Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Search For "Foolproof Suffocation" Missed In Casey Anthony Case

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the day-late-and-a-dollar-short dept.

Crime 379

Hugh Pickens writes "The Orlando Sentinel reports that a google search was made for the term 'foolproof suffocation' on the Anthony family's computer the day Casey Anthony's 2-year-old daughter Caylee was last seen alive by her family — a search that did not surface at Casey Anthony's trial for first degree murder. In the notorious 31 days which followed, Casey Anthony repeatedly lied about her and her daughter's whereabouts and at Anthony's trial, her defense attorney argued that her daughter drowned accidentally in the family's pool. Anthony was acquitted on all major charges in her daughter's death, including murder. Though computer searches were a key issue at Anthony's murder trial, the term 'foolproof suffocation' never came up. 'Our investigation reveals the person most likely at the computer was Casey Anthony,' says investigative reporter Tony Pipitone. Lead sheriff's Investigator Yuri Melich sent prosecutors a spreadsheet that contained less than 2 percent of the computer's Internet activity that day and included only Internet data from the computer's Internet Explorer browser – one Casey Anthony apparently stopped using months earlier — and failed to list 1,247 entries recorded on the Mozilla Firefox browser that day — including the search for 'foolproof suffocation.' Prosecutor Jeff Ashton said in a statement to WKMG that it's 'a shame we didn't have it. (It would have) put the accidental death claim in serious question.'"

cancel ×

379 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087563)

Why didn't she just put the kid up for adoption?

Re:First (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087605)

Bitches be crazy ?

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087663)

Mod parent up!

No Death Penalty (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 2 years ago | (#42087595)

In this case the prosecutors and justice system were incompetent to prove this person was the killer.

In other cases they're incompetent to tell that the prosecutors and justice system have failed to prove the person was the killer.

When we execute convicted people there is no chance to catch the errors that are executing people who are not guilty. Not guilty people are killed because the system isn't adequate to execute only the guilty.

We shouldn't execute people, because we're not really sure that we're killing someone who's guilty.

Re:No Death Penalty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087615)

Could you please link to a single person who was exonerated after being executed in the U.S. in the last 20 years or so (when DNA evidence became popular)? Thanks!

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087665)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?yrail

Re:No Death Penalty (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087677)

Easy to answer. Cases are closed after execution and cannot be opened again, so no person is exonerated after execution.

However, the fact that 130 people have been exonerated while awaiting their death should give you a good estimate.

Re:No Death Penalty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087781)

LOL. People most certainly can be exonerated after death--you think the ACLU or Innocence Project wouldn't raise a stink if they found evidence of innocence? And exonerating people before death is obviously NOT a pen "estimate" of wrongful executions, that's the whole point of the appeals process that can last decades.

Re:No Death Penalty (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#42087703)

Could you please link to a single person who was exonerated after being executed in the U.S. in the last 20 years or so (when DNA evidence became popular)? Thanks!

This is not a fair request. When DNA analysis of evidence first became available, many executed people were posthumously exonerated. This doesn't happen anymore because, obviously, we do the DNA analysis before their conviction. So you are implying that "now the system is perfect and we don't execute innocent people anymore", but I think a better interpretation is that "the system is deeply flawed, and the emergence of DNA evidence just exposed some of those flaws." For most criminal cases DNA evidence plays no role, and there is no reason to believe those people are less likely to be innocent.

Re:No Death Penalty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087809)

You could have just said "No, I can't name a single person who has been wrongfully executed recently."

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087927)

... and thereby lend credence to the incorrect implication that DNA evidence has stopped all wrongful executions.

Re:No Death Penalty (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#42087985)

You could have just said "No, I can't name a single person who has been wrongfully executed recently."

The statement is meaningless.

Lack of knowledge of error says nothing about lack of error -- it just means we don't know we're screwing up. More precisely, we do know we're screwing up... we just don't know which verdicts are wrong. Perhaps new technologies will edge us a little closer, but it's likely there will always be room for mistakes.

FWIW, I'm not particularly bothered by the death penalty. I think there are people who are beyond any hope of rehabilitation, who should never be allowed to be free, and I don't see the point in paying to keep them locked up for decades, so we might as well kill them. But the existence of errors in the process is inevitable, and the fact that there is no possibility of recourse after execution is a valid point, as is the fact that, at least the way we do it, it's arguably cheaper to lock them up until they die of natural causes than it is to kill them.

Re:No Death Penalty (5, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42088063)

So the sanctity of life rests on COST??????? Fuck you.

Re:No Death Penalty (0, Troll)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#42088167)

So the sanctity of life rests on COST???????

We're talking about people who've given up their right to life. Yeah, cost is all that's left. That plus the possibility that we might be wrong.

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088089)

I've always thought the most humane way to go about it would be to give the convicted person the choice. A judge would basically rule life imprisonment without chance of parole, and the convicted could decide if that meant life in prison or their own death.

A lot of people would choose life in prison, especially those who declare their innocents all the way.

Those who admit guilt however can choose to be locked in a cage until they die, or to be put to death and get it over with.

Of course since our justice system is more bent towards revenge than justice, so this will be seen as offering an "easy way out" of the tortures of life in prison, and many would be against giving them that choice. As I said, I feel it's the most humane way, not necessarily the most satisfying form of torture and revenge way.

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088197)

You could have just said "No, I can't name a single person who has been wrongfully executed recently."

Easier to whine about unfairness than to give a straight answer.

Re:No Death Penalty (5, Insightful)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 2 years ago | (#42087987)

DNA isn't the be all end all for a conviction either. It's quite possible to find DNA at a crime scene and NOT have it belong to a killer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn [wikipedia.org]

We have to be very careful about being lazy when a new tool is introduced as it very well may NOT prove what we think it does. Investigation still has to be done by investigators that have a clue. Sadly it looks like they used an amateur for this investigation.

Frankly, the fact that they failed to recognize more than one browser was on this machine and in use is criminal in and of itself. Whoever did the forensic examination of this machine was an idiot and ought to be fired! they could easily have imaged the workstation, run the image, and explored it to figure out what was and wasn't in use. This could just as easily have been evidence to exonerate someone that was missed, this is disgusting!

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

gshegosh (1587463) | about 2 years ago | (#42087719)

If I were to be mistakenly held in prison for life, I'd rather die painlessly.

Re:No Death Penalty (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42087911)

Then allow life prisoners to request execution, rather than automatically execute specific people regardless of our knowing whether they're really innocent or not.

The same should be applied to terminal patients, too. If they want to die rather than suffer a horrible end, they should have the option. We think we can condemn people we think are murderers to death, but we refuse to allow people out of needless torture at the end of their life? What a weird society we've become.

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087921)

Depends what state you live in. Lethal injection is very painful.

Re:No Death Penalty (2)

sco08y (615665) | about 2 years ago | (#42088025)

Depends what state you live in. Lethal injection is very painful.

Still quicker and less painful than 50 years in the pen living with society's worst.

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Squiddie (1942230) | about 2 years ago | (#42088263)

We should do it the North Korean way. You won't feel a thing when that mortar hits you. No burial costs either.

Re:No Death Penalty (3, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about 2 years ago | (#42087727)

We shouldn't execute people, because we're not really sure that we're killing someone who's guilty.

Maybe we shouldn't execute people because it's wrong.

Re:No Death Penalty (3, Interesting)

englishstudent (1638477) | about 2 years ago | (#42088015)

and why is that exactly?

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088255)

Most European countries do not have the death penalty. I think we should look for the reasons why they don't and see if those reasons apply to the US.

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#42088119)

Maybe we shouldn't execute people because it's wrong.

Frankly, I think it would be morally wrong if we had captured Hitler alive and we hadn't executed him.

Re:No Death Penalty (2, Insightful)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 2 years ago | (#42087749)

No, we shouldn't kill people because we're perfectly capable of keeping them locked up indefinitely. If we were some tinpot nation with no means to do so then execution or outsourcing the incarceration would be more of a necessity, but we're not, we're the most powerful nation on earth, so there's no need. I personally don't believe in capital punishment as a deterrent (it's not why I choose not to kill people at least) and so that really only leaves revenge. Maybe I'd think about it differently if someone killed my kids, but it does not seem like a good enough reason to keep execution on the books.

Re:No Death Penalty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087777)

No, we shouldn't kill people because we're perfectly capable of keeping them locked up indefinitely.

Apart from, y'know, that whole "taxpayer cost to keep people locked up and alive for the rest of their natural life" part that, if removed, would be the same as killing them anyway, just longer, more cruel, and with more chance of prison riots and breakouts. But, there's no IMPORTANT reason we can't do that.

Re:No Death Penalty (5, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42087855)

Actually Life in prison without parole is less costly to taxpayers. Each individual death penalty case automatically gets appealed to the Supreme Court, at a cost of over $2,000,000 per. Here's one link: http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html [fnsa.org]

And a google page of links: http://www.google.com/search?q=real+cost+of+death+penalty+cases&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=_FeyULTuO7K00AGu-oG4BA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=480&bih=295 [google.com]

Re:No Death Penalty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088237)

The Bureaucracy associated with the death penalty is the only thing that makes it more expensive. Fix that and its much cheaper.

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

dbc (135354) | about 2 years ago | (#42088235)

Well, except that we *don't* seem to be able to keep people locked up indefinitely. The mechanics of the parole system are broken. Personally, I agree that we should not use the death penalty. Killing makes us no better than the criminal. But until you convince me that the system *can* keep these same people locked up indefinitely, the we need the death penalty as a patch on beaurocratic incompentence. I'm pretty sure enough other people agree with me to keep the death penalty in place. The solution is simple -- demonstrate a system that *can* permanently separate the extremely dangerous from society. Then we can get rid of the death penalty.

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087755)

How do they know it was her that did the search? And maybe it was the killer using her computer...

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#42087841)

The exact some logic could be used to say we should not imprison people, or punish them in any way. "Because they might be innocent".

Re:No Death Penalty (4, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42087917)

But that would be taking the argument too far. The world isn't black and white. Death is the ultimate punishment. You can't make up for taking someone's life once they're already dead.

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#42088003)

You can't return years for wrongful imprisonment either. Nor the pain of being punished for something you didn't do.

Re:No Death Penalty (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42088109)

No, you're right. But things can be done to help, and they still have their life to live from that moment onward, of which they can work to piece their world back together again. Once you're dead, that's it.

Re:No Death Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088087)

But that would be taking the argument too far. The world isn't black and white. Death is the ultimate punishment. You can't make up for taking someone's life once they're already dead.

Sure you can. Once I accidentally killed this hooker, so I made it up to her by making dinner, watching a movie on the couch, dancing with her and basically giving her a beautiful romantic evening. Strangely, she seemed a little indifferent to it all.

The logic of dumbasses (-1, Flamebait)

apparently (756613) | about 2 years ago | (#42087953)

Dear dumbass, In one scenario, if future evidence is discovered that exonerates a person who was wrongfully convicted, the innocent person can be removed from their sentence. In the other scenario, there's no takesy-backsies. Can the dumbass figure out which scenario is which?

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42087851)

You assume that the chance of convicting an innocent man is the same as the chance of letting a guilty man run. In reality, the latter is big exactly because the justice system wants to be completely sure before convicting someone, in order to minimize the former.

Re:No Death Penalty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087907)

To sum up, government makes mistakes, and death is irreversible. That is all that needs to be said, although we should always take note of the many cases of inmates put on "death row" who were later found to be innocent.

Re:No Death Penalty (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42088041)

'Til the infallibility of human judgements shall have been proved to me, I shall demand the abolition of the penalty of death.' - Marquis de Sade.

Are we still dragging this out? (5, Interesting)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#42087607)

She was found innocent, and a bunch of big media dipshits, and powerful figures are still trying to lynch her. Why? She's poor, and in all this rubble, they want one big poor villian to crucify, so they can shift the focus away.

Part of the assault on her character includes the fact that case was concieved out of rape, something that would have every major neo-liberal "feminist" group up in arms if it was someone the system was protecting.

I'll tell you something else. I'll contrast this to another femme fatale who got out of prison around the same time. "Amanda Knox"

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/print-edition/2011/10/21/seattle-pr-firm-reveals-efforts-to.html?page=all

Looks like the media industry wasted no time revealing if you got money to spend on a PR campaign they could fix your broken character flaws and get murder raps thrown out.

if its any more proof of just how biased the system is, and the system is run by hoardes of PR/advertising goons and lawyers, who seem to want nothing more than to shake you down for verbal and character protection money.

Of course the real enemies of this system are those who can't raise enough money to pay for their services.

Its sick, its real sick.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (2)

Zouden (232738) | about 2 years ago | (#42087721)

It doesn't matter if the media has decided she's guilty. She may actually be guilty. What makes you so certain that she's not?

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087773)

the judge that said she wasn't.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088039)

So if a judge ruled that the earth is flat... I know your answer.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (3, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about 2 years ago | (#42087785)

She may actually be guilty.

No, she's innocent. She wasn't proven guilty. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087861)

Your guilt or innocence is a matter of fact, not opinion. You either killed someone or you didn't. No arbitrary number of people sitting on a stand can change reality.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087939)

No, the fact that you killed someone may be true, but you being guilty depends on whether the law says you are. The law said she wasn't, so she isn't.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

Millennium (2451) | about 2 years ago | (#42087893)

She got off on a technicality, as the jury was swayed by improper use of the CSI Effect. The evidence presented at trial is more than sufficient to dispel any reasonable doubt. She cannot be convicted or sentenced, but that doesn't mean there is any chance that she didn't do it.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#42087909)

She may actually be guilty.

No, she's innocent. She wasn't proven guilty. Why is this so hard to understand?

Acquittal != innocence.

Similarly, conviction != guilt.

The goal of the system is to approximate accuracy, with a strong bias towards acquittal where the situation is in doubt. Hopefully, you can assume that a conviction is a very strong indicator of guilt, but you can't assume that an acquittal indicates innocence.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42087941)

I a court of law, 'not guilty' is the the same as innocent. More accurately, she was 'not found guilty', as opposed to 'found not guilty'.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42087977)

Duh, sorry, I meant to say 'Not Guilty' is *not* the same as innocent.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087963)

She's innocent - just like OJ.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087997)

She is legally considered innocent (until the ruling is overturned). That doesn't make her factually innocent. I'm not a judge, I can judge people by my own standards which don't have to be those of the law.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about 2 years ago | (#42088161)

And, she will remain "innocent".

She can not be tried again for the crime due to double jeopardy - even if she publicly admits killing.

The prosecutor blew this case.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (2)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 2 years ago | (#42088121)

What's so hard to understand about new evidence surfacing that throws doubt on her innocence? A forensic examiner apparently only pulled the browsing history for IE and failed to recognize that a second browser was installed. The browsing history for that browser has now been examined and on the day that this child disappeared there were searches regarding methods for killing someone. Why is importance of THAT so hard to understand?

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087797)

It doesn't matter if the media has decided she's guilty. She may actually be guilty. What makes you so certain that she's not?

Because the media decided she was guilty. Duh. Since the media is my enemy, everything they say must be false and a lie, just like how if !($POLITICAL_PARTY) says the sky is blue, then by God that sky is damn well orange. This makes my investigative process so much easier, resulting in less stress on my chick pea-sized brain.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087729)

She was found innocent

No, she was found not guilty and acquitted. There is a rather large difference. In the United States, the is a presumption of innocence [wikipedia.org] which means that in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt [wikipedia.org] the person is acquitted [wikipedia.org] of the charge. There is no statement about the innocence of the person.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087783)

Since she has the presumption of innocence going into the trial, and the jury found her not guilty of the charges brought against her by the state, she emerges from the trial maintaining her state of innocence. The presumption of innocence was examined through trial and confirmed by acquittal.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about 2 years ago | (#42087807)

There is no statement about the innocence of the person.

Yes, there is. A person is presumed innocent until the jury finds a guilty verdict, an acquittal is simply a confirmation of this assumption.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42088001)

It's an assumption, not a fact. It was not proven that she was guilty, nor was it proven that she was innocent. It's just our default assumption ... it doesn't mean it's true.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42088139)

Guilt or innocence are LEGAL terms only. You cannot declare someone guilty or innocent without a legal framework becasue the terms are relative and extremely perspective bound.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088211)

In the legal sense it absolutely means its true.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (3, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about 2 years ago | (#42088229)

There's something that a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing. You, as many people here, are equating guilt and innocence with "something which did or did not happen" and this is not the way the system works. Guilt and innocence are not provable facts in the rigorous sense and, as such, are not facts at all in the way that a person commonly thinks of that term.

The jurors' official roles in court are as the "finders of fact." The system operates under the necessary assumption that the jurors are correct when they find someone to be not guilty, not because the jurors are always right but because operating under this assumption is the only way to hold a real trial where an accused person who hasn't committed a crime can walk away at the end.

The important thing here is that this does not end in the courtroom, the assumption of innocence is a sadly neglected obligation that the population holds as well. Our justice system relies on the idea that a person can be tried and found not guilty and be unharmed by the process. This can only happen if that person's friends and neighbors hold to the presumption of innocence just as the court does. Unfortunately the media circumvents this, and for that reason reporting on pending court cases is banned or partially banned in many countries.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088061)

No, she's innocent. She wasn't proven guilty. Why is this so hard to understand?

I don't usually post on Slashdot, but sometimes I can't help it. Guises, you're a moron. You really can't differentiate between (1) someone who is guilty, and (2) someone who is found guilty in a trial? I'll give you a hint: It's entirely possible to be guilty of a crime, yet be found innocent in a trial.

It's really not complex, yet somehow you conflate a person's innocence with their guilt in a trial. Apparently, you think the two concepts are the same, when in fact they are completely different. Idiots like you drive me crazy

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (2)

sco08y (615665) | about 2 years ago | (#42087979)

She was found innocent

No, she was found not guilty and acquitted. There is a rather large difference. In the United States, the is a presumption of innocence [wikipedia.org] which means that in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt [wikipedia.org] the person is acquitted [wikipedia.org] of the charge. There is no statement about the innocence of the person.

No statement, except for the original presumption of innocence. We are all, for instance, affirmatively innocent of every conceivable crime that we haven't been tried for.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1, Insightful)

cvtan (752695) | about 2 years ago | (#42087883)

Keep in mind that the jury does not find anyone innocent. They get to say guilty or not guilty; there is no innocent. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087955)

I think more to the point, the media should stay completely away from lawsuits and police investigations concerning private individuals. They should be fined a few hundred thousand usd for every paper sold that contains the article.

This is circus for the masses. It only does harm to the case, the investigation and the person.

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42088147)

Does that apply to regualr people too? If i start a campaign to clear someone of charges, at exactly how many people do i become 'media'

Re:Are we still dragging this out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088143)

No. Powerful media figures are still trying to lynch her because she was a mother who was likes sex for sex's sake and parties. Damn the woman who didn't really want kids at all (but was coerced to because, you know, America reproductive laws) and doesn't make her whole life about her kid.

The prosecutor's incompetence = higher office. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087617)

No really, that's exactly what happened.

He blew it, he retired, he wrote a book...

Now he's a state prosecutor?

Clear Cache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087623)

So, just how effective is clear cache anyway?

Is it... foolproof?

Re:Clear Cache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087887)

http://www.google.com/search?q=foolproof+way+to+clear+evidence+of+computer+searches

Try not to be arrested while conducting this search.

Re:Clear Cache? (2)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 2 years ago | (#42088141)

In IE it doesn't clear anything but the cache that YOU can see. There are a number .DAT files (index.dat I think) that store your COMPLETE history. There are tools to recover this data and this is what this idiot used on her computer image. Firefox also has a database of browser history that I'm pretty sure is also NOT cleared just like IE. Chrome I'm least sure of but judging from the fact the other browsers may not clear history I wouldn't bet that it's any better - I'd be interested in hearing from someone that knows.

Also, the "secure" browsing that IE does? It caches things normally and then deletes them when you close the browser. It's far from "secure". In fact I'm not even sure it's a secure delete that's done. FireFox does this better, I assume Chrome does as well since of the three it handles security the best despite being based on WebKit.

I just searched for it myself...am I screwed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087633)

OK, so I searched for Foolproof Suffocation myself just now... does that mean I'm screwed forever if someone near me turns up suspiciously dead?

Re:I just searched for it myself...am I screwed? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42087681)

Yes it probably would. And where exactly is the issue? Police should investigate all angles.

Re:I just searched for it myself...am I screwed? (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 2 years ago | (#42087877)

That's one of those questionable items....

I search for a lot of things, because I don't know everything. When we're watching a TV show, I may do a quick search to see how plausible a portrayed scenario is.

Who's to say that someone else in the home did or didn't search for something else. Not everything is a conspiracy, sometimes it's just a coincidence.

Based on what came out about how the whole thing was handled, it doesn't sound like the murder was very organized. I'd find it hard to believe that she did any sort of in-depth research on how to do it, based on the result. We're only getting a snapshot of what was searched for. One item of thousands. If the other surrounding searches were related to suicide, then it portrays a grieving mother (or other family member) looking for a foolproof way to end their own life.

But hey, she was convicted by the media long before it went to trial, why not take everything as proof the courts are wrong.

Re:I just searched for it myself...am I screwed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087933)

Yes, especially if that someone drowned by falling into a pool instead of being suffocated.

Shades of OJ (4, Funny)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#42087635)

"If the search didn't hit, then you must acquit."

So? There are LOTS of reasons to search for that! (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#42087693)

Maybe she was planning some autoerotic asphyxiation and didn't know how to spell "asphyxiation!" Jeez, you people, always jumping to conclusions!

Re:So? There are LOTS of reasons to search for tha (3, Insightful)

dwye (1127395) | about 2 years ago | (#42087743)

Bad example, but still proves the point. This datum of a search would not be enough to shift someone from not guilty by reason that I am not sure to absolutely guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. This WOULD be worth something in a Wrongful Death lawsuit, where the standard is merely the preponderence of evidence, but no one has standing.

Re:So? There are LOTS of reasons to search for tha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087827)

foolproof suffocation orgasm

Re:So? There are LOTS of reasons to search for tha (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42087879)

You are right in that it's no proof in itself. What makes it suspicious is the timing.

Re:So? There are LOTS of reasons to search for tha (1)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#42088029)

You are right in that it's no proof in itself. What makes it suspicious is the timing.

And even the combination of search and timing aren't proof. But that's why we have juries, whose job it is to weigh the totality of the evidence. If the jury was teetering on the edge of convicting but could find just enough doubt to call it reasonable, perhaps this bit of information would have pushed them the other direction. Or not. But it's the sort of thing that should have been presented to them.

Re:So? There are LOTS of reasons to search for tha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088271)

Obviously we need to do a brain scan on everyone so we know the real truth!

She got away with murder... (-1, Troll)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42087735)

....in this life. Her true judgement will come after she passes onto the 'next' one. Same as it will for us all one day.

In the meantime, society should shun her. Karma can be a real bitch.

Re:She got away with murder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087863)

Actually, she'll change her name, live the next 50 years just like any other white trash from Florida, and then get buried in the ground for good.

Re:She got away with murder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087869)

Please leave your moronic superstitions outside. Here we discuss science!

Re:She got away with murder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087881)

Lord Blargzorxx (Ted to his friends) will reward her handsomely for her crimes. A mansion! A little bench in the garden from which she can laugh as the non-murderers burn in Hell!

I feel this to be true in my heart.

Re:She got away with murder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088047)

Another true believer! I'm glad I wasn't the only one to hear Ted's words from a bloody pool of a loved one's tragic ending. And you know it has to be true, because who would make up such a terrible and strange thing?*

*the entire premise of all holy books is exactly just as plausible.

Why is this Nancy Grace bait posted on /.? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087747)

What is the /. interest in this story? It already kinda disgusting how these local crime stories dominate the national media, but now that the case is over with double-jeopardy attached, it appears on /. just because a search term was involved? Big whoop.

Re:Why is this Nancy Grace bait posted on /.? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087853)

Because apparently using Firefox over Internet Explorer will help you keep your criminal searches hidden. If only Hans Reiser knew this, he could be finishing up ReiserFS5.

Re:Why is this Nancy Grace bait posted on /.? (3, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 2 years ago | (#42087943)

    No, it's that Slashdot has gone the way of all other mainstream media. If it involves any piece of technology, it falls into that mysterious "tech" category. Oohh, high tech, they used not one but *two* browsers. Someone in the house searched that intertube thing for something. They even used it to send private messages like "what r u up 2?" She must have been conspiring with the illumanti to distract from [some other bigger BS conspiracy]. It's the NWO washing your brain...

    I'm sorry, I can't continue. It's hard to lower myself to that level of stupidity. It hurts.

It's because she was SO CLEARLY GUILTY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42087839)

She killed her child and denied it despite forensic and circumstantial evidence -

More than the jury ever saw. Justice was not carried out, they came to the wrong result.
They decided there was not enough evidence to say she killed her child - but there was.

Whether or not killing your infant child "should" be this huge media spectacle or not,
that's not the issue, that's an artifact of our society that happens regardless.

The fact is, she OBVIOUSLY killed her child. Look at it.

Re:It's because she was SO CLEARLY GUILTY (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42088151)

No, given that the prosecution tried to phone it in, the jury came to the only conclusion they could come to. They got it right. If that verdict doesn't match the facts, crucify the prosecutor that couldn't be bothered to do his job properly even though he was handed a gimmee.

Newspaper access to hard drive? (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about 2 years ago | (#42088035)

Did the local newspaper actually get a copy of the hard drive?
"Repeated requests by Local 6 beginning in 2009 for a copy of the hard drive that contained the Internet histories were denied by the state attorney's office, which claimed -- correctly, it turned out -- it did not have the data in its possession."

This kind of request should be denied outright, not because they don't have it.

plus 1, Tr0ll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088095)

Sadness An3 it was my caaling. Now I charnel house.

Her google searches mean nothing (1)

Cito (1725214) | about 2 years ago | (#42088117)

I've googled

r@ygold
hussyfan
babyshivid
kingpass

Doesn't mean I've killed a killed, raped, and videotaped the aftermath of a kid.

I also have the old crappy anarchist cookbook, a ebook on better living through chemistry

as well as googling how to assassinate the president and get away with it.

also how to murder my wife in a dolcett fashion, or use ammonium nitrate and methanol to visibly protest against the city hall the raising of property taxes...

google searches mean squat.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>