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?
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.
Ask the Palin email guy how trying to destroy his data turned out. He would've had a slap on the wrist for the email hijacking, but it was obstruction of justice that got him the time he's doing now. It doesn't matter if you wreck your drive. Your internet history is recorded and retained for 2+ years at your ISP in accordance with the SAFETY Act of 2009.
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?
Wow, talk about missing the point...
How was what he said in any way condoning murder? Pointing out that there are any number of reasons someone might have rather incriminating things in their search/browser history doesn't translate to condoning murder. Nor does it suggest that it was unusual, unfair, or an invasion of privacy to look at the suspect's search history in this context. It merely points out that going the other direction - finding something "suspicious" in someone's search history does not mean they are up to no good (also shows how easy it might be to poison someone's results if you were trying to frame them).
Really; you somehow read into his comment that he somehow condones murder? Utterly bizarre.
They live in the same house... do they have access to the same computer? Could this be suicide and she was hiding the method she would use? Or was the attempted deletion after the fact?
Of interest is - how is a deleted history available or if it was "attempted" - how would they know? The facts of the murder vs suicide are a bit spacious but I would like to know more about how they uncovered the history.
When all else fails, try.
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.
You know, I'd hate to think what the police would think if they dug into my browsing history. As somebody who is currently writing a trilogy of sci-fi novels that involve the military (the Earth military), in the past couple of months, I've searched for:
In short, my searches would make me look like the sort of person who you'd expect to find holed up in a compound in flyover country, which is downright hilarious since I've never even owned a gun.
The point is that the evidence described in this story, although it sounds bad, is circumstantial, and could possibly occur innocently. More imprtantly, the Slashdot summary doesn't tell the whole story. There was other evidence in addition to this. Although the browser history might have contributed to a conviction, it was not the sole reason for the conviction.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Similar problem, I write murder mystery roleplaying games, and as a result frequently search for information on how various methods of murder could be detected or concealed.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World