Sidhe, if we were generalising things to the point of being rediculous, I'd say you're more the "Let's make blind, ill-thought decisions based on anger and revenge, and shit all over due-process" type.

It's a good thing we're still being level headed, you silly bint

Do you think it's more likely that these cases are on TV because they are the norm, or because they are unique or remarkable in some way?

you've been here since november of 03. 780 posts as i write this. show me one instance of you changing your mind about something, or accepting that you were incorrect in your initial assesment, or that you overlooked something that makes you feel differently about something. just one, and I will apologize to you on bended knee and beg your forgiveness for calling you a moron. take your time.

I think Sidhe took me off her ignore list, does that count?

Now here I disagree with you, Sid. I've been in jail like I said in another thread. I was too poor to buy car insurance, drove my car, anyhow and got caught. Mandatory 30 days in jail, so off I went and paid my debt to society.

The free medical care consisted of an aspirin 3 days after you'd sent a "kite" (formal written request) to the deputy in charge of your floor. People had all kinds of SERIOUS conditions that they got no medical care for. I watched an epileptic go into seizures twice, for example, and nothing was done for her. A woman with MS was deprived of her medication, on and on.

Prisoners who had no lawyer (were acting in their own behalf) could go to the law library for two hours every other week. No one else was allowed NEAR the law library.

The three meals a day were scant and what there was was inedible. The firm that had the private contract of providing "food" to the prisoners was later found to be bilking the state out of thousands of dollars by shorting on prisoners portions among other things. I lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks. The inmates who had money were the ones who ate. They ordered weekly supplies of ramen from the prison commisary and paid with their own money.

The free clothes consisted of a thin set of short sleeved shirts and cotton trousers, no underware, no sweators, although it was Feburary and freezing cold. You felt the cold even more because you were always hungry.

There was no gym, no exercise facilities. If you tried walking around the ward to get exercise and a guard noticed you doing this, you would be ordered back to your pallet (most of us slept on pallets on the floor - bunks in the cells were reserved for a few "elite prisoners due to overcrowding).

The single TV was controlled by the guards and it was allowed to be on maybe a total of 4 hours a day, less if the ward was on "lock down" which seemed to be most of the time.


Maybe if I keep posting this experience enough, you'll actually read it one of these times, Sid. This is a true experience of someone who has actually been there - not some fairy tale made up by a newscaster who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and got the "for press only" royal tour by the warden which just so happened to not go by anything where the real prison conditions could be seen.

They told me that we women prisoners were "coddled" compared to the men. I shudder to think what conditions on their side were like.

Sidhe made the claim that she has "never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene." I find this very hard to believe.

Sidhe made the claim that she has "never heard of a murder case in which the murderer did not leave something at the crime scene." I find this very hard to believe.

If you cover your ears and say LALALALA often enough, you can "never hear" about most things.

What's a "bint"?:confused:

bint Noun. A woman. From the Arabic 'bint' meaning girl or daughter. Derog.

British colloq.

Thank You.:)

Don't know if you have Forensic Files in Canada, but it's a TRUE crime show that shows how forensics has been used to solve crimes. Real crimes that have been solved. Not make-believe.

Thank you, Wolf.

I realized that, because of something Wolf said to me in private, that she wasn't the way I thought she was, and I changed my mind about her. I was perfectly ready to continue to dislike her, period, until then.

Hey, I've been there too, remember?

You leave something everywhere you go, whether you commit a crime or not: hair, skin flakes, clothing fibers. It's whether they FOUND the forensic evidence or not .

How often do they pick crimes for which no evidence was found?

Stop treating DNA evidence like it's some light switch that turns on the "guilty" bulb over the killer's head.

DNA evidence CAN be contested in court, is sometimes overturned, is notoriously difficult to use conclusively, and is by no means perfect.

It's just another tool used by detectives, same as any other.

Back it up.

They put those on Cold Case Files.

What some people don't seem to realize is that you can mess up DNA to make it look like it isn't someone it IS, but you can't mess it up to make it look like it IS someone it ISN'T.

DNA is not as open to being contested as other types of tools. You know, I'll bet you're all for DNA evidence when it's exculpatory, and proves that someone has been imprisoned falsely, but are one of the first to talk about how it isn't perfectly accurate when it's used to convict someone, aren't you?

Let me look up the "rule" that says that. It's one of the first things they teach you in Forensics. Since one is constantly shedding skin flakes and hair, one leaves "evidence" of one's presence everywhere they go.

Proof?

*sigh*

It's an accepted "rule," proven enough so that it's been in use for close to a century. It was discovered by a scientist and named after him.

If you don't shed skin and hair, you're the only person in the world that doesn't.

And apparantly, it seems that even if I find it, it won't make a difference. You'll just keep wanting more "proof." Why don't you find a forensics forum and ask someone with a PhD? Or would you consider them to not know what they're talking about as well?

Okay. So why can't you provide the information?

I'm not arguing that. I just think it's possible to be in a spot at a particular time and not leave anything.

I merely asked you to back up your statement, and I don't think you have. If you don't want people to challenge your opinions and/or statements, then don't make 'em.

The point being that it's not always available. You cannot "make it mandatory".

OK you leave something everywhere you go, but so does everyone that passes by. How do you sort out the perp from all the rest?;)

SIDHE: If you don't shed skin and hair, you're the only person in the world that doesn't.

SYCAMORE: I'm not arguing that. I just think it's possible to be in a spot at a particular time and not leave anything.

~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~

ME: It's also possible for you to leave something behind that isn't found.

Or the fact that it is left behind doesn't mean a slam dunk conviction. Bloody glove, anyone?

No doubt...I mentioned that earlier.

My coworker was decomposing for a month-month and a half before Norristown's finest thought to ask his live-in girlfriend

1. "Can we take a peek in the basement?"

2. "What's that smell?"

(Eau d'Deadguy is quite distinctive. The neighbors had been complaining for several weeks about the stench.)

From the first DAY that he didn't show up to work I was telling people "Sam's dead. She killed him. He's in the basement, wrapped in plastic."

Guess where and how they found him?

Man, that's horrible.

Truly horrifying.

Oh, and BAAhahahhahahahhaha

Wait a minute...was that the one that made the news a few years ago?

Yeah, it pretty much sucked.

Sam was a good guy.

It was also a bad year for our hospital I think I mentioned it elsewhere ...

Suicide of a former ambulance crew member (actually late 2001, but we count her into the list)
Suicide of a psychologist
Sudden death (unknown cause) of a 25 year old staff member
Heart attack and death of an elderly staff member
Sam's murder.
Part time nurse drank herself to death.

I may have gotten the order wrong, but I don't want to have to redo 2002. Please.

edited to add: I should clarify ... the police DID search the house when our hospital (not the girlfriend, despite what the news reports say) reported Sam missing. She had him hid better at that time, moved him a couple times according to reports.

That sounds like a pretty sobering line of work.

Sometimes. Again, 2002 was not typical.

NO. And I'm not just joking around. I really don't remember. The way I manage on this board is to refer to the handy list of posts under each thread. If somebody posted something a while back in a different thread, I'm lost since I don't have it right under what I'm writing to refer to. The only reason I remember that I'd posted about my experience before is because it was the first time I'd "told" anyone about it except my two closest friends. I thought everybody might think I was some awful person when I 'fessed up to the experience. But I don't remeber which thread it was or what we had originally been discussing.:confused:

Is that where that comes from? fabulous I didnt know. Great word bint. As is maud. (northern slang meaning girlfreind or wife)

Haven't heard 'maud' before. Will remember to use it instead of bint occassionally (great adjective). Have you heard of 'mare'? (Could take this as (night)mare or 'you are a horse'.)

Mare is both a derogatory name for a gal, and a horrid situation (shortened "nightmare"), you're right.

I've also heard the term "Larry" thrown around.

"I spilled the beer, I'm such a larry!"

The female equivalent is Sue.

And if you want to get flamboyant, switch Larry with "Pierre".

My apologies to anybody named Larry, Sue and Pierre.

Lol. You're such a Geneveve!

*shrugs* Check it out for yourself:
Forensic Files:
http://www.forensicfiles.com/

I think it's becoming the norm. Forensic Science, over time, has become more advanced and is now able to seek out and convict more criminals. Even cold cases are being reopened more because of new evidence that has been found:

Cold Case Files:
http://www.aetv.com/tv/shows/coldcasefiles/

How is linking to 2 television episodes backing up your argument?

They are based on Facts. Plus, I made it clear (I thought) in my reply to jinx. So maybe I should have elaborated more with my response with you perhaps?

Ok then. The "troublesome cold hard facts" that you spoke about is what those shows are all about. Pretty simple.

Yes, you said that, and three or four of us said that those shows glorify the "special cases" where the evidence is solid, forensics could be readily and reliably used, and it made good TV.

We're arguing that the vast majority of cases aren't as clean cut as to be featured on a television show, and so television is a heavily biased and unreliable source of evidence.

In short, these shows display the "good" cases, and not the ones where DNA evidence fails.

Oh well. I suppose you're right...wouldn't be worth watching if the evidence failed to nail someone.

But, I did some surfing on it:

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence:
http://bioforensics.com/articles/cha...champion1.html

It made for an interesting read. Asks if the laboratory's conclusions fully supported by the test results and more. It gets quite detailed.

"I merely asked you to back up your statement"

I'm looking for it right now. When I find it, I'll let you know.



"OK you leave something everywhere you go, but so does everyone that passes by. How do you sort out the perp from all the rest?"


Say, for instance, you find fingerprints in a house. First you eliminate those that belong to anyone who lives in the house, then those belonging to guests, say....after you've eliminated those people as suspects, if there are unidentified prints, you look for matches in a database.

That's just an example, though. That's not how it works all the time.

A friend of mine who worked at the hospital got murdered, too. She lived in one of the New Orleans suburbs, like Metarie, or something. They found her wrapped in a shower curtain in her apartment, two weeks after she died.

She had diabeties, so they're looking at that as a cause. I'm not sure if she was "wrapped" in a shower curtain or had, say, fallen in the shower and got caught in it.

However, she was dating a former mental patient (you'd think she'd know better), and both he and her truck were gone.

I haven't heard anything on it in over a year, though, so I don't know what the cops found out.


I guess psychology isn't a very safe business to be in...

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040610/5bca...a1ddc8c_1.html


Judge offers choice of jail or vasectomies to deadbeat dads.

"Family court judges in Ohio and Wisconsin have imposed similar restrictions on deadbeat dads. The pre-eminent case, Wisconsin v. Oakley, No. 99-3328, went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case of a five-year conception restriction imposed on a defendant who fathered nine children and owed $25,000 in unpaid child support"

"A March 31 decision by Monroe County, N.Y., family court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ordered an allegedly drug-addicted homeless couple to stop having children. The case, In the matter of BobbiJean P., No. NN 03626-03, was a first in New York. The couple's four children were placed in foster care last year and the woman is pregnant again. The judge determined that they should be given free family planning to prevent future pregnancy. The 35-year-old mother is identified in court papers only as Stephanie. Rodney Evers, 54, is the father of three of the four children, including a 6-year-old boy. The younger children, ages 4, 2 and 1, tested positive for cocaine at birth."

*shrugs* I don't see what the problem is (to anyone who has a problem with it). Those examples are perfect cases for this, IMO. No one is being forced to do this. It's a perfectly viable option to choose. Why bring another life into the world that you can't properly care for and afford? It's madness that ppl in the most negative situations are the ones having all these kids.

:confused:

The "rule"
 

The Locard Principle. “Every Contact leaves it’s trace”

Professor Edmond Locard (1877), Founder and Director Institute of Criminalisitcs, University Lyons, France

In the United States a court decision went further with the following

"WHEREVER HE STEPS, WHATEVER HE TOUCHES, WHATEVER HE LEAVES, EVEN
UNCONSCIOUSLY, WILL SERVE AS SILENT WITNESS AGAINST HIM. NOT ONLY HIS
FINGERPRINTS OR HIS FOOTPRINTS, BUT HIS HAIR, THE FIBERS FROM HIS CLOTHES,
THE GLASS HE BREAKS, THE TOOL MARK HE LEAVES, THE PAINT HE SCRATCHES, THE
BLOOD OR SEMEN HE DEPOSITS OR COLLECTS --- ALL OF THESE AND MORE BEAR
MUTE WITNESS AGAINST HIM. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT FORGET. IT IS
NOT CONFUSED BY THE EXCITEMENT OF THE MOMENT. IT IS NOT ABSENT BECAUSE
HUMAN WITNESSES ARE. IT IS FACTUAL EVIDENCE- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE
WRONG; IT CANNOT PERJURE ITSELF; IT CANNOT BE WHOLLY ABSENT. ONLY ITS
INTERPRETATION CAN ERR. ONLY HUMAN FAILURE TO FIND IT, STUDY AND
UNDERSTAND IT, CAN DIMINISH ITS VALUE.”
(Harris Vs. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 1947)

Today the following is taught and practiced in crime scene work:

Theory of Transfer

(A) The perpetrator will take away traces of the victim and the scene.
(B) The victim will retain traces of the perpetrator and may leave
traces of him/herself on the perpetrator.
(C) The perpetrator will leave behind traces of himself at the scene.


There ya go.

Sidhe


edited for sp.

Interesting...but not a hard fast rule. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Not "There you go", damnit.

The argument is that the perpetrator always leaves DNA evidence on the scene.

Of course there will always be SOME form of marking or evidence in a crime, I was under the impression we were arguing with regard to viable biological evidence.

Finding a sneaker imprint is a fuckload different than a fingerprint, hair follicle, and blood sample.

I'm (and others are) saying that not everybody leaves behind DNA!

Your quote is self-evident and meaningless to this argument.

Actually, my argument is that it is theoretically possible not to leave something behind...you're on asphalt (no footprints), the skin cells and hair stick to your clothes, fibers don't come off your clothing at one point. I don't doubt that more often than not, you're gonna leave something behind, but I don't think it's definite.

if you killed some one in two feet of surf, and they washed out to sea to float for 3 days, then washed back up on a different beach what evidence would there be?

If you killed someone from a windy belltower at a great distance with a high powered, silenced rifle while dressed in leather from head to toe.

if you stabbed someone in the heart with an icecicle while it was snowing very hard.


if you pushed someone off of a cliff while gloved


if you poisoned a stranger's drink while in line at Arby's and didn;t touch them or their drink


no evidence. certainly no dna.

Wait, let me write these down.

I don't have time to look back through the thread but has the point been brought up that the presence of someone's DNA somewhere doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed a crime?

Coupla times, bud.

So this thread is as relevant and useful as the word association thread then.

Spot on, yes. Kill it!

Originally posted by lumberjim
if you killed some one in two feet of surf, and they washed out to sea to float for 3 days, then washed back up on a different beach what evidence would there be?

Beach sands differ. So do microrganisms in the water. Some of this evidence could remain on the body, and would certainly remain on your shoes and in your clothing. You, in killling the individual will have acquired traces of their DNA. (This is true of any of your scenarios.)

If you killed someone from a windy belltower at a great distance with a high powered, silenced rifle while dressed in leather from head to toe.

marks on the bullet tie it to your gun. marks on the shell casing tie it to your gun. Powder residue on YOU tie you to your gun. chemistry of the powder load ties you to the bullets you bought. Bits and pieces of the leather can be left at the belltower.

if you stabbed someone in the heart with an icecicle while it was snowing very hard.

struggle ensues, blood transfer occurs. them to you.

if you pushed someone off of a cliff while gloved

your dna is on the inside of the gloves, theirs to the outside. shoeprints and other marks will further build the case that you were present.

if you poisoned a stranger's drink while in line at Arby's and didn;t touch them or their drink

access to poison. video surveillance camera will reveal your presence and contact with stranger. the chemical composition of the poison will have unique characteristics. purchase records of the poison or consitutents for homebrewing will exist. traces of the storage and/or manufacture of the poison will also trip you up.


no evidence. certainly no dna.

plenty of evidence. plenty of DNA.

Didn't you see the CSI game prominently figuring in the picture of my desk in that thread?

I can do that. ;)