Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief 198
Frosty Piss writes "Police in Finland have made an arrest for car theft based on a DNA sample taken from the blood found inside a mosquito. 'A police patrol carried out an inspection of the car and they noticed a mosquito that had sucked blood. It was sent to the laboratory for testing, which showed the blood belonged to a man who was in the police registers,' a police officer told reporters. The suspect, who has been interrogated, has insisted he did not steal the car, saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car. I'm wondering if the suspect should have denied any association with the car at all. After all, who knows where that mosquito had been?"
I can see it now: (Score:5, Funny)
Police officer: "We were able to extract the suspect's blood from a mosquito found in the car."
David Caruso: "Heh heh heh..."
David Caruso: "SUCKERRRRR!"
[ YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! ]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Better was the one where they got DNA from crabs. The kind of crabs that like it where the sun don't shine. DNA from the person with the crabs and EVERYONE who had, uh, shared them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of all the CSI characters, the one David Caruso does is by far the worst.
Who the hell walks up to anybody, and ALWAYS turns their body 45 degree's so they have to then turn their head to have a conversation? I mean, besides David Caruso.
I think he has a minimum number of 'pose' shots written into his contract, because that's all he does every episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Caruso is just plain bad and one of the reasons I never watch the show. Bad acting, horrible puns, stupid pose shots - I could go on.
Maybe should make him a special guest on Dexter! :)
Re:I can see it now: (Score:5, Funny)
Are cops also trained to insert a needless dramatic pause and moody look every five seconds? Thanks to David Caruso's constant posing, for a long time I thought CSI:Miami was a parody of Zoolander.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, in defense of the idea, when I've met people who have been combat trained (military/cops), they have a hard time turning it "off," even amongst family and friends.
Do not try to 'sneak up' on an army ranger; their phasers, I mean reflexes, are set to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I can see it now: (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, he's good. He's really good...
Of course, he's no Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris can stand at a 45 degree angle to everyone at the same time.
Re:I can see it now: (Score:5, Funny)
Who buys that ultra-nationalist, self-righteous, moralist crap?
Americans?
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Copiously missing from the post, and the article, was the part were they instantiated a clone based upon DNA extracted from the mosquito.
It was a Tyrannosaurus Rex!
Chuckle-chuckle snarf snort...
Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for you, Finland.
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Funny)
My girlfriend
[citation needed]
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Funny)
(DISCLAIMER: I don't actually know this site, but pulling up the jpg seemed safe enough for me)
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Funny)
My girlfriend's car was stolen a number of years ago, and when it was recovered, the police weren't even interested in taking fingerprints, despite the fact that there was damage inside the car and property was stolen out of it.
Good for you, Finland.
Not like Finnish police have anything better to do. There are no good donut shops in Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably just doughnut shops over there.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they wanted to finish the job
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Interesting)
I got it back about 3 weeks later, well "got it back" isn't quite accurate, it was a burnt out wreck. Guess who had to pay for it to be removed.
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:4, Interesting)
Not quite on the same thread, my car died on me on the way to work Saturday, right in front of a State Trooper.
Instead of finding out if I was okay when I didn't immediately move from the stop light when it turned green, he laid on his horn and pulled around me angrily and nearly spun his tires going around me glaring at me.
Then when I pushed it off the road into a parking spot (Watched by another trooper) and went home for our other car to jump start it (Alternator died on me, didn't take long to diagnose on the side of the road.) and drove it home, I came back to a parking ticket on the car I used to jump it when I came back for it ten minutes later (Walking, in 3* weather both to get the other car, and to get back to the first car, mind you.)
To Protect and Serve... who, exactly?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To Protect and Serve... who, exactly?
A revenue stream.
MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My girlfriend's car was stolen a number of years ago, and when it was recovered, the police weren't even interested in taking fingerprints, despite the fact that there was damage inside the car and property was stolen out of it.
Good for you, Finland.
No shit. My car was--"hotwired" and stolen--used as a getaway car for the criminal or criminals, who had stolen several thousand dollars worth of stereos & merchandise (not even counting the damage caused) from cars in a locked garage at my apartment complex.
There were used cigarettes (I don't smoke), a grimy bandanna, and other periphenalia in the car, and the cops didn't do jack shit. I want to move to Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the dark season up there now. Nothing better for them to do, I guess. In fact, now that I think about it, this must be really old news. Mosquitos in Finland all died months ago from the cold.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you tell that to murder victims as well? Extreme people like you give libertarianism a bad rap. One of the tenets of libertarianism is that the government protects individual and property rights - in this case a stolen car is definitely a violation of property rights and a rightful duty of the government.
The other aspects of this idea aren't even worth to try discussing, a complete nonstarter.
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Funny)
Although it gives me an interesting idea... see, I live just south of a large Libertarian enclave (let's just call it "New Hampshire") with vastly inferior numbers and resources than my own place of residence (we'll pretend it's Massachusetts), as well as holding a close political and ideological alliance with our common neighbor (that would be Vermont). My proposal is that we test their dedication to the abolition of federal government by raising a large militia, possibly including high priced Carolinian mercenaries, and looting the shit out of them. It will be the ultimate test: their lax gun regulations versus our actual ability to purchase weapons and possession of at least two active military bases... I expect the conflict to be almost as epic and drawn out as the invasion of Iraq.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you quite understand what would happen when you attack a free state where many people are armed on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you read too many fantasies, and not enough history.
In an anarchistic situation, "Strong men" gather gangs of supporters, each armed, and claim territory. The territory they want and think they can hold. Individual inhabitants already present have the choice of serfdom, exile, or termination.
Additionally, such a social structure won't support a dense population. Figure at least a 90% die-off. Within a decade (and that's optimistic). Who controls the water supply? Who fights fires? Etc. (Peas
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, that's why the US is still a British colony.
Re: (Score:2)
"See, without the federal gov't, we wouldn't have a standing federal army in peacetime, and you wouldn't have those active military bases."
You mean the ones manned by the National Guard and Air National Guard, both of which are considered to be militia rather than part of a standing military? If the Federal Government is dissolved, where exactly do you think the A-10s at Westover are going to be? or the interceptors at Otis?
"And I seriously doubt your budget, without any federal benefits, puts you ahead"
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is between having a public police force and having each person hire a bunch of thugs to protect him. I think I wasn't explicit enough.
It makes a huge difference. With all the problems it may have, the first option is civilised. The second is barbaric.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the Fight Club fantasy again are we?
Just to burst your 'toughguy' bubble, I'll remind you how little artillery you have, how few helicopters you have, the sorry state of your anti-aircraft weaponry and your total and complete lack of tanks.
Yeah, if it comes down to lawless gangwars, you're pretty fucked, dontcha think?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to burst your 'toughguy' bubble, I'll remind you how little artillery you have, how few helicopters you have, the sorry state of your anti-aircraft weaponry and your total and complete lack of tanks.
Yeah, if it comes down to lawless gangwars, you're pretty fucked, dontcha think?
I guess that depends. It's not as though a bunch of people armed with rifles [wikipedia.org] could make trouble for a force armed with helicopters and tanks. It's not like that at all.....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Incidental Redundancy?
Re: (Score:2)
How about I make you pay for it in insurance premiums instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong - the government is supposed to protect the nation and the society. If helping you happens to fit in with that, great! If not ... tough luck, bud.
That's why I'm a big fan of the right to bear arms. You can't depend on the government to protect you, nor should you have to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that but damn is being eternally vigilant impossible.
Sleeping with a pistol on the nightstand with one in the chamber and the safety off gets old quick.
I'm all for the second amendment, don't get me wrong. But going the gunslinger route leaves you open to the inevitable demise of that lifestyle, eventually you let your guard down and you get dealt the deadman's hand. One of the basic foundations of civilization is mutual defense. If you had everyone in a cit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not some lonely survivalist nut living off the land in the forests of Montana. I know that cooperative behaviour is a necessity for our species. Without it, not only would we not enjoy our current standard of living, but we'd have a tough time just surviving. The majority of complex species exhibit cooperative behaviour to one extent or another, so it's clearly a major factor for survivability.
All I'm saying is that the primary purpose of the government is NOT to look after y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm I think really that the rest of us just simply have better things to do with our time.
Sure we could grow a vegetable garden just in case everything goes to shit someday and we need veggies to survive - but the opportunity cost is quite high for most as it would mean purchasing more land in an area more remote from where we work.
Owning a gun likewise means a lot of responsibility - if you intend to actually know how to use it, and to ensure that it is in condition to be used.
Life is full of choices which
Re: (Score:2)
You're right - being prepared is hard work. Some of us learned that from a very young age, by reading the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. Being a responsible adult means sometimes doing difficult things that you'd rather not do. Tough. That's life. Abdicating responsibility by hoping that The Government, or God, or VISA will save you in times of trouble is simply childish.
I'm non-religious, but there's one point on which I agree with Mohamed: "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you, I just don't know what other country has a second amendment which allows the right to bear arms.
Too many factors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too many factors (Score:5, Funny)
...that mosquito could have come from almost anywhere...
Considering the medium, it could have come from a tax official.
Re:Too many factors (Score:5, Funny)
Did you just insult mosquitoes?
Re: (Score:2)
Very unlikely. They found blood in it. If it had come from a tax official there would have been no blood. Including mosquito blood.
Re:Too many factors (Score:4, Informative)
It was enough to question the guy, who admitted having been in the car, so the mosquito has proven to be a positive lead. Of course, the mosquito does not explain WHY the guy was in the car, but he could have left behind his wallet with ID and still used the same story.
-Restil
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt the investigators who questioned the guy said to him 'we found a mosquito with your blood in it...care to explain?'.
More likely they would have said 'we have DNA evidence that places you in the car...care to explain?'.
At which point, the guy probably is thinking they've got something indisputable...so he tells/makes up his story.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, the jury is allowed to think "he's not telling us why he was at the murder scene, he's got something to hide". I expect juries in the USA do this subconsciously (even if they're not meant to). I see no problem with officially codifying the areas where inferences such as these are acceptible.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's worse than that. It doesn't even show that he was ever in the car.
Re:Too many factors (Score:4, Informative)
by no means should this even remotely count towards conviction as that mosquito could have come from almost anywhere
Huh? It's called "circumstantial evidence".
1. Car was stolen.
2. They identified someone who was not the owner, and associated him with the car.
There could be a million completely reasonable stories about how it arrived there, so it's not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". However, it is real evidence, and the jury can weigh it along with everything else.
Similarly, if you find a murder weapon in someone's car, they might not have done it. Maybe they are being framed. Maybe it was stolen, used, and put back. However, that's for the jury to sort out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Yes he fucking did it - presumption of innocence is for juries, not Slashdot denizens.
We presume innocence because many of us have been screwed by the government "knowing you fucking did it" even though we were completely innocent of the crime. There are lots of holes in the case. Here's one:
- Was the mosquito flying around & sucking blood from pedestrians BEFORE it entered the car?
If so the mosquito contains blood from completely innocent people. Another hole is whether the police are ho
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of holes in the case. Here's one: - Was the mosquito flying around & sucking blood from pedestrians BEFORE it entered the car?
According to the article he's already admitted to being in the car. So in what way is that a hole in the case?
No, you shouldn't presume a party to be guilty unless they're proven guilty in a court of law. That has nothing whatsoever to the strength of the particular case as reported and everything to do with justice.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's been robbed (thrice) and detained/arrested twice I tend to agree with you. My innocence came out both times fairly quickly, once prior to Miranda the other shortly after. While I do think our penal system is hopelessly broken, I also firmly think that mosquito in car and a so-so story as to how he got there (lets face it, if he had been able to give an excellent description of the driver && || not already been known to the police he likely would not have been convicted). As it st
Nonsense, (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and my daddy can beat up your daddy. Grow up, dude. Don't say things anonymously on the Internet wouldn't say to someone's face if you want to be taken seriously.
I make a general policy not to reply to people without the juevos to post using their Slashdot names, but your self-righteous, inaccurate flame deserves a smackdown.
Innocent until proven guilty is a foundational tenet of a free society. It is not just some technical consideration for juries -- it is
Re: (Score:2)
The innocent-until proven guilty system, as well as other aspects of American criminal procedure, are just that - procedures, not substantive law - to protect the innocent. The US criminal justice system would rather let 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be convicted, since putting someone in a cage (or killing them, in rare cases) is a very serious thing. But innocent until proven guilty was never intended to prevent societal ostracization. That's what free thinking people do when they think someone
Yet more profiles in courage (Score:2)
Which law is that? Point me to American common or statutory law that says this. You simply can't. You are merely projecting and imputing your ignorance of American criminal procedure onto me and the legal system. This is free country. I can think what I want! No law says otherwise.
Of course, as a hysterical, know-it-all anonymous lib with no legal training wh
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Come now... as a fellow attorney you know better than to mislead the proles.
That particular legal proposition dates back to the reign of King Canute in 994-1035.
In more modern times i refer you to the 1762 treatise by Sir Michael Foster, Fosters Crown Law.
As your legal training has no doubt informed you, British Common Law is where most of our law
evolved from.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but how is this all relevant to my point, that presumption of innocence is a criminal procedure protection, not some law - or "tenet" as anon coward calls it - that I must follow. I'm still waiting for anon coward to tell me how he'd love to live next door to Michael Jackson and let his kids play over there.
Again, in America, we can think what we want, not what the government tells us to t
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution does not "grant" rights, it *recognizes* them.
Re: (Score:2)
A right which isn't recognized and protected by more men with guns than will attempt to violate that right is worthless. From a practical point of view, any right which hasn't been granted just doesn't exist.
Libelous story title? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't the story title contain the word "alleged"? As of this posting it does not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Someone who disapproves of a witch hunt?! He must be one of them! Tie him to an anker and see if this wickedness floats or not!
anker? (Score:4, Funny)
how do you tie someone to 8-1/2 gallons of liquid??
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Step 1. Write a comment with a spelling mistake
Step 2. Attempt to correct said spelling mistake
Step 3. Fail to correct said spelling mistake
Step 4. ????
Step 5. Profit
Now if only I figure out step 4, I could make millions of spelling mistakes and then retire comfortably.
Re: (Score:2)
Tie them to nine gallons of liquid and then take half a gallon away?
/
Re: (Score:2)
With 37 moose ankles.
Be more specific, please! (Score:2)
*sarcasm disclaimer*
"Tie him to an anker..."
Which type of anker [wikipedia.org] are you referring to? The car, or 10 gallons equivalent of beer, or (unspecified amount of) Indonesian beer, or the river Anker?
It could make a big difference on the demonstrated and expected results here.
If it was a typo, did you mean wanker, cranker, canker, or what?
It's not funny until you learn to communicate so that your audience can understand what you meant.
I think the word you were looking for could be anchor [wikipedia.org], from the context of your p
Re:Libelous story title? (Score:5, Funny)
Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (Score:2)
circumstantial evidence and to top it off... one really really stupid guy.
Mosquitoes are a winged creature. That means they fly. They are also attracted to human beings since they can detect us at ranges up to 40 miles. The fact that the mosquito was in the car is laughably circumstantial evidence. It could never even hold up in court.
What I find funny is the guy even admitted to being in the car. Unless the guy confesses to actually stealing the car I doubt a jury will convict based on a mosquito.
Afte
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is going to get convicted based on a mosquito. If he's convicted, it'll be based on the testimony he gave that he was in fact in the car. The mosquito would only come into play if the defense tries to claim there was no probable cause to question him in the first place..
If he hadn't admitted being in the car, or claimed otherwise, THEN the blood sample from the mosquito would play into court during the trial, and yes, without additional forensic evidence (fingerprints, etc), it's unlikely the mosqu
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to me that you are using "circumstantial evidence" almost as a synonym for "weak evidence". That is not necessarily the case.
Circumstantial evidence is evaluated in light of other assertions, and can be quite convincing with respect to specific assertions. For example, if the defendant asserts he could not have stolen the car because he'd been out of the country during the time the car was stolen, the forensic evidence of the mosquito, along with expert testimony from a mosquito biologist abo
Re: (Score:2)
Mosquitoes are a winged creature. That means they fly. They are also attracted to human beings since they can detect us at ranges up to 40 miles. The fact that the mosquito was in the car is laughably circumstantial evidence. It could never even hold up in court.
You just wrote your cross examination of the cop who thinks this is good police work.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquitoes [wikipedia.org]
Your statements don't seem to match up against reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is NOT reference. It is user-generated content. Never assume Wikipedia is 100% complete, or a *reference* for anything. Wikipedia is good for a quick review of certain subjects. However, one would do well to remember you are far betting off actually researching the links yourself for more information. Wikipedia is a good place to start to get your bearings on your search for truth. It's not your destination :)
"Ochlerotatus sollicitans: Oc. sollicitans is a saltmarsh breeder found primarily i
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's nice to bash Wikipedia. It does really threaten payed authors as it is far more updated than even the most recently published book or article. While there are very likely edge cases or uninteresting articles with one author that has many mistakes, high traffic Wikipedia articles are going to typically be far better than any other reference available. And they will also include a large list of further references to follow.
Don't you pay attention to Grisom? (Score:4, Interesting)
Its not just the fact that the persons DNA was extracted from the mosquito, but that it had not yet expelled it as waste. It wasn't digested if it still contained DNA usable for testing.
This means that they had a timeframe from which to work. Where was dude while buggy critter was digesting his blood? No alibi? Hah!
Re: (Score:2)
They already know where he was, he told them. He was IN THE CAR. The question is whether or not he stole the car, or was just getting a ride from whoever had stolen the car and had no idea it was stolen. If in fact he's telling the truth, the only likely alibi he could have would be the actual thief. He probably shouldn't bank on THAT guy showing up to testify on his behalf. :)
-Restil
Blabbing Mosquito Bastards! (Score:4, Funny)
Jurrasic Park (Score:4, Funny)
Seems like a simple case...
extract blood
grow clone
compare characteristics
???
justice!
can i add one more bullet?
make raptors!
Why didn't they waterboard the mosquito? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe he would have talked?
Or maybe the poor critter is enjoying a vacation at a resort in Cuba now.
mozzies in Finland? (Score:2, Funny)
damn, global warning is worse than i thought.
Why was his DNA in the system? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why was his DNA in the system? (Score:4, Informative)
In the land of Texas (Score:3, Insightful)
If that mosquito with its DNA and that miscreant were here in TX, this person would never get indicted for car theft. Here if they find fingerprints its probably much like the mosquito DNA. Those only mean the person was IN the car. The DA will happily file "possession" of a stolen vehicle. Its rarely "theft" because its difficult to prove someone stole the car.
So "possession" is really what we should be discussing here. That's way down on the proof scale.
The only regular automobile thefts that are indicted here are those bait cars that the police leave parked here and there. They have video and remote turn off.
Jim
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rrriight... (Score:2, Informative)
It's interesting to see that Yahoo News says it's quoting AFP on this one. What would be more interesting to hear if this is actually a AFP "news" or not. - And if so, it would be very interesting to hear who on AFP was drunk enough to come up with this... =)
Unfortunately stealing a car for joyriding in Finland is not a very big offence. Actually it's not even called stealing, but "unlawful use of motor vehicle". And I dare say the police would even have time to check a car's interior, let alone hunt for
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to see that Yahoo News says it's quoting AFP on this one. What would be more interesting to hear if this is actually a AFP "news" or not. - And if so, it would be very interesting to hear who on AFP was drunk enough to come up with this... =)
Have you been living in a barrel for the last week? AFP did not make up this. It was in the Finnish media a few days before it became an international hit.
And BTW. It's December here in Finland (like I guess it's in most parts of the world), and the mosquitoes died by September...
Of course, since all of this happened in summer, that's hardly relevant. Someone just happened to dig out a juicy tidbit out of the police archives only now.
Re:Just one observation (Score:5, Funny)
True, there were plenty of bloodsuckers on the OJ Simpson legal staff, but I'm not sure how testing their DNA would have helped much.
Re:Just one observation (Score:5, Funny)
Did the mosquito live?!
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, did they freeze it and preserve it's DNA? ;)
SB
Re:Advocating lying? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the suspect shouldn't have talked to the police at all. Never talk to police, consent to any kind of search, or offer anything that you aren't legally required to.
It can't help you.
Don't just take my word, how about a law professor [youtube.com] and a cop [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the suspect shouldn't have talked to the police at all. Never talk to police, consent to any kind of search, or offer anything that you aren't legally required to.
It can't help you.
Don't just take my word, how about a law professor [youtube.com] and a cop [youtube.com]?
If you're guilty, sure. But what if you didn't do anything. Non-cooperation would seem to arouse even more suspicion. Granted, there are alot of cops/DAs that simply want a collar/conviction, but if no one every cooperated with the police/investigators it would very hard to confict anyone. It also furthers an "us vs. them" mentality with respect to law enforcement and the general population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is something I have often wondered about regarding DNA evidence - given how easy it is to obtain just about anyone's DNA without their knowledge or consent, and then grow as much of it as you want, should it ever be used as evidence in court?
What is to stop criminals lacing a crime scene with an innocent person's DNA, or that of hundreds of innocent people? How about if police and judiciary were implicated in all major crimes?
I'm sure there is a good reason why this wouldn't be feasible, but the presum
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably some way to identify that the evidence - DNA or Blood - was not there at the time of the murder if that's what you're implying. That I don't know the answer to. Corroborating evidence comes, motive, opportunity, record, etc.
The one problem I can see is the vigilante cop (think Batman, Dirty Harry or Steven Segal). If they're so gung ho about taking down the bad guys and can't find any evidence to link them - or beat them up - isn't planting evidence the next best thing?
I'm just more concer
Re: (Score:2)
mosquitos are a real pest in finland. don't go hiking in finnish forrests without lots of repellent or they suck you dry.