Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the plausible-deniability dept.

Medicine 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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I can see it now: (5, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206645)

[ Intro to latest CSI: Miami episode as ripped from the headlines: ]

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:I can see it now: (2, Informative)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206675)

Grissom from the original CSI was the bug guy...infact in a few episodes they got DNA from maggots.

Re:I can see it now: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206805)

I know. I just thought that CSI: Vegas series had alredy ended and I also had to shoutout to a meme [tinypic.com] .

Re:I can see it now: (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207021)

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:I can see it now: (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206865)

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:I can see it now: (0, Offtopic)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207095)

I think he has a minimum number of 'pose' shots written into his contract, because that's all he does every episode.

Apart from saving all the orphans and widows in the planet, finding a cure for cancer, defeating all the evil blood-thirsty dark-skinned terrorists all by himself, and so on. Reminds me of some bad 80's "tough guy" American movies.

CSI NY and LV are pretty cool but the Miami one seems targeted at a different audience. Who buys that ultra-nationalist, self-righteous, moralist crap?

Re:I can see it now: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207437)

You're kidding, right? That's the way a cop SHOULD stand. It keeps their gun away from whoever they are talking to and makes them more difficult to push.

Re:I can see it now: (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207493)

I suppose this is a possibility, but then he must be assuming everybody is about to snatch his gun. Close friends, colleagues, family, dead people. Even when he doesn't have a weapon on him. Hell, he does it standing in the open (tarmac's, parking lots), with nobody around.

Re:I can see it now: (2, Interesting)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207767)

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:I can see it now: (1)

Maxmin (921568) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207273)

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...

first post? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206667)

or first blood?

Just one observation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206681)

This could have helped out during the OJ Simpson trial...

Re:Just one observation (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206831)

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 (4, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207145)

Everyone is missing the VITAL question here!

Did the mosquito live?!

Re:Just one observation (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26208039)

  More importantly, did they freeze it and preserve it's DNA? ;)

SB

Re:Just one observation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207649)

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.

oh come on, you make it sound like sucking blood is a bad thing.

Bite me, pleeeease ;-) [katebeckin...allery.com]

Those Finns are dedicated (4, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206689)

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.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206709)

My girlfriend

[citation needed]

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (5, Funny)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206785)

Seriously. She's my wife now. I was very young when I met her... This is our first date [funnypicturesworld.com]

(DISCLAIMER: I don't actually know this site, but pulling up the jpg seemed safe enough for me)

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (4, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206741)

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:Those Finns are dedicated (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207371)

Probably just doughnut shops over there.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (4, Interesting)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206827)

Agree, my car was stolen, whilst parked next to an occupied Police car, I was only away from it for about 10 minutes. Did I get any assistance? Nope. They "Didn't see anything". Good old Hampshire Constabulary.

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 (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207349)

Our car was robbed, too. We checked into a hotel and left mostly clothes in the car. Sometime late at night, some thieves busted our car up and stole all our clothes. They left (thankfully) a laptop, but they got some jewelry. In doing so, they cut themselves on the broken glass and left a good bit of blood and bloody tissues behind. The thieves got thousands of dollars of stuff, such as my mother's jewelry, and almost all of my dad's clothes, including suits. The lovely North Carolina police did not collect any evidence. They did not even really question anyone. They simply suggested it was the work of drug addicts and left us, for more donuts, I suppose. They were more interesting than actually earning that taxpayer money.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207539)

Well seeing writing traffic citations is the most important thing for the police to do they most likely had to get back to writing tickets..... After a trip to get donuts.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (-1, Flamebait)

SamsLembas (1278956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206967)

Hire your own investigator. Don't make me pay for it in taxes.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207047)

Are you fucking kidding? Are you really advocating police privatization? I mean, I knew we had some particularly retarded libertarians here, but you are the worst by a long shot.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (1)

beckerist (985855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207743)

He isn't a libertarian. The government is supposed to protect us, a fundamental right we get for paying taxes. Libertarians, while agreeing the government should be smaller, still feel that there are SOME necessities to government, including this. This guy is just trying for flamebait.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (2, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207051)

Hire your own investigator. Don't make me pay for it in taxes.

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 (4, Funny)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207115)

Cool, let's just drop police altogether and hire a bunch of thugs to protect us. Then we can happily go back to the Middle Ages.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207197)

I fail to see the difference.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207337)

Well. Cops don't protect.....

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207359)

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:Those Finns are dedicated (5, Funny)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207423)

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:Those Finns are dedicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207663)

Nope -- begging the question!

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. So your proof that the federal gov't is needed is only valid given the existence of said gov't, or its dissolution with allocation of its resources in a peculiarly beneficial fashion to your side.

And I seriously doubt your budget, without any federal benefits, puts you ahead, as the Vermonters are on the defensive. If they've reason to suspect a possible invasion, they get at least 3:1 odds.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (1)

kd5zex (1030436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207617)

Cool, let's just drop police altogether and hire a bunch of thugs to protect us.

That is the funniest thing I have read all day.

I can't think of the literary term for that but there has to be one.

Thanks for the laugh!

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207759)

Cool, let's just drop police altogether and hire a bunch of thugs to protect us. Then we can happily go back to the Middle Ages.

Just like in New York and Los Angeles. And they didn't even have to go through the trouble of dropping the cops.

Re:Those Finns are dedicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207485)

Girlfriend?

Too many factors (4, Insightful)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206695)

I could see the mosquito based evidence as enough to consider him a suspect, maybe even to get a search warrant perhaps (although that's already a stretch), but by no means should this even remotely count towards conviction as that mosquito could have come from almost anywhere. Still if finding the DNA in the mosquito leads them to find actual evidence, I suppose it's okay.

Re:Too many factors (4, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206763)

...that mosquito could have come from almost anywhere...

Considering the medium, it could have come from a tax official.

Re:Too many factors (5, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206793)

Did you just insult mosquitoes?

Re:Too many factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206867)

I've been bitten by a mosquito tax collector, you insensitive clod!

Re:Too many factors (3, Informative)

Restil (31903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206797)

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:Too many factors (2, Insightful)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207331)

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:Too many factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26208011)

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.

Which is why it's always best to say nothing to the cops. Nothing. Let your lawyer do it.

Watch this law professor's lecture as to why you should ALWAYS say nothing to the cops:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en [google.com]

You have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Re:Too many factors - devils advocate (1)

tg123 (1409503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206839)

I hate to be the devils advocate but -

A good lawyer should be able to get you out of this one.

do the police have pictures of the mosquito in the car?

Is it the same mosquito ?

who's to say the mosquito didn't come from somewhere else?

unfortunately (fortunately ?) the suspect has linked himself with the crime. "saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car" which will make the lawyers job much harder.

Re:Too many factors - devils advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207075)

I hate to be the devils advocate but -

A good lawyer should be able to get you out of this one.

do the police have pictures of the mosquito in the car? Yes!

Is it the same mosquito ? Chain of evidence affidavit so yes!

who's to say the mosquito didn't come from somewhere else? The cops who took it's picture then extracted it from the car.

unfortunately (fortunately ?) the suspect has linked himself with the crime. "saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car" which will make the lawyers job much harder.

Yes he linked himself to it because he has actually watched a couple of episodes of CSI and KNOWS that they take those pictures, and file those affidavits.

Re:Too many factors - devils advocate (1)

tg123 (1409503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207607)

Sorry, I was not being clear . I will explain myself better.

I do not think this is evidence that should be admissible and a good lawyer would get this thrown out of court.

Re:Too many factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207109)

Hope the mosquito was unharmed and is under witness-protection

Why does /. always side with the crook? (-1, Troll)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207163)

God forbid we actually catch bad guys. Why isn't anyone here concerned about the bad things crooks do? Are we really afraid that the government is going to round up people based on mosquitoes?

Even the article submitter:

I'm wondering if the suspect should have denied any association with the car at all.

Well, I'm wondering if the suspect should have 1) not stolen the car or 2) confessed and taken responsibility for the crime and turned his life around. Yes he fucking did it - presumption of innocence is for juries, not Slashdot denizens.

It's like you guys all want the crooks to get away. I know they say 'a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested' and 'a conservative is a liberal who's been robbed', but in all my years, I have never been wrongfully accused of a crime, but I have been a victim of crimes a lot of times.

Now go ahead and mod me down for daring to dissent from the Slashdot Zeitgeist.

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207243)

Well, I'm wondering if the suspect should have 1) not stolen the car or 2) confessed and taken responsibility for the crime and turned his life around. Yes he fucking did it - presumption of innocence is for juries, not Slashdot denizens.

Wow. You are one fucked up asshole.

  Innocent until proven guilty is a foundational tenet of a free society. It is not just some technical consideration for juries -- it is the safety net whereby individuals are protected from wrongful punishment due to the wrath of society.

  Innocent until proven guilty means HE DID NOT DO IT. Period. Not until a jury of his peers has examined the evidence and decided that it proves he did. If you go around saying "he did it" before a guilty verdict comes in, or after a guilty verdict you don't like comes in, you are undermining one of the core concepts of western society. Maybe you'd like to live in a fascist state where people who "look guilty" can be dragged out of their houses by the Secret Police and shot, to be left in the street as a warning to others of the dangers of "looking guilty" (or being a member of an undesirable group, for that matter), but most of us don't.

  All people should assume that the accused is innocent; not only is it a good bet, it's the only way to have a free society where people are not wrongly punished for the crimes of others.

Nonsense, (2, Interesting)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207533)

Wow. You are one fucked up asshole

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 the safety net whereby individuals are protected from wrongful punishment due to the wrath of society.

Nonsense. Where are these "foundational tenets" listed so I can learn them? Certainly not in the Constitution. I am a free-thinking person, and I do not have to pretend reality didn't happen. The media and the defense bar in America might have fooled you, but innocent until proven guilty does not apply to me so long as I am not on jury service.

If a guy looks weird or scary when I am walking at night, I cross the street to the other side. If I get a bad vibe about a person, I don't do business with him. I wouldn't want my 11-year-old boy going over to Michael Jackson's house to play on his rides, because he is a fucking pedophile, regardless of what any jury says. I wouldn't want my daughter dating OJ Simpson, because he is a fucking murderer, regardless of what a jury says - and I strongly suspect you wouldn't either.

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 is a bad person - just like your juvenile post tried to do with me.

BTW, IAAL; in fact I teach law, and I make this exact point in my classes. The police, the prosecutors, people watching TV, all do not have to presume anyone innocent. In fact, police and prosecutors must presume you guilty (i.e., believe they have probable cause you committed a crime) if they arrest you, otherwise it would be a felony for them to do so! Only the jury and trial judge must presume a defendant innocent.

And why can't I, free-thinking guy, use the same probable cause the police did to arrest and the prosecutor did to charge, and think the guy is guilty, so long as I am not a juror? Do I really need to sit in the courtroom as a jury to understand reality? Most times, jurors hear less about a case than the general public (e.g., the low speed chase in the OJ case). I can draw my own conclusions about people. Employers, potential dates, school admissions officers, customers all make these evaluations of people every day. But I can't about some guy who has his blood inside a mosquito locked inside a stolen car?

Stop feeling and start thinking.

Re:Nonsense, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207601)

It's not in the constitution, because it's far older than that. It's deeply embedded in law. You claim to teach law and you don't know this shit?

And fuck you, I've been anonymous on Slashdot for ten years now. I'm not hiding, I'm right here, just like I've always been.

Yet more profiles in courage (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207773)

It's not in the constitution, because it's far older than that. It's deeply embedded in law. You claim to teach law and you don't know this shit?

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 whatsoever, you screech and call names and completely ignored my entire post. Thanks for proving my point that responding to anon cowards is waste of keystrokes.

And fuck you, I've been anonymous on Slashdot for ten years now. I'm not hiding, I'm right here, just like I've always been.

Very brave, and so very profound. So tough on the Internet, aren't we?

End (attempt at rational) discussion.

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26208035)

Innocent until proven guilty is an idea that only applies in any way to the court of law, legal proceedings, and treatments of suspects.

i.e. the due process, that determines what long-term major legal sanctions, sentence (if any) will be passed against a defendant.

We on slashdot don't pass sentence. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply and is totally irrelevent in the court of public opinion.

Even while a legal proceeding is in progress, it is some ways nonsense, though. If suspects are truly treated as innocent until proven guilty, then do you care to explain why a suspect can be arrested and held in jail without bail pending a verdict from the courts?

Innocent until proven guilty has only minor influence over treatments of the accused (I.E. not executing them or implementing other severe punishments like 5 years in prison, before they even get to have a trial): the final verdict is effected.

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (1)

Gruff1002 (717818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26208067)

"Innocent until proven guilty means HE DID NOT DO IT."

  What world do YOU live in?

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (1)

getnate (518090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207247)

Amen!

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (2, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207333)

>>>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 honest or not. It's been known that police will lie in order to convict a subject. I worked with one who often went to jury trials and claimed, "I saw him shoplift the clothing," even though my police friend admitted he saw nothing.

Question everything, especially governments, which have a multi-thousand year history of suppressing individual liberty.

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207661)

A mosquito that has just sucked blood doesn't fly very far because it's so heavy then, thus the probability that it flew in once it had sucked blood, is pretty low in the first place. The fact that he admitted to being in the car once the police talked to him, makes it a certainty that he was in the car. Now, proving why he was in it is a different matter altogether - if he's a known car thief and the car owner an honest citizen, regular Joe that has reported his car stolen, it's pretty certain what the truth is. However, if there's something pointing at the owner perhaps wanting to frame the guy or something, it's an entirely different story. But I consider that scenario very unlikely - who devises such an elaborate scheme just to frame someone for car theft? First having to catch a mosquito that has sucked the guy's blood and then place it in the car and count on the police checking the DNA.

Now, questioning whether the police is honest, is an entirely different matter - albeit very important. If we can't trust the police (or most of the officers, at least) not to fake evidence, we have a very serious problem that is extremely hard to address.

What would you do?

Increase pay for officers so that it becomes a more attractive job and thus more careful selection of applicants possible? Not that I know exactly what sort of screening would detect those that are likely to become dishonest cops.

Have stricter requirements on evidence even though then more obviously guilty people will walk because of technicalities? Finding the right balance there, isn't easy.

Now, IIRC Finland has the lowest corruption rate in the world so I suppose that most state officials are pretty honest and that the cops have done a good job in this case so far.

Re:Why does /. always side with the crook? (1)

MythMoth (73648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207985)

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:Why does /. always side with the crook? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207409)

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 stands this guy couldn't point them to the "other perp", had a history with the cops, and had some statistically convincing circumstantial evidence against him. Good enough for me.
-nB

Libelous story title? (3, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206705)

Shouldn't the story title contain the word "alleged"? As of this posting it does not.

Re:Libelous story title? (2, Informative)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206765)

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? (3, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206811)

how do you tie someone to 8-1/2 gallons of liquid??

Re:anker? (2, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207763)

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:anker? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207843)

how do you tie someone to 8-1/2 gallons of liquid??
  1. Freeze the liquid?
  2. Leave it in the container?
  3. Match their DNA to epithelials found in the liquid?
  4. With a rope?
  5. Tie them to nine gallons of liquid and then take half a gallon away?

    /

Re:Libelous story title? (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206813)

...and therefore, a duck!

Be more specific, please! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207915)

*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 post. (which is not anywhere obvious to a non-native english speaking audience)

Now if you suggested a set of balance scales* [wikipedia.org] to compare the weight of a witch to that of a duck, then we would all have a better understanding of what you are trying to be funny about.

*You can use my largest scales. [youtube.com] [3:45/5:33]

"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!"
This reeks of 'OMGZ!!!teh TERRORISTS!!!!-think of the children!!!', trying for sarcasm.
Epic Fail, OMGZ!!!Ponies!!!

*end sarcasm*

Re:Libelous story title? (5, Funny)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206985)

No, it was an actual mosquito.

Prosecute yourself or default. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206739)

I didn't steal the car, phylofficer. Can I prosecute myself on your behalf some more? What do my tax records say? I got tickets unpaid? Oh thanks, here's a tip for letting me know on behalf of the claimant. Why am I hurting myself all the time?

Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206743)

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.

After all, OJ Simpson got off a murder charge with PLENTY of blood evidence and a lot more than a Mosquito's worth ;)

Re:Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (1)

Restil (31903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206835)

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 mosquito alone would be sufficient to convict him.

-Restil

Re:Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206841)

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 about how long female mosquitoes retain their blood meals, might conclusively discredit that claim.

Re:Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (1)

cenonce (597067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207061)

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:Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207885)

It is good police work and there won't be any ridiculous cross-examination regarding the mosquito.

The cops don't use the mosquito to place him inside the car, they use his own statement to do that - the mosquito only gave the cops a lead when the DNA matched a criminal record and they thus got a guy worth talking to. The guy was then stupid and admitted that he had indeed been in the car so the mosquito was no longer needed. Whether the cops can prove that the guy stole the car instead of just getting a ride, is a different matter.

Re:Totalitarian goverment, invasion of privacy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207071)

Maybe you should RTFA and think before posting something as stupid as that. The DNA from the mosquito only gave the police a lead so that they knew whom to talk to. The guy could (and should if he was smart) have refused but didn't and instead admitted to being in the car. Probably something like this:

Cops say: We have evidence placing you inside a stolen car. Have you got anything to say about it?

Stupid guy that should've refused to talk to them: Uh, yeah, I was...I was...I was hitchiking, yeah, that's what I was! That's why I was in that car.

Now the police just got him to admit being in the car and consequently they can get permits they need to find further evidence. Especially if the guy e.g. has car thefts on his record. Obviously the cops couldn't have searched his house or do anything other than to ask if he wanted to talk only because of the DNA evidence from the mosquito.

Could've helped... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206789)

My parents lived in Philadelphia during the early 1980s, and their car was broken into several times. One time, the crackhead left blood in the car from breaking the window with an unshielded fist. If there had been DNA tests at the time...

Don't you pay attention to Grisom? (3, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206791)

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:Don't you pay attention to Grisom? (1)

Restil (31903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206847)

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

Re:Don't you pay attention to Grisom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207351)

Now, I don't think that it's enough to convict him because our justice system (in Finland) is extremely inclined to avoid risking sentencing someone innocent. A supposedly true story: A police car stopped a car that was veering from side to side. When the police approached it, the two men that were inside climed quickly into the backseat but the police couldn't see it happen because it was dark. Once the police got to the car they found the men in the backseat very, very drunk - in fact so drunk that they "couldn't remember" which one of them had driven the car. Since the police had been unable to identify the driver in the dark before stopping, neither man could be convicted. They stuck to their "can't remember" story and thus one of them avoided a very justified DUI sentence.

So all I need to do to implicate someone ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206807)

Is get a mosquito to bite them and put it somewhere incriminating? Or get a sample of their blood and somehow get the mosquito to slurp it up?

Full points for persistence and creative investigation, but "what can possibly go wrong?" figures prominently here if they use it as the basis for charges. Sure, the mosquito was trapped in the car, but where did it fly in from? Why couldn't it have bitten the person when they were on the street somewhere, and then flitted in the window and gotten stuck?

Of course, the alleged criminal admitted he was *in* the car. Wow, was that stupid. That's the more relevant bit of evidence now.

Blabbing Mosquito Bastards! (3, Funny)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206863)

I knew I couldn't trust those Skeeters! They swore they just wanted a taste of the red stuff. A now look, turning states evidence! Little blood-thieving bastards!

Re:Blabbing Mosquito Bastards! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206929)

You mean bitches, the blood-thieving ones are always female. Just goes to show... ya know?

Jurrasic Park (3, Funny)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206909)

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? (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206917)

Maybe he would have talked?

Or maybe the poor critter is enjoying a vacation at a resort in Cuba now.

Re:Why didn't they waterboard the mosquito? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206939)

Why would Finland send something/someone to Cuba? Did you not even read the first three words of the summary?

Re:Why didn't they waterboard the mosquito? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207039)

There should definitely be a "sense of humour failure" moderation.

Re:Why didn't they waterboard the mosquito? (1)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207045)

-1, doesn't get a very obvious joke.

wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207049)

"I'm wondering if the suspect should have denied any association with the car at all." ->

If he did hitchhike, wouldn't he be lying?

Submitted By (1)

sloomis (1326535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207083)

I'm glad to see everyone posting on the positives/negatives of the FA but seriously not one mention of the submitters name. Seriously, Frosty Piss that made my night

They have misquitos in Finland in December? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207085)

Must be pretty hardy critters.

Advocating lying? (1, Insightful)

getnate (518090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207135)

The story says: "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?" The suspect should tell the truth not lie.

Re:Advocating lying? (3, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207451)

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:Advocating lying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207899)

I'm curious how US law has anything to do with Finnish law. I didn't watch the video though.

Re:Advocating lying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26207475)

unfortunately if he's telling the truth then it would have been much better for him to lie.

mozzies in Finland? (2, Funny)

memnock (466995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207157)

damn, global warning is worse than i thought.

How much more predictable can /. get? (1)

kaka.mala.vachva (1164605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207277)

Nowadays I can predict very accurately which stories appearing in the default firefox BBC feed will make it to /.

Why was his DNA in the system? (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207377)

I'm more concerned as to why his DNA was in the system at all. The article didn't seem to say.

Re:Why was his DNA in the system? (3, Informative)

da_matta (854422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207935)

Currently the system consist of "known associates" of the police. In practice you can get included if you are accused of a crime with potential punishment over six months in jail. And in Finland you can't get that from minor stuff like stealing a tv or downloading mp3's.

In the land of Texas (2, Insightful)

JavaManJim (946878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207441)

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

Wow! (1)

pescina (1413705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26207537)

What's next? Farts being used as evidence?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?