Slashdot Mirror


Cotton Swabs are the Prime Suspect In 8-Year Phantom Chase

matt4077 writes "For eight years, several hundred police officers across multiple European countries have been chasing a phantom woman whose DNA had been found in almost 20 crimes (including two murders) across central Europe. It now turns out that contaminated cotton swabs might be responsible for this highly unusual investigation. After being puzzled by the apparent randomness of the crimes, investigators noticed that all cotton swabs had been sourced from the same company. They also noted that the DNA was never found in crimes in Bavaria, a German state located at the center of the crimes' locations. It turns out that Bavaria buys its swabs from a different supplier."

344 comments

  1. Ewwwwwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they shredded a woman for swabs? I thought we were only good for barbecue, masks, book covers, lampshades and creepy garments.

    1. Re:Ewwwwwww... by c0p0n · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh my, are you like, a woman?

      Oh my oh my oh my oh my

      --

      Your head a splode
    2. Re:Ewwwwwww... by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Neh, you're pretty good for doing the dishes, too.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    3. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I thought we were only good for barbecue, masks, book covers, lampshades and creepy garments."

      "Neh, you're pretty good for doing the dishes, too."

      The thing women can be useful for that you notice is not on the list is really the dishes ? Wow. This really is Slashdot!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Poltras · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh man you totally talked to her.

    5. Re:Ewwwwwww... by GogglesPisano · · Score: 1, Funny

      Also Soylent Green. And hot dogs.

    6. Re:Ewwwwwww... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Yep. Men, on the other hand, I have distinctly different uses for *grin*

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    7. Re:Ewwwwwww... by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Funny

      So they shredded a woman for swabs? I thought we were only good for barbecue, masks, book covers, lampshades and creepy garments.

      I'm pretty sure you missed one...

    8. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what?

    9. Re:Ewwwwwww... by severoon · · Score: 1

      Of course they put people in cotton swabs. Cotton is quite fibrous, there's no other way to get it nice and soft. It puts the cotton in the basket.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    10. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I thought we were only good for barbecue, masks, book covers, lampshades and creepy garments."

      "Neh, you're pretty good for doing the dishes, too."

      The thing women can be useful for that you notice is not on the list is really the dishes ? Wow. This really is Slashdot!

      Really. Nothing about cooking, you see.

    11. Re:Ewwwwwww... by redcaboodle · · Score: 1

      Mow the lawn, remove spiders, ...

      You know, those things a vibrator cannot do.

      --
      -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    12. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mow the lawn, remove spiders, ...

      You know, those things a vibrator cannot do.

      With suitable modifications, a vibrator should be able to mow the lawn. Removing spiders might be a problem - killing them, not so much.

    13. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Mow the lawn, remove spiders, ...

      You know, those things a vibrator cannot do."

      You'd be amazed what they can do with nanotechnology these days!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re:Ewwwwwww... by againjj · · Score: 0

      Feminine hygiene products?

    15. Re:Ewwwwwww... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I just imagined a new Transformer, now. And sure as hell, rule 34 is going to apply.

      Thanks a lot.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    16. Re:Ewwwwwww... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No problem. In fact I just imagined you imagining, and now I don't need women for a while longer ;-)

      Disclaimer : I'm operating on the tenuous assumption that you are hot, even though you don't get enough protein. On second thought, if you are hot then you probably do get enough protein ;-)

      You invoked rule 34, so you gets what ya asked for :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  2. CSI to the rescue by zaroastra · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mega criminal mind

    --
    I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
    1. Re:CSI to the rescue by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mega criminal mind

      The handler of swabs really is a serial killer.

    2. Re:CSI to the rescue by taucross · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Pornographic use of Occam's razor.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    3. Re:CSI to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a new spin off!

      CSI: You're Doing It Wrong

    4. Re:CSI to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm glad that they didn't find the woman who's DNA it is. After all, she would have been severely punished for something that she had absolutely no idea about.

      I'm amazed that there was the presence of mind to check the suppliers!

      Although, this would be a great "thin-blue-line" skit.

    5. Re:CSI to the rescue by palegray.net · · Score: 0

      Actually, her DNA carries code for a terrible alien disease that's completely unknown to modern medicine. It causes otherwise normal humans to commit a diverse range of horrendous crimes upon viral integration with their genome.

      The mothership is on its way to clean up what's left of our planet.

    6. Re:CSI to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that there'd be about 96 billion ways to disprove each individual charge.

    7. Re:CSI to the rescue by Jurily · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that they didn't find the woman who's DNA it is. After all, she would have been severely punished for something that she had absolutely no idea about.

      Damn. Wasn't it already standard procedure to ignore DNA connected with handling the evidence? Why not? Who gets to decide, and why?

      <grammarnazi>whose == the one who [subject] belongs to, who's == who is</grammarnazi>

    8. Re:CSI to the rescue by BizzyM · · Score: 0

      CSI rule #1: do NOT use the yellow q-tips.

    9. Re:CSI to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My grandmother's name is Monique not Mazi, you insensitive clod!

      Now get off her lawn!

    10. Re:CSI to the rescue by LuNa7ic · · Score: 1

      'The Handler of the Swabs' what an awesome name for a serial killer!

      --
      *runs*
    11. Re:CSI to the rescue by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Coen brothers are set to do a CSI spin-off, Crime Scene Incompetence, sort of like Fargo meets Scary Movie.

      I wish I wasn't kidding, that would be a riot!

      "Officer Grissom, are you concerned about the security of... your shit?"

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    12. Re:CSI to the rescue by Jurily · · Score: 1

      My grandmother's name is Monique not Mazi, you insensitive clod!

      So if I were to call her Monica, would you be offended?

    13. Re:CSI to the rescue by spathi-wa · · Score: 1

      whoosh

    14. Re:CSI to the rescue by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should check the prison population, what if 90% of the inmates were working at a cotton swab factory just before their arrest?

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    15. Re:CSI to the rescue by Tordek · · Score: 0

      Well, she only made the Q-tips; she didn't handle the evidence.

      --
      Tordek, Dwarven Warrior - Juegos de Rol en Argentina
    16. Re:CSI to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It causes otherwise normal humans to commit a diverse range of horrendous crimes upon viral integration with their genome.

      Gun ownership?

    17. Re:CSI to the rescue by mrboyd · · Score: 5, Funny

      The truth is she's a very smart serial killer who managed to get herself hired at the coton swab factory with the sole intention of contaminating them with her DNA so that if caught she could use it to get any trial against her dismissed... brilliant!

    18. Re:CSI to the rescue by interested+pyro · · Score: 0

      CSI rule #2: do NOT always say its the women in every case.

    19. Re:CSI to the rescue by aliquis · · Score: 1

      CSI: DIY crime scene?

    20. Re:CSI to the rescue by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, that's why I leave my semen in every room I every visit, and on every person I meet.

    21. Re:CSI to the rescue by SargentDU · · Score: 1

      Then you just leave half your DNA everywhere?

    22. Re:CSI to the rescue by MoralHazard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're probably right, but I think the OP's point stands, nonetheless. A non-citizen, possibly lacking the right language skills, and maybe not the most sophisticated person in the world, might get railroaded. In the US, at least, juries tend to give overwhelming weight to scientific or expert testimony of any kind, regardless of how certain or flawed the science is. Even if not, that woman's life would still go to hell the minute the cops found her.

      Police and the scientific method are like politicians and economic theory: They talk about the principles, they often appear to use and apply the academic insights, but they tend to throw anything out that doesn't match their pre-existing bias, without a second thought.

      I'm not saying that all cops just think "The cuffs are on her: Therefore, she must be guilty." But police work tends to reward and glamorize a dogged pursuit of a conclusion based on a hunch. If a scientific researcher:

          * becomes emotionally involved in the outcome of his or her work, developing a substantial personal need to see it succeed, AND
          * eschews open, independent peer review and only seeks collaborative opinions from people likely to sympathize with the researcher, generally,

      it's a recipe for disaster--cold-fusion, antigravity, perpetual motion machines, etc. Academia has a LOT of braking mechanisms to prevent bad science from getting to the publishing stage, and more mechanisms designed to suppress whatever happens to slip through. Police departments have far fewer checks.

      Historically, bad police work hasn't carried much of a risk to the cops who did it--you could railroad a poor, ignorant, minority defendant on a sensational charge without much worry that he would somehow exonerate himself, later. That's starting to change (Project Innocence being the big example), but old attitudes and methods are deeply ingrained in police culture, and won't change quickly.

      Anyway, the point is, that these cops devoted hundreds of police and several years of investigations to this case--millions of dollars in costs. But since police labs don't try to have independent outsiders replicate and repeat their experiments, nobody caught this before it turned into a circus.

    23. Re:CSI to the rescue by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I'm a little disturbed that this woman is leaving so much DNA on what is supposed to be a sterile product!

    24. Re:CSI to the rescue by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Since the chromosomes in each sperm are picked randomly it's pretty likely that any significant amount of them would contain at least one copy of each chromosome. Then again the way the chromosome sets are generated (splitting one base cell) would probably mean that sperms with exactly opposite chromosome configurations would appear pretty close to each other inside the testicle which would mean the chance of finding a whole chromosome set should be even higher than with a purely random distribution (not that you need a higher chance when you've already got millions of 50% chances and only one of them has to succeed).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    25. Re:CSI to the rescue by sorak · · Score: 1

      It's a new spin off!

      CSI: You're Doing It Wrong

      Isn't that "Reno:911"?

    26. Re:CSI to the rescue by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Yep, there's just no limit to the truly criminal mind!

      Hiding out in a cotton swab factory! Who'd'a thot, eh?

    27. Re:CSI to the rescue by aix+tom · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, it can still be perfectly sterile.

      Sterilizing something, that is killing off everything on and in it that lives, is pretty easy.

      But completely removing DNA and other particles isn't. There could still be DNA particles from the person who picked the cotton in the cotton swabs.

      When you have a little cell in the swab, there is no easy way to figure out if that is a human cell or a cotton cell, and remove all human cells.

      And there *definitely* still is cotton DNA in the cotton swab.

    28. Re:CSI to the rescue by Poltras · · Score: 3, Funny

      CSI rule #3: do some pretty VB interface to reverse lookup the IP address 273.54.163.341

    29. Re:CSI to the rescue by KenRH · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actualy there is a process when making the sex-cells that mix the genes from the two chromosomes in the chromosome pair. So none of the chromosones in the semen is actually a direct copy of the ones in the rest of your body.

    30. Re:CSI to the rescue by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Officer Grissom, are you concerned about the security of... your shit?"

      Oh, you're talking about Crime Scene Incontinence?

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    31. Re:CSI to the rescue by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a song about you and what you did to some poor captain's wife - http://www.paulandstorm.com/lyrics/the-captains-wifes-lament/

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    32. Re:CSI to the rescue by nizo · · Score: 1

      On the upside she can now go out and kill whoever she wants, as long as she only leaves behind DNA evidence.

    33. Re:CSI to the rescue by BarefootClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a new spin off!

      CSI: You're Doing It Wrong

      Isn't that all of them?

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    34. Re:CSI to the rescue by winwar · · Score: 1

      "That's starting to change (Project Innocence being the big example), but old attitudes and methods are deeply ingrained in police culture, and won't change quickly."

      I disagree. Have any of those involved been prosecuted or lost their jobs? Hell, some of the people involved STILL believe they got the correct person even though they won't face any consequences.

      Bad police work is still with us. And there is still no real consequence.

    35. Re:CSI to the rescue by aliquis · · Score: 1

      She was like that when I got here! / Necrophilia defence ftw!

    36. Re:CSI to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CSI rule #3: do some pretty VB interface to reverse lookup the IP address 273.54.163.341

      My pretty VB interface IP lookup tool keeps saying "Unable to resolve IP address". What gives?

    37. Re:CSI to the rescue by Jame_Retief · · Score: 1

      He did not say he left his Sperm everywhere, he his Semen, which is not one and the same. A man who has been 'fixed' will leave no sperm, but you may find his DNA in his semen.

    38. Re:CSI to the rescue by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Oh No! He might be using a FireWall! Call Harrison Ford!!

    39. Re:CSI to the rescue by GonzoTurk182 · · Score: 1

      I can't agree more! I wonder if the introduction of products like DNA Identiguard will start making jurors reconsider the assumption the DNA is the gold standard in crime scene investigations.

  3. Great way to hide by Onyma · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bet you'll find her at the end of the packing line completely unaware she's a highly adept and wanted criminal. Or what a brilliant cover if she was guilty ;)

    --
    Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
    1. Re:Great way to hide by vidnet · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are some jobs where you really shouldn't express dissatisfaction by spitting in the products.

    2. Re:Great way to hide by PMuse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the contamination screwed up the law enforcement customers' tests, I wonder what other customers' tests it screwed up. Does the vendor sell these swabs to hospitals, for example?

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    3. Re:Great way to hide by TempeTerra · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please sit down, I have some difficult news for you. The test results have come back and it seems the man you knew as your father was not your biological father. DNA testing shows that your true father was a middle aged german woman, possibly with a congenital heart condition. I know this must come as a shock to you.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  4. It's clear what this means by PapayaSF · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously there's a woman on the cotton swab assembly line who leads a secret life of crime!

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:It's clear what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      OJ didn't do it!

    2. Re:It's clear what this means by Spacejock · · Score: 1

      Or she has very itchy nostrils ...

    3. Re:It's clear what this means by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Informative

      OJ didn't do it!

      For the benefit of the idiot who moderated the parent post offtopic: OJ got off primarily because forensic evidence was grossly mishandled, leading to its inadmissibility in court. (IANAL, but I am qualified in forensics.) The comment might be boring or unfunny, but not wholly offtopic.

  5. Sherlock Holmes by Toe,+The · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

    1. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Rayban · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aliens did it?

      --
      æeee!
    2. Re:Sherlock Holmes by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suspect a highly secretive and powerful organization known only as the GNAA.

      Yours truly,
      Slashdot Troll.

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:Sherlock Holmes by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Inconceivable!

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    4. Re:Sherlock Holmes by tg123 · · Score: 1

      Bloody Aliens

    5. Re:Sherlock Holmes by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

      Sherlock Holmes is fictional.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    6. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create something superior or shut the fuck up.

    7. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You keep using that word.

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    8. Re:Sherlock Holmes by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Arthur Conan Doyle was real, and he wrote that... quoting a fictional character is no less "relevant" than quoting a real person.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    9. Re:Sherlock Holmes by assert(0) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "once you eliminate the fictional, whatever remains, no matter how mundane, must be actual"

      --
      (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
    10. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

      On the contrary:

      "A clever saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire.

      In the first place, you can never be certain that you HAVE eliminated ALL the "impossibilities".

    11. Re:Sherlock Holmes by peragrin · · Score: 1

      don't worry people will still believe the fictional over the actual, as they can't handle the truth.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Sherlock Holmes by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sherlock Holmes is fictional.

      No shit, Sherlock!

      Holmes being fictional doesn't imply that the principles found in Conan Doyle's books aren't valid.

      Whether a real person said something or a real person wrote that a fictional person said something doesn't change the wisdom of what was said, does it?

      There are plenty of "laws" that I find useful that stem from fiction, including TANSTAAFL, Hanlon's Razor and even one or two grains of wisdom from that old fictional anthology about the Palestinian guy.

    13. Re:Sherlock Holmes by interested+pyro · · Score: 0

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Inconceivable! Sherlock Holmes used LOGIC and EVIDENCE in order to solve crimes. Back in the good-old-days, if your hands were bloody, or if your scythe was near the scene, you get a nice rope and a short drop. If you were really smart, you would take the scythe that was used and plant it in another person's house. You are clear, he hangs. Holmes used clues and logic to solve the crimes he was faced. I admit, having him solve every one without missing a single thing was a bit much, but it was a story!

    14. Re:Sherlock Holmes by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That and even if you do you'll usually end up with a set of possible truths. Eliminating the impossible only throws out some theories but usually not all of them. Hell, if you look at the mess the US educational system is currently demonstrating you've always got "God did it" as one of the improbable solutions and that one's definitely not disprovable (Dawkins argues that God is extremely improbable but Holmes's saying there says "no matter how improbable").

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holmes being fictional doesn't imply that the principles found in Conan Doyle's books aren't valid.

      No, but it certainly doesn't imply that they are valid, either. When you quote someone, you are appealing to the human tendency to defer to authority, using the fact that someone ELSE said it to lend credibility to your argument.

      But in reality, all you've got is what an author said about investigating crime.

    16. Re:Sherlock Holmes by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      I always had a problem with the part where he solved the crime with evidence the reader was not privy to. At least that's how I remember it, it's been at least 20 years since I read any Sherlock Holmes.

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    17. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Chabo · · Score: 1

      Sherlock Holmes: "Watson you fool, didn't you smell the eel pie on his breath? He's obviously the Muttonchop Murderer!"
      Reader: "Well obviously I didn't, cause I can't smell anything in the story!"

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    18. Re:Sherlock Holmes by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1

      When I quote someone, I'm generally not so much deferring to authority as I am deferring to someone who made my point better/more eloquently/more amusingly than I could.

      --
      words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
    19. Re:Sherlock Holmes by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're the one who defers to authority if you think that what an author says is less valid than what someone in authority says.
      Me, I prefer to judge what was said and not who said it.

    20. Re:Sherlock Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing spoils pithy sayings like a pedant.

  6. This is actually pretty scary by saiha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But ... but ... CSI, computers and experts are always right! You mean they actually have to do investigations instead of blind trust?

    I wonder how much hard evidence they discarded because they "knew" it was this same woman?

    1. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a good question. Cops aren't really all that bright, they are methodical and when applied properly, it gets the job done but they aren't exactly the smartest group of people. It's entirely possible that a lot of evidence and/or leads have been discarded or neglected because of this.

      Before anyone flames me for stating that cops aren't the brightest of the bunch, when doing science it's often the case where a sample of something is tested before it it treated with the substance being tested. These provide baselines for comparative results and it isn't uncommon for them to be randomly done throughout the course of the experiments because you need a control. Now, if they were the slightest bit intelligent in the subject, they would test raw material periodically to ensure it wasn't contaminated in the same ways they shoot and clean their own guns periodically to ensure they are ready for use. This entire mysterious woman contamination could have been caught before it ever effected one crime scene if something was periodically done to validate the test equipment they are using. Instead, they treat it with less suspicion then a flashlight and just assume that it works as advertised instead of "checking the batteries" every once in a while. Doesn't seem to bright to me.

    2. Re:This is actually pretty scary by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about how scary it would have been for the woman? Just imagine if the government got a hold of her DNA in a few years as part of some new Not-Really-Totalitarian-Fascist-Plot-We-Are-Really-Your-Friend program to grab DNA data for massive profiles of their citizens? She gets handed her ID card back and then picked up by the police a few hours later as the databases are furiously matching old crimes to new citizen data. She has no idea what is going on, just that they state they have DNA evidence of her involved in crimes all over the EU.

      Considering how much the police and the courts blindly trust all the data coming from forensic laboratories, she would be well and truly fucked.

    3. Re:This is actually pretty scary by grim-one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really think the same people are doing the detective work (collecting swabs) as are doing the DNA testing (working in the lab)? It's the scientists in the back rooms getting lazy. The good thing about police departments is once they find an issue, they take steps to avoid it in future.

    4. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On the other hand..

      How is her DNA getting on these cotton swabs, anyway? Is it OK that it's getting on there, the CSIs might not be the only ones buying cotton swabs from this company, and they might need to be hygienic in other applications...

    5. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Animaether · · Score: 4, Insightful

      she would be well and truly fucked because apparently all cops are stupid idiots who just go "the computer says it was you, so we're not even going to bother asking you that question you seen on TV - you know, the one going 'where were you on the night of', or even gather evidence for a solid care or present that evidence to a judge - we're just going to lock you up, for life, right away".

      oh wait. that's not how that stuff happens in any reasonable nation.

      In fact.. -because- that's NOT how that stuff happens is that they realized there's gotta be something going on with the swabs themselves.. as opposed to, say, the DNA lab handling them. Or that the same woman really -was- involved in the actual crimes themselves.

      I know it's popular to say that DNA evidence is being used to lock people up left and right, but very few cases -hinge- on that DNA evidence (some exceptions are e.g. rape cases where DNA from a sperm sample collected is pretty strong evidence that moves the question of "did the woman even have sex with that man?" to "was the sex that she had with that man a case of sexual violation?")

      That's not to say that I'm in favor of a building a DNA database with everybody's samples in them - but to make it seem like it will auto-jail people is naive in all but the strangest nations where you probably wouldn't get much of a due process regardless of DNA tests being involved or not.

    6. Re:This is actually pretty scary by noidentity · · Score: 1

      This entire mysterious woman contamination could have been caught before it ever effected one crime scene [...]

      How could this contamination have caused a crime scene?!?

    7. Re:This is actually pretty scary by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      oh wait. that's not how that stuff happens in any reasonable nation. [emphasis added]

      Yes, well, that's the catch. Are there any? Remember, they're all run by politicians.

      --
      -- Alastair
    8. Re:This is actually pretty scary by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The police actively don't hire people that are too smart. Which scares the shit out of me.

    9. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I'd like to think that the defense (had it gotten to that stage) would have made the connection that the woman being charged for two dozen random and unconnected crimes works in a Q-tip factory and that maybe, just maybe, she coughed on a box along the way.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    10. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you were 'proved' to be involved in two murders, and a dozen other crimes, I suspect you'd be in at least a holding cell until you could prove your innocence.

      If you couldn't prove the police are obviously wrong, you could be in jail for weeks, or months before your court date.

    11. Re:This is actually pretty scary by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine an even worse scenario... the Totally-Not-Fascist DNA database already exists and has her DNA in it at the time this first started. Disproving 20 crimes would probably be easy for her, as a solid alibi to one would call into question the rest. But if it were a single crime, there's no way she'd get out of it unless she were lucky enough to have an alibi on that one specific day.

      But hey, no worries, the innocent have nothing to hide!

    12. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The good thing about police departments is once they find an issue, they take steps to avoid it in future.

      Hmm. What country do you live in where this is the case?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you raise a good point, there would be a bit of a problem when her DNA started turning up at crime scenes when she was in custody. At that point, she would have a slam dunk case against the police.

    14. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually she would have got off easy. It's unlikely that she won't have a solid geographic alibi for most of the crimes, and even with just one alibi, logic forces the realization that an impossible match means there's something wrong with the evidence.

      Also in a few years with your Not-Really-Totalitarian-Fascist-Plot-We-Are-Really-Your-Friend program, they'd have so many more crimes tagged to that DNA they'd already have triggered an audit. Which may be what is going on already, with only 20 crimes; I can't tell yet 'cause TFA is /.'d.

      The mess now is the proven possibility of contaminated swabs means the caselogs must be reviewed for convictions [and arrests in some jurisdictions] that have used swabs as keystone evidence. Including guity pleas, which can be coerced. That's a big, expensive job, that won't be made any cheaper by the judicial load we'll have for demanded retrials.

      Also expect a government lawsuit set on the swab manufacturer to defray damages. Unless they've got some interesting "not contamination-free enough for DNA certainty" labelling on their product, they'll probably be bankrupted. And if not, that should trigger an investigation into who the company paid off to avoid the suit. Life's rich pageant, and all that.

    15. Re:This is actually pretty scary by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      she would be well and truly fucked because apparently all cops are stupid idiots

      I never said or implied that. "Blind trust" was the word I used which indicates negligence, and not stupidity.

      "the computer says it was you, so we're not even going to bother asking you that question you seen on TV - you know, the one going 'where were you on the night of', or even gather evidence for a solid care or present that evidence to a judge - we're just going to lock you up, for life, right away".

      Unfortunately, that does happen quite often. There are plenty of men that have been released from prison after 10-20 years for precisely just that.

      oh wait. that's not how that stuff happens in any reasonable nation.

      That's meaningless. I find it hard to categorize any of the actions of the U.S, Canada, U.K, France, Australia, etc. as reasonable. Most people don't, or have you not read most of the posts on Slashdot? In an unreasonable nation they would not need a computer in the first place. Your guilty only because it serves the purpose of somebody that wants you out of the way for whatever reason.

      In fact.. -because- that's NOT how that stuff happens is that they realized there's gotta be something going on with the swabs themselves.. as opposed to, say, the DNA lab handling them. Or that the same woman really -was- involved in the actual crimes themselves.

      Gotta? Really? As in, for sure? Fo Shizzle?

      The investigating officers don't "gotta" do anything. The only choice they have is to 100% rely on the veracity of the findings by their forensic technicians. Anything less puts the whole system in doubt which greatly hampers any investigations by the officers.

      When faced with forensic evidence across many crime scenes I don't find it reasonable that the vast majority of investigating officers will be second guessing the findings to figure out how they may be wrong. More likely, they will try to construct a "reality" that fits the findings. That is the danger.

      Once it leaves the investigating officers hands, it reaches the courts. The prosecutors don't give two shits about the defendant, the victims, or the truth. They only care about ONE THING, AND ONE THING ONLY. That is, "Can I get a conviction?". I highly doubt any prosecutor has ever thought long and hard about the veracity of any of the evidence in front of them that they are using. As far as the other side, "discredit, discredit, discredit".

      Prosecutors and Politicians have one thing in common. They are both whores. In fact, good prosecutors turn into Politicians, and the vast majority of Politicians started as lawyers anyways. Their jobs are not to find the truth, but to bend the truth to whatever agenda they are trying to accomplish. Cynical, I know....

      The problem here is the forensic technicians. Every single one of them needs to be fired. Not only could this woman have been at risk, but possibly many others as they clearly did not take the time to do proper science in any, way, shape or form. A lot of victims probably lost out as well since if they could not be competent in the bare fundamentals, what leads us to believe they did not miss huge amounts of evidence?

      ALL of the evidence this lab produced is suspect going back at least as far as the first sample was taken in this case. That opens the flood gates for lawyers to get convictions turned over based on this negligence alone. Certainly new trials where the laws allow it.

      I realize you are coming to the defense of the authorities here, but this is indefensible. Investigating officers and the courts cannot afford to ever second guess the technicians, so when something like this happens it is perfectly reasonable for people like me to suspect that innocent people have been made victims.

      Keep in mind, this was across many laboratories

    16. Re:This is actually pretty scary by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is her DNA getting on these cotton swabs, anyway?

      Earlier someone suggested sneezing/coughing, covering her mouth with a gloved hand, and then using the same gloved hand to pack swabs. Hard to avoid this unless she works in an enclosed suit (which is unlikely.)

      they might need to be hygienic in other applications

      Or not - I use them to clear soldered contacts, for example - couldn't care less about traces of some organic, they'd be all history after I dip the swab into some of our solvents (alcohols and acetone, for example.) Medical people simply sterilize everything before they use it on a patient. So this is an interesting case where highly sensitive biological test is performed without checking that the material is clean and without cleaning it. This may have something to do with the fact that the users here are not highly trained doctors and scientists (who are personally responsible for quality of results) but mere technicians who do the steps by the book but don't quite understand how the whole thing works, and maybe sometimes even don't care to know.

    17. Re:This is actually pretty scary by SpeleoNut · · Score: 1

      Not really, DNA is just a salt by itself it is not really dangerous. Consider if you have eaten anything that was at some point a living object (such as a steak or piece of fruit or a vegetable). That stuff is full of DNA and it hasn't killed you yet. I am surprised that the forensics lab that has been doing this testing did not run the appropriate negative control (cotton swab only) in their PCRs. DNA evidence alone would not lead to a conviction especially if this woman has alibis for the times these crimes were committed (such as she was busy packing cotton swabs at the time of the murder).

      --
      rnadom txet for a sngrutaie
    18. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Death Note. The guy behind bars pre-scheduled the deaths to give him an alibi.

      This person who contaminated all the swabs, or really did murder the people, maybe did both. :p

    19. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh wait. that's not how that stuff happens in any reasonable nation. [emphasis added]

      Yes, well, that's the catch. Are there any? Remember, they're all run by politicians.

      All but one is not the US if that's what you're asking.

      That's casting the net a little too narrow as there are other nations but the US who are also unreasonable, some are even in Europe!

      Yeah yeah yeah he should have used a qualifier, just don't think you're off the hook because of it or use it as a justification to expect and accept an extreme lack of reason where you happen to live. Otherwise you're making it worse.

    20. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd like to think that the defense (had it gotten to that stage) would have made the connection that the woman being charged for two dozen random and unconnected crimes works in a Q-tip factory and that maybe, just maybe, she coughed on a box along the way.

      She must cough on each one, extra-special-like. She's been doing it for 8 years...

      And this one is just for you, Detective Jimbo Junior...>hack< >wheeze< >bloodsplutter<

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    21. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Not really, DNA is just a salt by itself it is not really dangerous. Consider if you have eaten anything that was at some point a living object (such as a steak or piece of fruit or a vegetable). That stuff is full of DNA and it hasn't killed you yet. I am surprised that the forensics lab that has been doing this testing did not run the appropriate negative control (cotton swab only) in their PCRs. DNA evidence alone would not lead to a conviction especially if this woman has alibis for the times these crimes were committed (such as she was busy packing cotton swabs at the time of the murder).

      Actually, I do believe it's a technically an acid, Deoxyribonucleic acid (which by definition, can be combined with a base to get salt, water, and some heat).

      I don't think anyone was actually worried about the DNA being dangerous. I think it was more along the lines of whatever microbes are hitching a ride along with the swabs, since obviously the packer seems to be making all sorts of meaningful contact with the cotton.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    22. Re:This is actually pretty scary by grim-one · · Score: 1

      Australia

    23. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The police actively don't hire people that are too smart. Which scares the shit out of me.

      Intellectual outliers destabilize control structures.

      Being predictable to your teammates/backup under all circumstances is an essential part of performing a life and death job - whether performing undersea construction or policing the 'projects.'

      Having a tendency to come up with bright ideas under pressure is simply a liability in the world of street level law enforcement.

    24. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Australia

      Ahh. So you mean they take steps to avoid being caught doing it.

    25. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also, they're worried about people going through police training, getting it for cheap, then quitting for a better-paying job.

    26. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      "For eight years"

      Enough said.

    27. Re:This is actually pretty scary by cowbutt · · Score: 1

      Once it leaves the investigating officers hands, it reaches the courts. The prosecutors don't give two shits about the defendant, the victims, or the truth. They only care about ONE THING, AND ONE THING ONLY. That is, "Can I get a conviction?". I highly doubt any prosecutor has ever thought long and hard about the veracity of any of the evidence in front of them that they are using. As far as the other side, "discredit, discredit, discredit".

      That tallies with my experience of jury service in the UK; the evidence I heard didn't convince me at all (though it did convince a large majority of my fellow jurers, sadly). I can understand why the police work this way; government targets, limited resources, and most saliently, the fact that one can never actually know when one has established the truth (kinda like the halting problem in CompSci). It's the jury's job to take a fairly skeptical stance towards all evidence presented, and only reach a guilty verdict if they're pretty sure it's 'good enough'.

    28. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The police actively don't hire people that are too smart. Which scares the shit out of me.

      You're talking about US police. The requirements for aspiring police officers in Germany are significantly higher.

    29. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that a convict could challenge any and all DNA evidence since the equipment was never guaranteed to be free of contaminants?

      That would give valid appeals to how many tens of thousands of felony convictions?

      The possible implications for the operation of the court system is kind of scary.

    30. Re:This is actually pretty scary by eltaco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's a good thing that a fuck-up like this happened on such a high profile international scale then. This has reminded everyone how unreliable DNA testing can be.
      this incident has raised major awareness.

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    31. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      That would give valid appeals to how many tens of thousands of felony convictions?

      Only for those who can prove that they worked in the manufacture or distribution of cotton swabs.

      Also, if the courts rely on DNA analysis alone to prove guilt, there's more wrong that just faulty DNA tests. The only thing DNA analysis can do fairly reliably (excluding weird things like chimaeras) is disprove guilt.

    32. Re:This is actually pretty scary by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Earlier someone suggested sneezing/coughing, covering her mouth with a gloved hand, and then using the same gloved hand to pack swabs. Hard to avoid this unless she works in an enclosed suit (which is unlikely.)

      I would assume that the police or their lab don't buy swabs used for DNA testing at the nearest supermarket, they will buy them from a supplier who guarantees uncontaminated swabs, for obvious reasons. To guarantee uncontaminated swabs, that supplier would have to train its employees making the swabs. Part of the training would be to tell them: If you cough or sneeze, and touch your mouth with your gloved hand, you then leave the production line immediately, taking any materials with you that could have been contaminated, destroy them, desinfect your hands, and put on fresh gloves. So either they didn't train their employees properly, or they put pressure on their employees so they couldn't work as needed, or they hired employees who give a shit. Of course this makes the swabs a bit more expensive, but I am sure the police pays more for "guaranteed uncontaminated" swabs then you pay when you want to clean your ears.

      In any case, I would like to see what kind of contracts they had, and the company might be liable for a lot of damages.

    33. Re:This is actually pretty scary by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having a tendency to come up with bright ideas under pressure is simply a liability in the world of street level law enforcement.

      Hmm... I call bullshit, but I do this with a nice little story to soften the blow.

      When I was in the army (which used to be mandatory in my country), our units where made up of people from all walks of life. We had the rich and the poor, the bright and the slightly dim, in all four combinations.

      Whenever something dangerous happened, it allways involved someone less intelligent. Please note that I don't define "less intelligent" based on the actual incidents, but on obeservations made when living toghether as two companies for almost a year.

      These people forgot to unload their weapons, fired from behind the line during moving live fire training, repeatedly managed to throw grenades which had not been properly handled so they did not explode and had to be detonated by others. Several of them managed to leave behind their own AK5 with a full magazine of live amunition inserted for the public to find.

      I saw no potentially deadly situations caused by people with high IQ. The smart people on occation whined about illogical orders, but they always understood when not to "fuck around", i.e. during live fire.

      High IQ is only a problem when it is missing. A lack of impulse control and short attention span is a problem.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    34. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
      Part of the training would be to tell them: If you cough or sneeze, and touch your mouth with your gloved hand, you then leave the production line immediately, taking any materials with you that could have been contaminated, destroy them, desinfect your hands, and put on fresh gloves.

      If you have a process to keep things sterile, then you would not just have everyone handling the things wear gloves, but also surgical masks. It doesn't make much sense to have one without the other.

    35. Re:This is actually pretty scary by meerling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      maybe for the cops survival, but what about ours?

    36. Re:This is actually pretty scary by daniel_newby · · Score: 1

      The problem here is the forensic technicians. Every single one of them needs to be fired.

      Indeed. With few exceptions, every scientific instrument that uses fluids is wildly inaccurate. (Precise as hell, but inaccurate.) That means pH meters, gas chromatographs, mass spectrometers, biomolecule sequencers, you name it. To get reliable measurements, you have to run an end-to-end calibration at least every few test runs. For ultra-trace detection, like DNA and high-potency drugs, often every single sample needs to be calibrated.

      Failure to do this on such an epic level draws all results of all the labs into question. Even in an academic lab, getting caught at this would be a career limiting move.

    37. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's entirely possible that a lot of evidence and/or leads have been discarded or neglected because of this.

      Along the same lines, has anyone knowledge of how all this gear works?

      Do fingerprint comparators really flash all the prints onto the screen in the database as they do on CSI? I did some graphics programming years ago and one of the first principles was -- don't piss away machine cycles putting crap to the screen that isn't of use to the operator. All that stuff whizzing by (probably for the "wow" effect) is a waste of time. Just stop when you find a possible match. Then hit the "Continue" button when you've captured the near match so as to keep going -- they never seem to tell the machine to continue when they get the "80% match" message.

      I saw an interview with the guy who really is the head CSI in Las Vegas. He was asked if the programs ever caused him any grief. He said it was a pain having to constantly explain to the public that DNA tests are very time-consuming. You don't get results fifteen minutes after you retrieve the Coke (tm) can that you mercifully gave the thirsty guy in the interrogation room.

    38. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A lack of impulse control and short attention span is a problem.

      Simply put: ADHD and assault rifles don't mix.

    39. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been watching CSI too long. Forensic science is far from a science. Juries are constantly warned about the weakness of a lot of forenic science (relative to their perfect image on the TV)

    40. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Accourding to the german news site spiegel, they DID test raw material, but didn't find the offending DNA in the samples. If only a small fraction of the swabs are contamined, it can take a long time until you find one.

    41. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Znork · · Score: 1

      The incidence of lab screwups with DNA is fairly high; I've seen numbers as high as 10%. There have been examples where lab procedures had the same sampler needle used for multiple samples, ie, first suspect DNA, followed by the crime scene sample. Leading, of course, to lots of crime scene samples testing positive for the suspect DNA.

      So I have to agree with a previous poster, something like CSI: Botched Jobs with every episode ending with an innocent being put in jail while the perpetrator goes on to the next crime would be a valuable public service.

    42. Re:This is actually pretty scary by BobReturns · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The worst part of that article is this statement:

      Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

      Because this statement makes just as much sense:

      Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who was foreign was rejected.

      That judge needs a new job fast.

    43. Re:This is actually pretty scary by mgblst · · Score: 0, Troll

      People wouldn't be working at that swab factory for long. And I am pretty sure the US would bomb it after a few years, after so much terrorist activity seems to be organised at that exact location.

    44. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could be entirely possible that the same police doing the collecting is also doing the testing. Perhaps not on the samples they collected themselves but testing other people's samples. Many of the lab technicians are or could be field certified and full blow cops to boot.

      The problem that links this to the cops is that they create the procedures for collecting the evidence. If they aren't periodically sending blank samples in, then things like this happen. DNA, like Blood type evidence was originally supposed to be exculpatory evidence. It was supposed to say, the DNS of the semen doesn't match the suspect so it wasn't him. This was the same as the suspect is O negative and the blood at the crime scene was A positive so it wasn't him. When they changed from an "it couldn't be this guy" to an "it has to be this guy", the necessity for testing the control became real but no was smart enough to realize that and do it.

      So yea, I still blame the cops and blame it on their barely average intelligence.

    45. Re:This is actually pretty scary by maypull · · Score: 1

      Having personally watched a CSI (or SOCO as we called them then) collect samples at a crime scene, I can categorically tell you that at least in the UK, it is standard practice to collect controls as well as specimens.

      For example, there is blood around a broken window: the CSI will collect samples of the blood and also swabs from the other side of the room, and from the wall outside. This allows them to exclude various bits of contamination that aren't related to the crime but are present at the crime scene.

      Don't let me get in the way of your assumptions though.

    46. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Troll

      I didn't say it "caused" a crime scene, you did because you failed to read the page you linked to.

      Try look at the second sentence using the same word (different tense) that I did under the second definition.

      They sailed away without effecting their purpose. --Jowett

      Hmm.. "I said caught before it ever effected one crime scene". I could have said because it wasn't caught, it was effecting the crime scene, but what I really said was if they caught it, it wouldn't have been effecting the crime scene.

      Of course we have to acknowledge that the difference between effected and effecting is one is after the fact and the other is during the fact. Anyways, I'm not sure where you lost control here but I would think it was because you didn't even read what you linked to. However, if you have a better explanation, I would like to hear it. I'm always in the mood for excused for when I do fuck up.

    47. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha! That's a good one - you almost had me there for a moment!

      (I'm German, BTW.)

    48. Re:This is actually pretty scary by laejoh · · Score: 1

      A lack of impulse control and short attention span is a problem.

      Yeah, and when you have "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" tatoed on your forehead AND you're driving a motorcycle with a sidecar...

    49. Re:This is actually pretty scary by jabithew · · Score: 4, Funny

      It took a lot of conversation to reach this insight.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    50. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Hahaha! That's a good one - you almost had me there for a moment!

      If you found that funny, you probably don't know just how low the entry requirements are for cops in the US. If you think they're low in Germany, be very, very scared when you go to the US. ;)

    51. Re:This is actually pretty scary by zten · · Score: 1

      Try look at the second sentence using the same word (different tense) that I did under the second definition.

      They sailed away without effecting their purpose. --Jowett

      "They sailed away without accomplishing their purpose" is another way to write that sentence. In other words, their purpose effected nothing. Nothing came of what they set out to do. It didn't produce anything. I'm not sure how many times I can redundantly state its meaning ;)

      I think "affecting" is more appropriate to use. Instead of "it" being the primary cause/responsible for the crime scene, it would be responsible for altering it/contaminating it.

    52. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      It's all so relative and how you define intelligence. I agree that "fucking around without seeing potential danger" isn't really an intelligent trait, it sounds like you have been exposed to a bundle of poeople who are or a bit detached with reality and it's consequences or are oblivious for danger and to project a probable negative outcome. (that might an advantage in a crisis-situation where their focus isn't as much selfpreservation as they cannot project personal demise until comfronted with it by their team or themselves).

      My grandfather used to tell me about his drinking buddies, sergeants, officers, adjudants and such in the army. His carreer in the army was a very face paced growing one as he's very intelligent, logical and get things done. People recognized that and he climbed up fast and soon had his own bataljons but amongst the sergeant and officers there was an immigrant, who couldn't read or write compared to the traject of proving oneself consequentially to get up there.

      In the war, he used to be a soldier, and his bataljon was safe, but an officer was sobbing, crying and freaking out while his troops were being under fire, shot down as sitting ducks. That "stupid" footsoldier took his bataljon, went in, and guided the stranded soldiers out safe and alive. While the highly educated and trained officer broke down and could not come up with strategy to get them to safety resulting in instant promotion as he could do what the other was educated and trained to do.

      It is what you define as "intelligent", and the characterstics that are relevant in what situation.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    53. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Swizec · · Score: 1

      There are many reasonable nations, there are no reasonable COUNTRIES. Please stop confusing the two structures since one is sociological and the other is political.

    54. Re:This is actually pretty scary by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm. I'm going to take a shot at this. The word you were looking for was affected, not effected. As indeed the linked definition should have made clear you. I can't be bothered to post links to the definitions of those words, but you know where to look..

    55. Re:This is actually pretty scary by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD:

      http://xkcd.com/326/

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    56. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If that were the case then some mysterious phantom DNA that is specifically unique to one brand of cotton swabs wouldn't be a news story nor would it have the police looking for the same notorious woman in more then 20 crimes separated by national boundaries. In other words, when the DNA showed up on the control samples, someone would have put 2 and 2 together and it would have been caught. Well, that is assuming the police, as unintelligent as they are, are actually smart enough to notice the obvious.

      And by all means, you didn't get in the way of any assumptions I had. Even if you think you did.

    57. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you can't be bothered to participate, then don't play in the game.

    58. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing less than bunny-suits. Sloughed skin cells have DNA too.

    59. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      While affecting probably would have been more appropriate, effect isn't out of line altogether either. We aren't necessarily talking about the crime scene specifically but the interpretations or opinions of the crime scene created by the police's interpretation of it. The invalid DNA or contaminated cotton swabs wouldn't have changed the crime scene at all, it would have changed the opinions and interpretations of it. What matters in the discussion is how the police view the crime scene so if the invalid DNA effected their view that they were looking for a suspect that is connected with dozens of other crimes... And yes, I meant effected there too.

    60. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Lostlander · · Score: 1

      One's ability to read or write has very little to do with one's IQ. Although most IQ tests involve reading and writing there are comparative IQ tests that allow for certain inabilities to communicate. A proper IQ test probably would have shown your low ranking soldier to be of above average IQ in cognitive and reasoning abilities. While the over educated fool was most likely just an average person with a lot of schooling. Just because someone has take 16 years of school and has 2 doctorates does not mean that person is above average. It simply means that they were capable enough to complete the work. While a certain amount of education can be shown to increase cognitive and reasoning IQ it can have a negative impact on one's creative IQ or their ability to think outside the box.

    61. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ckthorp · · Score: 1

      If my semen has DNS, I think I have a problem.

    62. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smart people on occation[sic] whined about illogical orders

      And that is exactly why they don't want really creative thinkers. They want drones that can follow orders. Yes it helps if they have some baseline smarts but not too much or they won't be good little dogs.

      Kind of like how the school system works. If you're too far outside the mold on the creative/intelligent side then you will have serious problems. My IQ pretty high yet I struggled the whole time in school because I was always coming up with creative answers instead of playing follow-the-leader.

    63. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having a tendency to come up with bright ideas under pressure is simply a liability in the world of street level law enforcement.

      Bullshit. I'd love to hear you explain how this might possibly be the case. Give my a plausible hypothetical situation.

      In reality, people capable of sophisticated intelligent thought can't stand driving around in a car mostly doing nothing for 8 hours a day. They're trying to hire people that are less likely to quit.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    64. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Another surefire indicator is when they post unsupported assertions as AC.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    65. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lack of impulse control and short attention span is a problem.

      Simply put: ADHD and assault rifles don't mix.

      Ok, you get to tell Rambo.

    66. Re:This is actually pretty scary by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      Alright, I'll give it a go: Affect: to affect something is to change it. ie "contamination from person working in cotton swab factory had an AFFECT on criminal investiagtions" Effect: To accomplish, to do. ie "Lady working in cotton swab factory effected an incredible escape from prosecution by deliberately adding her DNA to cotton swabs used in a multitude of investigations across Europe, thereby creating herself an alibi." Thanks you. I'll be here all week, be sure to tip your waitress.

    67. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being predictable to your teammates/backup under all circumstances is an essential part of performing a life and death job - whether performing undersea construction or policing the 'projects.'

      Which, in reality, never works, because then they are too stupid to predict their teammates anyway. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    68. Re:This is actually pretty scary by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The police actively don't hire people that are too smart. Which scares the shit out of me.

      Anti-discrimination laws don't cover intelligence. If this guy really were bright, he'd realize that he doesn't want to be part of an organization that screens out high IQ scores.

    69. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      You textualize exactly the point I wanted to make...

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    70. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previous poster was commenting on your use of "effect" where you meant "affect"...you actually did say "caused"

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect%5B2%5D

    71. Re:This is actually pretty scary by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I saw no potentially deadly situations caused by people with high IQ. The smart people on occation whined about illogical orders, but they always understood when not to "fuck around", i.e. during live fire.

      The people writing the rules (banning high IQ) are also the people who give the orders. I'd really like to nuke 'em from orbit and start over, but when they've sunk to that level maybe it's just time to leave town.

    72. Re:This is actually pretty scary by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between stupid and average and above average and genius. I have seen a number of astoundingly smart people who commonly made errors like the ones you mentioned above. Super-smart people are often absent-minded.

      You want someone who is clever, but not someone who is brilliant. Brilliance often causes more problems than it solves. I think that was what the OP was talking about.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    73. Re:This is actually pretty scary by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Considering how much the police and the courts blindly trust all the data coming from forensic laboratories, she would be well and truly fucked.

      I hope that's only true on TV (about blindly trusting the data) - sure, she'll have 2 years vacation from her job while the thing gets settled in court, but even a public defender should be able to get her lost wages compensation and a new job in return for being so messed around by the system.

    74. Re:This is actually pretty scary by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I doubt there were only 20 crimes examined with swabs from that factory so the probability of a swab being contaminated is probably fairly low.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    75. Re:This is actually pretty scary by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      DNA is called DNS in German and probably some other languages, I'd attribute that to a translation mistake.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    76. Re:This is actually pretty scary by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I agree and disagree with you.

          IQ testing is a crock. I've posted a few things on it recently. There are questions that are doomed for failure. My first IQ test, when I was about 5, consisted of pattern matching, math, word problems, and ... wait for it ... identification of world landmarks and famous art. At 5 years old, how was I suppose to know world landmarks that I had never seen before? It's not exactly like we had the history channel in the late 70's. TV was limited to the crap that we could get on our antenna in rural nowhere. Satellite TV didn't exist (for most people). As a kid, I did read encyclopedia's, but they were more entertaining to stack up as play forts.

          With all that said, I score very high on IQ tests. I just don't agree with the methodology involved in them. They are extremely biased to what the test taker has been exposed to. You could have a brilliant child in an African village who has never seen a TV, read an encyclopedia, but has picked up knowledge from the tribe. He may understand flight by watching birds and butterflies, and how plants grow from watching them, and even pack tendencies of animals (and apply theories of that to why people live in tribes), but if you show him the Eiffel tower, or leaning tower if Pisa, he may say "oh those are neat", but not even be able to describe what part of the world they're in. He would likely fail miserably on an English based word comprehension test.

          But, the more intelligent (not necessarily educated) person will frequently be able to come up with the better solutions to problems. With a question posed to two people of equal intelligence, the more educated one will likely come up with the better answer, but that's not necessarily true. With two people of the same intelligence in a combat situation, I'd prefer the poor country boy who's hunted his own food his whole life, than a guy with a doctorate in art history.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    77. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't seem to bright to me.

      Your spelling doesn't seem TOO bright to me.

    78. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sjames · · Score: 1

      Exactly who does what and how well trained they are seems to vary considerably from department to department, but if you watch the news with your brain fully engaged, it doesn't take long to realize that police and prosecutors have at best a rudimentary understanding of scientific evidence.

      This case is a good example. DNA testing is treated as incontrovertible, but as we see, that is simply not the case.

      The first "big media" hint at this was the Simpson trial. FBI lab techs testified about "taking a vote" on ambiguous test results. Supposedly the best crime lab in the country and they don't know that there's no voting in science.

      There have been a number of cases where police and prosecutors have sought drug convictions on the basis of exclusionary field screening tests only. It seems they didn't know what a screening test is, but they liked them because they could be used by untrained people reading simple step by step instructions.

      If the evidence is going to be called scientific, it needs to be managed by a scientist, not a lab tech. Lab techs are qualified to run the equipment to perform the test, but are not qualified to interpret the results. It seems that's missing in too many cases.

    79. Re:This is actually pretty scary by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 1

      But the guy was already a corrections officer!/I> Apparently he managed the boredom of sitting around a jail all day.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    80. Re:This is actually pretty scary by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      One only has to watch The Wire to see the validity of this claim. Oh McNulty, what crazy hijinks are you up to now?

    81. Re:This is actually pretty scary by MoralHazard · · Score: 1

      I was recently diagnosed (and am now taking amps for) the "inattentive" kind of ADHD. I grew up around guns: My family owned several and we liked to shoot, and I spent a lot of time at the rifle range at Boy Scout camp. I live in New York City, now, so guns are pretty much a no-no, but I miss it.

      I never had any problems with guns, specifically, but I sure as hell had impulse-control issues, especially as a teenager. I remember doing a lot of absurdly dumb, destructive things, not out of anger or malice, but just "hmm, this would be interesting."

      My stepfather made the difference, I think, around guns. Handling a firearm without him being present, or even opening the locks on the gun cases, was a hanging offense. Before I was allowed to shoot, I had to clean unloaded guns, with him watching over me the whole time. Before that, I had to memorize safe gun handling and explain to him why each rule existed. He never tried to scare me, but I developed a sense that you cannot act your normal, unthinking self around guns--you need to think carefully about every single action you take.

      I doubt that the particular military the OP mentioned lacks a strict disciplinary hand, though. And I know people have ADHD much worse than mine, and weren't lucky enough to at least get some smarts, too. I think that the people who know a kid (or adult, I guess) need to make an individual determination: Is this person mature and self-controlled enough to handle a firearm? If not, ADHD or no, don't let them.

    82. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You also need to research 'affect' and 'effect'. To 'effect a crime scene' is to commit a crime. To 'affect a crime scene' is to have sex with the dead hooker.

    83. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ckthorp · · Score: 1

      Ah. I forgot that "acid" is actually an i18n-able word as opposed to most scientific words like deoxyribonucleic.

    84. Re:This is actually pretty scary by mzs · · Score: 1

      My aunt, uncle, two cousins, and their children live in Germany. I now live in the US. Here is the difference as I see it. In the US the requirements for a police officer are often little more than a high school education. The bulk of the young officers are the bullies from that period. They mellow as they age. In Germany they are more stringent in requirements. On the other hand in Germany there is significantly more nepotism in hiring, where people that know the right people end-up being hired over those that are more highly qualified. In the US if you want to be a police officer, find a rural county and it is very simple to become a deputy.

    85. Re:This is actually pretty scary by kabloom · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't he make a great detective?

    86. Re:This is actually pretty scary by huckamania · · Score: 1

      If he was really smart, he would figure out that getting some questions wrong on the test would actually get him hired.

    87. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ultranova · · Score: 1

      She must cough on each one, extra-special-like. She's been doing it for 8 years...

      More likely she's simply been handling them with her bare hands or without a hairnet.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    88. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off topic, but from the article you linked:
       
        Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
       
      How scary is that? So as long as they deny everyone of a particular race/religion/etc it's ok, because they apply the same standard to everyone?

    89. Re:This is actually pretty scary by msouth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe the judge was just unable to get past this question:

      "If you're so smart, Mr. Jordan, why weren't you smart enough to intentionally score low enough to get the job?"

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    90. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously he didn't manage the boredom of his current job, since he was looking for a new one.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    91. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your army was probably an insignificant blip in military terms. National service is only for people too thick/lazy/clever for university, or 3rd world countries. Real armies that need large numbers to make up the cannon fodder, say US marines, do not want people who will question what they're being told.

    92. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Super-smart people are often absent-minded.

      Average people are often absent-minded.

      You want someone who is clever, but not someone who is brilliant. Brilliance often causes more problems than it solves.

      You want someone who is below average, but not someone who is average. Beeing average often causes more problems than it solves.

    93. Re:This is actually pretty scary by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If he was really smart, he would figure out that getting some questions wrong on the test would actually get him hired.

      Too late now - his secret is out!

      and what if he got those questions right by luck???

    94. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      If that were the case then some mysterious phantom DNA that is specifically unique to one brand of cotton swabs wouldn't be a news story nor would it have the police looking for the same notorious woman in more then 20 crimes separated by national boundaries. In other words, when the DNA showed up on the control samples, someone would have put 2 and 2 together and it would have been caught. Well, that is assuming the police, as unintelligent as they are, are actually smart enough to notice the obvious.

      And by all means, you didn't get in the way of any assumptions I had. Even if you think you did.

      Well, let me guess what your assumptions were.
      A) all swabs from a batch were equally spoiled, so the DNA would always show up on the control swab too.
      B) if a DNA sample was excluded as being contamination because it was on the control swab, it would still be checked against the DNA-database just to see if someone who was in the database was not involved in the crime.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    95. Re:This is actually pretty scary by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 1
      Actually he apparently has been an insurance salesman, not exactly a field full of shiny distractions. The job as a CO, it turns out, is while he waits for the lawsuit to unwind (which was three years at the time of the report--and apparently his attention hasn't wandered.)

      What I find almost as disturbing is that it sounds like the upper limit comes from the testing company's recommendations, rather than the P.D.'s experience. What if the people at Wonderlic simply assume that nobody with brains would want to be a cop?

      Their range of intelligence for cops is about the same they suggest for telephone operators, but below their suggestion for "administrators." You tell me--desk jobs require flexible, creative thinking ("Why, I could use the canary copy for this!",) whereas street cops just follow rigid, scripted procedures, unchanging from day to day, like telephone operators? Does that really strike you as reasonable? Do you want your neighborhood cop to be as inflexible as AOL support, with a simple menu of options that's supposed to cover every situation?

      Of course, the administrators who buy the Wonderlic tests and follow their guidelines--they need to be smart.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    96. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      The odd thing about all this is that this woman seems to be the only one repeatedly contaminating (some) swabs over several years - as there is only one such Phantom.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    97. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree but I would put it far more strongly than you did. This isn't a case of checking periodically or could have, they SHOULD have done this.

      Any evidence should ALWAYS be run with a control. That means the actual raw material/swaps is tested sans DNA, raw material with known DNA, and raw material with suspected material. This MUST be procedural and methodical every time or you start over.

      It should be run at least twice, and by competing labs.

      This sort of short-cutting, lazy assed, stupid shit puts people in jail, often for years at a time, and wastes resources and time.

      The very fact this took place at all is ludicrous. That they didn't DNA profiles of workers from the swab factory to rule out is crazy.

      This is utter crap lab work and police work. Everyone associated or involved should be embarrassed and ashamed and, frankly, fired.

    98. Re:This is actually pretty scary by nasor · · Score: 1

      I'm not a forensic scientist, but I am a scientist. I don't really know jack about forensics, but prior to reading this article I would have assumed that police forensic labs would occasionally (but routinely) insert a few known DNA samples into the mix to make sure that the lab was doing its job and not using contaminated materials. The fact that they apparently aren't doing this is distressing, and will probably make it hard for me to vote "guilty" in the future if I'm ever on a jury in a case that hinges on forensic evidence.

    99. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medical people simply sterilize everything before they use it on a patient.

      No they don't. The cotton swabs they use come in a plastic bag labeled "Sterile Cotton Swabs" they simply take them out and use them.

      Chances are the factory is cutting corners on their quality control. I've known people working in production factories & a lot of times certain safety and/or quality standards aren't followed.

      I'm putting my money on the factory at fault, for selling swabs that aren't really sterile. The real question is, why isn't the factory testing their supposedly "sterile" swabs before shipping?

      They should be forced to issue a recall of ALL "sterile" products from the factory, as they have probably been used in hospitals, forensic labs, and various research labs, etc.

    100. Re:This is actually pretty scary by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I read that article and I caught the same thing too. It's quite staggering that people with this level of ineptitude rise to such a power position in our society.

      I think the -definition- of discrimination is the differentiation between a person or group based on an attribute of that person or group. The property being "intelligence level", and the attribute being "high". This would be the same property/attribute combination as say sexual orientation/gay, or age/young. Unfortunately "intelligence" as a property of a person is not protected by our governing doctrines.

      Still, this judges logic! I hope I am never put before a judge with such a limited mentality, ever.

    101. Re:This is actually pretty scary by The+Mathinator · · Score: 1

      No, the worst part is this.

      ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

      I for one, think that eliminating people from being policemen on the basis of their intellectual makeup is a very good idea.

      However, I assume both quotes were simply ripped out of their context and thrown into the article to make it more interesting.

    102. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You READ that whole thing? I got three sentences in and... Ah, well.

    103. Re:This is actually pretty scary by ProfFalcon · · Score: 1

      No, think about it this way. Had everyone who worked on the assembly line simply provided their DNA up front as part of the hiring process, they could have eliminated this person as a suspect the first time contamination occurred and maybe focused more tightly on the correct perpetrator instead of spinning their wheels for so long looking for a serial killer. Come to think of it, anyone who provides supplies to any forensic company should probably also be included in the elimination DNA sample set too. Everyone from picking the cotton used in the swabs or creating the man made textile on the swab if not real cotton, to everyone who may have contributed to the paper or plastic used in the swab to everyone... Carry on ad nauseum and you have a solid case for collecting from the whole population. Really, it's for the good of the country. Think of how many people died because they did not catch the real perpetrator earlier due to a simple DNA contamination that could have been resolved with a simple elimination sample from the employees. That was tongue-in-cheek in case you didn't notice.

      --
      Simply stating [Citation Needed] does not automatically make you insightful or brilliant.
    104. Re:This is actually pretty scary by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      True. You can't be too safe in this day and age - it should definitely be using DNSSEC.

    105. Re:This is actually pretty scary by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Sterile swabs would be sterilized well after production, in fact, after the packaging is done.

    106. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The police actively don't hire people that are too smart. Which scares the shit out of me.

      You're talking about US police. The requirements for aspiring police officers in Germany are significantly higher.

      They only let in ubermensch?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    107. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You're being stupid, and it's quite easy to see if you imagined the opposite statement "I was rejected because my IQ scores are too low, I'm being discriminated against." Imagine if everyone that got Cs and Ds would claim they were discriminated against because the candidate with As and Bs was picked.

      I think it's fairly honest to say that "In this job we don't expect you will get appropriate intellectual challenges. In the field we seek people who are competent to do as trained and don't deviate from standard operating procedures. For that reason we're seeking the people that we think are most fit for the job, not using applying the scale uncritically.

      Think of it a little bit like hiring a taxi driver. Even though a professional race driver might come into your office, and you know he's way more than qualified to operate a taxi, it might not be the right person for the job. I've never seen it applied quite that way to a pure IQ score before, but I find this an acceptable hiring policy. Maybe not a smart one, but there's no law against stupidity.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    108. Re:This is actually pretty scary by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree. Being intelligent is not disadvantageous to job performance any more than sex or ethnicity is. It would be fair enough to say "You're smart, but you have no people skills - therefore you aren't suitable" but that isn't the case here.

      As in your taxi example: The professional race driver might not be suitable for the job, but you wouldn't turn him down because he's a really good driver, you'd turn him down because he drives too fast, or is a bastard to his customers.
      It would be acceptable to refuse to hire someone despite their intelleigence, but not because of it.

    109. Re:This is actually pretty scary by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Good one. But between Germany and the US, where is social darwinism stronger now? We can't even take money back from bankers who steal it from us - we're too afraid society will collapse without them.

    110. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Minwee · · Score: 1

      But ... but ... CSI, computers and experts are always right! You mean they actually have to do investigations instead of blind trust?

      Quick! Somebody build a GUI interface using Visual Basic!

    111. Re:This is actually pretty scary by winwar · · Score: 1

      "I would assume that the police or their lab don't buy swabs used for DNA testing at the nearest supermarket, they will buy them from a supplier who guarantees uncontaminated swabs, for obvious reasons."

      Just because they say they are sterile doesn't make it so. Or the fact that someone may not have ordered sterile supplies or there was a mix up, etc.

      Basic lab procedure for every new lot is to run at least one test to check for contamination. Of course, there are many sloppy labs (see story).

    112. Re:This is actually pretty scary by againjj · · Score: 1

      Well, the cops probably are not sending two swabs (one with a sample, one without) to the lab every time they take samples. So, the lab only has the one item to test.

    113. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Easier said then done. I work in a "white room" environment (gloves, masks, special clothing, hair coverings). Getting the technicians to comply with policies designed to prevent contamination of the product is nontrivial.

      If you've never worked in this kind of environment, you aren't likely aware how many times an hour you touch your face.

    114. Re:This is actually pretty scary by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      The bankers stole money from us...? Do you mean the money the government gave them with no strings attached?

    115. Re:This is actually pretty scary by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Not just that; I'm talking about business as usual - the billions they "earn" every year by gambling, then come to the taxpayer to cover their losses when they lose. I.e. the current economic crisis in general, the S&L bailout of the early 90's, and so on.

    116. Re:This is actually pretty scary by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      Kid: Try to listen and learn. Check that ego. Come off it, I'm the prophet, the professor, I'ma teach you about the worm, who eventually turned to catch wreck with the neck of a long-time oppressor. And he's running from the devil, but the debt is always gaining, and if he's worth being hurt, he's worth bringin' pain in. When the sunshine don't work, the good Lord bring the rain in.
      Cop: Ok, whatever that meant. I'm sure that's real helpful, Ice-T.

    117. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 1

      Having a tendency to come up with bright ideas under pressure is simply a liability in the world of street level law enforcement.

      How about having a tendency to come up with stupid ideas under pressure? The problem here wouldn't be intelligence, but a lack of discipline. Strong reasoning ability doesn't imply an incapacity for working within a control structure or following orders in a crisis.

    118. Re:This is actually pretty scary by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      For the most part, I agree with you. However, as has been pointed out by someone else, you have to consider (expect even) that the contamination rate is quite low. How many crimes do you think they used cotton swabs for during this time period? Tens of thousands? Probably several swabs per crime? Very likely. But she was only fingered for 20 crimes. This indicates (but doesn't prove) a very low contamination rate. So...it's possible that they could have had "adequate" quality control sampling in place for their cotton swabs and still missed the contaminated swabs. A better control would perhaps be to clip a piece of each swab before use so that it can be tested along with the used swab. Especially given that in situations like this, a single failure can have serious consequences, a more rigorous testing method like that is probably in order.

    119. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      They only let in ubermensch?

      I was thinking more of mental capabilities, not physical ones.

      However, the female officers I've seen on patrol seem to be good-looking. I guess this reduces the chance of facing resistance when making an arrest, or gives them an extra second to give anyone who doesn't want to be handcuffed a swift kick to the nuts.

    120. Re:This is actually pretty scary by CRConrad · · Score: 1
      Some anonymous snotface

      quotes "I cant believe its n":

      The smart people on occation[sic] whined about illogical orders

      Yeah, yeah, mr Snotty-About-Minor-Errors. Did you notice the bit about how being in the Army for a bit "used to be mandatory in [his] country", before you started spewing snotty "sic"s about? That fact would tend to rule out him being from, les'see, the three or four largest (by population) anglophone countries that come to mind. Which in turn makes it quite likely that he's not a native English speaker. Given that we have no such tell-tale data about you, though, and that the absolute majority of Slashdotters are Yanks, it's quite likely that you, OTOH, are one. So, how's YOUR, oh, let's say, Swedish? Naah? Well, thought so.

      My IQ pretty high yet I struggled [...]

      What, with forming complete sentences? Q.E.D, Snot-face. Now POAD. HTH!

      --

      Christian R. Conrad
      mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
    121. Re:This is actually pretty scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      before it ever effected one crime scene

      Well, I don't think anyone supposes the contamination itself committed the crime.

    122. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nah.. I screwed up.

      But thanks for taking the "maybe it was a mistake" path instead of the scolding "your wrong and a loser approach". It's comforting to know that there are still people capable and willing to give the benefit of doubt first.

    123. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Thanks for playing..

      But think about what effect on the crime scene it has. In either case, nothing changes the crime scene, it doesn't place more or less blood there, it doesn't change who is the victim or where they are laying or what other evidence is there. What effect is has is the opinion or interpretation of all that evidence. It is in short, creating the opinion of investigating officers.

      Yes, I grasping but look how fun this is.

    124. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nope, you got them wrong.

      Assumption 1 is more like we don't know if any cotton swabs from any batch is spoiled so periodic testing would confirm it or not. The person's contamination poses no risk to them, the risk comes from the police concentrating their efforts and resources on that person instead of the actual murderer who is now in the process of cleaning up all the mistakes he made. If at least one swab from every scene was tested without being exposed to the scene, the probability of a contaminated sample being present would have surfaced by now.

      Assumption 2: This is a little more dificult because you bounce it around too much. However, if a control swab showed DNA at the scene was also found on the swab not used at the scene, then several assumptions could be made. One is that it got on the swab before getting to the scene. Two is that the DNA is most likely connected to someone handling the swabs and not a gruesome killer. Another would be that if it wasn't the police or officers collecting the evidence, then it could be someone involved with manufacturing, shipping or whatever else with the swab. But more to the point, if wouldn't have been at 20 difference crime scenes across international boundries because the manufacturer would have taken steps to fix the problem. So it would be trivial to find the people working close enough to the swabs to find the source of contamination and once that was done, it would be even more trivial to find out if they were in another countries when the murders took place.

      That's right, the contamination doesn't give someone a free pass, what it does is allows the police to easily rule someone out and let them know when the person is a plausible suspect verses an artifact of a sneeze on an assembly line somewhere.

    125. Re:This is actually pretty scary by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lets look at this from the back end of things instead of the contamination first.

      How many crimes are unsolved? Of those crimes, how many have DNA evidence that ruled out other people as suspects? Of those cases, and because the problem isn't as wide spread, how many of the other people's DNA were someone's along the production and handling lines of the swabs? Or to be more blunt, how possible is it that the DNA could be from someone handling the swabs?

      Imagine the court case, Prosecutor, they found the murder weapon in your garbage can, you had motive and a means, do you really expect us to believe you had nothing to do with the murder. Killer, the garbage can was on the curb, one of your officers could have put it there, you even found someone else's DNA at the crime scene- it was even on the murder weapon, why are you setting me up, it's not against the law to dislike someone- even if he was killed. Jury: not guilty.

      If the contamination exists, it will most likely be just a few swabs. Some of those swabs may not even be tested for DNA because they will be used to look for other things like Gun shot residue and so on. But most likely when something does become contaminated, it is going to be in a close line effecting only the swabs closest to them. This means they could effect only one crime scene, possible two, and not even rise to the 20 different scenes across different countries.

  7. Sigh by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it really too much to ask for a SERVER at the other end of that hyperlink?

    nyud.net doesn't seem to have it cached, neither does Google. And MirrorDot is no help at all:

    Presently sustaining 0 parallel Slashdottings. Far out!

    Are there any newer slashdot caching tools I don't know about? Specifically one that has this article?

    1. Re:Sigh by ndogg · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure mirrordot has not been updated in years.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    2. Re:Sigh by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7341360.stm Until that server comes back up, here is an article from a year ago about the case. Makes for hilarious reading now!

    3. Re:Sigh by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the wikipedia page about the case. I think the original source of the news is in German though.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    4. Re:Sigh by moritzbraun · · Score: 1

      Morning /.ers An informative article on this phantom story is available from the Heilbronner Stimme at http://www.stimme.de/ ( first two articles) bye

    5. Re:Sigh by dword · · Score: 1

      Actually, you make an excellent point! How about the guys at Slashdot create some Mirrordot servers that make a copy of all the web pages addressed by links in articles and whatever else is required to view them? This way, you can always review an old article, check what it's sources said and, in case the sources get Slashdotted or are simply disabled, you could check out Mirrordot. I know there's Google cache and there's Internet Archive, but sometimes they miss important URLs that are Slashdotted immediately after the articles reach the Slashdot front page or they're taken down quickly, before the classic web crawlers get to them.

    6. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats awesome, i can see the investigators running around with swabs all over the place.

      - Oh my god, she's been in this shed!

      - I swabbed my coffee cup and she's been drinking from it.

      - I swabbed my wife and have now filed for divorce.

    7. Re:Sigh by teddyber · · Score: 1

      err.. you mean making a copy of something without the having the copyright ? Are you insane ?

    8. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's back up and working fine.

    9. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well... yes, why not? Anyone can easily opt-out. I don't see why this wouldn't fall under the same "fair use" as Google cache or Internet Archive. First of all, this is news and links in summaries are the source of the news; citing the sources wouldn't be wrong, as long as you make it clear that it's a copy of the web page, for the sole purpose of citation. Mirrordot would actually protect other peoples' servers load and bandwidth costs.

    10. Re:Sigh by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that they have the DNA of a woman, but they have a picture of a man with some weak goatie.

    11. Re:Sigh by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Some of the stories linked from the wikipedia page are hilarious given this latest news.

      A highly professional serial killer who also shoots heroin, breaks into garden sheds(LOL), and leaves half-eaten cookies and used tea cups behind at the crime scenes.

    12. Re:Sigh by Boogaroo · · Score: 1

      Worse than that, did you look at that picture? It's a horrible mashup of various faces and sizes of facial features.
      That face is WAY too big for that head. Where the hell did they dig up that ridiculous image?

  8. Always state your assumptions by alextheseal · · Score: 5, Funny

    First thing I was taught in my high school class on problem solving. Always state your assumptions, right underneath stating your explicit goal. We were also taught that if you start running into dead ends, circle back to your assumptions and review them critically to see that they are 1) all inclusive, and 2) actually true. Oh, and never use contaminated cotton swabs. I think that was day two.

    1. Re:Always state your assumptions by smaddox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It reminds me of early MOSFET technology. No one could get MOSFET's to work on the same level of BJT's because there was horrible leakage in the gate. After several years it became apparent that the gate oxide was contaminated by sodium ions that carried current through the gate.

      (Disclamer: This story was relayed to me by one of my professors. I'm not sure how accurate it is.)

    2. Re:Always state your assumptions by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      Early DRAMs had problems with bit flips due to alpha particles coming from contamination in the packaging. (Here's the original Google search in case that cache link breaks.)

    3. Re:Always state your assumptions by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Circa 1970 RCA sold MOSFETs whose gate oxide was so totally broken that the gates formed a diode with the source/drain. Essentially, they were JFETs. They sold for about $1.50 each; the ones with good gates were about $3.00.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Always state your assumptions by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, and never use contaminated cotton swabs. I think that was day two.

      Tell that to the Manchester police, who used swabs that had been stored in alcohol to test alcohol-levels in drivers...

    5. Re:Always state your assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes no sense. Current through the gate is a requirement of operation for a BJT. This is unlike a MOSFET which ideally conducts no current through the gate.

    6. Re:Always state your assumptions by MattskEE · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's quite possible, contamination of the gate oxide with various ions is a big issue with MOSFETs. Sodium ions in particular tend to be rather common in the air, so they caused a lot of problems. If it's particularly contaminated then you can't make enhancement-mode ("normally-off") devices, because the charges stored in the oxide lowers the threshold voltage below 0V. So to turn it off, you need a negative voltage, which is much less convenient than just having ground and a positive voltage.

      In a small cleanroom at my university, just a simple one for the device processing classes, the lab manager said that in the past some students had opened a window because it was very hot in the room with the oxidation and doping ovens. Now it just so happens that the Pacific Ocean is about 200 yards from this window, so we have *lots* of sodium in the air. It allegedly took months before the sodium fully dissipated, so the mosfets that students made were poor-quality until the sodium levels dropped.

  9. Where in the world is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blast that Carmen Sandiego!
    It's up to you now, gumshoes!

  10. What?? by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait... Are you bitching that you can't read the article? As in, you wanted to read the article before making a post?

    I feel... like I've seen a unicorn or something...

    1. Re:What?? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Funny

      virgin, virgin :-b

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  11. Bad Slice by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Funny

    This guy is using Slicehost for his blog or whatever. Apparently, he didn't pay for a big enough slice.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  12. Prawo Jazdy by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Funny

    This sounds similar to the case of Ireland's most reckless driver.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Prawo Jazdy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahahaha. And everyone thinks the Polish are stupid.

    2. Re:Prawo Jazdy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More hilarious than the story itself is the fact that the BBC has to add a map for its UK readers to show them where Poland is.

      -- a German

    3. Re:Prawo Jazdy by SEE · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that's only to be expected. The British never partitioned Poland.

    4. Re:Prawo Jazdy by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      No, they don't.

    5. Re:Prawo Jazdy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That whooshing noise you hear was a big, stupid, leprechaun passing over your head.

    6. Re:Prawo Jazdy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never once suspecting that the nefarious Polish crime family that I was born into would have had the foresight to name one of their offspring "Drivers License" for just such a purpose!

      Muhahahaha! Now I roam the streets and avenues of Ireland freely while waging a war of terror on the populous unmolested by the threat police interference.

      My name is Pwado Jazdy, fear me, Paddy!

    7. Re:Prawo Jazdy by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      Here's a link to what a Polish driving licence looks like. I presume line 2 is the full name, but my Polish is a little rusty.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    8. Re:Prawo Jazdy by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      It's no joke; when I was last at Heathrow, I tried to buy an electrical adapter for Belgium, and the girl asked "where's Belgium, is that in Europe?" She then went to ask her colleagues, and they debated the issue amongst themselves for a while. This was at a place in an *airport* that *specifically* sold electrical adapters for multiple countries.

  13. Real life is slow... by incognito84 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It took them eight years to find out what CSI could have found out in one episode! Reality is so unrealistic.

    1. Re:Real life is slow... by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      That's the hole I can't figure out... Why was this woman's DNA on eight years worth of cotton swabs? Do they seriously buy them in that large bulk that they only need a purchase every 8 years? If there was so much widespread contamination, why wasn't this showing up in even more crimes? Why didn't they figure out that there were two different pieces of DNA on these swabs?

    2. Re:Real life is slow... by Splab · · Score: 1

      Because DNA isn't some color coded ring magic on a computer. What you get when you do DNA extraction is a set of markers you match up with whatever suspect you got - so if the DNA is contaminated you will just get different markers than the "pure" DNA.

    3. Re:Real life is slow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's likely that she works in the factory and has been working there for 8 years. Occasionally she'll contaminate another batch.

  14. Prawo Jazdy by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    This reminds me of the "Prawo Jazdy" story. The Irish police were looking for this dude "Prawo Jazdy" who accumulated a very large number of speeding tickets. He kept committing infractions all across Ireland but always got away whenever he was stopped by giving a different address each time. They thought they had a supercriminal fugitive speeder on their hands until someone noticed that his name was Polish for "driver's license".

  15. Hah! by OldFish · · Score: 1

    If this doesn't suggest how hackable hi-tech evidence is then nothing will...

  16. Just think... by Smashe01 · · Score: 1

    Imagine what would have happened if she ever had to submit her DNA for testing for whatever reason, and all of a sudden the Bavarian swat team busts down her door and arrests her for being linked to crimes all across Europe!

    1. Re:Just think... by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      If she's just a worker and has been working while the crimes were being committed, can't the factory logs prove that she was not all over Europe while that was happening?

      Police: Come with us you filthy criminal, you're being accused for killing X person in France 3 years ago exactly the 26th march 2006 at 7am.

      Woman: LOL that was the day of my birthday and I haven't been in France ever. Look this is my photo with my family that day, it was funny because that water pipe broke and was a mess all over the town, here look at the broken pipe and thats John all wet because he's a jerk...

      Thank God you don't rely exclusively on CSI type evidence to prove someone is guilty.. oh wait

    2. Re:Just think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, most likely what would happen is that the authorities would determine that it was her. After all, the DNA can't be wrong. They're not going to call her up first and ask if she's really the woman who murdered all those people!

      Given how vicious her crimes were, she's probably armed and dangerous, so a paramilitary assault team will be sent to pick her up. Maybe she's in the kitchen when they break down the door unannounced, so she's holding a knife. She's so scared that she freezes and doesn't put it down, causing the police to taze her and brutally throw her to the ground because they think she's threatening them. Of course they've also shot her dogs because they're afraid of dogs, and her kids are scarred for life after watching their house get broken into, their dogs shot, and their mother arrested and dragged out of the house, then get put into foster care. Meanwhile, they're destroying her house looking for nonexistent murder weapons or other evidence of her heinous crimes.

      She'll spend the weekend in jail waiting for arraignment, be denied bail because of her danger to society, the whole time claiming that it's a case of mistaken identity and has no idea what's going on. At this point the cops are too busy to talk to her because they're patting themselves on the back and giving press conferences talking about their excellent police work, how they caught a violent criminal, and every news show and paper leads with her photo.

      At some point they'll decide to tag-team interrogate her, and will spend hours on end accusing her of doing all kinds of things. When she denies it all, they call her a liar and threaten her with tales of what will happen to her in prison, what will happen to her children, and so on. Most of these crimes are really old so she'll have no alibi. Who the hell knows what she was doing November 12, 2004?

      Eventually they'll check on her story and she will be released with little fanfare, her life, her house, all destroyed. Her name and photo will forever be linked to all those horrible crimes. Every week somebody on the street will recognize her, only recalling that she did something bad. Probably her or one of her children will commit suicide from the resultant stress.

      dom

    3. Re:Just think... by tftp · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are trying to say, however the example you gave is anything but an alibi:

      1. LOL that was the day of my birthday - irrelevant
      2. and I haven't been in France ever - not a proof of anything, just words of a suspect.
      3. Look this is my photo with my family that day - how do we know that it was exactly that day?
      4. it was funny because that water pipe broke and was a mess all over the town, here look at the broken pipe and thats John all wet because he's a jerk - the town probably couldn't fix the pipe within one day, so there were tons of possibilities to drive to somewhere, kill someone, and be back for breakfast (and to pose for a camera in front of a broken pipe.)

      There is another concern - hardly any honest citizen can provide an alibi for a random day and time a few years ago. I don't even know what I did on each day in February of this year, just a month ago! If police comes and asks me "what did you do between 11pm and 8am on Feb. 03/04, 2009" the only thing I can say is "probably I was asleep, what else?" - and how good an alibi that is? Plenty of crime is committed at night. Even if you need an alibi for your usual work hours, in many places nobody can definitely say that you were at work (unless that happens to be a meeting or something else with an attendance record preserved.) I work at an office where people can come in the morning, disappear by 10am, be back by 3pm and nobody would even notice.

    4. Re:Just think... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      It seems a lot of posters want to "imagine" what would've happened. But keep in mind, it's nothing but that -- your imagination.

      Nobody can say what would've happeend, and all anyone's revealing by speculating is their own biases. Might the woman have had a hard time? Maybe, maybe not.

      All we know is what did happen - the authorities saw that there were inconsistencies in the evidence, and somehow realized that an innocent explanation tied it all together. i.e. what you would hope would happen.

      I, for one, worry less about how this "might have" played out, and more about the fact that people take a case where the authorities did things right and reached an accurate conclusion, as evidence of how scary is the worst-case scenario where they could've gotten things wrong.

  17. thats an interesting defence by KevMar · · Score: 1

    So how do you explain your dna at the crime site?

    I used to work in a cotton factory. its possible that cotton from that factory ended up to tbe the cotton they used. did you hear about that case where a woman's dna ....

    --
    Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
    1. Re:thats an interesting defence by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      I think I will try and take a second job in as many cotton swap factories as I can over the next couple of years. Looks kinda funny on the resume but could come in REAL handy some day.

    2. Re:thats an interesting defence by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So how do you explain your dna at the crime site?

      I don't have to explain my DNA being at the crime scene, I have to explain DNA that matched mine being at the lab.

      You took a sample of my DNA. You took it to the lab. Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't screw up and contaminate a sample somewhere with my DNA.

      Furthermore, spurious DNA matches are not as improbable as cops and prosecutors like to suggest.

      DNA is lousy forensic evidence, and should be used only for exoneration.

      And the scary thing is that other forensic "science" is even worse.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:thats an interesting defence by tftp · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately defendants aren't allowed to set rules of the Court. Judge usually does that, and if instead of answering questions you start a political speech in the witness box you'd be silenced pretty quick (and it's not a good idea to anger the judge.) The defendant is free to argue that the lab is at fault, but unless your name is OJ Simpson you aren't getting anywhere, statistically speaking.

      Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't screw up

      Yes, tell the judge that you want a negative proven :-)

      I guess it's possible to dismiss the DNA evidence, but labs handle millions of tests, so you will have to essentially demonstrate that either these labs were doing worthless job for years, or that this particular piece of evidence was mishandled in a specific, proven way (I recall that in Simpson's case there were such admitted violations.) You can't just say "I posit that you screwed up, now prove that you didn't!" Even if you show prior instances of errors done by labs, you'd have to show that this particular error was done this time by this lab - generalities have little weight. Hardly anyone in the courtroom (except you) has any strong feelings toward your innocence, and if the prosecution concludes by saying "his DNA was found at the crime scene, and he failed to explain it in any meaningful way" then your goose is cooked.

    4. Re:thats an interesting defence by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Now that this is in the news better believe you can use this as a defense ;)

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    5. Re:thats an interesting defence by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately defendants aren't allowed to set rules of the Court.

      I was assuming that the rules of the court include the right to due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to question witnesses against you.

      Yes, in a typical criminal trial those exist more in theory then in fact.

      The defendant is free to argue that the lab is at fault, but unless your name is OJ Simpson you aren't getting anywhere, statistically speaking.

      I'm not arguing that the lab is at fault. I'm arguing that the whole notion of DNA evidence being used as the main evidence to link someone to a crime is faulty. Even if done right it's not as reliable as it is presented to be, and it's very easy to do wrong.

      Even if you show prior instances of errors done by labs, you'd have to show that this particular error was done this time by this lab

      If due process and the presumption of innocence are in place, it's up to the prosecution to prove their evidence reliable. Prior instances of errors show that it is not.

      As a practical matter, would I expect this tack to work? Probably not. Is that because DNA evidence is reliable? No, it's because due process is a joke and criminal defendants are, as a practical matter, guilty until proven innocent.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  18. I knew biotech would lead to this! by seebs · · Score: 5, Funny

    We should NEVER have developed human-cotton hybrids.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:I knew biotech would lead to this! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Indeed! Sheep-human hybrids would have worked out sooo much better!

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:I knew biotech would lead to this! by seebs · · Score: 1

      It's not as though people haven't been trying.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    3. Re:I knew biotech would lead to this! by Nikker · · Score: 1
      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    4. Re:I knew biotech would lead to this! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      We should NEVER have developed human-cotton hybrids.

      And they have a plan.

      ting-ting tingtingting ting-ting

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  19. HeLa cells? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Whatcha wanna bet they're yet another case of contamination by HeLa cells?

    (Google for it. It's an interesting story, and a good cautionary tale.)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:HeLa cells? by mcelrath · · Score: 1

      The HeLa story makes me wonder if the contamination could be from a 200-year old cotton picker with skin cancer lesions on her hands. If HeLa cells are so hardy, it seems possible that such cells could survive within the cotton processing machinery, or even as a parasite living on the cotton itself. Humans could also have transferred some genes to some strains of cotton, which continue to be grown... The HPV virus which caused gene transfer in the HeLa case has variants which live on the skin.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    2. Re:HeLa cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anything travelling with the cotton is unlikely to survive the bleaching process, and is likely to show up in competing brands' swabs.

      However, an immortalized cell line with human origin could find itself quite comfortable in the post-sterilization side of the swabmaking process at that particular manufacturing plant, much like one finds many hardy strains of microbes in food processing plants.

      The hypothetical skin lesion might have come from a cleaner or mechanic rather than a cotton picker.

      Any such cell line must be closely related to humans otherwise comparisons of the usual loci under study would fail spectacularly; this is how blot labs manage to "print" humans rather than their pets, or insects, or plant matter, or bacteria...

  20. negative controls?? by fatray · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Police labs are incredibly sloppy. You have to either have negative controls or some sort of validation or acceptance testing on your chemicals and supplies. They have all of these chain-of-custody rituals, but then they use supplies from Wal-Mart.

    1. Re:negative controls?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Police labs are incredibly sloppy. You have to either have negative controls or some sort of validation or acceptance testing on your chemicals and supplies. They have all of these chain-of-custody rituals, but then they use supplies from Wal-Mart.

      In the Jayden Leskie case the lab which searched for DNA on the victims body detected the DNA of an unrelated rape victim. Samples from the owner of the DNA had been processed by the same lab earlier in the same day.

    2. Re:negative controls?? by networkzombie · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work with a lot of labs and the errors are always caused by the lab technician. Controls and variances are standard procedure to identify Wal-Mart grade results. From my experience, the less you pay a lab tech, the more mistakes they make, but there are exceptions, like trying to find an honest cop. I'm sure there's one or two, maybe.

  21. Health Class by bobbuck · · Score: 1

    Our health teacher told us not to buy used Q-Tips(tm). Would have saved the trouble right there.

  22. Could happen to anyone... by paulkingnz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you worked in a clothing store and folded all the clothing and then later a murder victims clothing had your DNA on it then you're done aren't you! Circumstantial evidence is a bad thing.

    1. Re:Could happen to anyone... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Circumstantial evidence is a bad thing.

      Almost all evidence is circumstantial. Nearly all trials contain *only* circumstantial evidence. Oh, and witnesses are generally less reliable than circumstantial evidence...

  23. APB by bobbuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    All points bulletin: be on the lookout for woman with extremely clean ears!

    1. Re:APB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All points bulletin: be on the lookout for woman with extremely clean ears!

      Funny this line should pop up.

      Just earlier this evening, I saw an article where a guy says, "There was a girl in high school I could never get to go to the movies with me. She had the cleanest hair in the whole school -- every time I asked her out, she had to stay home and wash it that night."

  24. Women and cotton... by nscott89 · · Score: 1

    Why can't they just convert to latex already?!? ... Seriously! It IS the future after all.

  25. Question by Av8rjoker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How the hell did this woman's DNA get on ALL of these cotton swabs?

  26. Paging George Kaplan by agrippa_cash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd hate to be that woman. In fiction it's Hitchcock but in real life it would be Kafka (unless she is guilty AND works in a cotton swab factory).

  27. I can't imagine... by WSOGMM · · Score: 1

    ... had she been accused of murder, what her lawyer would feel like if the whole ordeal came into light after a massive epiphany.

  28. I hope they throw her in jail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Getting her DNA in sufficient amounts on all those swabs pretty much means she was sabotaging the process. Either from malice, or just because of being a bitter old hag who feels compelled to disobey work instructions from her superiors.

    It reminds me of when I worked at an assembly line and we got a new type of screws which had some pink goo on them to prevent the product from falling apart due to vibrations. We were also given gloves to wear at all times when handling the screws, and a colleague of mine refused to wear them since "the old screws could survive my dirty fingers just fine". I never bothered to tell her the pink goo would give her cancer.

    1. Re:I hope they throw her in jail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cunt.

  29. Story is from Stern... by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

    Here's the original story in German and a blog entry in English.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  30. control experiments by speedtux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's why scientists use double blind experiments and control experiments. So, with every cotton swab taken from a crime scene, forensic labs should get one or more "blank" ones to test, without knowing which is which.

  31. keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Who'd think THAT prophecy of Blinken Lights will come true?

  32. Dang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There goes my "Carmen Sandiego" theory.

  33. Q & A..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the few instances where an answer is found out BEFORE the question is asked.....

    Answer: "It now turns out that contaminated cotton swabs might be responsible for this highly unusual investigation." .....And now the question:

    How, exactly, did the DNA get *onto* the swab in the first place?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Q & A..... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      How, exactly, did the DNA get *onto* the swab in the first place?

      Take your pick, and add your own to the list. Could be accidental, or deliberate.

      1. She packs the swabs into the boxes. Even if she wears gloves, if she scratches an itch, you get contamination.

      2. Maintenance worker who has to fix the machinery and unclog jams.

      3. Angry employee who spits into the machinery.

      4. Chronic cough from smoking.

      5. ???

      6. Profit.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Q & A..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the few instances where an answer is found out BEFORE the question is asked.....

      Q: I'm a Jeopardy fan you insensitive clod.
      A: How might someone who disagrees with parent reply to his post?

  34. Please post Article as site slashdotted by tg123 · · Score: 1

    Can someone repost the article here as site is down -
    slash dotted ?

    1. Re:Please post Article as site slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's back up.

  35. Not too scary by aepervius · · Score: 1

    because once she is being the bar and "continue" to leave DNA evidence everywhere wioth new crime, it quickly turns out that it can't be her even if she has no alibi for the first crime. Then reasonable doubt, testing of the swab fall in.

    Now what would be scary but unlikely, is that the bad swab would be only a single batch OR the error is caught but not communicated by the labor to the prosecution/defense.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  36. CSI by arikol · · Score: 1

    Hey, that wouldn't help on CSI.

    I think the CSI team are probably suspected of hundreds of murders.
    Think about it.
    They come onto the crime scene with their hair flowing in the wind, flakes of makeup breaking of, scratch their heads, then suddenly zoom to x30 magnification and find..... a hair.

    After all that head scratching, who would you bet on that hair belonging to?

    1. Re:CSI by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      After all that head scratching, who would you bet on that hair belonging to?

      Some person in a third-world slum somewhere who got 50 cents for selling their hair to HairExtensions'R'Us?

      I mean, this is Hollywood - that hair ain't gonna be natural :-)

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  37. Not Slashdotted, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Site's working fine again.

  38. But being smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    means you avoid the life-and-death situations.

    And does your supposition mean that the police chiefs are dumber than the front-line? After all, if they were smarter, they'd be unpredictable and a danger to operational cohesion..!

  39. PCR tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do they do? They multiply a millionfold any DNA on the sample.

    Not a lot of contamination is needed.

    A hopper with a box contaminated in it from one intimately used cotton swab will contaminate the entire hopper. And the next 100 hopper loads too.

  40. What about her accomplice? by RDW · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, Irish police, working on the theory that such a well-travelled criminal may have been been provided with transport by an accomplice, have apparently identified her driver:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0219/1224241418104.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7899171.stm

  41. Police evidence handling by dugeen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This issue shows up the dangers of allowing the police to control the whole DNA evidence process - gathering and analysis. It needs to be transferred to an impartial third party pronto.

  42. Quality Control by #5! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every q-tip carefully tested during our ISO certified manufacturing process!

  43. how long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how long till the authorities use this as an excuse to form a DNA database of all people?

    After all think of all the money that would have saved the investigations.

    1. Re:how long by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      So how long till the authorities use this as an excuse to form a DNA database of all people?

      I don't know, but I'm sure that this database would show that everyone's a clone of the same person.

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. This could have been avoided by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    If they had been buying their swabs from Swabia.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  46. the answer is..... by viralMeme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "How, exactly, did the DNA get *onto* the swab in the first place?"

    How about looking in the factory where they made the contaminated cotton swabs. And presumably the PCR method is so sensitive that it picks up the merest trace element.

    1. Re:the answer is..... by AnfieldSierra · · Score: 1

      "How, exactly, did the DNA get *onto* the swab in the first place?"

      How about looking in the factory where they made the contaminated cotton swabs. And presumably the PCR method is so sensitive that it picks up the merest trace element.

      So you're suggesting that this cotton swab factory employs only one and only one woman who packs every cotton swab on the assembly line ??!!

      If not, why didn't the test pick up DNA from every other employee packing cotton swabs ? What is special about this one individual that has allowed her to contaminate every single cotton swab to be produced ?

  47. I always thought... by kcdoodle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doesn't cotton have DNA?

    I always think that when they take a swab on CSI.

    CSI_Stokes - "Sir, I am afraid to tell you this, but, ... YOU are a COTTON plant."

    --

    - I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
    1. Re:I always thought... by KenRH · · Score: 1

      Not knowing the details on cotton the answer is maybe not.

      For example your hair does not contain any DNA if it is cut off without the hair sack. Hair does not consist off cells but of a substance prodused by hair sack cells. Of course the hair can easyly be "contaminated" with dna from somewhere else on your body.

      Skin on the other hand contains DNA as your topmost layer of skin is actually dead skin-cells.

      So it is possible the fibers of cotton used for cotton produkts does not consist off plant cells but off a substance prodused by the cells

    2. Re:I always thought... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Of course it does, but it's fairly easy to differentiate from human DNA.

    3. Re:I always thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cotton plants have DNA, but actual fibrous cotton, as on a swab does not. Cotton fibers aren't made of cells, they're made of cellulose and lignin.

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Recycled swabs by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Well, some things should not be recycled: Toilet paper and cotton swabs for example.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  50. Cotton Swabs Prime Suspect In 8 Year Phantom Chase by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1, Funny

    Cotton Swabs Prime Suspect In 8 Year Phantom Chase

    Cotton Swabs is innocent! Free Cotton Swabs!

    -Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.
  51. Article in Speigel by Jumperalex · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    If you can't be good, be good at it!
  52. Where in Europe is... by TheOrangeMan · · Score: 1

    So it's the cotton swabs? That is exactly what Carmen Sandiego would want you to think.

    --
    My left arm is all scars and I consider that a valid excuse...
  53. "This is mine, and this is mine...." by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    Are you Cat?

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    1. Re:"This is mine, and this is mine...." by KenRH · · Score: 1

      I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice
      Goldfish schools nibbling at my toes
      Fun, Fun ,Fun ...........

  54. The purchasing dept by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    so... stop buying second-hand cotton swabs?

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  55. And when the DNA was aligned.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When the DNA was aligned, it turned out that it spelled "HELP, I'M TRAPPED IN A SWAB FACTORY"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:And when the DNA was aligned.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need to go back to school. I've never even heard of half of those bases.

  56. What is most amazing is... by Onyma · · Score: 1

    What's incredible to think about is the state of DNA detection these days. This woman has probably merely brushed her hands over millions of cotton swaps and yet obviously a large percentage have carried away a trace of her DNA, and that trace was detectable and could be resequenced. It goes to show how pervasive DNA really is, and how much of our self we sprinkle all over the world continuously.

    --
    Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
    1. Re:What is most amazing is... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      This is why such programs as CSI are unsound as a basis for real criminal investigations.

      The environment is plastered with DNA from numerous sources, but on CSI they operate as if a crime scene was sterile before the crime occurred.

      And, being able to blow up a video image enough to be able to see reflections in someones eye?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:What is most amazing is... by Onyma · · Score: 1

      Very true. Though it would suck as a TV show if every episode was "Get that off to the lab... ok... now we wait 3 days for results... anyone got a deck of cards?" :)

      --
      Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
  57. A cunnink plan darlinks by Option1 · · Score: 1

    Dearest Natasha,

    Our cunning plan is vorkink. Not much longer and you can quit your job in capitalist cotton svab factory and ve vill haf seats at the right hand of fearless leader as he rules the vorld!

    love,
    Boris

  58. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Cotton Swabs are the Prime Suspect..." made it sound like either there are some rogue swabs out to kill their creators, or some group of people calling themselves "the Cotton Swabs". Either way, it doesn't sound very threatening until you read the word "homocide"...

  59. Tested by Inspector #69 by motherpusbucket · · Score: 1

    She must be in quality control at the end of the production line. Her job is to 100% test each swab leaving the facility. I'll let your imaginations decide how she would do this. The swabs are then cleaned through a multi-million dollar automated piece of equipment. However, due to the lowest bidder getting the contract for this 'sterilizer', its performance is sub-par and some DNA remains on each swab. The ChapStick, Preparation-H, and rectal thermometer industries all use similar processes and likely have some DNA residue on their product. ;)

    --
    "You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
  60. DNA is not the gold standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did this woman DNA end up all over the place?

    Here is one idea:

      www.dnaidentiguard.com

  61. Just think about it a little... by qieurowfhbvdklsj · · Score: 1

    I know it's popular to say that DNA evidence is being used to lock people up left and right, but very few cases -hinge- on that DNA evidence (some exceptions are e.g. rape cases where DNA from a sperm sample collected is pretty strong evidence that moves the question of "did the woman even have sex with that man?" to "was the sex that she had with that man a case of sexual violation?")

    So replace this woman with some guy...a black guy, just for good prejudice. Then have his DNA already in the police database for whatever reason. Then he contaminates cotton swabs with his DNA at the factory.

    One day a woman is raped, and one of these cotton swabs is used to collect DNA from her vagina. This guy doesn't have an alibi because, unlike those lucky people in television shows who are always with someone else, he's a normal person who spends some portion of his life alone. So we have a guy who can't prove where he was and the police believe they found his DNA in a rape victim's vagina. ...and he's black, don't forget that. Exactly what sort of miracle do you believe will save this guy?

    The only reason this went on long enough that the police realized their testing methods were at fault was because the woman's DNA wasn't in a database already and so they couldn't remove her from the cotton swab factory and place her in prison. If they hadn't convicted her on the first case, they may well have on the second or third, and it never would have made it to the umpteenth case where the investigators thought "maybe her DNA is on the swabs before we wipe them on things."

  62. This is ridiculous by oftenwrongsoong · · Score: 1

    Good thing they figured out the swabs were contaminated. Had they not, some innocent woman might have spent years and years of her life in prison, for nothing.

    1. Re:This is ridiculous by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      I would hope they would have put 2 and 2 together when they realized where she worked

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  63. Anyone else grossed out by this?? by XantheKnight · · Score: 1

    Anyone else grossed out by the thought that someone else's DNA (god knows how it got there-- I shudder to think) is on your cotton swabs?? I know where *I* put those swabs... I certainly don't want someone else's DNA to go where I put those swabs...

    GROSS!!!

  64. Overturn prosecutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't this discovery have the potential to cause other cases where the contaminated swabs were used to be overturned, or, at least, retried? How could the DNA evidence be reliable on a swab received from the manufacturer pre-contaminated?