Where's Dexter when you need him?

When Acevedo was arrested on murder charges, "he wasn't very happy to see us," Detective John Geiss said last year.

That's odd. Usually, when people get arrested they are so happy.

I certainly regretted voluntarily giving DNA a few times in college.

FTFA: At trial, an expert testified it was statistically impossible for the DNA found in vaginal swabs from each of the women to be anyone's but Acevedo's.

Vaginas have swabs now? First the clitoris, now this. Women!

Arklop: david1963: They can have my DNA when they pry it from my cold dead body. Or follow me around and collect my used Kleenex.

Which might explain why I've never been a serial killer either.



The trick is to leave other people's DNA at the scene after you're done...preferably someone you don't like.

Yeah but getting dna from people you don't like sucks

Is statistically impossible the same as impossible?

/ Technically correct is the best kind of correct

Mr.Hawk: His face is shaped as if upside down.


I don't know, I think it's something with his eyes.

Vigorous_Apathy: I was wondering how a blood sample from a drunk driving conviction gets linked to a 14 year old murder case.

A Yonkers cold-case detective said investigators had looked at "way more than 100" other potential suspects over the years before they found Acevedo's blood sample and matched it to the killings.


I guess cold case detectives just periodically run their DNA samples against their ever increasing database, to see if they inadvertently find something new.

Why not? It can't possibly require that much computing power.

What cases like this will do will be to move DNA collection ever wider. Some state tried (or maybe did) require DNA from all burglary suspects - not convicted (IIRC). Why not just make it a requirement to get a driver's license.

Kanemano: fjnorton: The trick is to leave other people's DNA at the scene after you're done...preferably someone you don't like.

Yeah but getting dna from people you don't like sucks

Well, that is one way but it might be easier to grab their hair brush.

Now you tell me. This thread leaves a bad taste on my mouth.

DonkeyDixon: It would be, though it wouldn't be as convincing an argument if he said "statistically improbable". It might be 99.999999% certain, but that one-in-a-hundred-million might be taken as "reasonable doubt" by some jurors

This is the never ending problem with using english words to describe statistical thingies.
The chance that CERN will produce a black hole and destroy the earth is not zero. so the physicists wont use the word impossible. Which leads the complete and total morans to panic. The fact that the chance is so small that it is practically equal to zero escapes the minds of these tards.

I have started using impossible in place of statistically improbable and slapping math geeks who want to argue semantics.

namatad: DonkeyDixon: It would be, though it wouldn't be as convincing an argument if he said "statistically improbable". It might be 99.999999% certain, but that one-in-a-hundred-million might be taken as "reasonable doubt" by some jurors

This is the never ending problem with using english words to describe statistical thingies.
The chance that CERN will produce a black hole and destroy the earth is not zero. so the physicists wont use the word impossible. Which leads the complete and total morans to panic. The fact that the chance is so small that it is practically equal to zero escapes the minds of these tards.

I have started using impossible in place of statistically improbable and slapping math geeks who want to argue semantics.

When the earth is collapsing into that mini black hole, I'm going to make a point of 'HA-HA' ing you!