It looks like Neil Entwistle is guilty as sin. But do you think it is acceptable to have one's internet surfing history admitted as evidence? That is, acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law precedent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linked Story WOBURN - The defense team for Neil Entwistle suffered a series of setbacks yesterday, including testimony from a computer specialist that the British man used his laptop to research "how to kill with a knife" four days before he allegedly shot his wife and baby in their rented Hopkinton home.

Entwistle defense team faces setbacks - The Boston Globe

Why not if it's pertinent to the case?

__________________

Sure. Why not? Don't do anything that can come b ack to haunt you later, and you won't have a problem.

How is that any different from getting a search warrant to go through your underwear drawer ?

__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

"But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
-George Bernard Shaw

Did you read the link? This dude is a done deal, computer or no, IMO.

I wasn't aware this was a question. I thought law enforcement had been searching PCs for years for just such evidence.

__________________
You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT

There are a couple of questions here. The first is the admissibility of evidence (no, I'm not taking a narrow legalistic view). My personal view is that all evidence should be admitted if it's relevant. Its probative value can be weighed up by the court later but if it's even remotely relevant it should be put in front of the jury.

The second question is how far police should be able to go in terms of searching for evidence. Personally I have no problem with police being able to search his computer. The crime alleged is the most serious. I think the police should be allowed to search anything of his for evidence as soon as he becomes a suspect.

If anyone is familiar with the differences between common law and European civil (ie derived from Roman Law) systems they'll see on which side I fall.

__________________
I've seen the wild horses, I've heard the bull roarers

I can't believe most everyone here got the question wrong. But there you are...saying how wonderful they all are.

<*grin>

my answer is "no" ... final answer

__________________

This space has been leased out. Try again next time.

"I am not so much for State's rights as I am for the people's rights."

okie dokie

__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

"But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms."
-George Bernard Shaw

This evidence would have to declared inadmissable. He researched "how to kill with a knife", and he used a gun. If he had researched "how to kill with a gun", then I would say go for it.

Why inadmissible? I would think there's sufficient relevance to render it admissible due to relevance. What exclusionary rule would see it booted?

__________________
I've seen the wild horses, I've heard the bull roarers

We who use the net, ALL live in glass houses.

Is it right?

Of course not.

Every word we write on these board is stored, for future reference, folks.

I know that makes me sound like a paranoid, but it is the truth.

Based on my eclectic surfing patterns you could make the case (if that was your agenda) that I am a right wing fantatic, a left wing fanatic, or just about anything you chose to prove about me by the specious logic of innudendo and insinuation.

I say specious logic because evidence that you read about something surely does not PROVE anything except that you can read.

It is though, in this case, valid because it proves that he was researching what could have been means to kill his now dead wife. Reasonable search and reasonable inference for a Jury to decide based on all the evidence if it means anything.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Well if the ONLY proof that a child molester was actually producing child porn on the internet then I guess by your stadards a child molester should go free.

__________________
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

Not really having enough information about this case, I can't decide what is a reasonable inference in this case.

But I understand you point, well enough. It has validity.

My objection is really about the wholesale invasion of our internet privacy generally, not specifically directed at this case.

But in THIS case they had a valid search warrant. No invasion at all. The man was accused of murder and the cops had enough probable cause to get a warrant. His computer and his actions on said computer are not somehow safe from that process. Anyone that thinks so is sorely lacking in facts on how our system should and does work.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)