Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Medicine Science

Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief 198

Frosty Piss writes "Police in Finland have made an arrest for car theft based on a DNA sample taken from the blood found inside a mosquito. 'A police patrol carried out an inspection of the car and they noticed a mosquito that had sucked blood. It was sent to the laboratory for testing, which showed the blood belonged to a man who was in the police registers,' a police officer told reporters. The suspect, who has been interrogated, has insisted he did not steal the car, saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car. I'm wondering if the suspect should have denied any association with the car at all. After all, who knows where that mosquito had been?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief

Comments Filter:
  • by religious freak ( 1005821 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @07:51PM (#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.
  • by Anachragnome ( 1008495 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:01PM (#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!

  • by Finallyjoined!!! ( 1158431 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @08:05PM (#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.
  • by pembo13 ( 770295 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:12PM (#26207377) Homepage
    I'm more concerned as to why his DNA was in the system at all. The article didn't seem to say.
  • Re:Advocating lying? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by corsec67 ( 627446 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:20PM (#26207451) Homepage Journal

    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 [] and a cop []?

  • Nonsense, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unassimilatible ( 225662 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @09:30PM (#26207533) Journal
    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:I can see it now: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coolsnowmen ( 695297 ) on Monday December 22, 2008 @10:05PM (#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.

  • by Grimbleton ( 1034446 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @12:42AM (#26208703)

    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?

  • by neomunk ( 913773 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @09:20AM (#26210663)

    Incidental Redundancy?

  • by Silentknyght ( 1042778 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2008 @10:32AM (#26211235)

    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.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser