Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief 198

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2008 @07:50PM (#26206681)

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

  • Too many factors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZephyrXero (750822) <zephyrxero.yahoo@com> on Monday December 22, 2008 @07:51PM (#26206695) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Monday December 22, 2008 @07:51PM (#26206705)

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

  • by davester666 (731373) on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:11PM (#26206865) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:21PM (#26206929)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:38PM (#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.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:39PM (#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.

  • Advocating lying? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by getnate (518090) on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:51PM (#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.
  • by MikeUW (999162) on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:08PM (#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.

  • by theaveng (1243528) on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:08PM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:19PM (#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.

  • by JavaManJim (946878) on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:19PM (#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

  • by Myrddin Wyllt (1188671) on Monday December 22, 2008 @11:30PM (#26208273)

    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 presumption that DNA implies physical presence has always seemed a bit weak to me.

  • by Grimbleton (1034446) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @12:44AM (#26208719)

    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.

  • by Duradin (1261418) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @12:54AM (#26208785)

    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 city always in hyper-vigilance mode because they had to be you wouldn't have a city for very long.

  • by c6gunner (950153) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @01:39AM (#26209047)

    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 you, the individual. The first duty of the government is always to protect the group as a whole. If that means they have to declare martial law and oppress the innocent along with the guilty, well sucks to be you. If it means they have to nuke your city to stop a deadly contagion from spreading, sorry, better luck in your next life. And if it means they can't send police to save you from some axe-weilding maniac because they're busy trying to control a riot on the other side of the city, you'll be wishing you'd taken advantage of your second amendment rights.

    So no, I'm not advocating a tooth-and-nail kill-or-be-killed approach to life, but I do believe in being prepared. Owning firearms might not protect me in all situations, but it will raise my overall odds of survival. Having a small vegetable garden and a well-stocked cellar might not let me survive indefinitely, but it'll provide resources to help me in case of emergencies. Being self-sufficient to whatever extent is practical means I probably won't need to depend on the benevolence of strangers in emergencies, and may even be able to help others. It's something that every adult should strive for, yet the majority of people seem content to just live their lives and hope that someone will be there to protect them when things go wrong. It really saddens me to see grown human beings willingly turning themselves into wards of the nanny-state.

  • by foniksonik (573572) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @11:09AM (#26211577) Homepage Journal

    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 come down to opportunity costs... time, money, commitment, reputation and quality of life are all considered.

  • by BarefootClown (267581) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @02:36PM (#26214125) Homepage

    To Protect and Serve... who, exactly?

    A revenue stream.

TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED

Working...