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!

Texas Rangers Use Internet To Breathe New Life Into Cold Case Homicides

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the new-life dept.

Crime 73

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Katherine Rosenberg reports that the Texas Department of Public Safety has unveiled a new web site dedicated to unsolved cold case homicides to make sure the victims are not forgotten and to try to catch a break in even the coldest of cases. DPS spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says continual strides in technology make focusing on cold cases more important than ever because there are more opportunities to solve them with each emerging process or device. The web site was created because the more readily available information is the more people may be apt to pick up the phone and report what they know. 'It helps to refresh these cases in the public's mind and hopefully we'll shed new light on it. In some cases, we can also re-examine evidence if there's an opportunity or need there as well,' says Cesinger. One featured case from 1993 is Kathleen Suckley who was 29 when her throat was slashed and she was stabbed about 40 times inside her rented duplex, while her two sons, ages 4 and 1, were home. Officials said they interviewed numerous witnesses but never got enough information for an arrest. Capt. Tim Wilson maintains that in any homicide case there always is someone who knows something. At some point, he believes, the murderer will tell someone out of guilt or pride, or simply the pressure of holding it in. Cesinger points out that over time as relationships change, if prompted by something like the website or a news article, that confidant finally may come forward. 'I think we owe it to Kathleen to be this tenacious. It drives me nuts that somebody can do this and get away with it,' says Kathleen's mother-in-law Luann Suckley. 'I think the website is great ... maybe someone will finally speak up because I'm tired of sitting back and waiting.'"

cancel ×

73 comments

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

YAY FOR THE INTERNET !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061007)

Finally, not causing crime !!

Texas Instruments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061067)

I read the title as "Texas Instruments ... "

Needless to say my dissapointment is palpable.

Re:Texas Instruments (1)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063683)

I read the title as "Texas Instruments ... "

And I thought the baseball team was getting training in forensics. That didn't scan too well either.

Re:Texas Instruments (3, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065251)

They may not get the right answer every time, but...

They'll be in the ball park!

I'll be here all week.

grammar police (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061083)

http://www.gingersoftware.com/english-online/spelling-book/confusing-words/breath-breathe

Re:grammar police (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061107)

I'm sure you meant "Grammar Rangers".

Re:grammar police (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061215)

I am almost out of breathe.

Re:grammar police (0)

charliebear (887653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061257)

That's a breathe of fresh air.

Re:grammar police (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065973)

Um, the headline correctly used breathe. What is your point?

Re:grammar police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43126073)

Not originally.

That's nice, but.. (0, Flamebait)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061087)

Maybe you guys could start by putting that self-appointed "arson analysis specialist" who is responsible for the death of at least one innocent man behind bars? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann [newyorker.com]

I'm also tempted to suggest this cold case team work on the couple hundred thousand murders allegedly perpetrated by a former TX governor, but that might be flamebait (duh).

Re:That's nice, but.. (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061103)

Are we going to talk about the story, or just have ad hominem attacks on unrelated subjects?

Re:That's nice, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061135)

You must be new here.

Re:That's nice, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43064845)

I have to say, that's one of the most appropriate uses of this response.

There are things you just can't expect of this site, like getting us above the old Marxists vs. The World argument that matters not-at-all outside this place.

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061229)

I'm not completely sure that attacking all of Texas is 'ad hominem,' but that's ok with me.

My point is this: Texas has lots bigger problems with their judicial system (and their police system) than improving their cold case closure rate.

Re:That's nice, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061357)

Whenever somebody really can't handle a valid criticism, they often resort to complaining about it being an ad hominem.

After all, if you're the problem, they don't have to address that issue, but can ignore it.

Of course, the problem is that's the same thing to do about an actually invalid criticism, so it's often tough to tell the difference.

Anyway, I agree with you, the Texas judicial system has serious flaws in their application of justice, and a blind appreciation of any action of theirs without bringing tis up is like failing to mention how Carthage must be destroyed.

Re:That's nice, but.. (4, Insightful)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061421)

I have a few family members that work in the Texas justice system. The number of people that have sat in jail for years to later be exonerated by DNA or new modern evidence methods are staggering. Put to death even when there was only the most circumstantial evidence that they were even involved (or other evidence that suggested they were not).

Though adding the cold case site is a good measure, over time people who commit crimes do think they have gotten away with them and may give up information they shouldn't have (to stay free).

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065043)

I spent a summer in college working in Tyler, TX. Nice town, friendly people, surprisingly good restaurants for a small city (~100k). Also is the seat of Smith County. There's a statue of Justice in the entryway of the courthouse. I kid you not, she is not wearing a blindfold.

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065929)

It may be an attack, and only obliquely on-topic, but it isn't ad hominem.

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062365)

YOU say he's innocent. And, you can even find people who agree with you, therefore reinforcing your opinion. The arson investigator isn't the most qualified of arson investigators, and I'll agree that he either needed further training, or to be replaced. But - the case was tried, judged, and execution carried out, all within the guidelines of existing law. I don't believe an innocent man died in this case. It does happen, but not this time.

The couple hundred thousand murders? I'm more interested in the death of a culture, than those supposed couple hundred thousand murders. Sorry, I disagree with your numbers.

Anyway - politicians are well protected, and can't be touched.

And, people on a political crusade are protected by the bill of rights in this country. Aren't you glad to be an American? You're full of shit, but you have the RIGHT to be full of shit!!

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063485)

> But - the case was tried, judged, and execution carried out, all within the guidelines of existing law. I don't believe an innocent man died in this case. It does happen, but not this time.

Complete non-seq. I know the story you speak of, and it wasn't so that people believed he was innocent and sought out evidence to support it. The reason we've heard of the case at all was the egregious "evidence" of a cocky, pseudoscience-peddling arson investigator, and this was the basis for the whole case (there was no reason to suspect the guy otherwise). If you think the arson investigator needed further training or should be replaced, then by definition this was a gross miscarriage of justice, even if you for some voodoo intuition believe he was guilty. Even if he WAS guilty it would have been miscarriage of justice if the conviction was based on bogus evidence, which it plainly was.

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063569)

There was reason to suspect that arsonist.

The man had a car parked close to the house. Witnesses saw him, as he struggled to save that car. His children? He made no effort to save his children.

If you don't see that action as suspicious, then I question your grasp on reality.

That house was not set afire accidentally. An accelerant was used to spread the fire widely, and quickly. There were no other suspects. None.

If you wish to call the verdict into question, then you might advance some theory that might supply an alternative suspect. The arson in question couldn't even supply a theoretical alternative from dreamland. He murdered his children, but tried to save his old car.

Re:That's nice, but.. (1)

MickLinux (579158) | about a year and a half ago | (#43064767)

In fine slashdot fashion, you didn't read the article.

No, there was no accelerant. Tests disproved accelerant.

And yes, standard Texas procedure proved an innocent man guilty.

God bless the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061115)

Is there anything it can't do?

Re:God bless the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43062193)

It can't prove the existence of God, because he doesn't exist?

Re:God bless the Internet (0)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062271)

Agenda driven, off-topic dumbassity.

Re:God bless the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43066341)

I'm so sorry I've hurst your feelings ... NOT!

Now go shove your God up your fat Texan ass!

Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061123)

And IANADPS detective, but I am not without an impressive resume'. I've some perfectly brewed coffee, a mild Investigative Discovery addiction, and I've been reading /. all morning: forty stab wounds is personal. It's a spurned lover.

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061221)

Multiple stab wounds doesn't mean it's personal. It means the killer was extremely angry for reasons we do not know. But I agree it is probably personal, which means the investigation should focus on former lovers and close family members.

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062403)

Yeah, we can probably dismiss current lovers.

The extreme anger thing? Hmmm. That's usually personal. You don't seek out a random victim to stab them 40 times or more. That kind of rage is usually reserved for an ex-spouse, a hated and detested sibling, an abusive parent - something of that sort. Unless a rapist used and abused a random victim, who then laughed at his inadequate equipment. "Aren't you started yet, Shorty? Who ya gonna rape with that 1/2 inch stub?"

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43063695)

You don't seek out a random victim to stab them 40 times or more.

You don't, but someone else might.

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43067079)

The extreme anger thing? Hmmm. That's usually personal. You don't seek out a random victim to stab them 40 times or more.

You do if you're a homicidal maniac, a serial killer or just plain psychotic.

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062615)

But I agree it is probably personal, which means the investigation should focus on former lovers and close family members.

Was looking into being a LEO(law enforcement) a few years ago, couldn't cut it because I broke my back during the training, it's very hard to complete the training when you can't run or hardly walk. In Canada LEO training is about half of what a marine takes to get on the force. Really you'd investigate everyone, but at 40 stab wounds? It could also be someone with a deep psychosis or mental health issue as well. It's getting stuck in the "well it probably is..." that limits your field of view and screws up your investigation.

One thing I always did find odd between Canada and the US with the investigation of homicides. In the US you'll abandon a murder after a period of time, in Canada we never do, ever. There's always someone working on the case, there are cold case teams that are dedicated to it. One of the instructors I had, had a pretty good example of this about a major drug runner from the US, who wanted someone removed and suggested killing the guy in Toronto. Which was quickly put down by his partner. He pointed out that in Canada they'll hunt you down till the end of your days. While in the US they'll give up after a few months. Part of the reason is, in Canada an indictable offence(the equivalent of a felony) never expires. And there is no such thing as a I/O at the provincial level.

What I find odd about this article though, is that the rangers are doing what we've been doing up here in Canada since the 70's at a lower tech level(they used flash bulletins sent by intra BBS memos via CPIC). Then again, you guys copied our crime stoppers program too. Well if it works, it works right? But pretending that it's new and shiny is just silly.

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065067)

Murder does not have a statute of limitations in the US. It's just harder to solve cold cases, especially when they're crime-related (as most murders in the US are - drug deals gone wrong, etc.).

Re:Didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063753)

And IANADPS detective, but I am not without an impressive resume'. I've some perfectly brewed coffee, a mild Investigative Discovery addiction, and I've been reading /. all morning: forty stab wounds is personal. It's a spurned lover.

Or a deranged person with a semi-automatic knife thrower with large capacity clips, person that mistaken the duplex for a school?
Or a flock of angry birds with a slingshot?

breathe your breath (2, Informative)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061143)

You breathe breaths. One's a noun and the other is a verb. They're pronounced very differently. English isn't even my native language, but even I know the difference.

Re:breathe your breath (0)

mfraz74 (1151215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061301)

I was just thinking it was another one of those silly Americanisms!

Re:breathe your breath (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061451)

I was just thinking it was another one of those silly Americanisms!

It's not. It's a simple idiotism.

Re:breathe your breath (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061699)

I thougth those were synonymisms.

Is it that unexpected (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061589)

It is a story about Texas after all.

Texas today (4, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061151)

Right now, there's an assault case in Texas waiting on somebody coming forward. A young lesbian parent at a public playground was seriously beaten by a much larger male parent. This case has not been classified as a hate crime by local authorities despite that being clearly in line with Texas law, and those same authorities appear to be quite comfortable with letting this become a cold case. It looks like the case will only come to justice if some non-police person fingers the perp, and does so loudly enough that the local prosecutor can't ignore it.
          It's laudable that Texas is taking steps to clear some cold case murders, but it will be up to some of the very same people who implemented this to figure out what their state government should do when a local government clearly doesn't want to help and thinks it has unlimited authority to decide which laws to follow, and judging by this recent assault case, they had better start planning for that problem yesterday.

Re:Texas today (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43062275)

Crimes against gays aren't a special category, and police following normal procedures isn't discrimination. Know what happens to people who insist they are special? They get beat down.

Re:Texas today (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062309)

Crimes against gays aren't a special category

Not automatically; only crimes against gays because they're gay, you know, other than denying them the same rights as anyone else. I'm surprised that Texas has hate crime laws, though they clearly need them more than most other states.

Re:Texas today (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062931)

all violent crimes are hate crimes

Re:Texas today (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063307)

Know what happens to people who insist they are special? They get beat down.

What?!

Re:Texas today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43062277)

Wow that shit is fucked up. It's disgusting that someone would let their ignorant beliefs preclude them from doing their sworn fucking duty. Sickening. Fucking sickening.

Re:Texas today (1)

mordred99 (895063) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062903)

Huh? How can this "automatically" be a hate crime? First off a hate crime is defined as being the motive of the crime being derived by hate of a protected class. How can you determine motive if you do not have a suspect in custody? Just because someone happened to be gay, and was murdered, does not mean it was a hate crime. Where are you getting your information? The media? Since we know how reliable that information is.

Let me turn this around on you. Me being white, and someone breaks into my house, and they are not white (don't care, anything else), and kill me in my sleep, is that a hate crime? No the motive was burglary and race had nothing to do with it. Just because there is the possibility of a hate crime, does not mean one occurred.

However, this being Texas, if enough evidence was found to substantiate a hate crime charge, and it goes through the courts properly and the person is convicted, of any state in the union, Texas has my utmost confidence they will fry their ass. And I don't have a problem with going through due process. Justice takes time, and once it is done right, executed (no pun intended) swiftly.

Re:Texas today (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063615)

Incidentally, I googled this to see if there was an actual case out there (this being the internet and all). This case does exist [wfaa.com] and the woman in question was assaulted a bit over two weeks ago. My view on it though is that it is a simple though brutal assault and battery (whatever the Texas equivalent is). It shouldn't matter whether the pain was inflicted because the attacker thought she was homosexual or because the attacker wanted her watch. It should matter that the assault was done in front of a bunch of children.

I think that the "hate crime" aspect is a huge red herring. It's useful for ascribing motive in court, but criminalizing bigotry is just a 1984 thoughtcrime thing. We shouldn't be trying to police what people fear and hate. We should be policing what brutal and harmful actions they do in response to that fear and hate. One doesn't need to classify assault and battery as a "hate crime" in order to do that. It's already illegal with suitable punishments in store.

As to the accusation of the police department dragging its feet? There's not enough information out there yet for me to decide if the police department is ignoring the case (unless the poster I'm replying to has more information). It's worth noting that there's probably a couple of people who know a lot about who this man is, there supposedly was a female companion and presumably a child associated with this man, but the group may be unknown to the other people at the park. At that point, you're going on eyewitness accounts and whatever evidence was left behind by the assailant and his group. That might or might not be enough to go on.

Re:Texas today (1)

uninformedLuddite (1334899) | about a year and a half ago | (#43073905)

I know of at least two lesbians that practically ask for a beating every time they interact with a male. If a man behaved and spoke to other men as these 'women' do they would have been beaten to death years ago.

How, exactly? (2, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061185)

Aside from the bad grammar of TFA, I found this little puzzle: "DPS spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says continual strides in technology make focusing on cold cases more important than ever because there are more opportunities to solve them with each emerging process or device."

How do "continual strides in technology" make focusing on cold cases "more important?" I can see how it might make focusing on cold cases more convenient or more efficient or more productive. It doesn't make it more important. Old unsolved cases become less important over time because it becomes increasingly likely that the perpetrator has either already been imprisoned on a different charge, has died or has changed their life so that they are less of a danger to the public.

Re:How, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43062421)

In law enforcement, "important" doesn't mean that a crime is significant in and of itself; it means that investigating that crime yields a good positive result. All things being equal (and there are a lot of special cases here), (severity of crime + media exposure)/(difficulty of investigation) = priority of investigation. Investigating crimes after the fact is much, much more difficult than spotting someone committing a crime, and the person doing the investigating it will have anywhere from 10 to 50 cases ongoing simultaneously. If the investigation gets easier, then it becomes a higher priority.

This is why minor street crime (e.g. muggings) in many cities goes totally uninvestigated: the severity of the crime is usually low*, the investigation difficult, so it goes to the bottom of the pile. Most jurisdictions have particular departments for classes of severe crimes, but even there, the ones with the best chance of a result will (and should) get a higher priority. Non-violent crime barely gets investigated unless you're out in the sticks, and even there it's more for the purposes of providing a case number to insurers, make people feel safer and , frankly, justifying the existence of a local PD that barely has anything to do than because of any possibility of the "investigation" producing a result.

*: comparatively. Any violent crime has severe consequences, unfortunately :-(

Re:How, exactly? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43064685)

>: Non-violent crime barely gets investigated unless you're out in the sticks, and even there it's more
>for the purposes of providing a case number to insurers, make people feel safer and , frankly,
>justifying the existence of a local PD that barely has anythng to do than because of any possibility
> of the "investigation" producing a result.

That is unless its a drug crime and the victim, er I mean perp has assets that would help fund the department.

Then it gets super top priotity. They have entire divisions that work on those kinds of heist...er boost...er busts.

Re:How, exactly? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062447)

There is no minimum IQ standard for a spokes woman (person). There is no minimum IQ for a police person, either. The spokeswoman was running at the head, tossing words around, without giving any thought to the real meanings of the words. That's muck like politicians running for office. Toss out the soundbytes, mix and match until you get an appealing mixture, then watch the votes or support roll in.

I agree, cold cases are relatively unimportant, for the reasons you give. But, relative is relative. The victims and the survivors of the dead victims still think that the cases are important.

Re:How, exactly? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062669)

There is no minimum IQ for a police person, either.

Well at least there's a maximum [google.com] . Half right is better than totally wrong!

Texas is a shithole. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061391)

If you choose to live there you get what you deserve.

And if you voted for Bush I hope you get it in the fucking neck.

who cares? (0)

der_pinchy (1053896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061393)

They are dead , let it go people.

Rat (4, Insightful)

hEpen (96597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061397)

"At some point, he believes, the murderer will tell someone out of guilt or pride, or simply the pressure of holding it in."

Dostoyevsky gently smiles from his grave.

Re:Rat (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43063785)

Most criminals are really stupid and they will brag and have disagreements and turn each other in if given an opportunity. Elmore Leonard (paraphrased)

Re:Rat (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065971)

I wish I had mod points for this.

Why are they doing this? (1)

scourfish (573542) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061591)

They're taking the time to investigate homicides?! If they had focused on what they were SUPPOSED TO be doing, maybe they wouldn't have done so poorly in the 2012 season.

baseball? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061757)

when i saw the phrase "Texas Rangers" I thought of the baseball team. http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/ i was like, what does baseball have to do with detective work? lol

Re:baseball? (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062331)

came here to make this reference, surprised it took scrolling down this far to find it :)

They don't need a website (2)

barakn (641218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062043)

They just need Chuck Norris. He'll close every cold case with his fists.

Re:They don't need a website (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065441)

They just need Chuck Norris. He'll close every cold case with his fists.

Only one fist. He needs his other hand to hold a flashlight for the next ~999.75 years.

The Internet (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062057)

The web site was created because the more readily available information is the more people may be apt to pick up the phone and report what they know.

Their email in-box is probably full and they are still waiting for the phone to ring.

Is this really a good idea? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062113)

Okay, you got old cases, that have gone nowhere. Now, you are hoping that the chance that someone will browse the website and be able to give a clue to an old case? Seriously?

I guess this makes old detectives feel better for not solving cases during their careers, that by putting this out there, maybe, just maybe, after cars start flying, someone with info will browse the website and say something!!!!

 

Re:Is this really a good idea? (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062503)

I don't hold out a lot of hope for the majority of cases. But, shit happens. Some dude beats the crap out of his old lady, and runs at the mouth a little while he's beating her. Over the next several days, she gives some thought to his comments, puts three and five together, and wonders if eight is the right answer. Maybe it was her boyfriend that killed the old lady down the street all those years ago? She was bludgeoned with a hammer, after all, and Bubba just threatened me with a hammer . . . I'll just make an anonymous call to the investigators, and see if they can make sense of it.

If they solve two or ten percent of the old cases, that's cool. If they don't solve any cases, well, I don't see a huge loss here.

Re:Is this really a good idea? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065111)

Exactly. This sort of thing costs next to nothing to run - maybe two full-time employees, max, once it's set up - and could potentially pay off big time.

Texas Rangers? (1)

Buzzsaw5 (1047078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43062517)

[insert baseball joke]

Re:Texas Rangers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43063465)

Q: Why don't blacks play baseball?
A: They do!

Be careful with the authorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43064441)

The 3 top suspects for a crime are 1. the husband, 2. the boy friend, 3. the one who finds the body. I am sure that a tipster is somewhere within or just behind there. You might just place yourself in jeopardy by helping. Only make tips anonymously. Call it in on a pay or other phone where no one knows or can cam record you. You can also set up a mixnym.net anonymous email account and email a tip to the appropriate police department. They can write back, but don't let them talk you into telling you who you are. I have made a study of police and prosecutor conduct and it is atrocious. Never trust either and make them meet you on your own terms. See: http://hsubinterpreter.sourceforge.net/

Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43065773)

http://dcc.vu/guns

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>