Possible to incriminate yourself on boards?

[Thirdfox]

I was just reading through some threads on the legal discussion when I found posts made by people saying that they have broken the law. My question is, is it possible to instigate a criminal prosecution on the evidence of a confession on an online forum?

e.g. I said "I murdered someone last night in XYZ" in the Arts & Hobbies section - can the DPP charge me with murder?

And what about confessions in general? They are not absolute proof, correct? The DPP still needs to find other evidence to support his/her case right?

[dbnavan]

Originally Posted by Thirdfox

I was just reading through some threads on the legal discussion when I found posts made by people saying that they have broken the law. My question is, is it possible to instigate a criminal prosecution on the evidence of a confession on an online forum?

e.g. I said "I murdered someone last night in XYZ" in the Arts & Hobbies section - can the DPP charge me with murder?

And what about confessions in general? They are not absolute proof, correct? The DPP still needs to find other evidence to support his/her case right?

DPP would have to prove that they actually posted the information, I know of a case that collapsed over something similiar

[Sean_K]

also what we say here may not be true at all, we are under no real obligation to tell the truth

[slumped]

Originally Posted by sean_keevey

also what we say here may not be true at all, we are under no real obligation to tell the truth

Now is Sean_Keevey telling the truth when he says that?

[mountainyman]

Originally Posted by sean_keevey

also what we say here may not be true at all, we are under no real obligation to tell the truth

All unsigned unsworn written evidence must be proved that is a basic principle of the common law.

What about a google video lick to a blurred mobile footage of a rape. With the header 'Look What I Did Last Night'. The perp is not identifiable.

MM

[hullaballoo]

I think that what is said on here can go towards the prosecution as swaying evidence, but it's hardly possible to run an entire prosecution on what is very much inconclusive evidence.

There is no way of being 100% certain that a particular person is posting certain stuff.

If someone has incriminated themself on this website, it might be an idea to PM them, just so that the admins don't start getting hassle over it. I know that there have been recent cases where website administrators have been forced to hand over certain information about users, for example:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03..._libel_payout/

[Eru]

It would be grounds for reasonable suspicion and a follow up investigation looking in your direction but I could not see it being used in evidence, way too easy to counter and almost impossible to pin on a specific person.

[rsynnott]

Even in the child porn investigations where vast resources have been thrown at the problem, it seems to have been very difficult to conclusively link an internet person with a real person. I can't imagine boards posts could be used as evidence, though they could presumably arouse suspicion and trigger an investigation that way.

[Victor]

First off, is a statement like that going to trigger a complaint? It’s not like we can see the blood-soaked knife in your hand and the demented look in your eye.

It is perfectly possible to incriminate yourself and it may be easier to prove than you think. IPs are tracked by websites. IPs are matchable to telephone records. Many people, when logging onto the internet, need passwords. In a single internet session a person may visit a number of sites and log-on to each one. While one of your passwords may be compromised, it would be less often that all your passwords are compromised (you do use different passwords, don't you?). Then you have speech / typing patterns (some people repeat particular phrases or make the same mistakes persistently). Then browsing habits and other behaviours like "Post reply" -v- "Post Quick Reply". It can all point very closely to the behaviour of one individual.

Now I don't think such evidence will convict by themselves, but if you have bloods stains in your bathroom, your wife is missing following a huge row that was witnessed by others and you have a history of violence, its certainly enough to point fingers and get an investigation going.

[rsynnott]

Originally Posted by Victor

First off, is a statement like that going to trigger a complaint? Its not like we can see the blood-soaked knife in your hand and the demented look in your eye.

It is perfectly possible to incrimiante yourself and it may be easier to proove than you think. IPs are tracked by websites. IPs are matchable to telephone records.

The problem is that someone's computer may have been compromised. They may have a wireless network. Etc.

Originally Posted by Victor

Many people, when logging onto the internet, need passwords.

They do indeed. ISPs don't record them. (Except for the ISP's own password). Most passwords are over HTTPS these days, anyway.

Originally Posted by Victor

Then you have speech / typing patterns (some people repeat particular phrases or make the same mistakes persistently). Then browsing habits and other behaviours lies "Post reply" -v- "Post Quick Reply". It can all point very closely to the behaviour of one individual.

Indeed. Actually, writing style would probably be the best solid evidence you'd get.

Originally Posted by Victor

Now I don't think such evidence will convict by themselves, but if you have bloods stains in your bathroom, your wife is missing following a huge row that was witnessed by others and you have a history of violence, its certainly enough to point fingers and get an investigatin going.

That would be my thought, yes.

Actually, people have confessed to murder on blogs and stuff, then been found. The blog alone wouldn't be useful evidence tho.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by rsynnott

The problem is that someone's computer may have been compromised. They may have a wireless network. Etc.

Sure, but will that other person have the passwords to my e-mail acccounts and boards.ie?

Alibis or lack thereof, and any other tiem based evidence, may be useful for things like this.

They do indeed. ISPs don't record them. (Except for the ISP's own password). Most passwords are over HTTPS these days, anyway.

but websites do record log-ons.

Indeed. Actually, writing style would probably be the best solid evidence you'd get.

But someone could have analysed the posters writing style and tried to copy it.

Actually, people have confessed to murder on blogs and stuff, then been found. The blog alone wouldn't be useful evidence tho.

It will have its uses, depending on its contents and circumstances. It will readily provide intelligence. Specific entries, trawling billions of pages of internet documents might be counter-productive.

[Eru]

Originally Posted by rsynnott

Actually, people have confessed to murder on blogs and stuff, then been found. The blog alone wouldn't be useful evidence tho.

The use in evidence for this would/could be if the confession included information not within the public domain.

We are aware that in America and to a lesser extent, Ireland and the UK, information is withheld or misfed to the media therefore allowing easy identification of copycats or hoaxes.

[NUTLEY BOY]

Surely the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the apparent poster and the accused are the same entity before that piece of evidence could be put before a jury. Mind you it might constitute credible circumstantial evidence which could nail you when combined with all the other evidence.

By the way if you are going to commit a murder and then boast about it don't post idiosyncratic facts that might only be known to the offender and the gardai..........

[Karoma]

I tried looking up laws regarding something similar. However, I'll be damned if I can find any detailed Irish laws relating to use of the Internet (It's almost as if there is none.)
From my reading (Based mostly on neighbouring countries):
I believe that the 'confession' would be admissable as evidence in a court provided the technique of linking the post to the poster is well-established.
Even so, it would leave doubts in the mind of a jury / judge.
I think it's main use would be as grounds to start an investigation. However, to convince a judge & ranking officer of the Gardaí that it is valid and worthwhile persuing the matter is another story. I could only see them bothering if it were a very serious crime. This in itself should prove to be most beneficial (One would hope that a skilled and experienced interrogator could get the 'poster' to admit, in a signed statement that they at least posted it,and at best committed the crime.)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Karoma

I think it's main use would be as grounds to start an investigation. However, to convince a judge & ranking officer of the Gardaí that it is valid and worthwhile persuing the matter is another story. I could only see them bothering if it were a very serious crime. This in itself should prove to be most beneficial (One would hope that a skilled and experienced interrogator could get the 'poster' to admit, in a signed statement that they at least posted it,and at best committed the crime.)

Well, they will either be getting a conviction for the main offence or for wasting Garda time.