golden state killer

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

The Sacramento police along with the FBI have finally caught the golden state serial killer who raped over 45 women from 1976 until 1986 and killed 12 people.

He is now 72 years old. He was arrested at his home yesterday.

Looking at the picture of a 72 year old man it just doesn't seem enough to have caught him over 30 years after he did these horrible crimes, but I guess it can be closure for the families and the victims.

I just wonder how someone so horrible could have just stopped raping and killer after 10 years? I guess there will be many questions, but will he answer them? The man was married with kids too. How unreal is that? The profilers said it's common for killers like this to be married. it helps with their cover.

I'm just glad he's caught and I hope he pays highly for these crimes.

[Len Cnut]

Kinda like Whitey Bulger, they caught the cunt when he was 80 odd, thats the same as getting away with it really innit, catch him just enough to keep him in the prison infirmary and change his nappies for him.

[Kwick1]

They caught him?! I just recently watched a documentary on him. I'll be interested in hearing why he stopped too.  My guess is he married and had a family. 

[alfierose]

Wow! I hadn't heard this. You don't really expect these infamous killers to be caught after so long. I did read rumours a while back that his identity has been known a while but they didn't have the evidence to proceed.

[Ace Nova]

6 hours ago, alfierose said:

Wow! I hadn't heard this. You don't really expect these infamous killers to be caught after so long. I did read rumours a while back that his identity has been known a while but they didn't have the evidence to proceed.

Yeah, apparently he was a suspect in two of the murders since the late 70's but they needed DNA in order to have enough evidence to charge him. 

[alfierose]

4 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Yeah, apparently he was a suspect in two of the murders since the late 70's but they needed DNA in order to have enough evidence to charge him. 

I read the DNA match was made via a relative. I wonder if the relative was arrested for something and that's how they got him? I believe that's happened in other cases before.

[Kwick1]

10 hours ago, alfierose said:

I read the DNA match was made via a relative. I wonder if the relative was arrested for something and that's how they got him? I believe that's happened in other cases before.

Who knows? These days the DNA match could have come from Ancestry DNA where you submiy DNA to find heritage and lost relatives, but really that's just a way to get people's DNA for the govt database if you ask me.  

[luciusfunk]

19 hours ago, Kwick1 said:

Who knows? These days the DNA match could have come from Ancestry DNA where you submiy DNA to find heritage and lost relatives, but really that's just a way to get people's DNA for the govt database if you ask me.  

That's exactly how it happened according to the radio show I listened to this morning. They said someone sent in DNA to ancestry.com or something similar and the police were keeping an eye on it.

[SoulMonster]

This case, and thousands more, could have been solved decades ago if the police had an obligatory DNA database of everyone. 

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

This case, and thousands more, could have been solved decades ago if the police had an obligatory DNA database of everyone. 

Bit fascist tho innit?

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Bit fascist tho innit?

How so? 

[Dazey]

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

This case, and thousands more, could have been solved decades ago if the police had an obligatory DNA database of everyone. 

I wouldn't have any objection to such a thing.

[Kwick1]

@luciusfunkwow! I jokingly said that since my life was greatly shaken by a family member submitting her and my cousins DNA to Ancestry.com. 

@SoulMonster, I will agree with you that good can come of DNA databases and support their use for police work. But what about right to privacy? It's a right that continues to get trampled.  Ancestry.com won in court over its practice of sharing family links to people not registered on Ancestry. 

 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How so? 

Because up yours, I’m not a criminal so why treat me like one?  As it happens I am a criminal so they already have mine but thats not the point   I mean if i hadnt done i dont want my DNA in some database.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul and Dazey are very ''statist'' whilst proposals like this merely bring out the hippy in me.

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Because up yours, I’m not a criminal so why treat me like one?  As it happens I am a criminal so they already have mine but thats not the point   I mean if i hadnt done i dont want my DNA in some database.

The police having access to a compulsory DNA databank doesn't mean that each of us is treated more like criminals than, say, the fact that they have access to other personal records on us, like living addresses.

So you are one of about 6 % Englishmen who are already in a DNA register? Cool. It is shown that this reduces the likelihood of registrants committing new crimes. 

[Georgy Zhukov]

Funny how people get so possessive of their DNA. Want to catch a serial killer? FUCK YOU IT IS MY DNA!!!

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, Kwick1 said:

 

@SoulMonster, I will agree with you that good can come of DNA databases and support their use for police work. But what about right to privacy? It's a right that continues to get trampled.  Ancestry.com won in court over its practice of sharing family links to people not registered on Ancestry. 

Right to privacy? Let's be precise, what we are talking about is a right to not have selected, non-functional parts (so they cannot be used to imply hereditary illnesses) of our genome entered into a non-public register that is only accessible to selected law enforcers. Is that right really so important to people? I would think not. I think people are against a compulsory DNA database mainly due to "feelery". They dont understand it, so they over-value the privacy part of it and undervalues the immense effect it would have on crime reduction and personal safety.

[SoulMonster]

A usual concern is fear of misuse (i.e that medical information can be extracted from the DNA database and used by insurance companies). This is easily solved by the database consisting of DNA sequences from highly-variable (so they can be used to obtain unique matches) areas of our genome that do not confer any conceivable function (neither genes or regulatory elements). Our genomes are flush with such areas. 

Another usual concern is that this represents more regulations (its "compulsory") and a step in the direction of a "big brother society". It's compulsory, yes, but I doubt many babies would object to blood taking during standard blood tests right after birth is then used to extract such non-regulatory regions and added into the DNA databank. There just wouldn't be any differences to us. As for "big brother", I think it is important that such a databank would be heavily restricted and that there would be strict processes for access by only selected individuals in law enforcement. Not because the databank could likely be misused, but to allay peoples' silly "feelery".

And then I also think people don't grasp the huge effect this would have on crime reduction. It has been shown that only adding criminals into such databanks have a significant effect on crime reduction. People who know they are already in DNA databanks are less likely to commit new crimes, because they know they are then more likely to be caught, and caught quicker. Imagine what this would do if everybody were in such databanks? Thousands of cases where the police have DNA records but no match, would be instantly solved. It is almost inconceivable.

Additionally, today the police have to rely on fairly large cell tissues left on the crime scene to create a DNA record of the likely perpetrator. In the future, I am sure, most crime scenes will be vacuumed to obtain every possible DNA-containing fragment left by the criminal, including minute semen spills, skin cells, hair follicles, etc. I am not talking about the larger stuff that the police, occasionally, today will collect, but things that are too small to be seen. All of this will be collected and through advances in PCR and DNA sequencing, records of everybody who has been at the crime scene in recent time will be had by the police. It will be near impossible for a criminal to not leave any DNA behind. He'd virtually have to wear a hazmat suit to prevent leaving a biological sample at the scene. Only premediated crimes where the perpetrator made a huge effort in planning, would hence result in no DNA record. And with a compulsory DNA databank it would mean that most crimes, the great majority, would be quickly solved. 

Do I want to live in that society? Yes. Am I willing to donate non-functional DNA samples to build such a registry? Yes. Do I think most people would agree, if they knew what I have written above? Yes, again. Will it happen in our lifetimes? Yes, I believe so. It is getting closer every decade. We already have databases for criminals and some countries have started serious discussions about compulsory DNA databanks for everybody. So get ready to get in on the discussion. It will change the future for not so much us, but more for our children. 

[SoulMonster]

Most people seem to have few lasting objections to give up other "rights to privacy" that are much more invasive, like closed-circuit cameras (CCC) in public places. When these were introduced people reacted with indignation similar to Lenny's objection, "What? I am not a criminal so why am I filmed?" And what about our phones localization function that allows Google to collect information on where we are at all times? Again, people don't really care. They get used to it. Hell, they willingly share much more damning information, including health issues, on social media regularly. People don't really care, unless whenever something new is introduced and especially if it smells of "big brother" and "genes". But just like people have accepted that CCCs are good for us (unless you are a criminal), and have few if any objections to being filmed at restaurants, airports, malls, football stadiums, and city centers, they will quickly accept that being in a DNA databank have similarly no negative effects on them and realize that it makes society much, much, much safer. 

I really believe this could be a huge watershed moment in personal safety. Something future generations will read about in history books. Especially as our methods at obtaining DNA samples at crime scenes, develop.

[DieselDaisy]

To be supportive of this assumes two things,

- That you (morally) trust your state (i.e. government, police, intelligence). That you believe they are fair, benign, ameliorating - generally a ''force for good''.

- That you believe your state is competent enough to possess this information, that is that they wouldn't leave a disc of your information on a train. 

Now I wouldn't personally trust the British state as far as I could swing them, on both points, so nope, they'll not be getting my DNA. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Most people seem to have few lasting objections to give up other "rights to privacy" that are much more invasive, like closed-circuit cameras (CCC) in public places. When these were introduced people reacted with indignation similar to Lenny's objection, "What? I am not a criminal so why am I filmed?" And what about our phones localization function that allows Google to collect information on where we are at all times? Again, people don't really care. They get used to it. Hell, they willingly share much more damning information, including health issues, on social media regularly. People don't really care, unless whenever something new is introduced and especially if it smells of "big brother" and "genes". But just like people have accepted that CCCs are good for us (unless you are a criminal), and have few if any objections to being filmed at restaurants, airports, malls, football stadiums, and city centers, they will quickly accept that being in a DNA databank have similarly no negative effects on them and realize that it makes society much, much, much safer. 

I really believe this could be a huge watershed moment in personal safety. Something future generations will read about in history books. Especially as our methods at obtaining DNA samples at crime scenes, develop.

Thats just basically relying on apathy, people will eventually stop giving a fuck about everything if they've got hot running water, 500 cable channels and a comfy bed, thats not the point though is it, the point is the overall effect on society.

[Len Cnut]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

The police having access to a compulsory DNA databank doesn't mean that each of us is treated more like criminals than, say, the fact that they have access to other personal records on us, like living addresses.

So you are one of about 6 % Englishmen who are already in a DNA register? Cool. It is shown that this reduces the likelihood of registrants committing new crimes. 

i ain't there by choice, i got fuckin' nicked and they take you indoors and take your prints (on this nifty little machine too, which was about 500 times more fuckin' complicated than an ink pad.  Apparently i kept smudging it.  Then they take this fuckin' little strip thing and rub it on the inside of your cheek and stick it in a plastic bag, if i'd've had a choice i'd've told em to go fuck themselves.

And CCTV dont do fuckin' shit to stop a lot of crime, all you've got to do is dodge the cameras and the only solution to that is to have cameras on literally every fuckin' street in the country.  One of my mates used to serve up by a camera outside a multi story car park   Like literally underneath it was where we would go to pick up.  Hiding in plain sight as it were.  Apparently they rarely point downwards.  From my younger days, though this has probably changed now, we used to know where every camera was in town so you knew that if you got into grief which road or alley would be the best one to slip down to avoid detection, they really don't do shit except make you think a little more.  I could still tell you where most of the cameras are in town, I mean you can hardly miss em. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

Would you really trust this country with your personal information,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7449927.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7449255.stm

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

To be supportive of this assumes two things,

- That you (morally) trust your state (i.e. government, police, intelligence). That you believe they are fair, benign, ameliorating - generally a ''force for good''.

- That you believe your state is competent enough to possess this information, that is that they wouldn't leave a disc of your information on a train. 

Now I wouldn't personally trust the British state as far as I could swing them, on both points, so nope, they'll not be getting my DNA. 

All of this is moot as soon as you realize I am talking about non-functional DNA sequences that cannot be used to extract any biological information about the person.