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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Drill press? Do you know how easy it is to encrypt a drive?
Not that I would trust that alone but, if you do a reinstall of the OS over an encrypted drive, nobody is recovering what was there previously. Why bother with the theatrics, and expense. Not to mention, that the holes in the drives may not prove much, but they tell them you are hiding something.
Besides, its hard to get to work in the morning without breaking ANY law. How would you even know? You could be violating the law RIGHT NOW just by reading this. In fact, you probably are in some jurisdiction. Who is to say that jurisdictions law doesn't apply to you right now? Try explaining why it doesn't apply after they have picked you up while you are there on vacation.
Ridiculous? Absolutely, but the point is, the world is a big and complicated place full of lots of laws. Luckily, you can get away with ignoring the vast majority of them, most of the time. However, those few that they really have sticks up their ass about, like murder, honestly, its pretty wrong anyway so start with not doing it.
Anything that is not so wrong, but, still illegal, and they still have sticks up their ass about... well... chances are you have time to plan more and encrypted drives should just make sense. I mean shit, the Ubuntu installer had it as an option, last I looked. Also, he can delete all he wants, as long as they can find the right cookies they can probably recreate much of your search history. Really just best not to rely on clearing the cache.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
May God have mercy on any poor son of a bitch who has to review two years my web history.
You know that hasn't become law yet, right? It passed the house, but never passed the Senate. It's been idle since last June.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h780/show
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.
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
It would have automatically died yesterday along with everything else that didn't pass before the ending of the 111th Congress.
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.
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?