Jump to content

Today's science


rico

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Pretty unreal. Kudos to the officers for not giving up on this cold case. 

I wish that article would have went more in depth about how they deal with cold cases.  But dang, 43 years...that is something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

A lot more crimes could be solved like this if a little more effort was made.

 

Makes me wonder what their money constraints are when dealing with cold cases.  But yeah, I completely agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute here...While I certainly applaud science,  and the application of science in solving crimes, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves on this particular case.

The article certainly seems to jump to the conclusion that Mr Vannieuwenhoven is already guilty, I'm still of the mind that we are all "innocent until proven guilty." This man will have his day in court. I, for one, would have a big issue convicting a man solely on 40 some year old DNA evidence. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

Wait a minute here...While I certainly applaud science,  and the application of science in solving crimes, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves on this particular case.

The article certainly seems to jump to the conclusion that Mr Vannieuwenhoven is already guilty, I'm still of the mind that we are all "innocent until proven guilty." This man will have his day in court. I, for one, would have a big issue convicting a man solely on 40 some year old DNA evidence. 

 

How the DNA sample from 1976 was handled and processed will be the determining factor. If it was handled in such a way that the DNA profile stood a chance to remain intact and was recorded correctly, his odds are not good.

That said, for a "crafty" defense attorney, this isn't the hardest thing to poke holes in. It sounds like all they have is the DNA. No witnesses, and They're 0-3 on the big 3: means, motive, opportunity. No motive, little chance of finding a 40 year old shotgun, and opportunity is circumstantial (guy could have been there that day, but it's a public park and he was known to be a camper). Find a way to show that the DNA sample was mishandled or damaged, and poof....case is gone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

How the DNA sample from 1976 was handled and processed will be the determining factor. If it was handled in such a way that the DNA profile stood a chance to remain intact and was recorded correctly, his odds are not good.

That said, for a "crafty" defense attorney, this isn't the hardest thing to poke holes in. It sounds like all they have is the DNA. No witnesses, and They're 0-3 on the big 3: means, motive, opportunity. No motive, little chance of finding a 40 year old shotgun, and opportunity is circumstantial (guy could have been there that day, but it's a public park and he was known to be a camper). Find a way to show that the DNA sample was mishandled or damaged, and poof....case is gone.

 

 

Ummm, rape isn't a motive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rico said:

Ummm, rape isn't a motive?

Valid, but if it was purely a crime of opportunity, it means the killer was waiting in that particular restroom on a hiking trail, and was going to kill the next person that came by. That's the act of a psychotic killer. While the guy sounds like he has an alcohol problem, it's a big leap from that to psychosis. No evidence of any other violent crimes that occurred after that point. Possible? Sure. Reasonable doubt? Yes.

Nothing suggests that he premeditated the act either. No previous connections to either.

Doesn't mean that he's not the one responsible for other cold cases and that he isn't actually psychotic, but nothing points that way at the moment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

Valid, but if it was purely a crime of opportunity, it means the killer was waiting in that particular restroom on a hiking trail, and was going to kill the next person that came by. That's the act of a psychotic killer. While the guy sounds like he has an alcohol problem, it's a big leap from that to psychosis. No evidence of any other violent crimes that occurred after that point. Possible? Sure. Reasonable doubt? Yes.

Nothing suggests that he premeditated the act either. No previous connections to either.

Doesn't mean that he's not the one responsible for other cold cases and that he isn't actually psychotic, but nothing points that way at the moment.

 

Can't argue with anything there.  But from the article(if it is factual).  He was a mean drunk.  He was an avid hunter.  He was an avid camper.  He had runs in with the law before.  The interesting thing,to me, is that nobody actually said/knew what he was retired from.  Yes, he will have his day in court and rightfully so.  But why the million dollar bail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

May be a minimum bail amount set by law for capital crimes.

Talked to a buddy that is originally from Wisconsin.  He didn't know if there was a minimum bail for a capital crime.  But he did say, unless it has changed, that the entire amount must be be paid to get out.  No percentage, full amount.  He also said that, unless it has changed, there are no bailbondsmen in the state of Wisconsin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rico said:

Talked to a buddy that is originally from Wisconsin.  He didn't know if there was a minimum bail for a capital crime.  But he did say, unless it has changed, that the entire amount must be be paid to get out.  No percentage, full amount.  He also said that, unless it has changed, there are no bailbondsmen in the state of Wisconsin.

I don't necessarily disagree with the full amount policy.  I've always found the whole "Your 'bail' is this, but you really only have to pay this" method as convoluted.  Just say what the amount is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

I don't necessarily disagree with the full amount policy.  I've always found the whole "Your 'bail' is this, but you really only have to pay this" method as convoluted.  Just say what the amount is. 

Yeah, why does the state of Indiana do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

The thing that jumps out to me is they are keeping an accessible database of voluntarily submitted DNA.  I've long suspected these kits had an ulterior motive.

Interesting observation and thoughts.

I am no lawyer, but how about the involuntary DNA that was obtained under false pretenses?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, rico said:

Interesting observation and thoughts.

I am no lawyer, but how about the involuntary DNA that was obtained under false pretenses?  

Just shows a person should be careful about what information they volunteer.  Because once you do you no longer own it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

The thing that jumps out to me is they are keeping an accessible database of voluntarily submitted DNA.  I've long suspected these kits had an ulterior motive.

They're downright frightening. The thing is, they don't even need the person they're looking for. If a parent, child, sibling, probably even a 1st cousin, submits their profile, they can establish a link.

And people are doing this voluntarily. Probably even something where they can link their DNA profile to Facebook by now... Lol. People don't get that the most valuable currency on the planet nowadays is information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

You talking about the database or collecting samples from garbage?

How they had him do a police survey.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rico said:

How they had him do a police survey.

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.

Wasn't false pretenses if they actually had him fill some kind of survey out. Could have been something someone slapped together in MS Word 5 minutes before they left the station, but it's a survey.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zlinedavid said:

Wasn't false pretenses if they actually had him fill some kind of survey out. Could have been something someone slapped together in MS Word 5 minutes before they left the station, but it's a survey.

 

Well you have to admit they "tricked" him into it.  Regardless, it makes for interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, rico said:

How they had him do a police survey.

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.

So they used the envelope to gather his DNA?  That is definitely flirting with the line.  I really dont see how this would be admissible.  Usually DNA is collected after an arrest and a suspect has been mirandized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

So they used the envelope to gather his DNA?  That is definitely flirting with the line.  I really dont see how this would be admissible.  Usually DNA is collected after an arrest and a suspect has been mirandized.

Yes, they did.  And as I said, I am not a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

So they used the envelope to gather his DNA?  That is definitely flirting with the line.  I really dont see how this would be admissible.  Usually DNA is collected after an arrest and a suspect has been mirandized.

Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that law enforcement is able to collect DNA samples without a warrant.  They likened it to being able to lift fingerprints from a glass bottle.  If residue left on the outside of the bottle is admissible, why not any kind of residue?

Did the police use deception? Sure.  But the guy ultimately volunteered to take the survey.  They didn't force him to take it.  If he'd have said "No", they couldn't have done anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...