Court Orders Retrial In Google Maps-Related Murder Case

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Orders Retrial In Google Maps-Related Murder Case

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 4, 2013 @04:31PM from the lets-try-this-again dept.

netbuzz writes "Ruling that a judge erred in blocking two computer security experts from testifying that an incriminating Google Maps search record found on the defendant's laptop was planted there, a North Carolina appeals court has ordered a new trial for ex-Cisco employee Bradley Cooper, convicted two years ago in the 2008 strangulation death of his wife Nancy. 'The sole physical evidence linking Defendant to Ms. Cooper's murder was the alleged Google Map search, conducted on Defendant's laptop, of the exact area where Ms. Cooper's body was discovered,' wrote the appeals court. 'We hold ... that erroneously preventing Defendant from presenting expert testimony, challenging arguably the strongest piece of the State's evidence, constituted reversible error and requires a new trial.'"

152 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This shouldn't be news by davidwr · 2013-09-04 16:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Judge makes reversible error. Case overturned on appeal. Nothing to see here. Move along.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. Re:This shouldn't be news by multiben · 2013-09-04 17:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well you can pretty much boil any story down to a bland set of base components and call it not worthy of the title 'news'. However, I didn't know this and I was interested to read it since I remember the original case. If I hadn't read it here, I may not have seen it at all.
2. Re: This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  The real story is that the FBI uses NSA snooping data to manufacture evidence that they're unable to get the legal way.
  Which is really bad as it will introduce bias, where they just select the actions that fit the crime.
3. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Judge makes reversible error. Case overturned on appeal. Nothing to see here. Move along.
  If it were you who was locked up in prison for the rest of your life
  for a crime you did not commit and there was evidence of a technical
  nature that the ( obviously stupid ) judge refused to allow, you'd be thinking
  a lot differently, buddy.
  I think it IS newsworthy for two reasons : first, it shows yet another example of how utterly
  fucked the adversarial legal system in the US really is. The goal of this fucked
  up legal system is to "win", not to find the truth, and the assholes who prosecuted
  this case ought to be disbarred for their enthusiasm toward suppressing crucial evidence.
  Second, the news has a technical aspect because the "evidence" of the Google Maps
  search may have been planted on the machine Cooper supposedly used. If such
  details as info stored in a browser cache can be the point on which a man's freedom
  hinges, this is technical news of importance.
  - Z
4. Re:This shouldn't be news by davester666 · 2013-09-04 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  The next headline: Man convicted of murder because he used cellphone to arrange to meet up with his ex-girlfriend, who he hired to kill someone else.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
5. Re:This shouldn't be news by DerekLyons · 2013-09-04 18:31 · Score: 2
  
  I think it IS newsworthy for two reasons : first, it shows yet another example of how utterly fucked the adversarial legal system in the US really is. The goal of this fucked up legal system is to "win", not to find the truth, and the assholes who prosecuted this case ought to be disbarred for their enthusiasm toward suppressing crucial evidence.
  What's fucked up is that you can be so clearly and utterly clueless - yet still get modded insightful. The prosecutors didn't suppress evidence - the judge ruled that experts couldn't testify. And that's his bloody job. And reading TFA, I can't say that I think he's entirely in the wrong - because the defense screwed the pooch in the first place. (By not getting a properly qualified expert in the first place, and then by potentially violating the rules of evidence.) Pointing out where the defense screwed up is the prosecutors job, and vice versa.
  
  Second, the news has a technical aspect because the "evidence" of the Google Maps search may have been planted on the machine Cooper supposedly used. If such details as info stored in a browser cache can be the point on which a man's freedom hinges, this is technical news of importance.
  Hardly. This isn't the first such case, nor a particularly notable one. "It happened on a computer" isn't enough to make it newsworthy anymore, that ship sailed decades ago.
6. Re:This shouldn't be news by mjwx · 2013-09-04 19:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If it were you who was locked up in prison for the rest of your life for a crime you did not commit
  Just get me a brightly coloured, oversized van.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
7. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 19:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Pointing out where the defense screwed up is the prosecutors job, and vice versa.
  Which is why he thinks the system is fucked up, because who the hell cares about the fucking truth when everyone spends their time crying foul for a chance at the free throw.
8. Re:This shouldn't be news by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-04 19:33 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know about you but I find it terrifying that people can go to jail for things they didn't do, even if they do eventually get an appeal and prove themselves innocent. Between judges making errors and jurors being prejudiced morons it seems like justice is pretty hit and miss.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  Let me clarify that for you:
  
  US Judge makes reversible error. US Case overturned on appeal and sent back for retrial. World stunned, could Justice possibly be gaining ground in these wild territories?
10. Re:This shouldn't be news by philip.paradis · 2013-09-04 20:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The prosecutors didn't suppress evidence - the judge ruled that experts couldn't testify. And that's his bloody job.
  The judge is elected by and paid by taxpayers. The majority of those taxpayers will never be privy to the inner workings of the trial, whether by chance or by intent to remain ignorant of local trial proceedings. However, the judge's opponent in the next round of elections will take any opportunity (s)he can to paint the incumbent as incompetent or lenient on criminals, which might be enough to sway the election. Do the math before you rush to such quick judgement.
  I also suggest you take a few minutes to review this information.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
11. Re:This shouldn't be news by LandDolphin · 2013-09-04 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  No legal system is perfect. Unless you refuse to jail anyone, you always run the risk of jailing an innocent. The fact that we have an appeals system to review cases and try to catch those errors and a testament to the US legal system. Perfect? No. But looking at legal systems through history, it is one fo the best.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
12. Re:This shouldn't be news by NoKaOi · 2013-09-04 22:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What's fucked up is that you can be so clearly and utterly clueless - yet still get modded insightful. The prosecutors didn't suppress evidence - the judge ruled that experts couldn't testify. And that's his bloody job. And reading TFA, I can't say that I think he's entirely in the wrong - because the defense screwed the pooch in the first place. (By not getting a properly qualified expert in the first place, and then by potentially violating the rules of evidence.) Pointing out where the defense screwed up is the prosecutors job, and vice versa.
  Now you're getting into the technicalities that are some of what makes the system fucked, so you're really making the his case. No, technically, the prosecutors didn't suppress the evidence, they filed motions to the judge asking him to suppress the evidence. The point here is that the prosecutors did initiate it. That's what's fucked up about the system. The prosecutor's job should be to find the truth, the problem is that finding the truth and justice is not their job, the job is to win and to hell with truth or justice, exactly the point the parent was trying to make.
  So they decided the first expert wasn't qualified enough, fine, let's assume they're right, but then if the point of the system is to find the truth and not just to win, then why should they be able to prevent the defendant from finding a different person that the judge can agree is an expert? The point of disallowing a last-minute switch is so that the prosecution has time to check the facts. In this case, they already knew the defendant was going to bring in an expert witness, and what the expert was going to testify to, it shouldn't matter if there was a last-minute switch up, they already had time to check the facts, all they should need is enough time to verify the expert's qualifications.
  On another note, the prosecutors also tried to prevent the defense from attempting to examine test data replicating the Google Maps search that was created by investigators by claiming national security! Now that really does sound like they were suppressing (or strong-arming the judge to suppress) potentially exculpatory evidence. Through each of these things, it is clear that the prosecutor is neither serving the public nor justice, their only goal is to win, and that is evidence that the system is totally fucked. If the system were not fucked, then the prosecutors would be disbarred for this.
13. Re:This shouldn't be news by mrclisdue · 2013-09-04 22:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  gesundheit
14. Re:This shouldn't be news by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-04 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Also important is these are expert witnesses who are testifying that the evidence was planted. They're computer hackers... now, you can make evidence look planted, or evidence look not-planted, on a computer. There's no real way to tell--people like to talk about position on drives or other IO subsystem statistical analysis to show that data "isn't physically where it goes" (it's on the wrong spot on the platter!!!), but that's all as hokey as arson myths passed as science used to execute people for murder.
  Pull in your own expert witness and he'll say, "There's no way to know this was planted, and no evidence showing that this was really potentially planted; all of this is within standard variation." Then he'll collect his $5000 and go.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
15. Re:This shouldn't be news by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-04 23:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I believe the judge is supposed to be a biased advocate for the defense. Why shouldn't the judge be lenient on criminals? People make mistakes, and the judge is supposed to determine appropriate punitive measures. Unremorseful violent serial rapist? 9 years in jail. Troubled college teen that let his emotions get out of hand at a party and did something he regrets? 6 months and he can live with his conscience. That's how it's supposed to be.
  There are no criminals in court. Right now there are absolutely no criminals in trial; there are some in appeals, and that might not even hold water. You are presumably innocent until proven to the judgment of the court that you are guilty; the job of the judge is to make the prosecution sweat its ass and prove to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant is guilty. When the defense raises a point that debases the prosecution's case, the judge should be baring down on the prosecution to explain this shit in some way that makes actual sense or get the fuck out of his court with this bullshit railroad garbage. When the prosecution puts the defense in a bad spot, the judge should be waiting for an explanation from the defense--and if the defense can't render anything good enough, then oh well, I guess that means we have to accept what the prosecution is telling us.
  The whole idea that judges are supposed to send people to jail is ludicrous. It's like people think if you get arrested and wind up in court you're guilty and going to jail. Do we have a Cardassian court system now?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
16. Re:This shouldn't be news by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-04 23:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  More people in jail per kapita than Russia.
  More people in jail per kapita than North Korea.
  More people in jail per kapita than Cuba.
  Komrade!
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
17. Re:This shouldn't be news by dreamchaser · 2013-09-04 23:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Wrong. The judge is supposed to be an unbiased advocate of the law. His or her job is to conduct the trial and ensure that the rights of both the defendant and the People are protected. In practice of course few judges are totally unbiased, but that's how it is supposed to work. The presumption of innocence is just what it sounds like. It has nothing to do with the judge having a bias, and a judge is certainly not an advocate for the defendant.
18. Re:This shouldn't be news by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-04 23:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The fact remains that the prosecution is there to convince the judge to place a person in jail for violation of the law. The judge is supposed to presume that person is innocent; therefor it is squarely the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt. This is called "Burden of Proof" and thus the judge should be placing a burden on the prosecution.
  As the judge should be willfully placing a burden on one party to prove a fact and accepting from another party to only demonstrate that the prosecution hasn't provided sufficient proof of that fact--and specifically, not to show that the declaration of guilt made by the prosecution is actually wrong--this entire process is by nature biased toward the defense. The judge should be maintaining that bias, forcing the prosecution to squarely shoulder their own damn burden, and supporting the defense where reasonable even when it bends or breaks the technical rules of the court. Discovery rules, for example, are there so that you can't blind-side the other lawyer; but if the other lawyer is reasonably prepared for a type of evidence that is being replaced (expert witnesses) or can reasonably examine the evidence in a reasonable amount of time that the court can offer them during adjournment, then it is appropriate to allow introduction of new evidence that may prove catastrophic to the prosecution's case, as the prosecution should not be allowed to prove guilt based on a fantasy that has no grounding in the real world. This happens all the time.
  It really is supposed to work that way. Look at the Zimmerman trial and you see a judge who needs to be executed for treason--the judge in that case put the defense in the hot seat and coddled the prosecution, which was completely and totally inappropriate. You are not guilty until you've shown your innocence.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
19. Re:This shouldn't be news by murdocj · 2013-09-04 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's not clear that the guy didn't commit the murder, despite the claim that the Google map search was "planted" (which I find rather odd... would someone really "plant" a file vs simply doing the search in the browser???)
20. Re:This shouldn't be news by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-04 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem is that we assume juries are perfect. If a jury returns a verdict you can't challenge it on the grounds that they made a mistake or didn't understand the evidence put to them. You can only appeal if there is new evidence of procedural problems with the trial itself.
  I know people who have served on juries and most of them say that the other people there were prejudiced and made up their mind based on things other than the evidence. Occasionally this comes to light as some idiot tweets his thoughts or the jury asks the judge idiotic questions.
  In Japan they have a system of lay judges instead. There are three professional judges and I think 11 lay judges made up of people randomly selected in a similar manner to a jury. The decision is usually based on the majority verdict but the judges are part of the deliberations and have a veto over extreme stupidity. I think it's better than locking a bunch of random idiots who don't want to be there in a room on their own until a decision is made.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
21. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  What's fucked up is that you can be so clearly and utterly clueless - yet still get modded insightful.
  Your envy is pitiful. Your butthurt is delightful.
22. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  you see a judge who needs to be executed for treason
  Another perfect example of people not understanding things about the legal system...
23. Re:This shouldn't be news by erroneus · 2013-09-05 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, I disagree.
  Perhaps you are correct in the sense that this is not "new for nerds" but it is a story which has a darker side which no one is yet talking about.
  This case stems from some very crappy police work with a clear and obvious agenda. "Defense attorneys have called Cary police work 'inept' and 'dishonest,' saying investigators were concerned about the town's reputation for being a safe community and that they ignored evidence and witnesses that didn't support their theory that Brad Cooper killed his wife." What's the underlying theme? Bad police? They have a crime problem there and they don't want people knowing it. I have additional ideas about what other issues are at play, but "random crime" at the hands of "bored teenagers" is a problem all over the nation and that's not a secret -- it's just a lot of misrepresented facts meant to steer people away from some very ugly conclusions.
24. Re:This shouldn't be news by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-05 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  On another note, the prosecutors also tried to prevent the defense from attempting to examine test data replicating the Google Maps search that was created by investigators by claiming national security!
  That sounds completely like a load of hooey. What would local prosecutors be doing with such detailed research? This completely skips the issue that they get to present such detailed info without the defense getting to examine how they determined its detailed value.
  If I were the judge, at a minimum now, I would demand they show their contacts in the NSA who "helped" them to make sure such a connection even exists. It isn't their job to just decide what they are doing somehow has national security importance.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
25. Re:This shouldn't be news by Hatta · 2013-09-05 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  What should be news here is that the judge is able to fix cases by refusing to allow a defense. That shouldn't just be news, it should land the judge in prison for years. But that's business as usual in the American injustice system.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
26. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  No legal system is perfect. Unless you refuse to jail anyone, you always run the risk of jailing an innocent. The fact that we have an appeals system to review cases and try to catch those errors and a testament to the US legal system. Perfect? No. But looking at legal systems through history, it is one fo the best.
  Sure, if we take all historical judicial systems as a comparison. Through that approach I can also establish that a bucket of fried chicken and a litre of coke is one of the best meals a man could eat.
  There's the death penalty, which kills tiny percentage of the prison population (through actual executions and the increase suicide rates observed on death row). Only a judicial system with a punishment fetish would entertain the idea of capital crimes. The state isn't trusted to hold data on gun ownership, yet it's trusted to execute its citizens? That is one element of the red state mindset that I fail to grasp.
  Consecutive sentencing is an oddity of the U.S. It happens elsewhere, but in the U.S. we seem more likely to see unrealistically long sentences.
  The U.S. has high recidivism rates (as does the U.K.). Northern European countries and Canada show half the levels of recidivism seen in the U.S. Coincidentally recidivism rates are lower in countries that have a serious emphasis on rehabilitation.
  There's also the element of plea-bargaining, where prosecutors threaten alarmingly high sentences, and use this to coax the accused in to a guilty plea on a lesser offence or a promise to ask for a reduced sentence. This is fine where a person is actually going to provide useful assistance, such as testifying against others, but not when it's simply a bargaining attempt to get a conviction.
  Yeah, the U.S. system is better than the historical systems that saw religious elders presiding over a court as a formality conducted while people gathered stones for the inevitable matinee stoning. Well done.
27. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Go watch "The Real CSI". It's an episode of Frontline you can watch for free on the PBS website. What constitutes "expert witness" needs a complete overhaul. A judge can pretty much declare anyone an expert in the eyes of the court if it suits the case. Doesn't matter if they're an expert or not. Forensics is not the "science" it is portrayed as on TV dramas. There have even been different people with almost the exact same fingerprint (over 15 points). That scared the hell out of me. A lot of courts are just going through the motions.
28. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Look at the Zimmerman trial and you see a judge who needs to be executed for treason
  Know how I know you're not a reasonable person?
29. Re:This shouldn't be news by mdielmann · 2013-09-05 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. The judge is supposed to be an unbiased advocate of the law. His or her job is to conduct the trial and ensure that the rights of both the defendant and the People are protected. In practice of course few judges are totally unbiased, but that's how it is supposed to work. The presumption of innocence is just what it sounds like. It has nothing to do with the judge having a bias, and a judge is certainly not an advocate for the defendant.
  This is the case in the American, and generally the UK and, therefore, Commonwealth legal systems. In Judaic law, the judge was on the side of the defense. There are also some countries that have a similar system.
  There are also countries where the prosecution and the defense are assigned by the courts, the idea being that justice is served rather than one experiencing the best legal system that money can buy.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
30. Re:This shouldn't be news by david672orford · 2013-09-05 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  It's not clear that the guy didn't commit the murder, despite the claim that the Google map search was "planted" (which I find rather odd... would someone really "plant" a file vs simply doing the search in the browser???)
  You are right, proving that the search was planted does not prove him innocent. But if the only solid evidence of his guilt is fake, they have to let him go. You can't put him in prison just because he seems to be the most likely suspect.
  The defence theory is that someone who was sure he was guilty faked the evidence on his computer. Simply doing the search in the browser would not be enough since there would be nothing incriminating about his doing a search of the place where his wife's body had already been found. The search was incriminating because it appeared to have been done before the murder. The experts were prepared to testify that the time of the search was faked.
31. Re:This shouldn't be news by dustmite · 2013-09-05 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing to see here. Move along
  Your complete lack of empathy suggests to me you might be a sociopath. I don't mean that as an insult, just an honest evaluation.
32. Re:This shouldn't be news by xevioso · 2013-09-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Has it occurred to you that this may be the case because we have more criminals per capita than those countries? Anarchist!
33. Re:This shouldn't be news by Shompol · 2013-09-05 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  And reading TFA, I can't say that I think he's entirely in the wrong - because the defense screwed the pooch in the first place. (By not getting a properly qualified expert in the first place, and then by potentially violating the rules of evidence.)
  
  Great, you made me read TFA. Here's what it says: the judge wrongly disqualified an expert witness, and then banned testimony from "properly accredited" ones. Not sure what "rules of evidence" got jeopardised, but sounds like the judge was in on it with the prosecution, which happens rather frequently because they work for the same institution, sort of.
  
  "It happened on a computer" isn't enough to make it newsworthy anymore
  It is while majority of judges (and jurors) see a computer as a magical black box with supernatural powers. The ship will sail when the first 4chan generatioin "graduates" to become judges with adequate understanding of technology. Until then we will have lawyers claiming that copied 10 lines of java code cost his clients bullions in losses.
34. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  What's fucked up is that you can be so clearly and utterly clueless - yet still get modded insightful.
  
  The judge took action to disallow the testimony of experts based on MOTIONS
  from the PROSECUTION.
  Who's clueless ? YOU ARE, DerekLyons. You obviously have no idea how
  legal procedure works in the US. The judge would have allowed the expert
  testimony if not for the objections of the prosecution. The suppression of
  expert testimony was done as a result of motions filed by the prosecution.
  Seriously, Lyons, shut the fuck up.
35. Re:This shouldn't be news by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-05 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Has it occurred to you that a "criminal" is someone the state doesn't like? Oh, I'm sorry, flowers? Those little green bushes with the funny smelling flowers, you cannot grow them. To prison with you!
  Actual laws aside, the courts slanting to "tough on crime" would put more people in jail because of a poor defense against shoddy prosecution. The prosecutors construct this plausible fantasy that doesn't align with reality, but the courts won't allow you to counter it with new and extremely solid evidence, so you're GUILTY! Never mind that the prosecution isn't operating in reality and you didn't actually commit the crime.
  Our justice system isn't exactly "working" just because people are going to jail and we feel all warm and fuzzy about it. We want high accuracy, but prefer false negatives and will sacrifice a degree of accuracy if the false positives are too high. Lately, we've been aiming for turn-over and conviction, and justifying that we don't want any false negatives--people are all "tough on crime" and "don't want to let a bad man go" so it's okay if we execute some innocent men. That totally changes the dynamic.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
36. Re:This shouldn't be news by ffflala · 2013-09-05 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the judge is supposed to be a biased advocate for the defense.
  That's an interesting belief, but it's certainly not a judge's role in the US to be an advocate for any party before it. Counsel are the advocates, and the judge plays referee. It's not a judge's role to make either advocate's more or less difficult.
  
  You might agree with it, you might not. But the idea is basically that vigorous advocacy in a purportedly impartial venue will result in the greatest amount of justice. Removing a judge's partiality and replacing it with intentional bias, as you suggest, would entirely reengineer one branch of government.
37. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  >Your complete lack of empathy suggests to me you might be a sociopath.
  So, are you suggesting he should apply for that CEO job at MegaHeartlessCorp? Or perhaps run for political office?
38. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  But they shouldn't be. They're paid for by the taxpayer so they should be busy seeking out the truth to the best of their ability. If there's a hole in their case and they know it, they should admit it plainly to the judge and hear how bad he thinks it is. Similarly, if they know about something that could strengthen the case for the defence, they should provide the defence with the necessary assistance. They may be opponents in a technical sense, but they should really act as a neutral party seeking the truth and nothing but the truth. The judges are just there to keep them honest.
39. Re:This shouldn't be news by Outtascope · 2013-09-05 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Though I think you have to make a distinction between a jury trial and a bench trial. In jury trial, the Judge really is only supposed to rule on matters of law (and therefore procedure). In a bench trial, the Judge is the finder of fact in addition to the finder of law. In both cases, the Judge's only bias at the start of trial should be towards justice, regardless of whether that means guilt or innocence. At the end of jury trial, this should still be the case. At the end of a bench trial, however, the Judge would be inept in his or her duties if he or she had not established a bias towards one of the defense or the prosecution. This bias would extend to the judging the credibility of the witnesses, etc., In the bench trial, the judge is not merely their to manage the adjudicative process, but is also the one and only jurist.
  Of course, this only addresses the issue of criminal cases. Civil cases are fraught with bias, and when they result in justice it is just as much attributable to random chance as it is any form of jurisprudence.
40. Re:This shouldn't be news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-07 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  Has it occurred to you that a "criminal" is someone the state doesn't like?
  The "state" doesn't like this guy because he murdered his wife, you fucking shit-stain. Mind if I get drunk and back over your baby? Hey, the "state" doesn't like that, so maybe I'm just being oppressed? Fucking Tea Baggist moron.
A-FUCKING-MAZING by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-04 17:05 · Score: 1, Funny

In an amazing co-inky-dink, this guy and Hans Reiser were roommates in college...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by deadlydiscs · 2013-09-04 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  In an amazing co-inky-dink, this guy and Hans Reiser were roommates in college...
  true story?? I couldn't find anything confirming this (maybe I'm too gullible)
2. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-04 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's a JOKE... I should have put [joke][/joke] tags around it. I mean seriously, Hans Reiser?
  Joke...
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
3. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, we all know Hans Reiser's college roommate was Tommy Lee Jones, except for the one semester with Robin Williams and Clark Kent.
4. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  I thought he spent his college years in a love triangle with Vladimir Putin and Linus.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
5. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  But they didn't live in the same dorm!
  Linus actually roomed with a clone of Abraham Lincoln.
6. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Zombie Hunter? Wow.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
7. Re:A-FUCKING-MAZING by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  It's time for a Linus biopic I think. Could be slightly altered so we have the opportunity to see him out-wit Microsoft hired guns at day and dodge psychic attacks from Stallman at nights, Inception-style. The BSD crowd could put in an appearance as ruthless hacker mercenaries with a paranoid bent.
Independent evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:05 · Score: 0

When did the NSA get the Google data set? Is 2008 too early? If not, then then they should subpoena the NSA.
The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 17:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Next time I murder my wife, I'm going to plant obviously fake evidence on my own computer linking me to the crime.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
1. Re:The playbook is now written by wrackspurt · 2013-09-04 17:19 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Next time I murder my wife
  uhm... that does somewhat beg the question as to how many times you've murdered her already.
2. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well. http://www.amazon.com/She-Needed-Killing-Series-ebook/dp/B00DZX38EO
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re:The playbook is now written by flyingfsck · 2013-09-04 17:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, obviously he is a Mormon...
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
4. Re:The playbook is now written by luckymutt · 2013-09-04 17:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  uhm... that does somewhat beg the question as to how many times you've murdered her already.
  No, it does not somewhat beg the question.
  That raises a new question.
5. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. I resisted the temptation to correct the poster's use of the English term 'beg the question'.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
6. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  I am? I didn't know that. An atheist brought up as a Welsh methodist is really a Mormon? Where do I go to buy my magic underwear?
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
7. Re:The playbook is now written by stormpunk · 2013-09-04 17:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It literally drives me up the wall when somebody has pour gramer.
8. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  What we need more of is pro grammars
9. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  woooooooooooosh!
  even the aliens that live in underground caves on titan heard that one.
10. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Your right about that.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
11. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 18:36 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  They're the original Mormons.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
12. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  I resisted the temptation to correct the poster's use of the English term 'beg the question'.
  Which is amusing because it's perfectly valid English. What you and the grandparent are referring to is a perfectly invalid mistranslation of petitio principii (seeking the principles) which has nothing to do with begging or questions.
13. Re:The playbook is now written by Provocateur · 2013-09-04 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, c'mon, just because the lead happened to be the good-looking Bradley Cooper
  
  --
  WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
14. Re:The playbook is now written by SalafranceUnderhill · 2013-09-04 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  There's a place called Pant Y Gwdr in the centre of Swansea, which happens to offer the largest market for magic underwear in the Western Hemisphere and is perhaps the reason for the anomalous concentration of Mormons in the locale. I believe the name roughly translates to 'pantie-girdle'.
15. Re:The playbook is now written by Mark+Hood · 2013-09-04 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  While I happen to agree with that, from the article you linked:
  Despite having "long been condemned by usage commentators as incorrect or sloppy", some authorities consider the use of "begs the question" as a way of saying "raises the question" or "evades the question" to be no longer mistaken because it has attained such wide usage.
  In other words, we lost the battle - and it now does mean that.
  
  --
  Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
16. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  Which is amusing because it's perfectly valid English.
  Valid in what sense? Syntactically? Your unsupported assertion to the contrary, begging the question has a specific meaning, and it's not the one the OP intended.
17. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, Welsh! I guess you were referring to your "pastoral wives" then.
18. Re:The playbook is now written by Necronomicode · 2013-09-04 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you want to completely ignore common usage then technically the Ops use of 'beg the question' is indeed incorrect.
  The phrase 'begs the question' is also used to mean 'begs for the question' and is widely used in modern English today. I had no problem in understanding the meaning of the OP and as such his post succeeded.
  Here's a link showing the dual meaning (just showing that your assertion that it 'has a specific meaning' is also unsupported and that it doies mean what the OP intended):
  http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beg+the+question
  Can't get more wronger than that ;-)
19. Re:The playbook is now written by LoRdTAW · 2013-09-05 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  It is only correct in modern English because it has been abused and incorrectly used for so long that the improper use has become accepted.
20. Re:The playbook is now written by Necronomicode · 2013-09-05 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there's a large number of occurrences of that in English. One that annoys me from the town where I grew up was the use of the word pacfic instead of specific - must be a mishearing malapropism kind of thing, don't know if that particular one is common across the country though. There's also a tendency to use 'of' instead of 'have' in some instances e.g. 'he could of been a contender'. This sort of thing is probably countered by better literacy, being brought up in a farming town the older generations didn't read so much, so most language was passed down spoken.
  I do wonder how foreigners cope with these nuances of the English language, with all the euphemisms, sayings, it must be a struggle.
  One thing I have noticed frequently online is that peoples whose first language is not English tend to misuse 'since'.
  e.g. I have been working on this thing since one week.
  I suppose as since uses a fixed point and not a duration it's easily missed - but for a native English speaker its weird reading it, though the meaning is perfectly clear so it doesn't really matter.
  It'd be boring if it was all regular and simple :-)
21. Re:The playbook is now written by Notabadguy · 2013-09-05 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably just once. Then he remarried and v1.1 was bug-ridden. Rinse and repeat.
22. Re:The playbook is now written by SleazyRidr · 2013-09-05 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes people do indeed use a phrase correctly. You don't make yourself sound smart by shooting it down every time. We know from his comment that he's already murdered his wife at least once, an answer to a question that nobody would have thought to ask.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
23. Re:The playbook is now written by xevioso · 2013-09-05 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  or poor spelling.
24. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it does beg the question. From your link:
  
  Despite having "long been condemned by usage commentators as incorrect or sloppy", some authorities consider the use of "begs the question" as a way of saying "raises the question" or "evades the question" to be no longer mistaken because it has attained such wide usage
25. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Is she one of those high-level people in Al Queda whom the CIA has reported successfully killing multiple times?
26. Re:The playbook is now written by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  There's also a tendency to use 'of' instead of 'have' in some instances e.g. 'he could of been a contender'. This sort of thing is probably countered by better literacy, being brought up in a farming town the older generations didn't read so much, so most language was passed down spoken.
  I think could of evolved from could've. I moved to Hawaii when I was quite young. I picked up Pidgin and Hawaiian by sound. It was only years later that I realized some of the errors I constantly made. Example 1: I learned "Junk and a poe" (what's a poe???) instead of "Jun-ken-po" (or jan-ken-po) for rock-paper-scissors. I was also expected to know the words to "Hawaii ponoi" without ever seeing the written words, because it was taught in kindergarten.
27. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-05 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually its Pant-Y-Gwydr and its more of a restaurant than a place. It translates to "First Post"
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
28. Re:The playbook is now written by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-05 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Or "glass underwear". Take your pick.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
29. Re:The playbook is now written by Doghouse13 · 2013-09-05 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is only correct in modern English because it has been abused and incorrectly used for so long that the improper use has become accepted.
  Well, yes. So what? That 's how language changes and grows. By well-educated 17th century standards, your "correct" English is appallingly bad. Presumably you'll go change the whole way you speak, now that I've pointed that out?
30. Re:The playbook is now written by Dabido · 2013-09-07 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  We asked her, but she's not telling us.
  
  --
  Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
"physical evidence"? by c0lo · 2013-09-04 17:14 · Score: 1

Ummm.. what?

The sole physical evidence ... was the alleged Google Map search

One should grab that search and throw it hard against a target... see how much of a physical presence that search has.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
1. Re:"physical evidence"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  if they decide to throw the laptop where the search is stored on, it would leave a mark. The laptop is the physical evidence.
2. Re:"physical evidence"? by Solandri · 2013-09-04 19:14 · Score: 2
  
  It's physical evidence in much the same way that a letter confessing to a crime is physical evidence, and not just ink lines on a piece of paper. Although the content, the meaning, of the writing or data may be virtual, the medium on which they're stored is physical. Hence they're physical evidence. For that matter, the same goes for fingerprints and DNA. The grease or DNA molecules are just the medium. The pattern of lines and pattern of C/T/A/G molecules are what's important, but they are virtual (can exist independently of the medium).
Does Cisco hire morons? by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-04 17:15 · Score: 0

The guy is probably guilty. On the other hand, it may be so that these files where planted.
I'm just wondering how a tech-savvy Cisco guy would space out or not consider clearing the cache and temp files after planning a murder?
Does Cisco hire morons?
Don't answer that...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by Cramer · 2013-09-04 17:21 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize Google keeps their own search history on their servers outside your browser. It's still clear-able, but there's more work involved.
  (I opt out of that crap.)
2. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by BitZtream · 2013-09-04 17:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It should be fairly easy to tell, its not like Google doesn't log EVERY FUCKING REQUEST.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
3. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by reub2000 · 2013-09-04 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  By clearable, you mean detonating a bomb in their datacenter?
4. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by BitZtream · 2013-09-04 19:35 · Score: 2
  
  No, they have a policy of having your data in at least 3 data centers, somethings are replicated more than that.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
5. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by blackest_k · 2013-09-04 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Could it be the case that the wife planned to visit the area where her body was found, maybe for a photography hobby.
  It could be just unfortunate she met her killer there and died. Not unusual for a wife to use her husbands laptop. Many couples trust each other with passwords. She might even have asked him to do the search for her.
  Planting evidence doesn't have to be the alternative option and some times there are coincidences.
  E.g
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21442107
  
  A man has been jailed for life for killing a 19-year-old woman more than a decade after her boyfriend was wrongly jailed for the crime.
  Shahidul Ahmed strangled Rachel Manning in Milton Keynes and dumped her body at a golf course in 2000.
  In 2002, Barri White was convicted of murder and his friend Keith Hyatt of perverting the course of justice. Both had their convictions quashed in 2007.
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21412241
  
  Keith's only involvement on the night of Rachel Manning's murder was to give a lift to his friend Barri White, who was looking for his girlfriend Rachel after she became lost in Milton Keynes in December 2000.
  In a tragic coincidence, Keith was going about his job as a courier two days later when he spotted police at Woburn Golf Club.
  He parked his van and made the fatal mistake of asking about the missing teenager, at the very spot where her body had been found.
  It was simply another act of kindness for Barri and for Rachel, but it roused suspicion.
  Police seized Keith's van and, he believes, "stopped investigating the murder" and built a case around him and Barri, an "easy touch".
  There is a whole lot more behind this story including a "jail house confession" to another inmate which is obviously discredited now.
  Hopefully the retrial will be conclusive in this cisco case.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
6. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  It should be fairly easy to tell, its not like Google doesn't log EVERY FUCKING REQUEST.
  Fortunately I only send them non-fucking requests. So they shouldn't have any data about me, right? ;-)
7. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  "After the case, Miss Manning's mother, Liz, criticised Mr White for leaving her daughter to walk home alone. She said: "We believe Rachel would still be with us today if she had not been abandoned by her boyfriend the night she was attacked, killed and brutally battered. We cannot forget that." Mrs Manning, a teacher, did not criticise the police and CPS for bringing the first case against Mr White.
  "At all times we believe the police followed the evidence available," she said.
  I know she lost her daughter, but I have to say after reading that...
  What a total bitch.
  Her daughters boyfriend is railroaded by clueless cops, and instead of blaming them, still blames the poor boyfriend who spent years in prison for a crime he did not commit??? WTF?
8. Re:Does Cisco hire morons? by cduffy · 2013-09-05 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  It could be just unfortunate she met her killer there and died. Not unusual for a wife to use her husbands laptop. Many couples trust each other with passwords. She might even have asked him to do the search for her.
  If you read the fine article -- the cache contained metadata showing the search to be done from his workplace, not their home.
For those that didn't RTFA... by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-04 17:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

For those that don't RTFA, here's another interesting nugget: The judge also denied the defense from showing technical evidence of a "recreation" of how this search might look if someone actually did ti on the defendant's machine:

As a sideshow, the appeal also slapped down prosecutors for waving the "national security" banner to ward off a defense attempt to examine test data replicating the Google Maps search that was created by investigators:

It was error for the trial court to shut down this line of questioning without ascertaining how, or if, national security or some other legitimate interest outweighed the probative value of this information to Defendant. On remand, the trial court must determine with a reasonable degree of specificity how national security or some other legitimate interest would be compromised by discovery of particular data or materials, and memorialize its ruling in some form allowing for informed appellate review.
I tend to have a "gut" feeling the guy killed his wife, no one else has motive and the devorce was "ugly".
BUT... The Judge in the original trile seems to have made some errors...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  I tend to have a "gut" feeling the guy killed his wife, no one else has motive and the devorce was "ugly".
  No one else you or the prosecution know about has motive, is what you should have said. For all we know the wife was fucking some other woman's husband
  and started making demands which led this second man to commit murder.
  Stranger things have happened in this world.
  To achieve a conviction, this murder case must remove ALL reasonable doubt. Since no one can say whether there might have been another person who committed the murder, I would surmise that if it can be proven the browser "evidence" was planted, the defendant will go free, whether he deserves to or not.
2. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by unitron · 2013-09-04 18:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Guilty or not, I smell a frame.
  National security? Really? That's the best reason they could come up with to try to stop an inquiry into how they "found" their evidence?
  And this guy's supposedly clever and knowledgeable enough to fake a call from his home phone but doesn't know there's a record of his map search left on the computer?
  
  --
  I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
3. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by AHuxley · 2013-09-04 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes more was linked to http://www.bradreese.com/blog/9-3-2013.htm
  "every test that Agent Johnson does can affect national security and that people could be put in danger."
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
4. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by N1AK · 2013-09-04 20:46 · Score: 2
  
  It's not impossible that a) He didn't consider that they might try and check for google maps searches b) that the google map search is recorded in some way that his efforts to delete data missed or c) that the summary/article includes a minor technical error and the search was retrieved from Google's infrastructure which he had not thought to wipe.
  
  I think the last option may be quite likely and it is possible that is where the 'security' aspect came in. If the information was retrieved from Google via a government program they might not want to discuss what they can get hold of.
  
  The problem with court in general is that the standard (at least in the UK) is the almost ephemeral 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are widely accepting of other possibilities then it is virtually impossible to reach that standard. Clearly based on some of the shoddy convictions we see the Jurors are willing to convict when there are considerable doubts.
5. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by dkf · 2013-09-04 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with court in general is that the standard (at least in the UK) is the almost ephemeral 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are widely accepting of other possibilities then it is virtually impossible to reach that standard. Clearly based on some of the shoddy convictions we see the Jurors are willing to convict when there are considerable doubts.
  Bullshit. The problem is programmers getting mixed up between the all possible doubt standard and reasonable doubt. The former is mathematically and logically nice, but is utterly impossible; a recipe for total stasis. Fortunately, it is the latter that is actually used. Think of it as if you're using a bayesian reasoner and are trying to establish whether the likelihood of guilt is over a sufficient threshold; reasonable doubt probably kicks in somewhere around the 99% level. (Civil cases are typically settled on balance of probabilities, which is the 50% level.)
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
6. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps they actually had a full record of his online activities but could not disclose it because the programs by which NSA share data with law enforcement are secret. So they planted evidence on his computer (which he had scrubbed in actuality) to hide the real source of their info.
7. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-04 23:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If they did get the evidence via a secret government spy program it was almost certainly obtained illegally anyway. More over the idea that someone can be convicted on secret evidence that they are not allowed to see or contest is disgusting and an affront to justice.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by N1AK · 2013-09-04 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not inclined to debate with people who can't even manage to start their post like a mature individual. If someone asked me to cross a bridge which had a 99% chance of staying standing because that meant it was 'beyond reasonable doubt' I would take exception to that classification; I fail to see why the standard for potentially ruining someone's life should be so much lower than I would accept with my own, but then I have considerably more confidence in my own position than that of someone immature enough to think "Bullshit." is an effective opening sentence.
9. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by N1AK · 2013-09-04 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that they should be able to keep it secret; only that it could explain why they would want to and try to do so via using 'national security'.
10. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2013-09-04 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  If I had guess their reason for using "national security", their only REAL evidence was probably obtained illegally by a three letter agency during some dragnet surveillance. They probably "reconstructed" this google maps evidence, as the prosecution often does, and won't tell anyone about the bullshit that's going on because it's blatantly unconstitutional.
  
  --
  The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
11. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-05 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  It can be both -- he does the murder and prosecution plants the evidence. They feel like good guys getting someone they "know" did it.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
12. Re:For those that didn't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  No. Stop trying to be a lawyer.
  The standard is manifestly not ALL reasonable doubt, nor should it be. Human beings aren't machines.
  Having said that, the trial judge committed egregious error and a retrial is appropriate. A number of the rulings (not just the "national security" ruling) did not have substantive bases.
Kink Tut's murderer found... by flyingfsck · 2013-09-04 17:31 · Score: 1

I did a search on Google Earth looking at the Valley of the Kings, so I must be guilty of many a death about 4000 years ago...

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. Re:Kink Tut's murderer found... by Frosty+Piss · 2013-09-04 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  I did a search on Google Earth looking at the Valley of the Kings, so I must be guilty of many a death about 4000 years ago...
  No, but if you did a search of the Valley of the Kings two days prior to your wife's body being found in an obscure tomb off the beaten path, well, maybe the cops should ask you about that...
  And by the way, "Kink Tut"? Is that a drag queen or something? Sounds like your wife found out something, and you just let the Freudian slip...
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
2. Re:Kink Tut's murderer found... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:51 · Score: 0
  
  better off doing the time in US even if you need to brake some us laws to stay in us lock up.
3. Re:Kink Tut's murderer found... by matria · 2013-09-04 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Just don't try it in Texas.
4. Re: Kink Tut's murderer found... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yes the cops should ask you about a suspicious google map search but only in America would such a search be the basis for a murder convictio, that is fucked up. Better to let a thousand guilty persons walk free than convict an innocent person. Elected judges are little better than mob rule.
5. Re:Kink Tut's murderer found... by wbr1 · 2013-09-04 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Kink Tut? WTF was he into? He was like 12!
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
a new trial for ex-Cisco employee Bradley Cooper by hcs_$reboot · 2013-09-04 17:40 · Score: 1

A bad hangover probably

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
HR BS by Joe_Dragon · 2013-09-04 17:41 · Score: 1

contending that his lack of specific computer forensics expertise rendered him unqualified. The trial judge accepted that objection and Ward was limited to testifying only in general terms about computer network security.
but it works when you want a H1B1
Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 17:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

It just opens up a can of worms as to its authenticity. How do we know he was the one who searched for this specific spot? Even if you argue it was probably him because it was his computer the law requires it to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably is not the same thing as beyond a reasonable doubt. Show me this AND multiple pieces of other evidence. Preferably something that is more damming. Otherwise I'm going to have doubts. Prosecutors are malicious and I'd trust a random stranger over the prosecution in any case.
1. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by 0123456 · 2013-09-04 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly now we know the NSA has its tentacles everywhere.
2. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-04 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  If it's the only evidence and it's obviously fake, then that supports a fit up hypothesis.
  As with the Reiser's of this world, once you've got the guy who actually did it, all sorts of forensic and circumstantial evidence pops up.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  It should be admissible but the jury should be made strongly aware that it's not proof of guilt. Same as any other forensics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
4. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by wvmarle · 2013-09-04 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Too many things here. And too lazy to RTFA, let alone dig even further.
  TFS suggests a Google Maps search (wondering how they know that he was searching for that spot in the first place) is the strongest evidence linking him to the crime. If so, the rest is really weak!
  Many crimes do not have a "smoking gun" kind of evidence. It is often a whole lot of clues, each of which may be overturned on the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement, but the lot of them may not. And if this were used as "yet another piece of evidence", fine. But a key piece of evidence... well, that's getting hairy.
5. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 20:05 · Score: 0
  
  How do we know he was the one who searched for this specific spot?
  ls -ltrh. Get your access together!
6. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by 0111+1110 · 2013-09-04 20:23 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah. This is what bothers me about this case too. So the guy basically committed the perfect murder...except that he was dumb enough to perform a search of her burial site on his own fucking computer without bothering to erase at least the local evidence of said search? Hell. I'd do it from an internet cafe with TOR or from a wifi hotspot or unsecured wifi and then securely erase the entire hardrive of the OS where the search was performed. The guy was commiting murder for christ sake. It's not like he'd be too lazy to bother or something.
  Sounds like they don't even have a motive. Getting a divorce is a pretty shaky motive for murder. Couldn't they at least find (or manufacture) evidence that she was cheating on him or something? The guy was convicted solely on the basis of the google map search. Admittedly that is suspicous as hell, but the physical evidence had better be iron clad. If there is *any* evidence that the search was planted by a third party that sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
  Also they cited the purchase of laundry detergent as incriminating? Seriously?
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
7. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by LandDolphin · 2013-09-04 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Reasonable doubt is a pretty low threshold. It is not he "Shadow of a doubt" that TV makes it out to be. Google maps searches on your laptop - yeah, a reasonable person would believe that you made the search.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
8. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by wisnoskij · 2013-09-05 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  But that everything.
  Probably is "beyond a reasonable doubt." in the eyes of the law.
  If your gun is used in a murder, you better be well liked in the community, look innocent, and have a super awesome alibi, because otherwise you are going to jail even if half a dozen other people have access to that gun.
  The courts sent people who look guilty to death row when they can proof that they could not have done the crime. Any decently circumstantial evidence is really enough.
  Hell, even DNA evidence is not any better than a 1 in a thousand chance that it is actually your DNA. So entirety circumstantial.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
9. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Where are these reasonable people, and why are they called "reasonable" if they're retarded enough to believe that someone else couldn't have made the search?
10. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  All that means is that our 'justice' system is screwed up beyond belief.
11. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-05 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of which, doesn't the NSA record every browser transaction? They should just go look up this, and the VOIP thing, too, in the NSA's database.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
12. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  What? That's the point of circumstantial evidence (which is admissible). Following your logic, a gun belonging a suspect that was used in a murder shouldn't be allowed into evidence unless the suspect was directly observed to have fired the shot. As long as the evidence is reasonable, valid, and applicable, why shouldn't it be allowed? It's the jury's job to sort through all the circumstantial evidence to determine if there is any doubt based on all the evidence.
13. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by HiThere · 2013-09-05 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, AFAIK, NSA is usually relatively indifferent to minor things like murder. That's only interesting if someone involved is already "of interest" to the federal government. So their involvement would not increase the probability of malicious prosecution, only the probability that there would be unconstitutional attempts to keep the source of the evidence secret.
  That said, NSA probably wouldn't know WHO conducted the search. Not unless he was already "of interest".
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
14. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by Agent0013 · 2013-09-05 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Plus the search wasn't really a search. The mouse cursor moved directly to the location and the map was zoomed in there. After viewing for 2 seconds the browser was closed. What kind of search would only look at a single location and only for two seconds?
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
15. Re:Computer "forensics" should never be admissible by LandDolphin · 2013-09-05 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's always possible to beleive that "someone else" did it. but is that more likely then the owner? It isn't that they don't believe that someone else could have. It is just far more likely that someone else didn't.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Roofies by Frankie70 · 2013-09-04 19:45 · Score: 1

Bradley Cooper did it under the influence of Roofies - he doesn't remember anything now.
How this proof hold its water? by ruir · 2013-09-04 19:46 · Score: 2

Just lets suppose the wife google it on his notebook to find the location. I google things all the time before going there.
1. Re:How this proof hold its water? by dustmite · 2013-09-05 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  +1, this actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, consider also that this guy was a 'VoIP expert' who worked for Cisco - if he was planning a murder, does anyone honestly think he would be too stupid to even understand he should clear his browser cache?
  Reportedly his relationship with his wife had been strained ... she may have planned to secretly meet someone else at that location (many possible reasons), gone there, and been murdered.
  Certainly seems enough for reasonable doubt, especially given that search is the only evidence they have. What a flimsy case. Reminds me of the Shawshank Redemption case.
Scary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 20:40 · Score: 0

They nailed him on just the Google Maps stuff?! Holy hell that's crazy! Isn't that shit highly circumstantial? Wouldn't you expect more concrete evidence to be presented such as DNA, etc. before holding someone guilty... throwing someone in prison for god knows how many years just because he Googled a location is just insane.
Re: This guy is a piece of junk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 22:59 · Score: 0

You faith in sky fairies proves you are not fit to weigh evidence.
Facts are Facts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 23:19 · Score: 0

I can't imagine why facts would not be allowed to be presented in a court case. I thought the whole point of the justice system was the pursuit of the truth. Well, if a relevant truth exists, why disallow it? Unless, of course, the justice system is corrupt.
Re:This guy is a piece of junk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 23:34 · Score: 1

You are wrong on all counts. District Attorneys are often overzealous in their prosecutions, especially in jurisdictions where they are elected, which are many.
One of the worst offenders I can think of is Resa Vetri Fermin, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. She routinely throws the book at people for minor, victimless offenses. She also once charged with attempted murder a man who was being robbed of his bicycle on the popular bike path there, by two thugs who were found to have a garage full of stolen bicycles, by lawfully using his firearm in self defense. She even refused to drop the charges even after the two thugs were discovered to be running a bicycle theft ring, and had been implicated in several other violent armed robberies.
The justice system is what it is, and there are rules. The State must follow all the rules to the letter if it is to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. If the State breaks those rules, it loses its case, period. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and if the State fails to prove them guilty, they are innocent. Period.
A defendant may be guilty, and they may know they are guilty, but they are under no legal or moral obligation to admit to that. It is up to the State to prove it.
Brad Cooper by damicatz · 2013-09-05 00:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm from the area and this case has been rather prominently featured on the news.
The district attorneys in this state are well known for their corruption and disregard for the rights of the accused and/or of the innocent. This trial is only taking place one county over from where Mike Nifong persued his witchhunt against the Duke Lacrosse players. In addition, the SBI has been implicated in a large scandal in which evidence was faked and mishandled.
Most people here do not believe he is guilty but rather that this is a sham case in which a misandristic government and court system automatically assumes that the husband must be the one who killed his wife.
1. Re:Brad Cooper by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-05 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  From a Decision Theory partitioning point of view, "assuming the husband/boyfriend did it" gets a stellar 90% success rate! :-/
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2. Re:Brad Cooper by NettiWelho · 2013-09-05 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but charging people with crimes based solely on assumption doesnt sound like due process to me.
3. Re:Brad Cooper by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  I am also from the area, and I could not disagree more with your statements. 'Most people' I know firmly believe he is guilty, based on a preponderance of really, really odd behavior on his part. When his wife's body was found, she was wearing what can only be described as a 'partial' outfit for running: no shirt, a bra that was not made for sports, etc. She was an enthusiastic runner, and the clothes she was found in were not really running apparel, and not what she had previously been known to go running in.
  But when police interviewed him on the missing person's report, and asked what she was wearing when she left?
  He described exactly what she was found in, and *nothing more*. Not "A blue shirt, black shorts, white socks, shoes" but "A black bra, black shorts...." That set off alarm bells first thing out of the gate.
  It only got weirder from there. The whole 'he was framed' story never held water, and read like a bad paranoid spy plot, with even less evidence than what was presented to tie him to the crime. But golly, it brought the men's rights chest beaters out of the woodwork.
4. Re:Brad Cooper by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-07 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  persued his witchhunt
  That is odd. Firefox does not put a squiggly red line under the word persue. I am honestly amazed. I wonder what they think persue is?
  Well, I was going to excoriate you for spelling pursue wrong but apparently, someone somewhere seems to think persue is a real word. No dictionaries seem to agree that it is a real word. Carry on.
So it just coincidence ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-05 05:03 · Score: 0

The spot where his wife's body was found just happened to be in his google maps history. It just a big government conspiracy, right?
national security and criminal trials by davidwr · 2013-09-05 07:08 · Score: 1

If a prosecutor is depending on information that the defense is not allowed to see, then one of two things must happen for the trial to be fair:
1) The case needs to be moved to a court where the defense IS allowed to see all of the evidence and/or the current court needs to change its procedures (e.g. closed hearings, require lawyers to get a security clearance/appoint lawyers who have such clearances, etc.) OR
2) A new prosecution team needs to be brought in to start over. They should not have access to the information that the defense isn't allowed to see. The same goes for any information derived from that evidence that wouldn't be found otherwise ("fruit of the poison tree").
The alternative is to dismiss the charges "in the interest of justice" on the grounds that it is more just for a guilty person to walk free than to deny a person, guilty or not, full and fair access to the courts.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Re:This guy is a piece of junk by gronofer · 2013-09-05 18:13 · Score: 1

The other IT-wifekiller Hans Reiser at least accepted his fate.

As a last resort, once he had exhausted every other option.