(V'ger) Steri-lize....steri-lize...(/V'ger)

[wolf]

Yeah, it pretty much sucked.

Sam was a good guy.

It was also a bad year for our hospital I think I mentioned it elsewhere ...

Suicide of a former ambulance crew member (actually late 2001, but we count her into the list)
Suicide of a psychologist
Sudden death (unknown cause) of a 25 year old staff member
Heart attack and death of an elderly staff member
Sam's murder.
Part time nurse drank herself to death.

I may have gotten the order wrong, but I don't want to have to redo 2002. Please.

edited to add: I should clarify ... the police DID search the house when our hospital (not the girlfriend, despite what the news reports say) reported Sam missing. She had him hid better at that time, moved him a couple times according to reports.

[Carbonated_Brains]

That sounds like a pretty sobering line of work.

[wolf]

Sometimes. Again, 2002 was not typical.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe



Hey, I've been there too, remember?

NO. And I'm not just joking around. I really don't remember. The way I manage on this board is to refer to the handy list of posts under each thread. If somebody posted something a while back in a different thread, I'm lost since I don't have it right under what I'm writing to refer to. The only reason I remember that I'd posted about my experience before is because it was the first time I'd "told" anyone about it except my two closest friends. I thought everybody might think I was some awful person when I 'fessed up to the experience. But I don't remeber which thread it was or what we had originally been discussing.

[DanaC]

bint Noun. A woman. From the Arabic 'bint' meaning girl or daughter. Derog.

Is that where that comes from? fabulous I didnt know. Great word bint. As is maud. (northern slang meaning girlfreind or wife)

[Catwoman]

Haven't heard 'maud' before. Will remember to use it instead of bint occassionally (great adjective). Have you heard of 'mare'? (Could take this as (night)mare or 'you are a horse'.)

[Carbonated_Brains]

Mare is both a derogatory name for a gal, and a horrid situation (shortened "nightmare"), you're right.

I've also heard the term "Larry" thrown around.

"I spilled the beer, I'm such a larry!"

The female equivalent is Sue.

And if you want to get flamboyant, switch Larry with "Pierre".

My apologies to anybody named Larry, Sue and Pierre.

[Catwoman]

Lol. You're such a Geneveve!

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Ah, once again, television comes to rebut the troublesome cold-hard facts.

*shrugs* Check it out for yourself:
Forensic Files:
http://www.forensicfiles.com/

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jinx
Do you think it's more likely that these cases are on TV because they are the norm, or because they are unique or remarkable in some way?

I think it's becoming the norm. Forensic Science, over time, has become more advanced and is now able to seek out and convict more criminals. Even cold cases are being reopened more because of new evidence that has been found:

Cold Case Files:
http://www.aetv.com/tv/shows/coldcasefiles/

[Carbonated_Brains]

How is linking to 2 television episodes backing up your argument?

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
How is linking to 2 television episodes backing up your argument?

They are based on Facts. Plus, I made it clear (I thought) in my reply to jinx. So maybe I should have elaborated more with my response with you perhaps?

Ok then. The "troublesome cold hard facts" that you spoke about is what those shows are all about. Pretty simple.

[Carbonated_Brains]

Yes, you said that, and three or four of us said that those shows glorify the "special cases" where the evidence is solid, forensics could be readily and reliably used, and it made good TV.

We're arguing that the vast majority of cases aren't as clean cut as to be featured on a television show, and so television is a heavily biased and unreliable source of evidence.

In short, these shows display the "good" cases, and not the ones where DNA evidence fails.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Yes, you said that, and three or four of us said that those shows glorify the "special cases" where the evidence is solid, forensics could be readily and reliably used, and it made good TV.

We're arguing that the vast majority of cases aren't as clean cut as to be featured on a television show, and so television is a heavily biased and unreliable source of evidence.

In short, these shows display the "good" cases, and not the ones where DNA evidence fails.

Oh well. I suppose you're right...wouldn't be worth watching if the evidence failed to nail someone.

But, I did some surfing on it:

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence:
http://bioforensics.com/articles/cha...champion1.html

It made for an interesting read. Asks if the laboratory's conclusions fully supported by the test results and more. It gets quite detailed.

[Lady Sidhe]

"I merely asked you to back up your statement"

I'm looking for it right now. When I find it, I'll let you know.



"OK you leave something everywhere you go, but so does everyone that passes by. How do you sort out the perp from all the rest?"


Say, for instance, you find fingerprints in a house. First you eliminate those that belong to anyone who lives in the house, then those belonging to guests, say....after you've eliminated those people as suspects, if there are unidentified prints, you look for matches in a database.

That's just an example, though. That's not how it works all the time.