Look up Cosmos 954 (or Kosmos 954 or 954). It had 110 lbs of Uranium and other byproducts of the fission reaction onboard. It reentered improperly in January 1978.
Skylab reentered improperly in July 1979, with a nuclear payload.
Cosmos 1402 almost suffered the same fate, but was able to eject it's reactor core to a safe altitude so it would completely burn up on reentry.
Bah. Here at the US Gov't, we don't care if your ground water, or anything else for that matter, gets contaminated by anything that may happen, either intentional or accidental. Well, unless we can blame the terrorists for it, then we'll go invade their godless country, bring religion to them, and kill anyone who argues.
What were you complaining about again? We're really good at slapping the T label on your forehead, and bringing down the vengeance of the mighty United States military.
Mine has one too. You can't start the engine without stepping on the clutch. It usually does it immediately, but there have been a couple times where it didn't. Even still, it didn't cause any adverse change in the vehicle's motion, nor damage to any components.
As I understand it, the shell and core are normally separated. When the device is "armed", the core is inserted into the center of the shell. To detonate, the explosives around the shell must simultaneously explode, compressing the fissionable material until it reaches critical mass, and then BOOM. That last step takes a lot less time than it seems in reading it.
So, an unarmed nuke has no chance of causing a nuclear explosion. An explosion around the shell would just collapse the shell, which is not catastrophic. The core by itself isn't all that dangerous, except it'll make your hair fall out, give you radiation burns, and you won't live all that long after that.:)
If it's > 50' under ground *AND* the explosives around the shell detonated for some unknown reason, it'd probably make a radioactive area that's already property of the US Gov't. If, for some strange reason, the core had been inserted and the explosives spontaniously blew... well... I wouldn't want to be too close to it.:)... if they never recovered the weapon, how would they know 5 safeties failed? This sounds like a little political posturing.
Nailed to the ceiling is a serious understatement. In 4 milliseconds, the reactor went critical, vaporized all the water around it, and sent a shock wave out which (among other things) sent a control rod through the operator and impaled him in the ceiling. I wonder what killed him. It was probably being instantly cooked alive by the steam, rather than the fact that he had a control rod run through his body which left him dangling in non-gravitational respective positions.
Always respect the laws of gravity, or they will catch up to you. At least usually. If you're crushed, steamed and impaled (simultaneously at that), it probably doesn't matter much any more.
That ranks right up with "what could possibly go wrong", and "there's nothing to worry about".
A nuke in the water is still a chunk of radioactive material in a steel casing, just waiting for the casing to rust away.
If the TNT goes pop, then that's all fun and games (assuming the nuke wasn't armed). If the casing is compromised, you have three eyed fish and giant octopuses resulting from the radiation (note: sarcasm). A little extra radiation isn't really all that good for you, me, nor the ecosystem. Hell, looked at what happened to Japan. Just two small nukes, and now you have generations of short people with tiny hands,small penises, and some weird fantasies. (BTW, the last link is border line NSFW, use at your own risk when the boss isn't looking.:)
I for one welcome our mutant three eyed octopus overlords.
If I recall correctly, there's already added "background" radiation all over the planet from a satellite or space station reentering in the 1970's. We've already (kinda) learned from that mistake.
The sun is awful bright, so the laser would have to be (awful bright + some) * the area covered.:)
The more practical answer is to have warning sirens in populated areas, so they would know to go to higher ground quick. Sirens are an awful lot cheaper than a network of specialized satellites, and hoping people noticing that the ground is lit up by a funny light *and* hoping people don't look up and blind themselves before they get a chance to evacuate.
But since you're so kind to put words into my mouth, I'll say that the evidence does support what you're saying.
People tend to like to blame the object doing the work for their own errors, rather than admit they're having an error. I've seen people blame a hammer because it always bends nails. With anyone else using it, it's fine. Sometimes you can't look at the fact that the nail bent and eliminate the operator.
Or more of a computer analogy, to make you even happier. How many of us have been called because someone's computer isn't working. "The computer isn't working", just to find out that they're trying to browse the net on a 56k connection, or they have more malware than legitimate programs running? I even "fixed" a computer by turning the brightness back up on the screen. Never underestimate the stupidity of the operator.
Actually, if you go looking for the statistics, they stopped recording "unintended acceleration" years ago. It was just after they mandated that you must be stepping on the brakes to move the car out of park. There were hundreds every year before that.
I was driving a borrowed car, that had a wide brake pedal. I was coming up to a turn, so I stepped on the "clutch" as I normally would, and it took a second for me to figure out why the car came to a hard stop.:)
I've had the inverse of the unintended acceleration in my car. If I'm wearing work boots, they're a bit wider than my regular shoes, and can catch on the brake pedal rather than the gas.
I posted a rant about this on the previous story (blaming cosmic radiation for it). Most of the unintended accelerations I know of were old people, and those weren't even electronic throttle vehicles. They couldn't understand why the car went faster, because they were pushing the brakes. There was a story about that happening in Santa Monica at a farmers market a few years ago. The driver killed a bunch of people and injured even more. Reading about his reaction and what he said at the accident scene, it sounded more like he did it on purpose. Well, his prize quote was "If they saw me coming, why didn't they get out of the way?" He got probation, because he was "too old to go to jail". Damn, I didn't know being old was an excuse for murder.
In cars I've driven with the cruise control on, if I tap the brakes it shuts down the cruise control. I've had it set to 65 (speed of the road), and then had to stop. I'd be lazy and hit resume to get back up to speed. It served for very little more than to annoy drivers behind me, because the acceleration was so slow.
I've had it happen a couple times in my current car, where I've stepped on the clutch rather than the brake. It took the computer less than a second to realize what I did, but the engine would speed up momentarily, then idle down. It wasn't a problem, just a curious observation. It got me in the habit of tapping the brake before stepping on the clutch if I wanted to just roll to a stop.
I once drove my car with the cruise control for about 3 blocks, because the throttle cable let loose. The plastic clip at the engine broke, and I was about 3 blocks from where I was staying. That was probably the slowest 3 blocks I'd ever driven.:)
Or are you saying that I missed a few? I could go for a detailed look at their security, but in this day and age as soon as I start inventorying all their security cameras, I'm going to get a nice visit from a 3 letter agency, and the word "terrorism" will probably show up in the charges. Only terrorists look for security cameras.:)
Funny, I haven't read that book, nor seen the movie. I just made it up.:) I guess Duell was right, "Everything that can be invented, has already been invented".
I went reading up on it, beyond Wikipedia.:) Most of it was stating the statistical impossibility of DNA matches. They were all forensic reports used by the police, so it's in their best interest to say it. Come court time, forensic reports will outweigh Wikipedia.
I do recall reading in the past that "identical" twins do have different DNA. Sure a sample of a few markers may show an identical result, but if they did better tests with more markers, they could easily determine who the blood "donor" was. If the 13 in 300,000 number is correct, with a population of 1 million, you'd potentially have 43 duplicates. I'm assuming that there was other police work done to even attempt to match these two guys, but that assumption is likely wrong.
They didn't say how many markers were used in this test.
I've actually read up a good bit on DNA testing. My mother has been tracking our family tree back for many generations. There are a few companies that have large databases of DNA, so you can match potential family members, although separated generations ago, who may have information on the tree that may be otherwise unavailable. "Family bibles" were a great resource, and were generally handed down over the generations. They'll frequently list all births, deaths, and marriages, so someone in a branch of the tree 5 generations ago may have some key information. I believe they would only link the trees, and not actually give up the information on the living members of the family though.
In reading their information though, I found that they weren't testing enough markers, which could lead to false positives, and even fail to match distant family members. There was not enough advantage for me to include myself in it. Unless there was a good chance of success, and a valuable source of information to be had, it wasn't worth putting my DNA into some corporations database regardless of how warm and fuzzy they made their privacy policy sound. I don't trust the government, and I trust corporations even less. For all I know, I may match the twins in the article on a sample of just a few markers. I'd hate to find out that law enforcement had access to the database (although quietly), and I'd suddenly become a suspect due to flawed methodology. I'd actually be safe in this case, being on the wrong side of the pond and all.:)
I do appreciate that DNA testing has exonerated people from crimes. A definite negative is still a negative no matter how you look at it. I'd hate to be that guy who had a positive due to insufficient testing, and rot in jail for someone elses crime.
It's much like religion. You don't have to see the cameras to know that they're there. You just have to have faith that Big Brother is watching over you.
There's more evidence that the government and government owned cameras exist, than God exists. I don't know people would have any trouble believing in it.
[/sarcasm]
Really though, even here in America if you are attentive, you'll see that major intersections and other public areas have government owned cameras. The easy way to distinguish them is their location. If they're attached to light poles facing intersections, or on guy wires across the road, they're government owned. If they're on privately owned buildings, they're private. For example, most WalMarts have an impressive array of cameras, facing the parking lot. I've typically seen 16 cameras facing the main parking lot (4 masts with 3 cameras each). That doesn't take into account the number of cameras viewing the sides and rear, entrance cameras, and internal cameras.
Of course, the millions of privately owned cameras don't count towards big brother, other than the fact that under the right circumstances they can be seized and used as evidence. A pesky amount like $10k doesn't really justify the man hours just to retrieve all the tapes nor process them. It's silly to spend a million dollars on a case to convict someone of a $10k crime.
Ya. Of all the places in the world to mess with, that's probably pretty high up on the list of "don't screw with these places".
Then again, they seem entertained by my nightly prank calls (hint: 202-456-1414). "Is your refrigerator running? Then go catch it!"
It was more entertaining during the Bush years. "We're going to catch you and send you to Gitmo!". Now it's actually civilized with the normal response of "Mr. Smythe, we already know it's you. Come up with some new ones and we'll even laugh.":)
Actually, neither will confess, and neither one did it. As it turns out they were actually triplets when they were born. The parents had to give one up for adoption. The adopted brother, through cruel twists of fate, turned to crime at a young age. Neither of the "twins" know anything about the third brother.
But, that's not the whole story. The third brother married into a well connected crime family. He did what the family wanted, but that still didn't make them satisfied with him. In time, there was resentment by some of the "family" members, and even his wife.
The wife was having an affair with another member of the crime family. One morning the third brother cut himself shaving. She took that blood, and gave it to her lover, and *HE* is the one who committed the crime.
No one in the crime family, nor even the third brother, knew there were two more people who would positively identify to the DNA match. The third brother remains unsuspected to this day, and those in his circle continue to live free, until the day that his wife finally gets rid of him, one way or another.
{sigh} don't you people ever watch murder/mystery/detective shows? Hell, even an educated background of Scooby Doo mysteries would have thought of this one. Or the old man who lived in the cabin on the hill.:)
It says in the story that they wouldn't prosecute without more than just DNA evidence. Really though, it limited their suspect pool to two people. One has a legitimate alibi. The other only has his word that he didn't do it.
This is the UK we're talking about. They have a camera on every street corner. They could review the footage, and effectively follow him from the crime scene back to his house. But gosh, that requires work, and it's easier to just get a confession from one of them. It should have given the police probable cause to search both residences. I don't know UK law, but it should be similar enough for the police to go have a look.
Some folks mentioned looking for cuts. Umm, obviously. If they both had cuts, then that's inconclusive, but if they don't follow the leads, they're being stupid.
Well, in this case, they didn't care if they got it back or not. They had hundreds of machines. I believe that they got it back in about a week.
My ex-mother-in-law had her computer taken by law enforcement because a roommate was under suspicion of some nasty things. She got it back the next day. I guess things have come a long way, and they realize that a block copied drive is pretty damned useful.:)
I'd suspect if they sat on it for 4 years, they had a case against him, and didn't want him to have it back in case he was going to do something else with it.
I knew someone who was in a gun related crime. Well, more of an accident. A girl shot herself in the face. I don't try to understand how it happened, but I know stuff like that happens all the time (people doing stupid things and hurting themselves). Her boyfriend, the gun owner, wasn't even home at the time. He came home to police cars an ambulance, and police tape around his house. It took quite a while for them to release it to him, even after his girlfriend was able to talk again, and explained what happened.
Sometimes the process gets real slow, if they think it's in the best interest of the people involved. Their belief isn't always the way the rest of the world sees it.
Out of curiosity, what was the charge, and was he convicted?
Evidence is a tricky thing. I'd have to say from what I know of the law (and IANAL), that drive is worthless as evidence, or even as a hint to start an investigation on anything but a B&E charge. The computer may have the guys personal information on it, but even that can be faked.
The chain of custody isn't always quite so cut and dried. At one point, there was an investigation where I showed up to work where I found a man with a federal badge. He wanted to know about an incident that I honestly knew nothing about. I listened to what he had, and then followed it through to the source, and collected the appropriate information. The investigator told me "I can't ask you for this without a warrant, but if you give it to me it would make my job easier."
At that point it's all in who did what, and who's getting screwed. In my case, there was a server of another client compromised and used to attempt breaking into a federal network. When the client discovered it had been compromised, they pulled the machine for evidence (or to be cleaned later), and restored the data from backups to a clean machine. They were absolutely willing to hand over the machine, as long as they'd get it back. The only person getting screwed would potentially be the person who broke into their server.
While I didn't deal in physical evidence, it was hearsay, which wouldn't be admissible. If I had gone and picked up the machine, there wouldn't be a good chain of custody. With the client's permission I sent the investigator over to them.
Actually, I spent a little time going through the javascript that runs it. There's more than one game.:) I copied the whole thing down so I can play with it later. I figured sometime today he'd take it away. It's gone now.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist)
So you want me to find it for you, huh?
Look up Cosmos 954 (or Kosmos 954 or 954). It had 110 lbs of Uranium and other byproducts of the fission reaction onboard. It reentered improperly in January 1978.
Skylab reentered improperly in July 1979, with a nuclear payload.
Cosmos 1402 almost suffered the same fate, but was able to eject it's reactor core to a safe altitude so it would completely burn up on reentry.
Bah. Here at the US Gov't, we don't care if your ground water, or anything else for that matter, gets contaminated by anything that may happen, either intentional or accidental. Well, unless we can blame the terrorists for it, then we'll go invade their godless country, bring religion to them, and kill anyone who argues.
What were you complaining about again? We're really good at slapping the T label on your forehead, and bringing down the vengeance of the mighty United States military.
Mine has one too. You can't start the engine without stepping on the clutch. It usually does it immediately, but there have been a couple times where it didn't. Even still, it didn't cause any adverse change in the vehicle's motion, nor damage to any components.
Would Samantha Mathis be the hot chick that you were thinking of?
I'd actually forgotten about that movie. Why did you have to bring it up?
As I understand it, the shell and core are normally separated. When the device is "armed", the core is inserted into the center of the shell. To detonate, the explosives around the shell must simultaneously explode, compressing the fissionable material until it reaches critical mass, and then BOOM. That last step takes a lot less time than it seems in reading it.
So, an unarmed nuke has no chance of causing a nuclear explosion. An explosion around the shell would just collapse the shell, which is not catastrophic. The core by itself isn't all that dangerous, except it'll make your hair fall out, give you radiation burns, and you won't live all that long after that. :)
If it's > 50' under ground *AND* the explosives around the shell detonated for some unknown reason, it'd probably make a radioactive area that's already property of the US Gov't. If, for some strange reason, the core had been inserted and the explosives spontaniously blew ... well ... I wouldn't want to be too close to it. :) ... if they never recovered the weapon, how would they know 5 safeties failed? This sounds like a little political posturing.
Nailed to the ceiling is a serious understatement. In 4 milliseconds, the reactor went critical, vaporized all the water around it, and sent a shock wave out which (among other things) sent a control rod through the operator and impaled him in the ceiling. I wonder what killed him. It was probably being instantly cooked alive by the steam, rather than the fact that he had a control rod run through his body which left him dangling in non-gravitational respective positions.
Always respect the laws of gravity, or they will catch up to you. At least usually. If you're crushed, steamed and impaled (simultaneously at that), it probably doesn't matter much any more.
That ranks right up with "what could possibly go wrong", and "there's nothing to worry about".
A nuke in the water is still a chunk of radioactive material in a steel casing, just waiting for the casing to rust away.
If the TNT goes pop, then that's all fun and games (assuming the nuke wasn't armed). If the casing is compromised, you have three eyed fish and giant octopuses resulting from the radiation (note: sarcasm). A little extra radiation isn't really all that good for you, me, nor the ecosystem. Hell, looked at what happened to Japan. Just two small nukes, and now you have generations of short people with tiny hands,small penises, and some weird fantasies. (BTW, the last link is border line NSFW, use at your own risk when the boss isn't looking. :)
I for one welcome our mutant three eyed octopus overlords.
If I recall correctly, there's already added "background" radiation all over the planet from a satellite or space station reentering in the 1970's. We've already (kinda) learned from that mistake.
My impromptu came up with a similar number.
The sun is awful bright, so the laser would have to be (awful bright + some) * the area covered. :)
The more practical answer is to have warning sirens in populated areas, so they would know to go to higher ground quick. Sirens are an awful lot cheaper than a network of specialized satellites, and hoping people noticing that the ground is lit up by a funny light *and* hoping people don't look up and blind themselves before they get a chance to evacuate.
Well, I didn't say that.
But since you're so kind to put words into my mouth, I'll say that the evidence does support what you're saying.
People tend to like to blame the object doing the work for their own errors, rather than admit they're having an error. I've seen people blame a hammer because it always bends nails. With anyone else using it, it's fine. Sometimes you can't look at the fact that the nail bent and eliminate the operator.
Or more of a computer analogy, to make you even happier. How many of us have been called because someone's computer isn't working. "The computer isn't working", just to find out that they're trying to browse the net on a 56k connection, or they have more malware than legitimate programs running? I even "fixed" a computer by turning the brightness back up on the screen. Never underestimate the stupidity of the operator.
Actually, if you go looking for the statistics, they stopped recording "unintended acceleration" years ago. It was just after they mandated that you must be stepping on the brakes to move the car out of park. There were hundreds every year before that.
I think we've all done that at some point. :)
I was driving a borrowed car, that had a wide brake pedal. I was coming up to a turn, so I stepped on the "clutch" as I normally would, and it took a second for me to figure out why the car came to a hard stop. :)
I've had the inverse of the unintended acceleration in my car. If I'm wearing work boots, they're a bit wider than my regular shoes, and can catch on the brake pedal rather than the gas.
I posted a rant about this on the previous story (blaming cosmic radiation for it). Most of the unintended accelerations I know of were old people, and those weren't even electronic throttle vehicles. They couldn't understand why the car went faster, because they were pushing the brakes. There was a story about that happening in Santa Monica at a farmers market a few years ago. The driver killed a bunch of people and injured even more. Reading about his reaction and what he said at the accident scene, it sounded more like he did it on purpose. Well, his prize quote was "If they saw me coming, why didn't they get out of the way?" He got probation, because he was "too old to go to jail". Damn, I didn't know being old was an excuse for murder.
No shit.
In cars I've driven with the cruise control on, if I tap the brakes it shuts down the cruise control. I've had it set to 65 (speed of the road), and then had to stop. I'd be lazy and hit resume to get back up to speed. It served for very little more than to annoy drivers behind me, because the acceleration was so slow.
I've had it happen a couple times in my current car, where I've stepped on the clutch rather than the brake. It took the computer less than a second to realize what I did, but the engine would speed up momentarily, then idle down. It wasn't a problem, just a curious observation. It got me in the habit of tapping the brake before stepping on the clutch if I wanted to just roll to a stop.
I once drove my car with the cruise control for about 3 blocks, because the throttle cable let loose. The plastic clip at the engine broke, and I was about 3 blocks from where I was staying. That was probably the slowest 3 blocks I'd ever driven. :)
Actually, it's 16. I just ran short writing out the explanation.
4 poles on the roof, 3 cameras each. Each front corner has two cameras. 2+3+3+3+3+2=16.
Don't make me go take pictures to prove it. :)
Or are you saying that I missed a few? I could go for a detailed look at their security, but in this day and age as soon as I start inventorying all their security cameras, I'm going to get a nice visit from a 3 letter agency, and the word "terrorism" will probably show up in the charges. Only terrorists look for security cameras. :)
Funny, I haven't read that book, nor seen the movie. I just made it up. :) I guess Duell was right, "Everything that can be invented, has already been invented".
I went reading up on it, beyond Wikipedia. :) Most of it was stating the statistical impossibility of DNA matches. They were all forensic reports used by the police, so it's in their best interest to say it. Come court time, forensic reports will outweigh Wikipedia.
I do recall reading in the past that "identical" twins do have different DNA. Sure a sample of a few markers may show an identical result, but if they did better tests with more markers, they could easily determine who the blood "donor" was. If the 13 in 300,000 number is correct, with a population of 1 million, you'd potentially have 43 duplicates. I'm assuming that there was other police work done to even attempt to match these two guys, but that assumption is likely wrong.
They didn't say how many markers were used in this test.
I've actually read up a good bit on DNA testing. My mother has been tracking our family tree back for many generations. There are a few companies that have large databases of DNA, so you can match potential family members, although separated generations ago, who may have information on the tree that may be otherwise unavailable. "Family bibles" were a great resource, and were generally handed down over the generations. They'll frequently list all births, deaths, and marriages, so someone in a branch of the tree 5 generations ago may have some key information. I believe they would only link the trees, and not actually give up the information on the living members of the family though.
In reading their information though, I found that they weren't testing enough markers, which could lead to false positives, and even fail to match distant family members. There was not enough advantage for me to include myself in it. Unless there was a good chance of success, and a valuable source of information to be had, it wasn't worth putting my DNA into some corporations database regardless of how warm and fuzzy they made their privacy policy sound. I don't trust the government, and I trust corporations even less. For all I know, I may match the twins in the article on a sample of just a few markers. I'd hate to find out that law enforcement had access to the database (although quietly), and I'd suddenly become a suspect due to flawed methodology. I'd actually be safe in this case, being on the wrong side of the pond and all. :)
I do appreciate that DNA testing has exonerated people from crimes. A definite negative is still a negative no matter how you look at it. I'd hate to be that guy who had a positive due to insufficient testing, and rot in jail for someone elses crime.
It's much like religion. You don't have to see the cameras to know that they're there. You just have to have faith that Big Brother is watching over you.
There's more evidence that the government and government owned cameras exist, than God exists. I don't know people would have any trouble believing in it.
[/sarcasm]
Really though, even here in America if you are attentive, you'll see that major intersections and other public areas have government owned cameras. The easy way to distinguish them is their location. If they're attached to light poles facing intersections, or on guy wires across the road, they're government owned. If they're on privately owned buildings, they're private. For example, most WalMarts have an impressive array of cameras, facing the parking lot. I've typically seen 16 cameras facing the main parking lot (4 masts with 3 cameras each). That doesn't take into account the number of cameras viewing the sides and rear, entrance cameras, and internal cameras.
Of course, the millions of privately owned cameras don't count towards big brother, other than the fact that under the right circumstances they can be seized and used as evidence. A pesky amount like $10k doesn't really justify the man hours just to retrieve all the tapes nor process them. It's silly to spend a million dollars on a case to convict someone of a $10k crime.
Ya. Of all the places in the world to mess with, that's probably pretty high up on the list of "don't screw with these places".
Then again, they seem entertained by my nightly prank calls (hint: 202-456-1414). "Is your refrigerator running? Then go catch it!"
It was more entertaining during the Bush years. "We're going to catch you and send you to Gitmo!". Now it's actually civilized with the normal response of "Mr. Smythe, we already know it's you. Come up with some new ones and we'll even laugh." :)
Actually, neither will confess, and neither one did it. As it turns out they were actually triplets when they were born. The parents had to give one up for adoption. The adopted brother, through cruel twists of fate, turned to crime at a young age. Neither of the "twins" know anything about the third brother.
But, that's not the whole story. The third brother married into a well connected crime family. He did what the family wanted, but that still didn't make them satisfied with him. In time, there was resentment by some of the "family" members, and even his wife.
The wife was having an affair with another member of the crime family. One morning the third brother cut himself shaving. She took that blood, and gave it to her lover, and *HE* is the one who committed the crime.
No one in the crime family, nor even the third brother, knew there were two more people who would positively identify to the DNA match. The third brother remains unsuspected to this day, and those in his circle continue to live free, until the day that his wife finally gets rid of him, one way or another.
{sigh} don't you people ever watch murder/mystery/detective shows? Hell, even an educated background of Scooby Doo mysteries would have thought of this one. Or the old man who lived in the cabin on the hill. :)
It says in the story that they wouldn't prosecute without more than just DNA evidence. Really though, it limited their suspect pool to two people. One has a legitimate alibi. The other only has his word that he didn't do it.
This is the UK we're talking about. They have a camera on every street corner. They could review the footage, and effectively follow him from the crime scene back to his house. But gosh, that requires work, and it's easier to just get a confession from one of them. It should have given the police probable cause to search both residences. I don't know UK law, but it should be similar enough for the police to go have a look.
Some folks mentioned looking for cuts. Umm, obviously. If they both had cuts, then that's inconclusive, but if they don't follow the leads, they're being stupid.
Well, in this case, they didn't care if they got it back or not. They had hundreds of machines. I believe that they got it back in about a week.
My ex-mother-in-law had her computer taken by law enforcement because a roommate was under suspicion of some nasty things. She got it back the next day. I guess things have come a long way, and they realize that a block copied drive is pretty damned useful. :)
I'd suspect if they sat on it for 4 years, they had a case against him, and didn't want him to have it back in case he was going to do something else with it.
I knew someone who was in a gun related crime. Well, more of an accident. A girl shot herself in the face. I don't try to understand how it happened, but I know stuff like that happens all the time (people doing stupid things and hurting themselves). Her boyfriend, the gun owner, wasn't even home at the time. He came home to police cars an ambulance, and police tape around his house. It took quite a while for them to release it to him, even after his girlfriend was able to talk again, and explained what happened.
Sometimes the process gets real slow, if they think it's in the best interest of the people involved. Their belief isn't always the way the rest of the world sees it.
Out of curiosity, what was the charge, and was he convicted?
Evidence is a tricky thing. I'd have to say from what I know of the law (and IANAL), that drive is worthless as evidence, or even as a hint to start an investigation on anything but a B&E charge. The computer may have the guys personal information on it, but even that can be faked.
The chain of custody isn't always quite so cut and dried. At one point, there was an investigation where I showed up to work where I found a man with a federal badge. He wanted to know about an incident that I honestly knew nothing about. I listened to what he had, and then followed it through to the source, and collected the appropriate information. The investigator told me "I can't ask you for this without a warrant, but if you give it to me it would make my job easier."
At that point it's all in who did what, and who's getting screwed. In my case, there was a server of another client compromised and used to attempt breaking into a federal network. When the client discovered it had been compromised, they pulled the machine for evidence (or to be cleaned later), and restored the data from backups to a clean machine. They were absolutely willing to hand over the machine, as long as they'd get it back. The only person getting screwed would potentially be the person who broke into their server.
While I didn't deal in physical evidence, it was hearsay, which wouldn't be admissible. If I had gone and picked up the machine, there wouldn't be a good chain of custody. With the client's permission I sent the investigator over to them.
Actually, I spent a little time going through the javascript that runs it. There's more than one game. :) I copied the whole thing down so I can play with it later. I figured sometime today he'd take it away. It's gone now.