I figure this poisons the datamining well. If everybody did this, mining search strings would be worthless, whether they're looking to prove murder, or just to impose the new world order.
Hate to be that guy, but reversing the wiring on a pool electrolysis cell does NOTHING apart from clean the carbon grids.
Yes, pool stores are all in on the "you need a new grid" or charging you lots of dollars to clean it when deposits build up on it.
Just reverse the polarity. Hell, some controllers even use a special expensive super amazing automatic clean mode which does....... you guessed it, reverses the voltage every now and then.
This is salt water pools by the way. There is nothing else on any other kind of pool to rewire backwards.
Hooking up ac to the grid directly will just explode it, and you, on the spot.
Do I dare ask what they would think about xkcd's search history?
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
for stuff I've searched for, I guess. Within the past 3 months or so, I've searched for atomic weapons designs (including dirty bomb design issues, which I know are not connected with actual strong nuclear force weaponry), e. coli genetic engineering (could you splice in some botulism toxin production genes?), and the probability of initiating a cascade failure of the North American power grid as a function of the integrated temperature over the continent and how many (caused) failure points one assumes.
All for sheer intellectual curiosity and in aid of my ongoing background attempt to understand the reality of various threat scenarios vs. what my government and the mass media would have me believe. I wouldn't raise a hand against anyone except in defense of my loved ones or myself, but you could certainly arrive at a different conclusion if all you had to look at was my search history.
I should've checked where that link pointed to before clicking, thinking it was the link to an article.
You could at least point it to a search at one of those search engines that respects its users' privacy.
For those using Firefox: about:config and set network.prefetch-next to false (the default is true).
If you asked for books on those subject shortly before someone near you was murdered by one of those methods, yes, the police would be interested in that. Remember, the article has "and other incriminating evidence" mentioned. Does searching for poison when someone close to you was poisoned mean you are guilty, no. Does it make you a suspect, definitely.
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.
This is Slashdot. Many people here think of law in black and white (or, if you prefer, as a binary process), where you're either 100% provably guilty or you're innocent. Of course, in the real world things are much more - dare I say it - analog, and a reasonable person on the jury will come to the conclusion based on all the various facts, realizing that if someone had the motive (I didn't RTFA) and the opportunity, this search gives them the means to be the killer.
I also delete my browsing history periodically....
It doesn't matter. The data's likely still there.
1. Deleting files (your browsing history) only unlinks them from the file system.
I routinely recover partial and entire lost files. With magnetic media: Even with multiple rewrites before deletion you are not guaranteed that the disk didn't swap out that sector before it was overwritten. SSD is a different beast...
2. Your ISP knows all the sites you've been visiting online.
If you really want to browse anonymously, boot up a Linux live CD & use TOR.
Well, it could be grounds for probable cause for the police to investigate you further, if they already had some reason to suspect you to begin with. It could also be presented as evidence to show you acted with malice aforethought, so you get convicted for Murder One instead of on a lesser charge. But by itself, it means nothing, and no sane prosecution would hang their case on that by itself. In the presence of other pieces of evidence however, it could mean a very great deal indeed.
Yes. In fact it has been done many times. There have been several cases of this type in the past, most notably poisonings, where one bit of evidence against the murderer was that he/she looked up books on poisons in their local library. I remember watching a show on Discovery Channel where it told how the criminal actually tore out the page from a library book describing the very poison found in the victim's autopsy report. But, as with the case in the TFA, the library checkout list was only one of many pieces of evidence that combined to present a solid case for murder.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I used google for a year or two before they left Stanford and started a company, maybe he did too.
> What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
Aren't they? It's kind of a geek thing.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
And yet, I have not murdered and will not murder anyone using those or any other methods.
That is EXACTLY what someone who has murdered someone would say...
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?
Are you familiar with the Hans Reiser case? He liked to read books on committing the perfect murder, and it was used as circumstantial evidence to convict him of the murder of his wife, Nina Reiser.
The judicial process is still as farcical and meaningless as a witch trial, this isn't a scoop. Hans Reiser may have been guilty, but the grounds for conviction were most likely insufficient. Such convictions are rationalized on the basis of 'gut feeling', the antithesis of rational objectivity and proper judgment in criminal justice.
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.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
The one where he led the police to the body of his wife and pleaded guilty to second degree murder?
Even before that, the recent removal of the seat, the presence of blood, the complete absense of any other reasonable explanation as to his wife's whereabouts, all sugggest guilt. Each is circumstantial, and individually not enough to convict, but all taken together really stretches plausibility.
Evidence does not have a reasonable doubt test, the entire case that the prosecution presents has a reasonable doubt test.
Also, what passes the "reasonable doubt test" is for the jury to decide. That's 12 duly-selected members of the community where the alleged crime took place. Not some random yahoo with a slashdot nick of mysidia. If those 12 think there's no reasonable doubt that he did it, then it has passed the reasonable doubt test.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Rewrite sector of deleted files 33 times.
Ethylene Glycol is obviously easier....Hence the method used
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
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
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
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.
The top 7 results in google for this search are results for this article.
And to that, I say "LOL!"
This is Slashdot. You may have to explain "reasonable" to some folks here if you want them to understand what you wrote. I do not envy anyone who takes on such a task, though.
The Unabomber probably never owned one as well. A handgun or hunting rifle is usually not what police worry about from guys they think might be holed up in a compound...
No, you are simply unable to
a) anticipate a joke in an obvious place
b) read what your status bar says
That being said, timothy shouldn't have linked to http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=devious,+undetectable+methods+of+murder -- http://www.google.com/search?q=devious,+undetectable+methods+of+murder is a lot cleaner.
Is it reasonable to suspect people of murder just because they have in the past searched for,
No, but it is reasonable to consider it as evidence. Let's say 10% of all people have similar search histories randomly but 90% of all people who commit such a murder do. You couldn't convict based on such evidence because the overwhelming number of people you'd convict would be innocent. But if you're already 95% sure that someone committed the crime, this does give you a bit of extra confidence.
So, 1:20 people would be falsely convicted if you just use the other evidence, but only 1:10 of those would also randomly have these search terms in their history, meaning only 1:200 would be falsely convicted after you also take into account the search history. (You can work out the other cases yourself.)
The unfortunate thing is that judges and juries probably don't do the math; even 1:200 may be too low for a conviction for murder (that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt"), in particular since the actual probabilities are hard to estimate.
Well, the fact that he searched ethylene glycol poisoning the morning of her death might have something to do with why they thought he might have poisoned her with ethylene glycol. Or maybe it was the fact that he was exchanging emails with another woman about getting out of his marriage so that he could be with the other woman, emails which curiously enough never once mentioned separation or divorce.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What if searches for devious, undetectable methods of murder were in everyone's history?
Yes, lets create a cloud of false positives so murderers can hide in it!
What the hell?
Why doesn't everyone also just download some CP? Then when the cops come looking they won't know who the *real* pedophiles are!
Brilliant!
Regards
Only murder somebody which has not the slightest familial, intimate, professional, commercial or political connection with you, and preferably is not anywhere a place where you are working , eating, sleeping, or even visiting usually. That makes you downright neigh impossible to find unless you left evidence which point downright to you like DNA if your DNA has been registered or fingerprint if your fingerprint have been registered. In otehr word an unregistered psychopath killing people at random has next to no chance being caught except by accident.
You can murder all day and get away with it easy as pie as long as you don't get accused.
Once they accuse you you stand a fair chance of being convicted whether or not you did it, and you stand a fair chance of being accused if it is obvious that you might benefit from an especially timely death.
So put all your efforts in just not getting accused - whether or not you actually murder people. Don't worry about keeping a gun with bodies on it. Just keep the police from ever knocking on your door.
This means for one thing, that you don't murder your enemies. If anything you actively try to prevent them from being murdered. Instead you murder people you barely know so as to steer events subtly toward favoring the realization of you r goals always remaining far removed from the fray.
And you don't murder much if ever, since rarely is it the best way to accomplish your goals, however the apparent rashness of the act may cloak the perpetrator from unwanted suspicion when the benefit to the perpetrator is very small compared with the gravity of taking a life. For instance, someone might be murdered for their parking space.
And remember kids: Murder is bad m'kay. Don't murder. Just say no to murdering.
...
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.
But would they also find emails to your lover saying how you were trying to get rid of your wife and, more importantly, would they also find your wife's dead body with evidence of being killed in a manner related to the searches you had conducted?
There was more evidence found here than just the search history.
While I agree that on the basis of a search history, one should not be convicted or even investigated; that's reversing what happened here.
They found ethylene glycol in the victim's blood and then looked at their primary suspect to see if he searched for information which might provide a means or a motive.
You should be fine with your search history up until the point you attempt to RULE THE WORLD!
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, and you didn't open your door for the cops to "smell something".
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34767568
As you can all see? Mr. "NOOBIE", clone, got destroyed on coding & BLOWN THE HELL AWAY, "too, Too, TOO EASILY", as is per my usual vs. this stooge clone, & using his own words to do it, no less... LMAO!
More evidences of that type of thing going on from clone? Ok: See my P.S. below...
UTTERLY, hilarious!
clone's also "busted" using 2 diff. registered accounts here to "support himself" (his other clone52431 (1805862) account) and for trolling others, in posts completely riddled with PROFANITY LADEN posts out of "frustration & geek angst" @ trying to "take on his betters" (me) & being BLOWN AWAY for it, again (not a first).
APK
P.S.=> Don't EVER troll me again, clone53421 (1310749) (not under THIS alternate registered account of yours, OR your other one you use to "support yourself" & troll others with (proof below)):
SO - DOES HE USE BOTH REGISTERED ACCOUNTS HERE TO TROLL OTHERS & "DEFEND HIMSELF" (his other clone account)?
ABSOLUTELY, & here's the PROOF OF IT:
A "vintage quote" of your frustration & stupidity, directly from you, where you attempted to "defend" your other registered account here of clone52431 (1805862):
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996
---
& this one here now too:
---
"Fuck off, troll." - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday January 05, @12:40PM (#34766802)
---
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34766802
(Where he started realizing that using MY ideas, which I told he would only do PART OF THE JOB, would fail in the entire task set around processing HOSTS files)
---
clone - On your BEST DAY? You CLEARLY do NOT possess the intellect, or the skills in computing (see the 1st URL above) apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34767568
As you can all see? Mr. "NOOBIE", clone, got destroyed on coding & BLOWN THE HELL AWAY, "too, Too, TOO EASILY", as is per my usual vs. this stooge clone, & using his own words to do it, no less... LMAO!
More evidences of that type of thing going on from clone? Ok: See my P.S. below...
UTTERLY, hilarious!
clone's also "busted" using 2 diff. registered accounts here to "support himself" (his other clone52431 (1805862) account) and for trolling others, in posts completely riddled with PROFANITY LADEN posts out of "frustration & geek angst" @ trying to "take on his betters" (me) & being BLOWN AWAY for it, again (not a first).
APK
P.S.=> Don't EVER troll me again, clone53421 (1310749) (not under THIS alternate registered account of yours, OR your other one you use to "support yourself" & troll others with (proof below)):
SO - DOES HE USE BOTH REGISTERED ACCOUNTS HERE TO TROLL OTHERS & "DEFEND HIMSELF" (his other clone account)?
ABSOLUTELY, & here's the PROOF OF IT:
A "vintage quote" of your frustration & stupidity, directly from you, where you attempted to "defend" your other registered account here of clone52431 (1805862):
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996
---
& this one here now too:
---
"Fuck off, troll." - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday January 05, @12:40PM (#34766802)
---
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34766802
(Where he started realizing that using MY ideas, which I told he would only do PART OF THE JOB, would fail in the entire task set around processing HOSTS files)
---
clone - On your BEST DAY? You CLEARLY do NOT possess the intellect, or the skills in computing (see the 1st URL above) clearly, to "best" the likes of myself... apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34767568
As you can all see? Mr. "NOOBIE", clone, got destroyed on coding & BLOWN THE HELL AWAY, "too, Too, TOO EASILY", as is per my usual vs. this stooge clone, & using his own words to do it, no less... LMAO!
More evidences of that type of thing going on from clone? Ok: See my P.S. below...
UTTERLY, hilarious!
clone's also "busted" using 2 diff. registered accounts here to "support himself" (his other clone52431 (1805862) account) and for trolling others, in posts completely riddled with PROFANITY LADEN posts out of "frustration & geek angst" @ trying to "take on his betters" (me) & being BLOWN AWAY for it, again (not a first).
APK
P.S.=> Don't EVER troll me again, clone53421 (1310749) (not under THIS alternate registered account of yours, OR your other one you use to "support yourself" clone52431 (1805862) & troll others with (proof below)):
SO - DOES HE USE BOTH REGISTERED ACCOUNTS HERE TO TROLL OTHERS & "DEFEND HIMSELF" (his other clone account)?
ABSOLUTELY, & here's the PROOF OF IT:
A "vintage quote" of your frustration & stupidity, directly from you, where you attempted to "defend" your other registered account here of clone52431 (1805862):
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996
---
& this one here now too:
---
"Fuck off, troll." - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday January 05, @12:40PM (#34766802)
---
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34766802
(Where he started realizing that using MY ideas, which I told he would only do PART OF THE JOB, would fail in the entire task set around processing HOSTS files)
---
clone - On your BEST DAY? You CLEARLY do NOT possess the intellect, or the skills in computing (see the 1st URL above) clearly, to "best" the likes of myself... apk
"Personally, I think you're mistaken, though." -
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34767568
As you can all see? Mr. "NOOBIE", clone, got destroyed on coding & BLOWN THE HELL AWAY, "too, Too, TOO EASILY", as is per my usual vs. this stooge clone, & using his own words to do it, no less... LMAO!
More evidences of that type of thing going on from clone? Ok: See my P.S. below...
UTTERLY, hilarious!
clone's also "busted" using 2 diff. registered accounts here to "support himself" (his other clone52431 (1805862) account) and for trolling others, in posts completely riddled with PROFANITY LADEN posts out of "frustration & geek angst" @ trying to "take on his betters" (me) & being BLOWN AWAY for it, again (not a first).
APK
P.S.=> Don't EVER troll me again, clone53421 (1310749) (not under THIS alternate registered account of yours, OR your other one you use to "support yourself" clone52431 (1805862) & troll others with (proof below)):
SO - DOES HE USE BOTH REGISTERED ACCOUNTS HERE TO TROLL OTHERS & "DEFEND HIMSELF" (his other clone account)?
ABSOLUTELY, & here's the PROOF OF IT:
A "vintage quote" of your frustration & stupidity, directly from you, where you attempted to "defend" your other registered account here of clone52431 (1805862):
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996
---
& this one here now too:
---
"Fuck off, troll." - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday January 05, @12:40PM (#34766802)
---
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34766802
(Where he started realizing that using MY ideas, which I told he would only do PART OF THE JOB, would fail in the entire task set around processing HOSTS files!)
---
clone - On your BEST DAY? You CLEARLY do NOT possess the intellect, or the skills in computing (see the 1st URL above) clearly, to "best" the likes of myself... apk
+1 Sudden outbreak of common sense ...
And if you could mod the GP down while you're at it, that'd be great :) Some /.ers seem to have a weird sense of moral righteousness at times ...
So if I murder the enemies of my enemy, I win. :) :)
Excuse me, I have some research to do.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Of course not. It is however, reasonable to include that amongst other evidence to make a case.
Is the fact that you were at the location of a murder reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that you had threatened thevictim previously reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that you are the registered owner of a weapon that fires the same type of bullet that they found in the victim reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Is the fact that there is gun shot residue on your clothes reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
What about if all those items are true, is that reasonable grounds for suspecting you?
Of course amongst all the other evidence. It's pretty usual for no single piece of evidence be enough to convict you - but the combination of all the evidence to be enough.
I was going to reply to the parent and point out that he confessed to the murder in the end and led police to the body, but you beat me to that. Of course, you also said that "the complete absense of any other reasonable explanation as to his wife's whereabouts" suggests guilt (presumably you meant guilt on the part of Reiser). It always amazes me when people manage to say very reasonable things and then throw in some crazy-stupid along with it. Not being able to provide the whereabouts of a missing person is not any sort of proof of any sort of guilt in there disappearance (at least in these circumstances, obviously in cases where a child goes missing and the parent or guardian can't even say when they disappeared things are a bit different). There are millions of missing people in the world and I can't give a reasonable explanation of the whereabouts of any of them. That doesn't make me guilty of anything.
Well I think everyone who is worried about their search history can breathe a sight of relief--so long as you aren't subsequently hunting down your spouse, boss or other some other victim and offing them with your new-found information, odds are you have nothing to fear.
The point of TFA was not that this guy got nailed for his search history, but that his search history corroborated the prosecution's assertion that he killed his wife, and had researched the means of doing so. There are two lessons to this story, depending on intentions:
1. if you're legitimately searching for data of an unusual nature and do not murder someone with it, you're okay.
2. If you're researching how to kill someone with the intent to kill them, that information can be used against you.
A circuit breaker really doesn't help in the event that you shock yourself. For the most part, the human body provides enough resistance that you won't see 15 amps of current or whatever is required to trip that particular breaker.
On the other hand, a GFCI protected circuit will tend to save you in the event of an accidental shock.
It has privacy mode.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.