Slashdot Log In
Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Dec 22, 2008 06:46 PM
from the plausible-deniability dept.
from the plausible-deniability dept.
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?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
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: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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
Re:I can see it now: (Score:5, Funny)
Who buys that ultra-nationalist, self-righteous, moralist crap?
Americans?
Parent
Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for you, Finland.
Re:Those Finns are dedicated (Score:5, Funny)
My girlfriend
[citation needed]
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To Protect and Serve... who, exactly?
A revenue stream.
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: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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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:3, Interesting)
Incidental Redundancy?
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
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.
Parent
Re:Too many factors (Score:5, Funny)
Did you just insult mosquitoes?
Parent
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
Parent
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: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.
Parent
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
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
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??
Parent
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:Libelous story title? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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
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!
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.
Why was his DNA in the system? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why was his DNA in the system? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
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)
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.
Parent
Re:Just one observation (Score:5, Funny)
Did the mosquito live?!
Parent
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]?
Parent
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