Slashdot Mirror
Blood From Mosquito Traps Car Thief
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?"
[ Intro to latest CSI: Miami episode as ripped from the headlines: ]
Police officer: "We were able to extract the suspect's blood from a mosquito found in the car."
David Caruso: "Heh heh heh..."
David Caruso: "SUCKERRRRR!"
[ YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! ]
This could have helped out during the OJ Simpson trial...
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.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
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.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Shouldn't the story title contain the word "alleged"? As of this posting it does not.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
circumstantial evidence and to top it off... one really really stupid guy.
Mosquitoes are a winged creature. That means they fly. They are also attracted to human beings since they can detect us at ranges up to 40 miles. The fact that the mosquito was in the car is laughably circumstantial evidence. It could never even hold up in court.
What I find funny is the guy even admitted to being in the car. Unless the guy confesses to actually stealing the car I doubt a jury will convict based on a mosquito.
After all, OJ Simpson got off a murder charge with PLENTY of blood evidence and a lot more than a Mosquito's worth ;)
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!
how do you tie someone to 8-1/2 gallons of liquid??
A good lawyer should be able to get you out of this one.
do the police have pictures of the mosquito in the car?
Is it the same mosquito ?
who's to say the mosquito didn't come from somewhere else?
unfortunately (fortunately ?) the suspect has linked himself with the crime. "saying he had hitchhiked and was given a lift by a man driving the car" which will make the lawyers job much harder.
I knew I couldn't trust those Skeeters! They swore they just wanted a taste of the red stuff. A now look, turning states evidence! Little blood-thieving bastards!
Seems like a simple case...
extract blood
grow clone
compare characteristics
???
justice!
can i add one more bullet?
make raptors!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Maybe he would have talked?
Or maybe the poor critter is enjoying a vacation at a resort in Cuba now.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I'm glad to see everyone posting on the positives/negatives of the FA but seriously not one mention of the submitters name. Seriously, Frosty Piss that made my night
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.
damn, global warning is worse than i thought.
"To stop the terrorists."
Amen!
Nowadays I can predict very accurately which stories appearing in the default firefox BBC feed will make it to /.
>>>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.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
I'm more concerned as to why his DNA was in the system at all. The article didn't seem to say.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
As someone who's been robbed (thrice) and detained/arrested twice I tend to agree with you. My innocence came out both times fairly quickly, once prior to Miranda the other shortly after. While I do think our penal system is hopelessly broken, I also firmly think that mosquito in car and a so-so story as to how he got there (lets face it, if he had been able to give an excellent description of the driver && || not already been known to the police he likely would not have been convicted). As it stands this guy couldn't point them to the "other perp", had a history with the cops, and had some statistically convincing circumstantial evidence against him. Good enough for me.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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
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.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
What's next? Farts being used as evidence?
Sorry, I was not being clear . I will explain myself better.
I do not think this is evidence that should be admissible and a good lawyer would get this thrown out of court.
It's not in the constitution, because it's far older than that. It's deeply embedded in law. You claim to teach law and you don't know this shit?
Which law is that? Point me to American common or statutory law that says this. You simply can't. You are merely projecting and imputing your ignorance of American criminal procedure onto me and the legal system. This is free country. I can think what I want! No law says otherwise.
Of course, as a hysterical, know-it-all anonymous lib with no legal training whatsoever, you screech and call names and completely ignored my entire post. Thanks for proving my point that responding to anon cowards is waste of keystrokes.
And fuck you, I've been anonymous on Slashdot for ten years now. I'm not hiding, I'm right here, just like I've always been.
Very brave, and so very profound. So tough on the Internet, aren't we?
End (attempt at rational) discussion.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
*sarcasm disclaimer*
"Tie him to an anker..."
Which type of anker are you referring to? The car, or 10 gallons equivalent of beer, or (unspecified amount of) Indonesian beer, or the river Anker?
It could make a big difference on the demonstrated and expected results here.
If it was a typo, did you mean wanker, cranker, canker, or what?
It's not funny until you learn to communicate so that your audience can understand what you meant.
I think the word you were looking for could be anchor, from the context of your post. (which is not anywhere obvious to a non-native english speaking audience)
Now if you suggested a set of balance scales* to compare the weight of a witch to that of a duck, then we would all have a better understanding of what you are trying to be funny about.
*You can use my largest scales.[3:45/5:33]
"Someone who disapproves of a witch hunt?! He must be one of them! Tie him to an anker and see if this wickedness floats or not!"
This reeks of 'OMGZ!!!teh TERRORISTS!!!!-think of the children!!!', trying for sarcasm.
Epic Fail, OMGZ!!!Ponies!!!
*end sarcasm*
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
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?
According to the article he's already admitted to being in the car. So in what way is that a hole in the case?
No, you shouldn't presume a party to be guilty unless they're proven guilty in a court of law. That has nothing whatsoever to the strength of the particular case as reported and everything to do with justice.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
Innocent until proven guilty is an idea that only applies in any way to the court of law, legal proceedings, and treatments of suspects.
i.e. the due process, that determines what long-term major legal sanctions, sentence (if any) will be passed against a defendant.
We on slashdot don't pass sentence. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply and is totally irrelevent in the court of public opinion.
Even while a legal proceeding is in progress, it is some ways nonsense, though. If suspects are truly treated as innocent until proven guilty, then do you care to explain why a suspect can be arrested and held in jail without bail pending a verdict from the courts?
Innocent until proven guilty has only minor influence over treatments of the accused (I.E. not executing them or implementing other severe punishments like 5 years in prison, before they even get to have a trial): the final verdict is effected.
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.
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
I concur. Judge Ito and a jury would agree Mark Fuhrman planted the mosquito.
There's probably some way to identify that the evidence - DNA or Blood - was not there at the time of the murder if that's what you're implying. That I don't know the answer to. Corroborating evidence comes, motive, opportunity, record, etc.
The one problem I can see is the vigilante cop (think Batman, Dirty Harry or Steven Segal). If they're so gung ho about taking down the bad guys and can't find any evidence to link them - or beat them up - isn't planting evidence the next best thing?
I'm just more concerned that they are using DNA to find a car thief. I'm not going to imply that this is a victimless crime. But, there's a lot of Executive-level DNA over the mortgage fiasco, Enron, etc and I don't see Executive DNA being used as evidence!
A mosquito? In finland? Okay.
In DECEMBER? It's f&^* freezing there and all the mosquitos are hibernating.
Um, the article says "Palomaeki said a prosecutor would decide if the evidence was solid enough for charges to be pressed." It seems that it has yet to be decided whether there is sufficient evidence.
It amazes me how quick people are to pass judgement based on a >20 line story. Generally I am a lot more trusting of police to tell the whole story than I am of journalists.
Sure, as a general reader of the article I'm not required to assume the man is innocent but it is in my nature to do so. I generally find that people who are quick to judge others guilty based on inconclusive evidence are distrustful, paranoid or unhappy in life as a result.
If we all thought 'Why shouldn't I believe you?' instead of 'Why should I believe you?' the world would be a better place.
Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
It's interesting to see that Yahoo News says it's quoting AFP on this one. What would be more interesting to hear if this is actually a AFP "news" or not. - And if so, it would be very interesting to hear who on AFP was drunk enough to come up with this... =)
Unfortunately stealing a car for joyriding in Finland is not a very big offence. Actually it's not even called stealing, but "unlawful use of motor vehicle". And I dare say the police would even have time to check a car's interior, let alone hunt for a mosquito. I've had my car stolen once, and luckily recovered. I called up the police after it was recovered, and they didn't have time to come by to have a look at it, let alone dust the car for prints. - So, no cool CSI...
And BTW. It's December here in Finland (like I guess it's in most parts of the world), and the mosquitoes died by September...
If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
The Life is out there...
And then he ran amok in L.A., eating people in the streets. Life finds a way....
"STING".
But, i wonder if they used RAID to dragnet the mosquito...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Thanks.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
That's great that they were able to test the blood in the mosquito, but what I want to know is how they were able to tell that the mosquito had sucked blood? I've never been able to tell, myself, until after I've swatted the thing, which would sort of screw up the whole chain of custody....
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell