Hairs Left at Crime Scene Lead to Suspect's Arrest 36 Years Later

Forensic Magazine ^ | February 06, 2023

[frank ballenger]

I never mentioned the 82 year old crime victim.

Only talking about 55-year-old Michael Lapniewski, Jr.

[frank ballenger]

I never mentioned the 82 year old crime victim.

Only talking about 55-year-old Michael Lapniewski, Jr.

[Beowulf9]

Yeah but he never said that.

[frank ballenger]

Now I get it. One of my satires was assumed to be an honest quote. Sorry.

[Beowulf9]

Oh. Ok.

[EnderWiggin1970]

I would argue it is not compelling because it is ambiguous. It does not address possibilities like a criminal framing someone else, and there have been cases of dishonest crime labs making fraudulent reports. No doubt forensic evidence has been critically helpful in focusing a spotlight on a particular suspect who proved to be the criminal. But to say that because someone's DNA is at a crime scene establishes them as the criminal is a serious error.

It's noteworthy that when I've read about mistaken cases of conviction over the years, in every case the 2-witness standard was not met in the original conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead there was a dishonest or mistaken witness (often covering for the real criminal), along with a just-so story spun by an aggressive prosecuting attorney. You don't need to be a Christian to recognize the common sense behind the 2-witness standard. Let's hope those who scoff at it never find themselves framed either by real criminals or overzealous attorneys looking to "solve" a crime.

[Albion Wilde]

More direct evidence or a confession is still needed.

And that's why the last line of the article was, "The investigation continues."

[Albion Wilde]

Hairs found on the victim’s person, or on the murder weapon would be compelling evidence.

Unless, of course, the then-19-year-old was having consensual sex with the 82-year-old victim, which, if asked, he will claim.

[Albion Wilde]

I got the joke. He does look like an aging surfer dude.