Insects Prove to Be Good Crime Witnesses
Related Topics
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
Jeeze, this seems like an excellent opportunity for PV as a professional witness, if he can come out form underneath his rock.
Earl ***** Insects Prove to Be Good Crime Witnesses Sat Oct 25,11:07 AM ET By STEVE KARNOWSKI, ***ociated Press Writer ST. PAUL, Minn. - The bugs don't lie. Maggots and other insects found at a crime scene can provide investigators with important clues, according to a new exhibit making its world premiere at the Science Museum of Minnesota on Saturday, the first stop on a tour booked through 2007.
"CSI: Crime Scene Insects," explores the rapidly growing field of forensic entomology, and how insects can crack cases and bring killers to justice.
Not only was the exhibit inspired by the hit "CSI" TV shows, its curator is a consultant for both of them. He also does work for the FBI ( news -web sites ) and law enforcement agencies around the world.
"It's really kind of exciting," said the curator Lee Goff, chairman of the forensic sciences program at Chaminade University of Honolulu. "It's a chance to bring something to people that 20 years ago I don't think anyone would have been interested in." Goff's business card reads: "Know maggots, will travel." It depicts a little worm staring through a detective's magnifying gl***.
The types of insects on a body and their stages of development can help determine the time since death. They can also provide clues to the cause of death, where the victim was killed and whether drugs or other toxins might have been involved.
Courts allow the evidence because bugs make good witnesses, Goff said.
"They're predictable and they really don't care," Goff said. "And as long as you do a nice objective analysis of what's going on, you kind of follow that trail of evidence, they're going to bring you to the truth of what happened." In Hawaii, Goff said, blow flies will start laying eggs on a corpse within 10 minutes of death. Wherever it happens, fly eggs hatch into maggots, which metamorphose into pupae, which emerge from their shells as adult flies.
Other insects show up later, some to nibble on the corpse, some to prey on the other bugs, some to do both.
The interactive exhibit gives visitors the chance to sort through the insect evidence at simulated crime scenes and try to solve them. One is based on a real case in Hawaii, where a body was dumped in a sugar cane field.
"We had three species of flies there," Goff said. Two were common to rural areas such as the cane field. They'd been on the body for four days. But the other was a city bug, and had been there five days.
From that and other evidence, Goff said, investigators concluded the victim was killed in the city, then dumped in the field. It later emerged he had been slain in a drug deal gone bad. The killers were about to have company, he said, so they stashed the body on the balcony until they had time to haul it away the next day.
The exhibit is designed to offer something for all ages and interest levels.
Younger visitors can learn about the basics of insect anatomy, then build a bug of their own from a collection of insect body parts. Preserved and living maggots, beetles, flies and other bugs are on display.
But because some parts might be too gruesome for younger or squeamish visitors, a curtain fences off the crime scenes, as well as an exploration of the five stages of decomposition and a pair of open morgue drawers. In them are two model cadavers, one showing how the first insects take up residence in a body shortly after death via the nose and other openings, and one depicting advanced decomposition, with a video screen on its chest showing how maggots have invaded.
It's "a little graphic, but they see worse stuff on prime time TV," Goff said.
"CSI: Crime Scene Insects" ends its run at the Science Museum of Minnesota Jan. 19. It next goes to the Science Museum of Western Virginia in Roanoke, Va. The Smithsonian Institution ( news -web sites )'s Museum of Natural History will host the exhibit in Spring 2005.
___
"Peter Morris" n...@m.please
Doesn't he live under a bridge?
drdo ...@hotmail.com (drdoody)
It would be an even better opportunity for you to disengage from your habit of juvenile ad hominem attacks and actually post something on topic.
Doc
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
Slimmy slitherers are under the rocks types.
Earl
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
This is a normal exchange with PV, part of the fun we are having on this NG.
Lighten up, son. :) Oh, yes, at 28 you should be working, not screwing around on the NGs with the old folks.
Earl
A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Peter...Peter...Peter... apparently you've been under that bridge for the past two months, not me... I've been right here. While you immediately disappeared when I demonstrated that you claimed a murderer 'deserved' to be murdered. ready to admit it? Because, it seems I'm still waiting for an answer to my post to you.
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=grbllv44oja1thl966n6n1n1qqliiddm... PV
A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
It's a sickness, doc... He goes off his Aricept?® for a few days... and he reverts to childhood. I've learned to bear up under his very juvenile behavior, which comes and go. Sad, actually... the decline...
quite sad. Although he hasn't suggested the Western World nuke Mecca lately, as he did once before.
PV
"Peter Morris" n...@m.please
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=grbllv44oja1thl966n6n1n1qqliiddm... x.com No that's what you said you sick cunt.
It went roughly like this. (The following is a summary of many posts) PV : Some INNOCENT people were murdered by guilty murderers that we didn't execute. INNOCENT people are worth more than murderers.
Only INNOCENT people deserve to be saved, and murderers don't.
Murderers are not INNOCENT and don't deserve to be saved. Those victims were INNOCENT, and deserved to be saved becausre they are INNOCENT. Criminals don't deserve to be saved , but they were not criminals, they were INNOCENT. Its their INNOCENCE that makes them worthy of being saved, and criminals don't deserve that. If we'd executed those murderers we would have saved thiose INNOCENT people, who are worth saving because they aren't murderers, etc etc, etc, PETER: : PV is lying again. Those victims were not the 'innocents' he claims them to be, they were death row murderers, who PV wanted to have executed.
They fail to fit HIS stated criteria for deserving to be saved, they wouldn't have been saved anyway, because they would have been executed, and PV is a hypocrite for pretending that he wants to save them, when in fact he wanted them dead.
PV: scream scream scream, Look, Peter is saying that they aren't innocent, that shows he thinks they don't desrve to be saved.
Peter: Nobody desrves to be murdered, PV, I don't agree with your statement that only the innocent deserve to be saved, everyone should be saved, guilty or innocent. But you never wanted them saved at all.
PV: scream scream You agree with what I said, but I misspoke, when I said only innocent people deserve to be saved I obviously meant that everyone is innocent.scream gibber spew Peter : Another flip-flop, PV.
PV: Its obvious that I meant what you said, and you meant what I said. Nobody deserves to be murdered. You don't understand that.
Peter : I told you that.
PV: scream I said it first, even when I said that only innocent people deserve to be saved, I didn't mean it, everyone can see I didn't mean it.
I don't care that I said it many times in many different posts, I didn't mean it, but your reply proves you agree with me, gibber gibber spew.
And so on and so on ad nauseam.
PV said that only innocent people deserve saving, I said that everyone deserves saving. PV hates me for saying that, and totally disagrees with it, but tries to pretend that he said it first.
"Peter Morris" n...@m.please
you.
PV has expressed the hope that Desmond gets murdered, see: http://tinyurl.com/6fzd
"Peter Morris" n...@m.please
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=grbllv44oja1thl966n6n1n1qqliiddm... x.com PV says : in message http://tinyurl.com/7286 << Let's put this in the correct context. Would you accept the execution of 315 proven murderers (as we have discussed), to save 6 innocent victims from being murdered by those 315?...>> Note the emphasis on 'innocent' people deserving to be saved, but not guilty ones.
As for what the guilty ones deserve, lets look at some other words of his, later in the same post: << Murderers are NOT innocents. When you get THAT in your thick skull, maybe you will understand. I accept my society EXECUTING murderers to SAVE innocents. >> So innocents should be saved, but murderers are not innocents.
You figure it out folks.
"Peter Morris" n...@m.please
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=grbllv44oja1thl966n6n1n1qqliiddm... x.com PV has stated that anyone murdered in prison is "guilty of being murdered", see http://tinyurl.com/5wbb:
drdo ...@hotmail.com (drdoody)
I do work, Earl. And not in a safe, sterile lab or cozy little library somewhere.
Doc
jigsaw1 ...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695)
I believe that the environment were Earl works/worked is called The Ivory Tower because of its distance from reality.
Jigsaw
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
I am retired son, earned it all the way. And no lab I was in was steril, it was a bee hive of activity!
I am a home, but true, the library which surrounds me is cozy, the knowledge it has given me or is at my finger tips is comforting.
By the way, what have you read recently?
Earl
"j.rennie1" j.renn...@ntlworld.com
a050c062.0311032205.48068...@posting.google.com, It doesn't matter what he's read lately, Earl. Just as it doesn't matter what you have read. It's what he is that matters. What are you exactly?
drdo ...@hotmail.com (drdoody)
Don't have much time for reading, actually. Call volume has been up as of late, so I'm lucky to eat, let alone read. As I said, I have what we call a Real Job. As in not taking up space in some clean little laboratory.
Doc
"j.rennie1" j.renn...@ntlworld.com
<>...
a050c062.0310282153.55a1...@posting.google.com, So take that, Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur.
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
Admittedly, research is a fun activity, which is why researchers work overtime, weekends and evenings at it.
Certainly not for the money.
But are you having fun at it?
But are you having fun at it?
If it is work you are working too hard. If it is play, keep it up.
Earl
A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
ROTFLMAO... I'm rather glad you intend to prove yourself a liar again, by providing that URL. My words were formed as a question to you, since you had stated in respect to those criminals murdered in prison -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted? Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever." I was UTTERLY STUNNED by your indifference to criminals murdered in prison, claiming those murders had 'no relevance whatsoever,' I still AM.. and often refer to your admission that you find criminals who are murdered in prison to have 'no relevance whatsoever.' I could not help but question you, in my absolute disbelief that EVEN YOU could be so cr*** in respect to criminals murdered in prison... so I asked you -- "So you ***ume that someone convicted of a crime, ANY crime, while in prison, is somehow GUILTY of being murdered?" A question you never did answer. But what you DID DO... was something so diabolic.. so evil... so peterish...it defies keeping one's lunch down. You took my QUESTION to you... left off some crucial words in that question, turned it into a statement, and stated I had said "someone convicted of a crime, ANY crime, while in prison, is somehow GUILTY of being murdered" Leaving off the preceding words "So you ***ume that," and omitting the question mark completely. For your evil, evil distortion of my words... see --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b2mpq1%24jhi%241%40sparta.btinte... PURPOSELY leaving off the part of that sentence, and omitting the question mark completely, leaving the reader to believe I had made a statement rather than asked you that question. Which you again try to lie in the same attempt. It is quite generous of you to now provide the proof of your lies... yet again.
PV
A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Yes.. quite true... murderers are NOT innocents in respect to being 'saved' from lawful execution. None of my statement above applies to victims of MURDER... but to LAWFUL EXECUTION. Once again we have your inability to separate the violent act of one individual committing an act which provides none of protections that lawful execution provides.
The difference is as fundamental as any difference one might imagine exists in our life...but that difference seems to continue to elude you.
Further, you also fail (or blindly refuse) to recognize that murder is committed ONLY on the innocent... one cannot be 'guilty of being murdered,' while lawful execution is only exacted on a select few who are proven 'guilty of murder.' For the differences between murder and lawful execution... I again refer you to --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_172.html > Saved from what, Peter? Saved from what? Probably you believe 'saved through the grace of our good Lord, Jesus,' being the religious fruitcake you are. But I guarantee you that 'Jesus' doesn't care about anything that goes on in this secular world... regardless of how often you pray to him. Although, as you believe in much other rubbish, you are welcome to believe in 'Jesus.' Just don't expect me to not laugh, when you do. The DP, my boy... is a lawful secular penalty. While murder is a secular crime. And crime and punishment are as two sides of a coin. One can never be substituted as presumably the other, without 'cheating with a two-headed coin.' Once you separate murder from lawful execution, and do not try to separate criminals from non-criminals as victims of murder, you might be able to 'figure it out.' BTW-- Decided what you intend to do about your admission that a murderer DESERVED to be murdered?
PV
A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
I love it... you provide that unique 'peter summary,' laden with lies...
containing not a single reference to any post or words of mine...only screaming lies and 'spittle-on-the-monitor' ravings... and expect others to nod their heads in agreement. Of course... you will find those ignorant heads here... AADP is a magnet for them.
Yes... I agree that such is a FACT. Or would you argue that FACT?
In fact... ALL people murdered are INNOCENT people... this is a point that continues to elude you. There is no such thing as a 'guilty murder victim.' Because... guess what? NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED...
I hold a strong opinion that such a statement is definitely TRUE. Having taken a life in murder... I believe it is absurd to presume that they are STILL worth as much as someone who has not taken a life. I believe this is one of the fundamental pillars of my support for the DP... and if I were to consider murderers EQUAL to INNOCENT people, it would be impossible to support the concept of the DP, since I obviously do not believe that EVERY murderer we execute represents 'saving' one new innocent from being murdered. I believe some abolitionists find NO DIFFERENCE between the murderer and the innocent. I believe that value system is why they oppose the DP. Certainly, if you read euro's comments, you will find his basic opposition to the DP is that he finds no difference between murderers and non-murderers.
My question is -- DO YOU?
No murderer holds a 'fundamental right to be saved' from lawful execution, unless a particular society has established such a 'right' by placing words on paper, providing for that 'right.' In societies that have established the DP, once convicted of capital murder, this imaginary 'fundamental right to life,' has no meaning. Since society determines what 'rights' its members possess, and no other entity provides such 'rights.' Thus, what society provides, it can just as certainly remove. All humans... murderers and non-murderers should necessarily be 'saved' from being murdered, as much as humanly possible. The fundamental differences... between murder and lawful execution... which continue to elude you... in your hysterical method of posting presuming one implies the other... can be found in --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_172.html Don't be such a shit, peter. ALL victims of murder are INNOCENT VICTIMS.
ALL murderers do not 'deserve' to be saved from lawful execution. But NO MURDERER DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. Thus, ALL murderers deserve to be saved from being murdered, while NOT ALL murderers deserve to be saved from lawful execution (unless a particular society has determined that they deserve such 'saving' through abolition - but in that case, the point is moot, since lawful execution is de facto non-existent, whether one feels they deserve it or not).
If we are speaking of murder (one never is sure what the hell you are speaking of)... then they are ALL INNOCENT VICTIMS. Every victim of murder...
is AN INNOCENT VICTIM. Obviously you do not agree with that.
Having so often hysterically raved and screamed that 'only those who are not criminals' can be 'innocent of being murdered.' As when I posted the number of murders committed by murderers in prisons, you remarked uncaringly -- "Was even one sigle one of the victims wrongly convicted?
Because if not, it has no relevence whatsoever." Obviously, you feel that criminals murdered in prison have no relevance to you -- See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a55to2%24eoo%241%40lyonesse.netc... 'Saved' from WHAT? Can you possibly formulate your argument into an understandable idea? Saved from the boogie-man? Saved from a mosquito bite? Saved from your ignorance? 'Saved' in the eternal spring of Christian charity and transported to heaven in a golden chariot?
Saved from WHAT? I continually have to devote considerable time to repeating the difference between murder and the DP, since you simply use 'saved' without saying what one is presumably being 'saved' FROM.
I can only ***ume, after the many times I have remarked on your inability to frame an understandable comment, that you do so purposely... simply because if you did frame an understandable comment, it would only disclose your hypocrisy. Quite clearly, if we execute a murderer before he commits a murder, we would by definition be saving the one he would have murdered from being murdered. That's about as logical a point as one can develop. Given that 'A' is the murderer and 'B' is the victim... then the existence of 'A' argues NOT 'B' (B now murdered). Thus NOT 'A' (A now executed) argues 'B' (B not murdered). Simply a corollary of 'no executed murderer has ever murdered again.' Having not a single thing to do with 'wanting them to be murdered.' Since NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.
Every human on this planet meets my stated criteria that every one of them DESERVE TO BE SAVED FROM BEING MURDERED.
Of course they would. Someone saved from being murdered... has been SAVED from being murdered. Good grief...how simple are you?
Rubbish... I want NO ONE dead. I simply claim that my society has a right to determine a subset of murderers who are too dangerous to eliminate the possibility of 'absolute incapacitation,' in lawful execution. And I support the concept of such, because the alternative... permitting EVERY murderer to enjoy a full life...and possibly commit further murders, is repugnant to me.
However, wanting INNOCENT VICTIMS TO BE MURDERED... That's YOUR view. Willing to SACRIFICE a number of innocent victims to MURDERERS... to save a larger number OF THOSE MURDERERS is YOUR view.. Your words -- "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the lives of a small number of other criminals does not make sense, to me." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9f3lht%24fqm%241%40lyonesse.netc... Do you see any effort on YOUR PART to 'save' the lives of a small number of other criminals? You are only presuming it is unnecessary to CONSIDER 'saving' those lives... if more of the murderers you love, can be saved. In the sum, peter... your words CONDONE MURDER, in order to OPPOSE THE DP. Isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing in those words? Your words certainly deny you want to 'save the lives' of that small number of other criminals. Do you not see any 'evil' in sacrificing those small number of lives?
Actually, those were your exact words... if you read them back to yourself.
You may say it now... but you very clearly stated that a serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer DESERVED to be murdered. See your words in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8pidil%24mmh%241%40taliesin2.netcom... Where you state "no sympathy should be executed to the victim." The victim being that serial killing, drug-dealing, pedophilic murderer.
While in your post --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b2ha37%244kt%242%40helle.btinternet... You quote Richard directly in his words --"What happens, happens. I don't have too many feelings for murderers, and little sympathy." And you expressly ...
A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:01:15 +0100, Desmond 'the migrant worker' No need, Desmond... You are the only one between us, who has complained about an inability to comprehend 'big words.' But as is your usual method...
your failures are forgotten.. and some months later are presented by you as my failures. Nonetheless, I have never LAUGHED at murder, or spit in the face of MLK... both of those evil distinctions belong to you...
Readers can see Desmond LAUGH at the murder of more than a dozen human beings --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_100.html Readers can see Desmond spit in the face of Martin Luther King Jr., in a racist rage --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
"Peter Morris" n...@m.please
I'm glad that I managed to convince you of that fact, PV.
Even though you have come round to my way of thinking, you used to say that only 'innocent' people deserve to be saved, and murderers aren't 'innocent.'
| To Top |