jsteele wrote:Some interesting information from the AP and, Jesus, check out who his attorney was:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suspect-named-killing-wealthy-dc-family-housekeeper-31198569

Also in 2010, Wint was arrested outside the American Iron Works headquarters while carrying a 2-foot-long machete and a BB pistol, but weapons charges were dropped after he pleaded guilty to possessing an open container of alcohol in a retail area, court records show.

Attorney Robin Ficker, who defended Wint in other cases, said he didn't seem violent or capable of murder.

"My impression of him — I remember him rather well — is that he wouldn't hurt a fly. He's a very nice person," Ficker said.

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The DNA library also includes any military personnel who have served since 1992, and those samples can and are used in criminal and paternity investigations.


Apparently Wint was a marine, so that probably explains his DNA being in the library.


Jeff, the posts about this "library" are both factually wrong in general and complete speculation in this particular case. I'd remove these posts.


I don't know about the library, but a washington post article refers to him as an exmarine


I have no issue with the ex-marine part. It's the DNA database part I take issue with, as I can assure you the posts above are factually incorrect. This is something I know a lot about.


Okay, then maybe you can explain this:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,FL_dna_041503,00.html

Quote: The lab also sees use during peacetime for identification of military personnel killed in accidents, and is used in some paternity cases and criminal investigations.

I would love to hear that the military DNA database is NOT used for criminal investigations, but that is not the impression that we as active duty personnel have. (USN here.)


The specimens are not routinely used that way, because that's not the purpose of the collection. I don't have specific knowledge of how many times it may have been used that way, but I think there are a lot of legal hoops to jump through to make that happen.


To add: Note that the quote you posted states "The lab" not "The specimens". The referenced lab itself has done non-military DNA casework at times - 9/11 identifications, space shuttle Columbia, commercial aircraft crashes, etc.

For now, Md. police can take DNA from charged criminals, Supreme Court says
Police in Maryland can resume collecting DNA from suspects charged — but not yet convicted — in violent crimes, and the U.S. Supreme Court might be inclined to let them do so permanently.

U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued an opinion Monday saying there is a “fair prospect” the court will overturn the Maryland Court of Appeals controversial Alonzo Jay King Jr. v State of Maryland decision, which prohibited DNA collection from suspects charged — but not yet convicted — in violent crimes and burglaries. And until the nation’s highest court can more thoroughly consider the issue, Roberts put the King decision on hold — meaning police in Maryland can resume collecting DNA.

“This stay will allow Maryland the uninterrupted use of this critical modern law enforcement tool that helps police and prosecutors solve some of Maryland’s most serious violent crimes,” Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said in a statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DNA library also includes any military personnel who have served since 1992, and those samples can and are used in criminal and paternity investigations.

Apparently Wint was a marine, so that probably explains his DNA being in the library.

Jeff, the posts about this "library" are both factually wrong in general and complete speculation in this particular case. I'd remove these posts.

I don't know about the library, but a washington post article refers to him as an exmarine

I have no issue with the ex-marine part. It's the DNA database part I take issue with, as I can assure you the posts above are factually incorrect. This is something I know a lot about.

Okay, then maybe you can explain this:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,FL_dna_041503,00.html

Quote: The lab also sees use during peacetime for identification of military personnel killed in accidents, and is used in some paternity cases and criminal investigations.

I would love to hear that the military DNA database is NOT used for criminal investigations, but that is not the impression that we as active duty personnel have. (USN here.)

The specimens are not routinely used that way, because that's not the purpose of the collection. I don't have specific knowledge of how many times it may have been used that way, but I think there are a lot of legal hoops to jump through to make that happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DNA library also includes any military personnel who have served since 1992, and those samples can and are used in criminal and paternity investigations.

Apparently Wint was a marine, so that probably explains his DNA being in the library.

Jeff, the posts about this "library" are both factually wrong in general and complete speculation in this particular case. I'd remove these posts.

I don't know about the library, but a washington post article refers to him as an exmarine

I have no issue with the ex-marine part. It's the DNA database part I take issue with, as I can assure you the posts above are factually incorrect. This is something I know a lot about.

Okay, then maybe you can explain this:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,FL_dna_041503,00.html

Quote: The lab also sees use during peacetime for identification of military personnel killed in accidents, and is used in some paternity cases and criminal investigations.

I would love to hear that the military DNA database is NOT used for criminal investigations, but that is not the impression that we as active duty personnel have. (USN here.)

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DNA library also includes any military personnel who have served since 1992, and those samples can and are used in criminal and paternity investigations.

Apparently Wint was a marine, so that probably explains his DNA being in the library.

Jeff, the posts about this "library" are both factually wrong in general and complete speculation in this particular case. I'd remove these posts.

I don't know about the library, but a washington post article refers to him as an exmarine

I have no issue with the ex-marine part. It's the DNA database part I take issue with, as I can assure you the posts above are factually incorrect. This is something I know a lot about.

A few minutes' worth of Googling suggests that DNA from members of the armed services is collected and that the police can get access to that collection. However, the hoops required for that access likely mean that this was not how the suspect's DNA was matched. If you know a lot about this, why don't you provide a simple explanation so that we will all be more knowledgeable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DNA library also includes any military personnel who have served since 1992, and those samples can and are used in criminal and paternity investigations.

Apparently Wint was a marine, so that probably explains his DNA being in the library.

Jeff, the posts about this "library" are both factually wrong in general and complete speculation in this particular case. I'd remove these posts.

I don't know about the library, but a washington post article refers to him as an exmarine

I have no issue with the ex-marine part. It's the DNA database part I take issue with, as I can assure you the posts above are factually incorrect. This is something I know a lot about.