4 ms·

Do you think a shawl with semen stains found on a murder scene would not be pretty heavy evidence today?

TheCraiggers 12y ago
Oh I'm sure it would, but without multiple pieces of evidence linking him to multiple scenes, it wouldn't be enough. Even if multiples were found, it wouldn't be enough if he had any alibis. Finding a piece of clothing with semen stains on a prostitute isn't exactly surprising, after all.
apaprocki 12y ago
Well, one would assume that the police work of the time was done to the most reasonable extent possible and if the outcome of that police work was him as a suspect, being able to confirm DNA at the murder scene would only serve to affirm that suspicion. It all depends on what other evidence police based their suspicion at the time. The person who bought the shawl said he consulted the original written police reports in the archives. I suppose anyone could do the same, or... buy the book. ;)
bunderbunder 12y ago
It would only be circumstantial evidence. A man's semen could get on a prostitute's shawl because he raped and murdered her. But it could also get there because he was one of her johns.
- AjithAntony 12y ago
  I heard this detail on the radio story of the same topic: The shawl did not belong to the victim, but I forget the details of how they could know that. They also traced the fibers of the shawl to polish or russian origins, which would be consistent with belonging to the polish emigrant.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 12y ago
It was enough to convict Steve Wright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders#Court_appearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders#Court_a...
- Atroxide 12y ago
  They found DNA evidence on 3 of the victims, that is completely different then finding DNA evidence on one victim.
acangiano 12y ago
A similar case is actually taking place now in Italy. They found a few droplets of blood from a middle-aged family man on the underwear of a 13 year old girl that was killed. Even though it's blood, all this proves is that he had some kind of (inappropriate) contact with the child. On its own, it's not enough evidence to convict him of murder. Now imagine a much more explainable scenario like semen on a prostitute, and you realize how weak the evidence is if not corroborated by further evidence.

Oh I'm sure it would, but without multiple pieces of evidence linking him to multiple scenes, it wouldn't be enough. Even if multiples were found, it wouldn't be enough if he had any alibis. Finding a piece of clothing with semen stains on a prostitute isn't exactly surprising, after all.

apaprocki 12y ago

Well, one would assume that the police work of the time was done to the most reasonable extent possible and if the outcome of that police work was him as a suspect, being able to confirm DNA at the murder scene would only serve to affirm that suspicion. It all depends on what other evidence police based their suspicion at the time. The person who bought the shawl said he consulted the original written police reports in the archives. I suppose anyone could do the same, or... buy the book. ;)

bunderbunder 12y ago

It would only be circumstantial evidence. A man's semen could get on a prostitute's shawl because he raped and murdered her. But it could also get there because he was one of her johns.

AjithAntony 12y ago
I heard this detail on the radio story of the same topic: The shawl did not belong to the victim, but I forget the details of how they could know that. They also traced the fibers of the shawl to polish or russian origins, which would be consistent with belonging to the polish emigrant.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 12y ago

It was enough to convict Steve Wright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders#Court_appearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders#Court_a...

Atroxide 12y ago
They found DNA evidence on 3 of the victims, that is completely different then finding DNA evidence on one victim.

acangiano 12y ago

A similar case is actually taking place now in Italy. They found a few droplets of blood from a middle-aged family man on the underwear of a 13 year old girl that was killed. Even though it's blood, all this proves is that he had some kind of (inappropriate) contact with the child. On its own, it's not enough evidence to convict him of murder. Now imagine a much more explainable scenario like semen on a prostitute, and you realize how weak the evidence is if not corroborated by further evidence.