←back to thread

248 points punnerud | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
treetalker ◴[] No.43376369[source]
From the abstract:

> Detectable levels of DNA were also observed in air and dust samples from ultra-clean forensic laboratories which can potentially contaminate casework samples.

Great news for criminal defense attorneys.

replies(3): >>43396186 #>>43396637 #>>43396805 #
mrtksn ◴[] No.43396805[source]
It cuts both ways, there was this high profile case of the son of a very rich and powerful family brutally murdering his working class girlfriend in his family mansion with some family present, motives still unknown.

In the autopsy they discovered sperm from a 3rd person on her body, tried to claim that it was an infidelity case(you get different sentece depending on your motives and circumstances) but later it was revealed that this was just a contamination during the autopsy.

So, the more forensic options the better but likely longer and more expensive trials. All lawyers win.

replies(2): >>43396845 #>>43401147 #
paulluuk ◴[] No.43396845[source]
> just a contamination during the autopsy.

How does sperm end up on her body during the autopsy? Are we talking necrophilia or are there multiple murdered bodies laying next to each other and the tools are re-used or something?

replies(2): >>43396911 #>>43396975 #
mrtksn ◴[] No.43396911[source]
IRRC The official explanation is that there were a few autopsies going on at the same time in that facility and it came from the body next to hers. The public opinion was that they bribed the technician to contaminate her body.

The whole case is a huge mess with attempts of cover ups, months long manhunts and all kinds of conspiracy theories. The killer was sentenced to 24 years of prison but unalived himself in prison and there're still conspiracy theories saying that he actually escaped to China because he was studying Chinese in prison prior that. This happened more than 10 years ago and last year they opened his grave to check the remains and again it was confirmed that that's him. Yet, this is still not enough to end the public discussion and conspiracy theories.

Anyway, if anyone is curious this is the case in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Münevver_Karabulut

Unfortunately, the juicy literature around that is mostly in Turkish.

replies(2): >>43396988 #>>43398108 #
nkrisc ◴[] No.43398108[source]
> unalived himself

In English the phrase is “killed himself”.

replies(2): >>43398271 #>>43398688 #
unwind ◴[] No.43398688[source]
TIL that the kids actually use it [1], and it's in dictionaries [2] etc so arguably it's actually English.

[1]: https://medium.com/new-writers-welcome/unalive-the-birth-of-...

[2]: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unalive

Edit: typo.

replies(1): >>43398964 #
weberer ◴[] No.43398964[source]
They only say it to avoid word filters on certain algorithm-driven sites. Your comment won't be automatically flagged, demoted, or shadow banned here for using naughty words that corporate advertisers don't like.
replies(3): >>43399276 #>>43400757 #>>43403513 #
skyyler ◴[] No.43399276[source]
Surely you can understand that when certain behaviours or phrases become fashionable, they can become detached from the culture that generated them.
replies(1): >>43402602 #
accrual ◴[] No.43402602[source]
I'm in agreement, but one thought that crossed my mind is how the population in China self-censors and I wonder if this is kind of like that. Rather than tailor the terminology to different environments, the person just chooses the "safe" term all the time.
replies(1): >>43403155 #
skyyler ◴[] No.43403155[source]
When was the last time you were in China? I'm curious about this self-censoring you're talking about. Did you observe it personally?
replies(1): >>43404119 #
kossae ◴[] No.43404119[source]
There are 10s if not 100s of articles on it, and even a paper written about it: https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/politics/documents/The.... One does not have to be in China or observe it personally to know of its existence.
replies(1): >>43405374 #
1. skyyler ◴[] No.43405374[source]
Okay, so from the one you linked:

>Respondents who are the most highly educated, have the highest number of daily posts on social media, and spend the most time on social media, appear to self censor criticisms of the government on social media more than they self censor praise of the government on social media. Other respondents do not appear to self-censor criticism of the government on social media. However, my findings are severely limited by my small sample size.

I was actually asking for accounts of firsthand experience, not ideological slop.