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

[Lady Sidhe]

A friend of mine who worked at the hospital got murdered, too. She lived in one of the New Orleans suburbs, like Metarie, or something. They found her wrapped in a shower curtain in her apartment, two weeks after she died.

She had diabeties, so they're looking at that as a cause. I'm not sure if she was "wrapped" in a shower curtain or had, say, fallen in the shower and got caught in it.

However, she was dating a former mental patient (you'd think she'd know better), and both he and her truck were gone.

I haven't heard anything on it in over a year, though, so I don't know what the cops found out.


I guess psychology isn't a very safe business to be in...

[Lady Sidhe]

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040610/5bca...a1ddc8c_1.html


Judge offers choice of jail or vasectomies to deadbeat dads.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040610/5bca...a1ddc8c_1.html


Judge offers choice of jail or vasectomies to deadbeat dads.

"Family court judges in Ohio and Wisconsin have imposed similar restrictions on deadbeat dads. The pre-eminent case, Wisconsin v. Oakley, No. 99-3328, went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case of a five-year conception restriction imposed on a defendant who fathered nine children and owed $25,000 in unpaid child support"

"A March 31 decision by Monroe County, N.Y., family court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ordered an allegedly drug-addicted homeless couple to stop having children. The case, In the matter of BobbiJean P., No. NN 03626-03, was a first in New York. The couple's four children were placed in foster care last year and the woman is pregnant again. The judge determined that they should be given free family planning to prevent future pregnancy. The 35-year-old mother is identified in court papers only as Stephanie. Rodney Evers, 54, is the father of three of the four children, including a 6-year-old boy. The younger children, ages 4, 2 and 1, tested positive for cocaine at birth."

*shrugs* I don't see what the problem is (to anyone who has a problem with it). Those examples are perfect cases for this, IMO. No one is being forced to do this. It's a perfectly viable option to choose. Why bring another life into the world that you can't properly care for and afford? It's madness that ppl in the most negative situations are the ones having all these kids.

[Lady Sidhe]

The Locard Principle. “Every Contact leaves it’s trace”

Professor Edmond Locard (1877), Founder and Director Institute of Criminalisitcs, University Lyons, France

In the United States a court decision went further with the following

"WHEREVER HE STEPS, WHATEVER HE TOUCHES, WHATEVER HE LEAVES, EVEN
UNCONSCIOUSLY, WILL SERVE AS SILENT WITNESS AGAINST HIM. NOT ONLY HIS
FINGERPRINTS OR HIS FOOTPRINTS, BUT HIS HAIR, THE FIBERS FROM HIS CLOTHES,
THE GLASS HE BREAKS, THE TOOL MARK HE LEAVES, THE PAINT HE SCRATCHES, THE
BLOOD OR SEMEN HE DEPOSITS OR COLLECTS --- ALL OF THESE AND MORE BEAR
MUTE WITNESS AGAINST HIM. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT FORGET. IT IS
NOT CONFUSED BY THE EXCITEMENT OF THE MOMENT. IT IS NOT ABSENT BECAUSE
HUMAN WITNESSES ARE. IT IS FACTUAL EVIDENCE- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE
WRONG; IT CANNOT PERJURE ITSELF; IT CANNOT BE WHOLLY ABSENT. ONLY ITS
INTERPRETATION CAN ERR. ONLY HUMAN FAILURE TO FIND IT, STUDY AND
UNDERSTAND IT, CAN DIMINISH ITS VALUE.”
(Harris Vs. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 1947)

Today the following is taught and practiced in crime scene work:

Theory of Transfer

(A) The perpetrator will take away traces of the victim and the scene.
(B) The victim will retain traces of the perpetrator and may leave
traces of him/herself on the perpetrator.
(C) The perpetrator will leave behind traces of himself at the scene.


There ya go.

Sidhe


edited for sp.

[elSicomoro]

Interesting...but not a hard fast rule. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Carbonated_Brains]

Not "There you go", damnit.

The argument is that the perpetrator always leaves DNA evidence on the scene.

Of course there will always be SOME form of marking or evidence in a crime, I was under the impression we were arguing with regard to viable biological evidence.

Finding a sneaker imprint is a fuckload different than a fingerprint, hair follicle, and blood sample.

I'm (and others are) saying that not everybody leaves behind DNA!

Your quote is self-evident and meaningless to this argument.

[elSicomoro]

Actually, my argument is that it is theoretically possible not to leave something behind...you're on asphalt (no footprints), the skin cells and hair stick to your clothes, fibers don't come off your clothing at one point. I don't doubt that more often than not, you're gonna leave something behind, but I don't think it's definite.

[lumberjim]

if you killed some one in two feet of surf, and they washed out to sea to float for 3 days, then washed back up on a different beach what evidence would there be?

If you killed someone from a windy belltower at a great distance with a high powered, silenced rifle while dressed in leather from head to toe.

if you stabbed someone in the heart with an icecicle while it was snowing very hard.


if you pushed someone off of a cliff while gloved


if you poisoned a stranger's drink while in line at Arby's and didn;t touch them or their drink


no evidence. certainly no dna.

[Carbonated_Brains]

Wait, let me write these down.

[Undertoad]

I don't have time to look back through the thread but has the point been brought up that the presence of someone's DNA somewhere doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed a crime?

[Carbonated_Brains]

Coupla times, bud.

[Undertoad]

So this thread is as relevant and useful as the word association thread then.

[Carbonated_Brains]

Spot on, yes. Kill it!

[wolf]

Originally posted by lumberjim
if you killed some one in two feet of surf, and they washed out to sea to float for 3 days, then washed back up on a different beach what evidence would there be?

Beach sands differ. So do microrganisms in the water. Some of this evidence could remain on the body, and would certainly remain on your shoes and in your clothing. You, in killling the individual will have acquired traces of their DNA. (This is true of any of your scenarios.)

If you killed someone from a windy belltower at a great distance with a high powered, silenced rifle while dressed in leather from head to toe.

marks on the bullet tie it to your gun. marks on the shell casing tie it to your gun. Powder residue on YOU tie you to your gun. chemistry of the powder load ties you to the bullets you bought. Bits and pieces of the leather can be left at the belltower.

if you stabbed someone in the heart with an icecicle while it was snowing very hard.

struggle ensues, blood transfer occurs. them to you.

if you pushed someone off of a cliff while gloved

your dna is on the inside of the gloves, theirs to the outside. shoeprints and other marks will further build the case that you were present.

if you poisoned a stranger's drink while in line at Arby's and didn;t touch them or their drink

access to poison. video surveillance camera will reveal your presence and contact with stranger. the chemical composition of the poison will have unique characteristics. purchase records of the poison or consitutents for homebrewing will exist. traces of the storage and/or manufacture of the poison will also trip you up.


no evidence. certainly no dna.

plenty of evidence. plenty of DNA.

Didn't you see the CSI game prominently figuring in the picture of my desk in that thread?

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by sycamore
Interesting...but not a hard fast rule. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I can do that.