3 ms·
That's not the proof you think it is (even if it does have the words "murder" and "search history" in it). If this is the best supporting evidence you could fin
by Godel_unicode 10y ago
That's not the proof you think it is (even if it does have the words "murder" and "search history" in it). If this is the best supporting evidence you could find, then I'm right, OP doesn't need to worry and can relax.
As long as he doesn't plan a murder several times, tell multiple people about it, solicit people to commit it for him, lie to the police when questioned, and leave multiple pieces of physical evidence he'll be just fine. The search history is one small piece of a large pile of evidence and was not the thing that tipped the scale. Were it not present, the outcome would likely have been the same.
Seriously, relax. You're over thinking it.
- marssaxman 10y agoThat was not the best evidence I could find; it was the first evidence I could find, after about fifteen seconds' search. This kind of thing happens all the time. It is not hard to turn up the proof if one cares to look. You are moving the goalposts. Previous poster said "incriminates me and is discovered with a subpoena". They did not say "to the exclusion of all other evidence". Search histories are already being used as evidence, this is indisputable. Nobody ever claimed they were being used as the only evidence.