The Babysitter/Snow Killer

[sdreid]

According to the Wiki article, Gacy's DNA doesn't match though.

It's about as hard to argue against DNA as it is to argue against fingerprints.

[sdreid]

DNA only comes up short when it comes to identical twins in the inclusive sense.

[sdreid]

I don't know of any twin suspects here so that DNA hitch wouldn't be an issue.

[sdreid]

As I recall, there are no fingerprints in the case.

[sdreid]

According to the Wiki article, Gacy's DNA doesn't match though.

And the victims don't match either.

[sdreid]

And, not just because some of the victims were female.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stan

It's about as hard to argue against DNA as it is to argue against fingerprints.

In the UK at least, fingerprint evidence is now held in slightly less total trust than it was, with the recognition that much fingerprint evidence is interpretational, and that interpretation can be as much art as science.

I think the Shirley McKie case would interest you Stan...it did me. This link takes you to a page with links to the hearings, the official inquiry and the report.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/25.html

Hope you can spare a few hours for a really good read...

All the best

Dave

[sdreid]

Yes, there was a case here where it's been argued that the print was open to interpretation so to speak. I think that a clear print is pretty conclusive if there's no other good explanation for it being there but, in the real world, the prints aren't always clear.

[sdreid]

As I recall, the chance of two people having the same fingerprint is around one in 86 billion.

[sdreid]

As I recall, the chance of two people having the same fingerprint is around one in 86 billion.

I don't know what system that is based on.

[sdreid]

As I recall, the chance of two people having the same fingerprint is around one in 86 billion.

The Wiki article says 64 billion so perhaps I remembered wrong or was misinformed.

[sdreid]

The variation might be the number of points of comparison that a certain jurisdiction requires.

[sdreid]

Since most crime scene fingerprints are less than perfect, I doubt that the 64 billion figure holds up in the field.

[Ausgirl]

Just random thoughts I have while pondering this case:

Maybe the wife (pr mother..) went out of town a few weeks, following Xmas every year? Like, she goes off to visit rellies interstate, and so otherwise severely repressed pedo hubby/son has a chance to vent his sick fantasies for a while.

Also, could be OCD? That's some excessive attention to cleaning. Maybe showing he cared for the kids while he had them was important to him, "I might be sick/a killer but I'm not a monster"..

Considering that only the boys were raped, and only with 'an object' the killer could be impotent. Or maybe just got his thrills from that kind of violation, and pleased himself later. Maybe he had all the desire there for little boys, but was too self-disgusted to actually rape them. Thinking too - taking and keeping and killing girls, too, might have been a way for him to try to convince himself he wasn't into little boys, really..

Dunno how Gacy was ever a suspect, completely different MO, victim base, etc.

If it should ever turn out that "Allen" (of the kooky letters) *was* the killer, I will bet you all a nice bottle of Aussie merlot that there was no "Frank". What got my attention with these letters is the whiny, guilty tone accompanied by a complete abnegation of responsibility, something I've seen in interviews with some pedos. I don't actually see this behaviour as necessarily 'taunting', perhaps it was a manifestation of guilt. I think "Frank" was probably a fantasy, in any case. Just has that ring to it.

I note with these letters too, "Allen" is careful to make it known that that "Frank" is kinda-sorta-but-not-really a pedo (though obviously, molestation happened).. kind of fits with my thoughts above.

Apologies for the brain dump.

[sdreid]

Gacy did rape boys but he also seemed just as satisfied to rape young men so I don't think he was technically a pedophile; a male-ophile perhaps.