where do you think ONS is NOW?

[guessting]

Nov 23, 2013 18:28:21 GMT tongue said:

Nov 23, 2013 17:43:50 GMT guessting said:

ALL FELONS ARRESTED IN CALIFORNIA..WHETHER THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OR NOT, SUBMIT TO A BUCCAL SWAB, AKA A DNA TEST.

  they CAN refuse swab test though, correct to which then they are fined?am i right or wrong?or was it the 'lifers' in prison can refuse to which they are then given a fine which doesnt exactly deter these sorts of people..lol

Tongue, I hope this doesn't sound stupid because obviously I know where your tongue came from but how did you choose that name, if you don't mind me asking? I am always curious about names and the meanings behind them. As far as the DNA law goes:


→California Supreme Court
California DNA law is broader than program upheld by Supreme Court
June 03, 2013|By Maura Dolan



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, shown in a 2011 file photo, wrote the majority opinion in a decision released Monday that said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, shown in a 2011 file photo,… (Evan Vucci / AP )

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the right of authorities to take DNA from people when they are arrested only partially assures that California's DNA collection program will survive court challenges, experts said Monday.

The high court upheld a program in Maryland that takes DNA from those arrested only for violent felonies and burglary. Maryland processes the genetic evidence only after an arraignment, and if the person is acquitted, the DNA profile is automatically expunged.

California Supreme Court
California DNA law is broader than program upheld by Supreme Court
June 03, 2013|By Maura Dolan



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, shown in a 2011 file photo, wrote the majority opinion in a decision released Monday that said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, shown in a 2011 file photo,… (Evan Vucci / AP )

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the right of authorities to take DNA from people when they are arrested only partially assures that California's DNA collection program will survive court challenges, experts said Monday.

The high court upheld a program in Maryland that takes DNA from those arrested only for violent felonies and burglary. Maryland processes the genetic evidence only after an arraignment, and if the person is acquitted, the DNA profile is automatically expunged.

California's DNA arrest procedures, in effect since 2009, are different. Anyone arrested for a felony in California must submit to a mouth swab, and the genetic evidence can be processed and put into a state data bank at any time.

If charges are dropped or the person is acquitted, expungement in California is not automatic. Someone must apply to have his or her genetic profile removed from the database.

DNA profiles in the state's criminal database are routinely compared to genetic evidence left at crime scenes. A match can tie a suspect to a crime.

Monday's ruling protected California's right to collect DNA during arrests, but civil libertarians said they would continue to challenge the California program as overly broad. Challenges of the California program are pending in the California Supreme Court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Michael T. Risher, an ACLU attorney who is representing challengers in the 9th Circuit case, said he hopes the appeals court will distinguish the California law and limit its application.

The California law requires more people who are arrested to give up their DNA and also makes it harder to remove someone's genetic profile from a criminal database if charges are dropped or someone is acquitted, he said.

Unlike in Maryland, DNA can be taken in California from people arrested for "simple drug possession, joy riding and writing a check knowing that it would bounce,” Risher said.

In the case before the 9th Circuit, people arrested at a protest, including at least one individual who was never charged, are seeking to have the state law overturned.

Risher acknowledged, though, that Monday’s ruling amounted to a strong endorsement of DNA collection.

“There is very broad language in this decision that could be seen as authorizing the government to take DNA from someone arrested for driving without a seat belt on or walking a dog in a national park without a leash,” Risher conceded. “Will the courts go that far? I certainly hope not.”

He said the California attorney general provides forms that arrestees may fill out to have their DNA removed after acquittal or after charges are dropped, but the actual wording of the law creates a far more cumbersome process for removal.

[briffyboy]

Nov 23, 2013 9:50:16 GMT agatha said:

Nov 23, 2013 6:06:14 GMT briffyboy said:

I think he may have died not long after the Janelle Cruz murder and for that reason I don't think he will be identified but I bloody well hope he is. If he is still alive then it is a fair bet that he still goes back and visits the scenes of his murders. I wonder if any of the residents that stay in the houses where the murders happened have notice anyone strange hanging about their house.

That gives me the willies. I think I commented a while back that I can't believe anyone would live in any of those houses, for exactly that reason. By the way, your avatar is lovely.

I wouldn't be able to stay in a house where a brutal murder happened either. I would be thinking about it all the time. In the UK by law the homeowner or estate agent only has to tell new buyers that a murder happened there if they ask. lol

Thanks its just an interwoven RFC. You a Glasgow Rangers fan?

[agatha]

Nov 25, 2013 2:28:37 GMT briffyboy said:

Nov 23, 2013 9:50:16 GMT agatha said:

That gives me the willies. I think I commented a while back that I can't believe anyone would live in any of those houses, for exactly that reason. By the way, your avatar is lovely.

I wouldn't be able to stay in a house where a brutal murder happened either. I would be thinking about it all the time. In the UK by law the homeowner or estate agent only has to tell new buyers that a murder happened there if they ask. lol

Thanks its just an interwoven RFC. You a Glasgow Rangers fan?

Well, this is particularly ironic, given my opinion about professional team sports. It actually reminded me of a medieval illuminated manuscript....I had no idea it was a sports logo! But I still think it's really nice......I think there are local....maybe state....laws here, that require disclosure, in real estate dealings, about things like murders, crazy neighbors and ghosts. We got a lot of very strange looks from real estate agents, because, when looking at houses, we always asked if anyone had been killed, commited suicide or met some other tragic end on the property, and if it was haunted. And it wasn't the dead people we were worried about!

[lepke]

So there are laws that state you have to say if the house you are trying to sell has a ghost? Are ghosts really taken seriously in America? I can only think of one solution for such a problem:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL8hvlYOrik

[agatha]

Nov 25, 2013 15:23:40 GMT portofleith said:

Agatha- The real estate agents in California only have to disclose murder/suicides if they occurred within three years from the closing date. I once had a realtor selling my house and showing me new ones, who told me one evening that he made a practice out of purchasing homes where people had been murdered because they were such great deals. After he told me about his current home, which was formerly occupied by a man who paraquat poisoned four wives and that his former home was the site where a man beat his two little children to death with a cast iron skillet, I found myself wondering if I really wanted to continue to have him show me homes.

If the 1991 phone call to a victim is real, then GSK could still be living in Sacramento and some of the home locations of victims are still very visible from those levees at night.  I also think , if he had died, that someone may have found his stash of souvenirs and that has not happened.  

However, serial killer Rodney Alcala, actually rented a locker in a different state to stockpile his souvenirs. Those type of storage units  are probably routinely cleared out if abandoned.

That's so disturbing, about the real estate agent. Anything for a buck.....       You describe a nightmare scenario, the stuff of horror movies....imagine living in a GSK crime scene he was revisiting periodically. And I have no doubt that is exactly the sort of thing that would feed his demons. Perhaps that's what he does these days in place of new crimes. I'm not knowledgeable about the way in which storage units are administered, but it seems to me that it would be very possible for a serial to keep a stash of trophies that way. And it could be opened and discarded without raising any interest. Who's going to take much notice of random clothes, odd bits of cheap jewelry and random household items? Have you seen the garbage most people pay a monthly fee for the honor of storing?     

[agatha]

Nov 25, 2013 11:18:58 GMT lepke said:

So there are laws that state you have to say if the house you are trying to sell has a ghost? Are ghosts really taken seriously in America? I can only think of one solution for such a problem:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL8hvlYOrik

Lepke, to my knowledge, there's no federal law, so the rules differ from place to place. Port says disclosure is required for three years after a murder, in California. And I have heard that in some places, at least for a while, real estate agents must tell prospective buyers if a house is "haunted". I don't believe it's because they think ghosts are real; I think it's a legal thing to cover their bases...if a buyer tries to sue. It's a preemptive attempt to warn buyers about the potential nuisances that could arise.  I can imagine the new owners of the Amityville Horror house  getting a real shock to find curiosity seekers on their doorstep and exterminators hounding them day and night. After all, once  the deed is signed, who you goin' to call?

[lepke]

You're going to call Ghostbusters of course. On a more serious note, and I wonder whether it has ever been considered, that EAR/ONS could have decided to live in or own, a house that he attacked someone in...

[Drifter]

Nov 26, 2013 0:08:19 GMT portofleith said:

Nov 26, 2013 0:00:57 GMT lepke said:

You're going to call Ghostbusters of course. On a more serious note, and I wonder whether it has ever been considered, that EAR/ONS could have decided to live in or own, a house that he attacked someone in...

That is an incredibly creepy thought and I wonder if there is any precedence for that ?  Sacramento serial killer Dorethy Puente  killed transient men and buried them in her backyard and Kemoer buried various body parts in his backyard, but I would be curious to know if there were any serial killers brazen enough to purchase a victim's home.

I may be quite wrong.  But I just cannot see this guy settling down enough to buy, and then live in, a detached single family home.  To do so would be quite a departure from how he previously lived his life.  Much more likely, in my opinion, for him to continue the nomadic trajectory he had been on.

[lepke]

You are assuming that he never had a decent house, but perhaps he did; there are many people that travel a lot, but still have somewhere they call home...

[Drifter]

Nov 26, 2013 1:06:03 GMT lepke said:

You are assuming that he never had a decent house, but perhaps he did; there are many people that travel a lot, but still have somewhere they call home...

To me his behavior, and his age, suggest he did not live in a detached single family home.

What evidence is there to support the assumption that he did live in such a home?

[lepke]

Nov 26, 2013 1:10:12 GMT Drifter said:

Nov 26, 2013 1:06:03 GMT lepke said:

You are assuming that he never had a decent house, but perhaps he did; there are many people that travel a lot, but still have somewhere they call home...

To me his behavior, and his age, suggest he did not live in a detached single family home.

What evidence is there to support the assumption that he did live in such a home?

Anyone could be of an age to live in a detached, family home; you could spend your early life living there with your parents, then move out into another one when you get married, and spend the rest of your life there. I can think of elderly people I know/knew who have lived that way, and even one man of sixty three I know, who has spent his whole life in the same house, even sleeping in the same bedroom; he got married when he was thirty, and his children are now grown up and moved out.

[lepke]

Nov 26, 2013 1:12:43 GMT portofleith said:

For some reason, none of us think about the possibility that GSK was a trustafarian.  I have looked at POI's who came from very wealthy families .  

I have suggested before that EAR/ONS could have been such a person, and it would certainly have fitted in with him having free time, and no need to take cash...

[rocker]

Nov 26, 2013 1:06:03 GMT lepke said:

You are assuming that he never had a decent house, but perhaps he did; there are many people that travel a lot, but still have somewhere they call home...

I consider EAR having a decent house quite plausible, Lepke. Also within the traveling aspect I would consider the possibility he may have at times been visiting acquaintances and/or relatives who lived either in proximity or en route in relation to the location of some victims.

[lykaphx19]

I think he resides somewhere in the LA County area. Hiding in plain sight? Like Dexter but more malevolent!

[agatha]

Nov 26, 2013 0:00:57 GMT lepke said:

You're going to call Ghostbusters of course. On a more serious note, and I wonder whether it has ever been considered, that EAR/ONS could have decided to live in or own, a house that he attacked someone in...

Do you think LE already thought of that and looked into it?