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.
Normally in murder cases the significant other of the victim is the primary suspect. As such I would assume (Didn't RTFA so not sure if there is more detail) that it was pretty easy to get a warrant for his house, computer, bank statements, etc. etc.
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
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.
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
That's an amazing post. Except for "And destroying evidence is illegal, every sentence in that post is wrong (assuming you're referring to the USA, at least).
And so is that one, destroying evidence can be perfectly legal, ask any document destruction company. It's destroying evidence that is currently being sought that is illegal.