PDA

View Full Version : Scientific evidence? yeah, whatever!


MoSe
05-03-2009, 08:54:46
here's the second bit of news from our culturally advanced country
(follows from http://www.counterglow.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42304)

on S.Valentine day, a 14 girl got raped in a Rome park by two rumanian immigrates, who got quickly tracked down and arrested.
One of them, repenting, readily and widely confessed.
The girl positively and unequivocally recognised and identified them.

Yesterday news got out about the results of the DNA tests carried out on the collected evidences, i.e. the biological traces found on the girl, on her clothes, bag and accessories (?) and on her witless witnessing teenage boyfriend (???)

Surprize!
The collected DNA does not match the DNA of the two accused offenders!

Well?
the public prosecutors (General Attorney? or equivalent) stated:
"The charges will be carried on to the court just the same.
The DNA test doesn't undermine in any way the validity of the collected and sworn testimony and identification and of the videoconfession.
Besides, we categorically deny the eventual presence of a 3rd accomplice on the crime scene"

... I beg your pardon?????

:eek:


CSI Miami, Mianus!!!!

Funko
05-03-2009, 09:05:09
What kind of DNA evidence?

Had she never come into contact with any other person whilst wearing those clothes?

etc.

Plenty of reasons why she, her clothes and stuff could be covered in tons of trace evidence that's nothing to do with the crime and no guarantee that criminals will leave trace evidence.

CSI is not even close to real.

MoSe
05-03-2009, 09:16:32
similarly, the presence of the accused's DNA on her clothes would not prove that they came in contact with her during the rape, but just with her clothes in any prior circumstance

what would be the point of performing such a non-conclusive DNA test in the first place?
we'd knew it would be moot beforehand

the news report didn't specify the exact nature of the tested specimen, but I expect they were expecting a conclusive result.
Like, it was a rape wasn't it? Were they smart enough to rape a girl without leaving their semen in or on her? I assumed implicitly the test was conducted on the semen, and the news report kept vague just because of legal talk and offending TV langauge issues...

thank you for defending our ludicrous police and justice anyway
:D

MoSe
05-03-2009, 09:17:20
wait, did I just say circumstance?

:cute:

Funko
05-03-2009, 09:59:44
Originally posted by MoSe
Like, it was a rape wasn't it? Were they smart enough to rape a girl without leaving their semen in or on her?

You don't have to be that smart a rapist to have heard of a condom do you?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
05-03-2009, 09:59:59
"The collected DNA does not match the DNA of the two accused offenders!"

Hmm.... do you have a problem with the old saying that you shall not confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence?

MoSe
05-03-2009, 10:15:54
I'm not the rapist expert, I honestly never figured a rapist would worry to wear a condom...

Dyl,
if the specimen was say saliva or sweat on her bag, no problem, that could have been coughed or brushed in any moment by any innocent passerby.

Had been the tested specimen instead the semen inside her just after the rape, well, I'd have problems to imagine a "reasonable" circumstance (i.e. barring alien abduction) in which a 3rd person left his semen in her *after* the accused ones raped her and before the police came (unless she's lying, which would also smash the credibility of the rest of her sworn deposition).

I *assumed* it was the latter case, so I drew my conclusions.
I have to admit tho it was not actually stated which the specimen was.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
05-03-2009, 10:19:38
And we do not know when the tested traces, whatever they were, have been collected, or?

Funko
05-03-2009, 10:21:22
Originally posted by MoSe
Had been the tested specimen instead the semen inside her just after the rape, well, I'd have problems to imagine a "reasonable" circumstance (i.e. barring alien abduction) in which a 3rd person left his semen in her *after* the accused ones raped her and before the police came (unless she's lying, which would also smash the credibility of the rest of her sworn deposition).

How would you know it was after rather than before?

MoSe
05-03-2009, 10:26:24
I was also assuming that those two poor emarginate uncultured immigrates didn't use a condom, and went all the way in the frenzy of the rape.

And that the teeanger boyfriend didn't have the insensibility to inseminate her after the rape.
He might have been doing it before, but they'd have checked the test against his DNA too, and reported it in case it matched, wouldn't they?

I know, I know, too many unproved assumptions...
:o
:cute:

Funko
05-03-2009, 10:27:55
All we know is that the evidence doesn't kill the prosecution case, so I guess they haven't found some smoking cum.

MoSe
05-03-2009, 10:29:18
lol

MoSe
05-03-2009, 10:30:44
If not CSI, this could well become the script for a Law & Order episode
:D

MDA
05-03-2009, 12:08:04
Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend did it, wait and see.

Beta1
05-03-2009, 17:49:55
That is quite possibly the worst pun in the history of counterglow.