Relatives' DNA Leads To Arrest -- For a 1976 Double Murder (go.com) 239
"You gotta be kidding me," said a Wisconsin man, when police arrested his 82-year-old next-door neighbor "old Ray" -- the guy who would occasionally come over to fix his lawnmower.
An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press: Ray Vannieuwenhoven was his next-door neighbor -- a helpful, 82-year-old handyman with a gravelly voice and a loud, distinctive laugh, the kind of guy who always waved from his car. The widower and father of five grown children had lived quietly for two decades among the 800 residents of Lakewood, a northern Wisconsin town surrounded by forests and small lakes. Now authorities were saying this man was a cold-blooded killer. They had used genetic genealogy to crack a cold case that stretched back well into the 20th century -- a double murder 25 miles southwest of Lakewood. For nearly 43 years, Vannieuwenoven had lived in plain sight, yet outside detectives' radar....
DNA profiling in the '90s brought new hope, but detectives got no matches... Last year, detectives contacted Virginia-based Parabon NanoLabs, a DNA technology company whose work with genetic genealogy analysis has helped police identify 55 suspects in cold cases nationwide since May 2018, according to the company. Parabon uploads DNA from crime scenes to GEDmatch, a free, public genealogy database with about 1.2 million profiles, all voluntarily submitted by people who've used consumer genealogy sites like Ancestry.com and 23andMe. California law enforcement used GEDmatch to capture the Golden State Killer last year by finding distant relatives and reverse-engineering his family tree.
Parabon's experts completed Vannieuwenhoven's family tree in late December. They'd found his parents, who had lived in the Green Bay area. Now detectives needed DNA samples from Vannieuwenhoven and his three brothers. Two were ruled out with DNA samples collected from one brother's trash and another's used coffee cup. On March 6, two sheriff's deputies knocked on Vannieuwenhoven's door, pretending they wanted him to fill out a brief survey on area-policing. They told him to put the survey in an envelope and seal it with his tongue.
Detectives didn't need to visit the fourth brother. Eight days later, Vannieuwenhoven was in custody.
Vannieuwenhoven has pleaded not guilty.
An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press: Ray Vannieuwenhoven was his next-door neighbor -- a helpful, 82-year-old handyman with a gravelly voice and a loud, distinctive laugh, the kind of guy who always waved from his car. The widower and father of five grown children had lived quietly for two decades among the 800 residents of Lakewood, a northern Wisconsin town surrounded by forests and small lakes. Now authorities were saying this man was a cold-blooded killer. They had used genetic genealogy to crack a cold case that stretched back well into the 20th century -- a double murder 25 miles southwest of Lakewood. For nearly 43 years, Vannieuwenoven had lived in plain sight, yet outside detectives' radar....
DNA profiling in the '90s brought new hope, but detectives got no matches... Last year, detectives contacted Virginia-based Parabon NanoLabs, a DNA technology company whose work with genetic genealogy analysis has helped police identify 55 suspects in cold cases nationwide since May 2018, according to the company. Parabon uploads DNA from crime scenes to GEDmatch, a free, public genealogy database with about 1.2 million profiles, all voluntarily submitted by people who've used consumer genealogy sites like Ancestry.com and 23andMe. California law enforcement used GEDmatch to capture the Golden State Killer last year by finding distant relatives and reverse-engineering his family tree.
Parabon's experts completed Vannieuwenhoven's family tree in late December. They'd found his parents, who had lived in the Green Bay area. Now detectives needed DNA samples from Vannieuwenhoven and his three brothers. Two were ruled out with DNA samples collected from one brother's trash and another's used coffee cup. On March 6, two sheriff's deputies knocked on Vannieuwenhoven's door, pretending they wanted him to fill out a brief survey on area-policing. They told him to put the survey in an envelope and seal it with his tongue.
Detectives didn't need to visit the fourth brother. Eight days later, Vannieuwenhoven was in custody.
Vannieuwenhoven has pleaded not guilty.
I have to agree with Bill Burr (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone using those "send in a sample to get your genetic history" services advertised on youtube and podcasts everywhere like 23andme are morons.
If you value your privacy, don't use that bullshit.
Re:I have to agree with Bill Burr (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as in this case, the problem isn't the subject uploading his/her DNA, but relatives doing this.
It's already too late. Your privacy has been violated by your relatives. My brother send his DNA to one of these services and I have seen the report. I assume that the report for me would either be very similar, or show that he is really only a half brother (I have no reason to think this, but obviously it cannot be ruled out, unless I also send in my DNA).
Re: (Score:3)
That one is covered by the drivers license law. You agree to it up front as a condition of being granted the privilege of a drivers license. And you thought EULAs were bad.
But thanks for playing the game
Re:I have to agree with shooting self. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure seems weird that you can sign away such a basic right as part of getting a drivers licence.
Here, the Canadian Supreme Court considers searching your body as the most extreme kind of search and that it needs a warrant (easy to get if the suspect has been involved in an accident and is unconscious), the blood has to be taken by a Dr or medical tech, two blood samples have to be removed so the suspect can have one for independent testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler doesn't have any descendants.
Two nephews living in the USA who decided _they_ didn't want any descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler doesn't have any descendants.
And you know this for sure? He was a soldier in WWI, but never got lucky? One of the most powerful men on earth for years, but never got laid?
Why do you think he was so mean?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"all it takes is a single moron in your family"
If other families are like mine then only having 1 moron would be a blessing.
However, no matter how the evidence is obtained, if you've committed double murder then you should suffer for it no matter how you were caught.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the if part. There are a lot of falsely imprisoned people who have been convicted for crimes they didn't do. Look at the innocence project, which estimates that 2.3%-5% of prisoners are innocent and has got 20 people on death row freed due to wrongful convictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The idea of being falsely accused, convicted and sentenced to death is horrible and happens way too often. Even being convicted for a minor crime that you didn't do can royally fuck your life, especi
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the innocence project, which estimates that 2.3%-5% of prisoners are innocent and has got 20 people on death row freed due to wrongful convictions.
And guess how those 20 people were exonerated?
Yup, DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if any privacy laws could help here. Since your DNA is personal information and a lot of it is shared with your relatives, maybe you could argue that they don't have the right to share it because of the impact on you.
I did a quick search but didn't find much about this. Seems like it's an untapped legal argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, there are probably a lot of people you're related to that you don't know you're related to. How many of you know all of your sixth cousins? And what're the odds that one of your sixth cousins shares your Y-chromosome?
Yeah, I'm assuming you're all guys - "the internet, where th
Re: (Score:2)
>"I wonder if any privacy laws could help here."
That assumes the 3-letter agencies and the companies they "recruit" follow the laws, which I seriously doubt.
Re: (Score:3)
unsympathetic defendants (Score:5, Insightful)
We (in the US) have seen a plethora of rights-eroding legal decisions over the last 10-15 years. A common feature of these decisions is that they are taken in cases involving defendants that 'normal' people might not want to protect, like terrorists and pedophiles.
Once the ruling is issued and survives appellate review, though, it is precedent for everybody. It is important to stand up for the rights even of people we do not like, to protect our own future freedoms.
That said, I don't see anything in this case that violates established procedures.
They don't need to be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all it takes is a single moron in your family to fall for this shit for them to have a profile on your entire family.
Why are they "morons"? As I understand this story, none of the people who submitted their DNA to the testing service suffered any ill effects as a result of their decision. In fact, they might be happy to learn that their DNA resulted in a killer being caught. This is the problem with DNA: your privacy might depend on people who have different privacy values or concerns than you. That doesn't make them morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, if I worked for the FBI; I'd be advertising a DNA test that we pay you for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you know absolutely nothing about history that may sound like a contradiction.
Re:I have to agree with Bill Burr (Score:4, Informative)
These services are also inconsistent using different genetic databases and algorithms and give different results (...) They interviewed a professor in genetics and he said it's impossible to actually pinpoint origins with that type of accuracy.
He's probably right, the level of isolation required for a population to get distinct genetic markers is probably quite high, it's not like geography is directly related to genetics other that people needing to meet up to hook up. Also I suspect they tweak the conditions to pretend more people have an "interesting" heritage. But the actual genetics, ugh. 23andme estimates the probability of identifying a third cousin to be ~90%. A third cousin has 0.3%-2.0% the same DNA as you, they say the average is 0.78%.
Well let's do the math then, your parents = 50%, grandparents 25%, great-grandparents 12.5%, great-great-grandparents 6.25%, great-great-great-grandparents ~3.1%, great-great-great-great-grandparents ~1.5%, great-great-great-great-great-grandparents ~0.75%. That's any one of your 128+64+32+16+8+4+2 = 254 ascendants (if unique) who can put you on the registry, plus very many of their siblings and their cousins. Obviously people from the 1800s aren't going to raise from the dead and supply DNA samples, but genetic privacy is on its deathbed.
I just checked the stats on the police DNA registry here in Norway, they have 82k/5.2m = 1.6% of the population registered. All of these have been convicted of a crime (not necessarily sexual) and if you've first done anything to get on the registry you stay for life + 5. To my knowledge legally they can't use it 23andme style, only to do exact matches. But if they did I would think practically everybody is related to somebody on that registry. They also want to use it for immigration, medicine, inheritance etc. personally I think in 30 years we're all registered somehow.
Also, don't murder multiple people (Score:5, Insightful)
> If you value your privacy, don't use that bullshit.
Also, avoid murdering multiple people, because you won't have much privacy in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, avoid murdering multiple people, because you won't have much privacy in prison.
Man, people are always telling me what to do and not do. It gets really tiresome.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you should go to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, an edict I can get behind wholeheartedly!
Re: (Score:2)
Go to bed, spotty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Also, don't murder multiple people (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, avoid murdering multiple people, because you won't have much privacy in prison.
Well he's got a good chance of beating it on a number of things. Matching alleles for example, the number of matched pairs has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. The absolute fuckups of the testing from the period show such deviations from the original samples that there's thousands of cases on appeal. That storage of original DNA evidence has degraded or in some cases has been destroyed for various reasons too. Then you get into the cases where DNA evidence has been falsified by lab techs and it all just goes downhill from there. Just wait until you get to the cases of matching DNA samples from ~40 years ago, and the old "people really didn't travel more than 5 miles from home" messing with it.
The Atlantic did a story on a rather interesting case back ~3-4 years ago. [theatlantic.com] There's also plenty of more indepth stuff in criminology journals, police journals and so on along with the reaffirming statements by courts over the last decade that while DNA evidence can point in one direction, it is not the absolute truth that neither courts, police, or it's advocates made it out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
The Atlantic did a story on a rather interesting case back ~3-4 years ago.
TL;DR version: Bad interpretation of a complex DNA mix after a gang rape collaborates woman's poor identification. Bad DNA interpretation gets corrected, innocent men freed after four years in prison. Also guilty men caught later. The question is, would we be better off without DNA samples? Hell no. Lots of wrongful convictions were overturned, today they don't even make it into the court system because the DNA doesn't match. And the real rapists would certainly never get caught. Maybe they got blindsided b
Re: (Score:3)
And then all it'll cost him is his life savings in legal fees, his career, his family, his reputation, and needing to remain ever vigilant for an angry mob.
That's not really how our legal system works (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
An 82 year old man who's a part time handy man isn't going to hire the kind of lawyer who can get him off a murder rap.
You understand your legal system less then a foreigner does. I'm not surprised.
Re:Also, don't murder multiple people (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there's a greater danger here.
First off all, the wider the net you catch the greater the chance is that you'll catch something. And while the chance of false positives are small, they are not zero. Actually the odds are such that there is actually a significant chance that there *will* be false positives, if you look at the entire population.
Secondly if there is a gigantic database which holds everyone's DNA and all the plods have to do when they want to find a suspect is to search this, then that act in itself turns everyone in it into suspects. Everyone being a suspect is usually a trait of the police state, not a functional democracy.
Thirdly and most worryingly, DNA-pollution and secondary transfer are real things. Combine this with the tendency of courts and juries to consider DNA the word of God himself and we have a serious issue as we, without any afterthought, have a gigantic one stop shop for suspects who are basically considered guilty by default. These people are suddenly put in a position where the burden of evidence is reversed, and since as earlier pointed out, a real tough one, since the general sentiment is that DNA is infallible. Do you remember where you were this day 25 years ago, what you did, and can you prove it? I know I don't, but I know I didn't murder anyone. But if someone got a match on me from, let's say a hair caught by the wind, or fallen from the murderers coat, where it got by him brushing up against me on the bus, I could potentially be in deep trouble. Keep in mind that we're talking about *DNA*, not necessarily "semen" or other substances which are harder to explain the presence of. Or perhaps you spat in the street, and the victim later fell on it? Uh-oh.
I'm all for locking up murderers, but this trend worries me. It reeks of totalitarianism and police state to high heaven.
Only one is the victim's abusive ex-husband (Score:2)
In the Nicole Brown Simpson's murder case, people pointed out that there could be several other people with matching DNA, based on the points they checked. That's true.
Of the ten people on the planet with DNA matches at those points:
One is an Australian aborigine who has never left the bush
One is a 91 year old in a nursing home
One had been in a Mexican prison for the last 10 years
One is Nicole Brown Simpson's abusive ex-husband
Which of these people killed Nicole Brown Simpson? So hard to figure out.
If the D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those very few instances where the incel may be right: A quick search finds a few studies that appear to show a disparity in sentencing. Women do get lighten sentences for the same crimes, on average. Cultural sexism works both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those very few instances where the incel may be right:
Since you were the first to respond, I'll give my answer here then do copy/paste with the rest.
The issue was not whether there is a difference in sentencing between men and women, the issue was if men wouldn't commit crimes, there wouldn't be so many in jail. The same point the OP was making about not committing double murders (or any murders).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Women are sentenced to far less time for the same conduct.
The issue was not whether there is a difference in sentencing between men and women, the issue was if men wouldn't commit crimes, there wouldn't be so many in jail. The same point the OP was making about not committing double murders (or any murders).
I knew someone would be that crazy (Score:2)
Somehow I knew no matter what I said, even something as non-controversial as "avoid murdering multiple people", someone would feel a need to try to argue the point.
Apparently that's where we are as a society. No matter what someone says, you feel you have to argue with it. "Avoid murdering multiple people" isn't a statement you need to argue with*.
Maybe it's time to take the weekend away from electronic media, away from CNN, away from Slashdot, away from the Daily Show. Just go relax at the lake. Offer the
Nice (Score:2)
Thanks.
Poll: Trump says you shouldn't (Score:2)
This might be fun. Let's take a poll.
Donald Trump says you shouldn't murder people. Do you agree or disagree with Trump?
A) I agree with Trump
B) I disagree
You're probably right! (Score:2)
You are probably right; that's probably what the person was thinking and they just forgot to say that. I may have misinterpreted "just because you murder people does not mean..."
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone using those "send in a sample to get your genetic history" services advertised on youtube and podcasts everywhere like 23andme are morons.
The problem is, that morons would like to believe that they are decedents from "Irish Kings".
These genetic history companies are happy to oblige.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone using those "send in a sample to get your genetic history" services advertised on youtube and podcasts everywhere like 23andme are morons.
If a relative of mine was a murderer, I would be happy if they went to jail. Wouldn't you?
No (Score:2)
Neither the murder nor the jail would make me happy. There is no upside to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he had someone else lick the envelope (Score:2)
would they have charge him with obstructing justice?
Re:If he had someone else lick the envelope (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting question. Especially given that people with wheat allergies are almost always advised to not lick the adhesive on envelopes. Wheat starch is a very common component of that type of adhesive. (It's very inexpensive and is sticky.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
would they have charge him with obstructing justice?
No, since he did not know he was under investigation. Obstruction occurs when you knowingly do something with the intent to influence the investigation in your or someone else's favor. Witness intimidation is the usual case, or contacting a witness and asking them to change their story (different than intimidation), or destruction of evidence (either by yourself of having someone else do it). Paying someone to go on vacation at the same time they're sup
Re: (Score:3)
Entrapment would be coercing him to commit a crime. Licking an envelope is not a crime.
Hopefully not enough to convict by itself (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be a dangerous president to convict on DNA alone. They need to prove Means, Motive and Opportunity. DNA is spread everywhere all the time, and can be even cloned/manufactured and faked(from a file/data). It might be reason enough for some eager beaver officer to close a case for a promotion..
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's totally how they framed OJ.
Re: (Score:2)
a DNA from a trash bin (Score:2)
It looks like a dumpster diver can pick up a DNA from the trash, sell it, or put it deliberately on a crime seen. Here is some info about the dumpster diving: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I already shred all the significant papers with a shredder before throwing them away into a paper recycling bin. Perhaps, it is possible to buy or construct a machine which would destroy the DNA in the trash bag i
Re: (Score:2)
Burn your trash...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either additional evidence is collected, or sufficient legal intimidation is applied to secure a guilty plea. Trials are very slow and expensive things, so prosecutors generally try to get a guilty plea first, sometimes through some seriously underhanded means. Plea-bargaining is a vital part of most criminal justice systems - it would be prohibitively expensive to hold a trial for every offense - but you'll find plenty of people in prison who insist they were tricked, pressured or threatened into a guilty
Re: (Score:2)
Plea-bargaining is a vital part of most criminal justice systems
Not here in NL it isn't. Though some prosecutors are lobbying for US style plea bargaining to lighten the load on the courts a little. It might help, since the cost of going to trial rarely leads to financial ruin, so there's no pressure to confess regardless of actual guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA is notoriously difficult to destroy.
My girlfriend worked in a genetics lab in London, and used to have to run all kinds of tests. When it comes to running "baseline" (probably not the terminology, but you know what I mean) tests to ensure the equipment is clean, it's quite common to still pick up traces of what was tested before.
You have to scrub the things sterile and use really nasty chemicals. Autoclaving doesn't work. You have to have "DNA-free" water and other supplies, which are not sterile the
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the witches are right then (Score:2)
They never let body parts like hair, nails, spit etc into other people's hands, ever!
Value to society (Score:4, Insightful)
And the crime occurred 43 years ago... Assuming this man committed no other crime, was a supportive member of the community, supported himself in his home, worked a job to afford the home, an 82 year old widower with 5 grown children and helpful in the neighborhood... what value to the community is there in his trial and incarceration?
There are 3 reasons we enforce laws:
1) make sure the perpetrator does not re-commit.. An 82 year old won't do this again - check
2) rehabilitate... given his community status and the small amount of what we know, i would say yes - check
3) restitution.. this is tough one. What restitution is possible from someone who will now die in prison, health care, feeding, and life now dependent on tax payer dollars... And, how do we know he wasn't haunted by his acts, constant fear of arrest..
As a father myself, I will say that something fundamentally changes in a person when you have your 1st child. You can never really understand your capacity to love and care for another person till you have kids. It's amazing what wakes within you. After 43 years, he is not the same person who committed the crimes. Perhaps police should focus on current crime and preventing future crime.
Re:Value to society (Score:5, Insightful)
4) Prevent other people from thinking they can get away with it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4) Demonstrating that you are "tough on crime" in order to get (re)elected.
Prosecutor's fallacy? (Score:2)
I know it won't matter for this dude but... (Score:2)
...when you're hiding from the cops, if they find you and the SoL hasn't expired, however long it's been since the charge was issued should be added AUTOMATICALLY atop whatever is the recommended sentence.
I thought of that first when Kathleen Soliah was finally nabbed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Despite some old urban myths, cops are allowed to lie pretty much on anything they want and at any time to anyone.
Indeed, one of the exceptions is entrapment but that involves making the suspect do something illegal not reveal evidence about a past crime. Tricking a murderer into thinking they know something about the murder weapon/body so they go back to hide or dispose of it better is generally fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
News at 11: Police are allowed to lie to you or deceive you in order to gain evidence of a crime.
Never, ever, think that any law enforcement officer is required to tell the truth or behave honestly if they are in the process of acquiring evidence of criminal activity.
Which law is that? (Score:3)
Which law says deception can't be used in gathering evidence? Oh yeah, none. There is no such law. Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
And deception is prohibited where? Can you show a provision in the constitution or statute? Maybe some caselaw describing it? Are you basing your assertion on those TV shows where they guy asks an undercover detective "hey, are you a cop, and btw no lying!"?
Maybe your moral intuition is right that deception ought to be prohibited (hard to tell, so many details to work out) but when you say "the case has to be dismissed because ..." it really parses like you are trying to make a statement about what the law
Deception by LEOs (Score:2)
In the United States, there is no Constitutional protection from Law Enforcement Officer deception. Cops can literally lie to your face at will. You are expected to steadfastly hold to the truth, and the truth will prevail. Theoretically.
When you cast off evidence (e.g. throwing away an empty water bottle that has your DNA on it), you are presumed to have no further reasonable expectation of privacy in that evidence. This is why cops can paw through your trash at will.
Re: illegal gathering of evidence! (Score:5, Insightful)
So this police man walks up to your front door and asks: Did you commit that murder in 1976?. You then have the option to say: I refuse to answer that question. Of course they will think they are on to something and investigate further, but you have the right not to answer questions that would incriminate you.
So this policeman walks up to your door, and says: "Can I take your DNA sample, we're working on a cold case". Again you have the option to refuse. If for some reason you do not like the idea of the police having your DNA sample, it is completely ok to say: "no!".
(A reason for this might be previous dealings with the police. e.g. (true story!) I got burglarized. They ask me if they can pass my contact info to the "help for victims" organization. I ask them not to. They do so anyway. In my personal experience, I CANNOT trust the police to handle my confidential information properly.)
Now the scenario that actually happened. They TRICK the guy into incriminating himself. Why is that suddenly acceptable?
Now, it is easy to say: "Good they finally caught that naughty murderer!". But what if the police come knocking on YOUR door and accuse you of killing someone 40 years ago? Assuming you're innocent... Can you call your friends to vouch for your presence on the night of the incident? Can you provide the ATM tickets that prove you were in a different country? Lots of possible defense options have disappeared after such a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the scenario that actually happened. They TRICK the guy into incriminating himself. Why is that suddenly acceptable?
Please note: All these laws about having to have warrants, no entrapment, right to be silent are there _to protect innocent citizens_. They are _not_ there to protect criminals. As an innocent citizen, you don't want police to search your house. And that's why the police needs a warrant. Of course sometimes they have a warrant to search the house of someone who is a suspect for some reason but completely innocent, so houses of innocent citizens _will_ be searched, but it happens a lot less than without law
Re: illegal gathering of evidence! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Any upstanding citizen would've came forward and apologized for smearing their sperm all over the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe that laws ONLY apply to the Innocent/Not-guilty folk?
(Maybe this is why gun-control laws don't work -- only the Innocent/Not-guilty folk are punished.)
BTW, The USA Supreme Court (the country that Wisconsin is a part of) disagrees with you!
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the arguments put forward here are just stupid. Yes, it's a fact that DNA of an innocent person could be found at
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It should be combined with something reliable like polygraphs or a confession.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws may be to protect innocent people but the law is supposed to treat everyone as being innocent until it is PROVEN otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
You would be foolish to think your safe just because you have never done anything wrong.
"Witch Hunt" [imdb.com]
tl:dw
36 innocent people were convicted and sent to jail. Over the next 20 years 34 of the cases were overturned on appeal. The court finding that the police and prosecutor lied, falsified evidence, manipulated witnesses, and ignored and suppressed evi
Re: (Score:2)
It is likely that the police have other evidence or will gather it through search warrants. I very much doubt that the prosecutor will prosecute the case if all they have is stray DNA at the site. Now, if the DNA was in the blood under both the victim's fingernails that's a bit more damning. If the matching DNA is found in blood spots in the carpet around the victims, that's even more damning.
"Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is the standard. The defense will, of course, likely attempt to introduce reasonabl
Tricking (Score:3)
Tricking people into self incrimination has a long history in the US. You are expected to know your rights and enforce them diligently, regardless of your guilt or innocence.
This is one of the biggest problems with the criminal justice system. The courts have repeatedly issued rulings that enshrine unfounded presumptions about people's competence with and understanding of the law.
This problem is the source of the issue with consent today: Citizens are amateurs at speaking to the police, the police are ex
Warrant (Score:2)
They almost certainly did not get a warrant for this. They tricked him into voluntarily handing over evidence - no warrant required.
Re: (Score:2)
They almost certainly did not get a warrant for this. They tricked him into voluntarily handing over evidence - no warrant required.
They probably also got the DNA of other family members in a similar way. The police had the DNA of a known person X that was _similar_ to that of DNA at the crime scene. They would then try to get DNA of relatives of X. All but one of them would be innocent, but nobody knows ahead which one. So the police wouldn't be able to get a warrant against _any_ of them. But they would be allowed to try to get DNA of each of them.
Re:darn city lickers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Was reading comments above... and wondering what's wrong with people going on about Privacy issues and lessons and completely ignoring the "double-murder" bit.
Dunno, but if the story involves "privacy issues" and "sociopathic murderer issues"
Re: (Score:2)
Because right now, he is only a suspected double murderer. Until the trial is over, he's still legally innocent. DNA is not magic, especially with old samples and minimum-cost sequencing.
Better to convict 1000 innocent men (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can your f*cking government remove any information related to me?
Wait until you find out what information they have related to your income and finance.
Re: (Score:2)
All we do know is this accusation on, frankly, highly questionable and ethically dubious grounds.
It's not helpful to think in terms of 'ethically dubious' here, because it's not concrete and everything you can possibly do is ethically dubious.
Instead, think in terms of what harm can be caused. The main thing we want to avoid here is that innocent people go to jail, so we should have some controls in place to prevent that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
No paranoia needed, the concept seems disgusting and the thought of a paper cut on the tongue is horrifying.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry lawyer wannabe-boy, there is no statute of limitations for murder (and a few other things) in most states including Wisconsin.
The DNA was given voluntarily, totally admissible in court and legitimately can be a part of the case against the accused. Now that they have DNA and suspect, they can work on relationship the deceased and proving means, motive, opportunity,
The OJ Simpson case only proved a bunch of low watt bulbs can be swayed by emotion, you can find online videos of what those jurors think
Re: (Score:2)
You have sex with your friend, a stranger at a party, or just a random woman in the street. 40+ years later you find out she died soon after and you're in the frame.
DNA is not infallible. It's actually highly dependent on WHAT you're asking of it (it's complicated statistics and probability but asking "what are the chances of this guy being the same as the DNA collected" is very different to "does this guy have the same DNA"). Courts have spent decades drafting rules on precisely what and how you can ask
Re: (Score:2)
He borrowed my wood chipper and hasn't returned it yet.