Re: SVU 11/18 - 'Perverted' (spoilers)
Ray O'Hara
"Babaganoosh" <n...@spam.fishface> wrote in message
news:no-93987A.21...@news.east.cox.net...
>A few things...
>
> - The date rapist guy, who got locked up earlier for that crime then
> (when he got out) set Olivia up for murder. DId we ever see that guy
> before? Was his case a previous SVU episode?
>
> - Can DNA really be faked like this ep said it could?
>
> - Anyone notice that when SVU detectives leak that photo to the press
> (about the GPS device being planted in the victim's motorcycle), the
> actual text accompanying that photo makes reference to a previous SVU
> episode, "Outcry" from Season 6..
> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0629694/
when a cop show starts making the EPs about the characters its end is in
sight.
Michael Ejercito
> A few things...
>
> - The date rapist guy, who got locked up earlier for that crime then
> (when he got out) set Olivia up for murder. DId we ever see that guy
> before? Was his case a previous SVU episode?
>
> - Can DNA really be faked like this ep said it could?
Michael
Hunter
n...@spam.fishface says...
> A few things...
>
> - The date rapist guy, who got locked up earlier for that crime then
> (when he got out) set Olivia up for murder. DId we ever see that guy
> before? Was his case a previous SVU episode?
I looked but I couldn't find any references to an earlier episode, so
no, this is one of Olivia's and Stabler's off screen cases coming
back to bite Olivia.
>
> - Can DNA really be faked like this ep said it could?
Yes, unfortunately:
"Aug. 17, 2009
Scientists: DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated
New York Times Reports Successful DNA Fabrication May Undermine Gold
Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases
(CBS) Scientists in Israel have successfully fabricated blood and
saliva samples containing DNA, potentially undercutting what has been
considered key evidence in the conviction or exoneration in crime
cases, the New York Times reported.
According to the newspaper, the scientists also demonstrated that if
they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct
a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue
from that person.
"Any biology undergraduate could perform this, said Dr. Dan Frumkin,
lead author of the paper, which is published online in the journal
Genetics.
The paper asserts that while DNA analysis has become a centerpiece of
law enforcement, the possibility that such evidence can be faked has
not been considered.
"This is potentially huge news in the world of criminal justice,
which hasn t yet even fully had the time to embrace DNA for all of
its uses," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "And I suspect
it won t be long before defense attorneys are using this study to
undercut DNA analysis and conclusions in cases all over the country."
"This is potentially terrible news for prosecutors and police and the
military and all sorts of industries that use DNA testing to confirm
or find information," Cohen adds. "As the paper s author says, 'You
can now just engineer a crime scene.' Good news for crime dramas on
television but not so much to the criminal justice system."
"It ll be interesting to see how the legal world reacts to it and
whether this study will be embraced or scorned by DNA experts here in
the States," Cohen said. "But you can be sure that before too long
DNA evidence in criminal cases all over will be challenged based upon
these findings."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/tech/main5248133.shtml
Even the line of the corrupt lab technician said as the last line in
the episode reflected the Times article above (and without a stitch
of remorse for the innocent people on trial or already in prison he
put there, the sociopath!):
Joseph Sultise (sp?): "Its so easy, any biology undergraduate can do
it. It's a whole new world. [chuckles] Guess your free ride is over."
The article above points out that defense attorneys could use it to
undercut prosecutions. It can hurt the cases of DNA exonerations as
well, at least for middle class and higher income level defendants.
They the prosecution, could say that perhaps someone had it done to
put exculpatory DNA evidence in the mix.
Ironically though working class and poor defendants can be effected
less because where will they get the money to have it done (unless of
course they are drug dealers)? Again ironically in this case it could
pay to be poor and without resources.
But thinking it over, this could hurt prosecutions worse than it does
the defense, because usually it is the Police that has the resources
to do it since it has access to the crime labs.
Think of it. If OJ Simpson committed his murders in say 2014 instead
of 1994 his police conspiracy claims could had held more water with
more people than it did, especially with the racist cop Mark Furman
in the mix.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
Ray O'Hara
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.256f53778...@news.optonline.net...
> In article <he2fi1$fse$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, raymond-
> oh...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Babaganoosh" <n...@spam.fishface> wrote in message
>> news:no-93987A.21...@news.east.cox.net...
>> >A few things...
>> >
>> > - The date rapist guy, who got locked up earlier for that crime then
>> > (when he got out) set Olivia up for murder. DId we ever see that guy
>> > before? Was his case a previous SVU episode?
>> >
>> > - Can DNA really be faked like this ep said it could?
>> >
>> > - Anyone notice that when SVU detectives leak that photo to the press
>> > (about the GPS device being planted in the victim's motorcycle), the
>> > actual text accompanying that photo makes reference to a previous SVU
>> > episode, "Outcry" from Season 6..
>> > http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0629694/
>>
>> when a cop show starts making the EPs about the characters its end is in
>> sight.
> ---
> Why?
> --
it shows they've run out of ideas and are moving from a cop show to a soap
opera.
Hunter
oh...@hotmail.com says...
Sorry I don't see it that way. It seems that when we get stories that
delve into the personal lives of the characters and how they relate
to each other it is called "Soap Opera" I reject that over
simplification.
I am not saying L&O and any other show is Shakespeare but I think the
term "soap opera" is such a misused term of derision that
Shakespeare's work could fall under it: "Oh here is a story about a
guy being cuckholded"-i.e. his wife cheated on him ("Orthello"). Soap
Opera!!. Here is another about two star crossed lovers from two
feuding families that both eventually commit suicide because they
mistakenly think the other one is dead ("Romeo and Juliet"). Soap
Opera!
Seeing the personal lives of people and how they relate to each other
other than on a professional basis or reacting to things outside
their circle isn't automatically "soap opera". It makes the
characters less one dimensional, more "real". I mean it can be over
done, but I don't think Lt. Van Buren's cancer fight on the
"Mothership" for example is necessarily soap opera-ish. It could be
if we get a long good bye with her possible death long and drawn out
but seeing it how it relates to her job, in this case how a law
enforcement officer for the sake of her own health and well being is
breaking the law by smoking marijuana medicinally is interesting.
This past episode of L&O:SVU is to me definitely NOT in any way soap
opera. It is case in which a past collar came up with a vengeance
scheme which came up and bit Benson in the ass but I don't think
there is anything soap opera about it. I don't think last weeks
episode about Stabler's kid trying to find his buddy was soap opera-
ish either. Just a glimpse of home life. This short of thing didn't
hurt "The Sopranos" in the least or now with "The Sons of Anarchy" or
"Dexter" or the about-to-end Dramedy "Monk" and it certainly doesn't
hurt "Mad Men", all great, heavily character driven as well as plot
driven shows which show interpersonal relationships in their private
lives. Anybody calling those shows "Soap Opera-ish" prove they just
don't know what they are talking about. If the L&O franchise are
moving closer to shows like that I don't see where they could go
wrong.
Michael Black
> when a cop show starts making the EPs about the characters its end is in
> sight.
>
I thought the same thing. It's one thing if the show starts from the
beginning to be a mix of public and private, "The Rookies" in the early
seventies did that and other shows have made the stress of being a cop
part of the show. But these shows haven't and suddenly their lives creep
in, not gradually but as filler.
What makes it worse is that in real life, these things likely never
happen. I suppose there will be threats, but kidnapping and framing and
whatever (all of which has happened on the various cop shows in recent
years) are either unlikely to happen, or are so rare that one can't count
them. Yet the shows do it, as if the characters are so important or
do something so "wrong" that there is a constant stream of people coming
after them.
Michael
paristalks
> Seeing the personal lives of people and how they relate to each other
> other than on a professional basis or reacting to things outside
> their circle isn't automatically "soap opera". It makes the
> characters less one dimensional, more "real". I mean it can be over
> done, but I don't think Lt. Van Buren's cancer fight on the
> "Mothership" for example is necessarily soap opera-ish.
OK, I watched the episode that aired Saturday night -- I'm guessing it
was probably a repeat -- that involved Stabler's son's friend getting
killed, and a whole buncha other overhyped garbage with Olivia, the
ADA, Creegan and I don't know how many others. Hubby and I looked at
each other, rolled our eyes and said, "Could they have made that any
*more* soap opera-ish?" When the show focuses more on personal stuff
than the case, then yes, IMO, it's soap opera. Van Buren's health
issues are not overshadowing the particulars of the cases, whereas
this SVU ep seemed like the cases -- such as they were -- were written
with the sole goal of showcasing the personal angst of the various
characters. Cart before the horse, IMO. And one that made me not want
to watch SVU again.
Sue
Hunter
n...@spam.fishface says...
> In article <MPG.256f52cd8...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Again ironically in this case it could
> > pay to be poor and without resources.
>
> worries me the most.
---
Oh I don't mean to minimized the affects on innocent people in any
way, it is just that this time it could be an advantage to be poor
because no one could accuse you of using your money to doctor DNA
results to make yourself innocent, like paying off a lab tech. A
Prosecutor could do that to a middle class or above person who goes
to a private lab to have his DNA tested. Conversely a "policeman in a
lab coat" could be so convinced that you did it he could create false
evidence. It has happened with fingerprint evidence of lab techs
deliberately lying.
Anyway, from a day to day view, this isn't going to effect cases that
much, but the potential is there and it could happen and future dream
teams could make hay out of it. As I said, if this was around when OJ
was on trial for murder I am sure his lawyers would had pointed out
the possibility.
Michael Black
> In article <no-718C9D.13...@news.east.cox.net>,
> n...@spam.fishface says...
>> In article <MPG.256f52cd8...@news.optonline.net>,
>> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again ironically in this case it could
>>> pay to be poor and without resources.
>>
>> Not for the innocent people who could get hurt by this. That's what
>> worries me the most.
> ---
> Oh I don't mean to minimized the affects on innocent people in any
> way, it is just that this time it could be an advantage to be poor
> because no one could accuse you of using your money to doctor DNA
> results to make yourself innocent, like paying off a lab tech. A
> Prosecutor could do that to a middle class or above person who goes
> to a private lab to have his DNA tested. Conversely a "policeman in a
> lab coat" could be so convinced that you did it he could create false
> evidence. It has happened with fingerprint evidence of lab techs
> deliberately lying.
>
But isn't it more likely that someone rich would pay for the process,
and use someone poor to pin the blame on?
Michael
Hunter
et...@ncf.ca says...
That could happen yes. But of course they have to make sure that the
guy doesn't have a solid alibi. Video tape will still trump DNA for
instance. If he is on some security tape in the supermarket 10 miles
away at the time of the crime he could actually use this phoney DNA
thing as a defense.
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <MPG.256f52cd8...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Again ironically in this case it could
>> pay to be poor and without resources.
>
>Not for the innocent people who could get hurt by this. That's what
>worries me the most.
Elaborate frame-ups aren't the worst threat this poses. The
invalidation of the use of DNA to exonerate people is going to be a
more common issue.
David / Amicus
They were a poor excuse for a biker gang! Where were the tattoos?
The rapist got his just desserts in prison. Had the character been in a
previous episode?
This was not the first episode where a person who got out of prison went
after Benson for revenge. I remember one where the guy had been
innocent and blamed her.
How did Olivia's car fit in?
David Johnston
wrote:
>I caught the repeat last night.
>
>They were a poor excuse for a biker gang! Where were the tattoos?
>
>
>The rapist got his just desserts in prison.
Good to know that you are in favour of rape.
theget
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:39:55 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> >The rapist got his just desserts in prison.
>
> Good to know that you are in favour of rape.
Urp. What happened to his view that you should only have sex with
people you can marry?
No, I didn't see the ep.
Theget
Michael Black
> I caught the repeat last night.
>
> They were a poor excuse for a biker gang! Where were the tattoos?
>
You're clearly not paying attention. The serious gangs have gone upscale.
In the mid-sixties when Hunter S. Thompson wrote about the Hell's Angels,
they were just a motorcycle gange, tough and anti-social, but minor
criminals. He even wrote that if they hadn't got the publicity at that
time, they likely would have faded away.
Instead, they became bigger, moving into the drug business, and then
becoming more violent in order to protect their business. The motorcycles
became less important, the business became all-important.
Which is why one of the times they did a roundup here, it turned out
one member of one of the Quebec chapters was part of a symphony orchestra.
Michael
k
Hunter
da...@block.net says...
I don't think so since the vast majority of innocent people in prison
are lower middle class, working class and poor, not the people who
have the resources to phony up DNA results they could get of with.
Besides you can have two labs to do the testing, the state and the
private lab of the defense choosing. Ironically it could be more of a
headache for the state because as I said before the defense could
argue that the state altered the evidence because they have the
resources to do it. And in the past the state has been caught through
its agents the police DA, lab technicians etc., variously planting,
altering or withholding evidence over the years. So if anyone is in
the position to fiddle with DNA evidence it is them and it is the
defense that can launch more credible cases of evidence corruption.
Michael Black
No, he's talking about the doubt that will arise from the ability
to counterfiet DNA.
A lot of those people went to jail on flimsy evidence, and they got out
years later because DNA became viable as evidence (I haven't paid
attention enough to know if it became a process in relatively recent
times, or simply that it became a cheap and fast enough process to become
viable in relatively recent times). They couldn't do DNA tests back then,
so that "certainty" of DNA wasn't there, but once the testing became
viable, they were able to go to old cases and say "see, that's not my
DNA".
The certainty of DNA testing has now become so absolute that we now
here of real juries not wanting to convict without DNA.
But wham, suddenly DNA can be faked. So do they throw the whole process
out? We can't trust it, because it can be faked. There goes the
certainty of DNA testing, and there goes the chance of people put in
prison on flimsy evidence to see the light of day today because DNA
testing is viable. Now everyone believes in DNA testing, nobody questions
it. A few cases of counterfeit DNA and enough doubt may arise that nobody
will trust DNA testing, a 180 degree turn.
It's not doubt about specific tests, but doubt about the DNA testing
in general.
Michael