Replies

A swabbing of the mouth for dna is not invasive, harmful,does not involve saying anything. If you guys lived where women were being killed like this, four are identified as his victims but there are many many more dead women with no dna to test, you might feel differently. I am sick to death of people "standing on their rights" when families are grieviing and this guy will strike again. This is a murderer and a terrible serial killer. These young women were brutally killed. Their rights were never respected by whoever did this. If anyone is questioned and doesn't willingly let his mouth be swabbed because of his "rights" he is holding up and taking up police time and effort and is a first class shit in my mind. Standing on your right when a very minor inconvenience and no intrusion, a swab on the mouth mucosa is painless and risk free, and would help the police who are there to find this killer, standing on your 'rights' is disgusting. Flame away, I am not coming back to listen to you loonies.

This DNA evidence is permanent and will not be discarded by the authorities. I currently do not have the time to go into a detailed argument about this subject, especially because of the numerous subtltiies involved.

The climate of crime and fear that has been created in the last half-century is not a naturally occuring event. The "rights" of criminals has outweighed the rights of the victims. Why do we have so many mass-murders in recent history?

We are seeing the "solutions" to the problem just beginning to emerge. The answer is more security, something that is but a memory to those who grew up in the '50s.

Is it not even remotely possible that some of solutions we are seeing today are the work of the very people who created the problem. Why should people have to be driven to subjection when they can be convinced to beg for it.

The issues of today a are taking on a very visceral quality. Emotions are being manipulated (look at the Dems reaction to the criticism of Clinton).

Of course, we sympathize with those who have been victimized and are still in harms way. It is easy to be remote when one is remote. But I do not like the feeling of being herded toward the pen.

The state and all who support and worship it are growing increasingly frustrated at the fact that they cannot control everything about everybody. The fact that people are uncontrollable and untrackable irritates them to no end. It's not about solving a crime. It's about being able to monitor and track. There will always be killers, and those killers will elude capture. That's just the way it is.

To drag out the big guns of science and massively screen everybody is just fundamentally, viscerally wrong. Just because the "authorities" (loosely speaking) can do it does not mean they should. It may sound harsh, but people get killed -- always have, always will. Don't cast a net over the herd -- get out there and do good police work. If a member of my family, God forbid, were murdered, I still would not expect people to submit to DNA testing to catch the killer.

Scary thing is, I've heard several acquaintances state that they think DNA swabs at birth are an excellent idea, in order to track people through life. Ironic too, that these same people had relatives die in Auschwitz.

In order for the police to search someone, they must have some individualized suspicion. In this case, a mass swab of 1,000 men in the BR is a general search and strictly forbidden by the 5th amendment.

Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed at the cops who knew for the past several years that 30-40 single women in the BR area had turned up dead but did nothing about it. This investigation is soooo inept, that the best thing Pam Kinamore's mother can do would be to hire a PI.