CNN reports that the Georgia dad Justin Ross Harris whose toddler son died after being left all day in a hot car was indicted by a grand jury Thursday on eight counts, including malice murder and two counts of felony murder. His motivation? The prosecutor has characterized Harris as an unfaithful husband who wanted a childless life. A key piece of evidence against Harris is that he searched for information about such deaths shortly before the incident occurred. According to police, Harris used his work computer to search for information about "child deaths inside vehicles and what temperature it needs to be for that to occur." Police seized Harris' computer as part of their investigation into 22-month-old Cooper Harris' death. His wife also searched the topic, police say.
Fifteen or 20 years ago, the notion of taking criminal evidence from a personal computer was as novel as the technology itself. Today, it seems commonplace and all over the headlines. The Justice Department also maintains a manual on electronic evidence (PDF) that's meant for investigators but covers in detail what can and can't be done legally
And then there's Casey Anthony. 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."
(Score: 1) by dyingtolive on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:00AM
That's hella depressing.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:52AM
Yeah, how does he expect to get away with such a thing?
Claiming he forgot? Really?
Even if he sells that with a sob story you know he's going to do time for manslaughter.
That being said, I have to keep my nose clean, because the stuff I search for on any random day could probably be construed any number of ways.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:08AM
Dumb criminals.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:16AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:58AM
dumb cops didn't notice Firefox was installed...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:55AM
Actually, the case of the Georgia toddler's death demonstrates the precise problem with the kind of digital evidence that the NSA gathers.
Let me say that like everyone else I really don't know if the guy is guilty or innocent. But I do not find the evidence presented so far to be compelling in any way and that the indictment means nothing at all, because as the saying goes a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. [google.com] That is because grand juries are not adversarial, the prosecutor presents their position and that is all the grand jury hears, the defendant isn't even represented in the process.
So we've got the fact that both parents searched for information about children dying in hot cars. Most parents I know have looked up similar information, the news is full of such stories, especially when the weather starts to heat up. So something absolutely normal looks suspicious when taken out of context.
The next piece of 'evidence' is that the father read up on living a "child-free life" -- any divorced dad knows that the court system awards mothers nearly full custody and that a dad is lucky to get every other weekend with his kids. The prosecutor spins that as a dad dreaming about getting rid of his kid, I say it is much more likely to be a dad (whom witnesses have said adored his child) dreading a life where he barely sees his kid.
The last piece of evidence is that the dad was sex chatting with women, even doing it while the kid was dying in the car. That is supposed to prove the guy is some kind of deviant who was turned on by the idea of killing his son. I see it the other way, the guy's marriage was on the rocks. He had been sex chatting with women long before this day, it was probably the best thing about going to work for him. He was so focused on flirting that he was even less likely to get that epiphany where he remembers he left the kid in the car.
That this "evidence" was gathered from the computers of the mother and father doesn't make it any different from what the NSA gathers - it is all pretty much "metadata." The problem with this evidence is that it does not include context. It lends itself to the worst possible interpretation and when it comes to the accidental deaths of children it is human nature to assume the worst [washingtonpost.com] because they don't want to even consider that they themselves might make the same mistakes. It is more comforting to believe that it happened because the father is a monster and since I'm not a monster my kids are safe.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:47AM
Maybe he's not guilty of malice murder, maybe not even of murder. But... forget your toddler son for a whole day inside a hot car? After you searched (to inform yourself) for the risks of death in such situations? One must be criminally negligent or pathologically absent-minded (e.g. deep depression or intelectualy disabled) for this to happen; well, deep depression and being sexually flirtatious doesn't quite fit my mind. It is more likely that, if the murder intent was indeed absent, at least criminal negligence [wikipedia.org] will stick.
Yes, if the single evidence for "mens rea" is the father reading on living a "child-free life", I'll admit that as circumstantial, the prosecutor should need to support it by other evidence (which may be available). But no, the other two points you mentioned and attempted to present as "artificial constructs" still amount as evidence (he was informed of the risks of children locked in closed spaces during hot days, wasted time and allowed himself to be distracted by engaging in sexting) and this evidence is indicative for the negligence.
Look, I'm not saying that collected digital evidence cannot be misconstructed and neither I'm saying I know for sure the guy is guilty/innocent.
All I'm saying is this case does not seem quite as a perfect example (for problems with digital evidence collection) as you try to sell: to my mind, at least 2 pieces of evidence you mentioned bear relevance to the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:12PM
> Maybe he's not guilty of malice murder, maybe not even of murder.
You have demonstrated the exact phenomenon described at the end of the OP.
You should read the link in there to the Pulitzer prize winning article at the washington post.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:45PM
The thing is, it's clear that prosecutors are just looking to find something to pin on someone. First they claimed mom and dad conspired and made much of the mother seeming 'too composed' when talking about the loss of her child. Now the story is that their marriage is on the rocks (so conspiracy between them unlikely) and it's all on dad (never mind the search mom did).
The fact is, these accidents do happen from time to time, thankfully not THAT often. The rational approach when malice isn't evident suggests no court and no punishment, the natural consequences are punishment enough and I have never heard of a second incident with the same parent.
(Score: 2) by McGruber on Saturday September 06 2014, @07:42PM
Gene Weingarten [wikipedia.org]) won his second Pulitzer Prize for his 2009 article
Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime? [washingtonpost.com]
Read that before you judge Ross Harris!
(Score: 1) by Qzukk on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:39AM
But be sure to take your kid out of the car first, lest you be tried for murder.