Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 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?"

3 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Too many factors by Restil · · Score: 3, 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

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  2. Re:Why was his DNA in the system? by da_matta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Currently the system consist of "known associates" of the police. In practice you can get included if you are accused of a crime with potential punishment over six months in jail. And in Finland you can't get that from minor stuff like stealing a tv or downloading mp3's.

  3. Re:Too many factors by jadavis · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.