4 ms·

"We are coming to find you and monitor every step you take," Joanne Jaffe, the department’s Housing Bureau chief, told The New York Times in 2013. "And we are g

"We are coming to find you and monitor every step you take," Joanne Jaffe, the department’s Housing Bureau chief, told The New York Times in 2013. "And we are going to learn about every bad friend you have." The boot on the face usually ends up being local. EDIT: "While he was incarcerated, the police matched his DNA to another gun recovered near the scene of a gang altercation." How the does that even work? I'm calling bullshit. EDIT2: Alethia finally convinced her lawyer to file a speedy trial motion and in November of 2013 Jelani was given bail. Four months later, with no move by the DA to proceed, his case was finally dismissed, almost two years to the day it began. The DA has refused to share the document that outlines the reason for dismissing Jelani’s case with him or his lawyer. To day, there has been no explanation and no apology for Jelani’s detention. And more of this nonsense. It's not just the beat cops that we should be watching closely. This is absurd.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
> How the does that even work? I think it works like this: As you touch things, some of your skin cells fall off and adhere to the thing you touched. Those cells can give up DNA to an investigator. So it would mean that he touched the gun in question. When did he touch it? The DNA doesn't say anything about that.
- Glyptodon 12y ago
  ...or the gun touched something that had his DNA on it, no?
- xenophonf 12y ago
  Nor can DNA evidence reveal intent. What if one handles a gun merely to get a feel for it (no different from ogling someone's phone or slipping into the driver's seat of a friend's new car)? That said, the fact that a defendant touched a gun, plus an eyewitness account putting that defendant at a crime scene, plus recovery of the gun from the crime scene, etc. all work together to make the case that a defendant committed a crime with a particular weapon. Just because evidence is circumstantial doesn't make it any less powerful in legal proceedings.
jackweirdy 12y ago
> The boot on the face usually ends up being local Reminds me of a quotation I saw earlier today; “When the axe came into the woods, the trees said ‘at least the handle’s one of us’”

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

> How the does that even work? I think it works like this: As you touch things, some of your skin cells fall off and adhere to the thing you touched. Those cells can give up DNA to an investigator. So it would mean that he touched the gun in question. When did he touch it? The DNA doesn't say anything about that.

Glyptodon 12y ago
...or the gun touched something that had his DNA on it, no?
xenophonf 12y ago
Nor can DNA evidence reveal intent. What if one handles a gun merely to get a feel for it (no different from ogling someone's phone or slipping into the driver's seat of a friend's new car)? That said, the fact that a defendant touched a gun, plus an eyewitness account putting that defendant at a crime scene, plus recovery of the gun from the crime scene, etc. all work together to make the case that a defendant committed a crime with a particular weapon. Just because evidence is circumstantial doesn't make it any less powerful in legal proceedings.

jackweirdy 12y ago

> The boot on the face usually ends up being local Reminds me of a quotation I saw earlier today; “When the axe came into the woods, the trees said ‘at least the handle’s one of us’”