4 ms·

My friends and I have always joked that if I'm ever on trial, my book collection will make me automatically guilty of whatever it is. Pretty sure you could make

My friends and I have always joked that if I'm ever on trial, my book collection will make me automatically guilty of whatever it is. Pretty sure you could make a convincing argument I'm behind Enron, Clinton's impeachment, and the fall of Iraq based on my book collection. Watergate and JFK's assassination too, despite my age. A friend was writing a technothriller screenplay and I did extensive research on nuclear weapons manufacture for him. I told him I hoped he appreciated how much I was adding to my file for his sake. I was half-kidding. I dunno. I get that this sort of thing is useful in court, but people are naturally curious about a lot of things. It doesn't always mean they're actually planning to do it all...

taeric 12y ago
There is a vast difference between using someone's curiosities to believe they are guilty of a crime, and investigating the individuals involved with a potential crime to see if one existed. That is, if they had just picked up the joining of everyone that had searched for the details of child death in a car with those that had had a child death, that would be different. In this case, they had suspicions already, and are stitching together details from computer history as well as cell records and such. This is all to say, when potential crimes happen, I personally think investigating them is not a terrible thing. Instant vilification is, but that is a different topic all together. Same for basically fishing for reasons of suspicion.