Re: CBS Sunday nights--Screwed up by sports ... again


"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you know where he was dumping stuff the second time after he was
(almost) exposed?

From the lack of waves and the fact that his small boat tooled out there in
a short amount of time, he wasn't likely in a significantly different
location than when he dumped the boides.

he already knows that his 'friend' can watch him do exactly that and
retrieve the stuff back out of the water. It was stupid.

And by the time that happened he could skip town.

Just think how much faster it would have been to NOT wrap all the tools up
in water tight plastic before dumping them. Just think how much faster it
would have been to NOT turn off the boat and come to a complete stop before
dumping all the tools in a single location. Why are you trying to claim
that what he did was not stupid or was somehow advantageous to buying him
time compared to the alternatives?

The dilemma is exposing the evidence to crossive water while not
exposing himself and property to the evidence. What do you choose? The
balance tilts toward keeping everything sealed because there's another
problem: not having bits of evidence float to the surface--or worse, to
shore. Thus he has everything sealed up and sunk to the ocean floor.

Sure...because a drill and a set of surgical scalpels will float in the
water, but they will sink if wrapped tightly with black plastic.

He wrapped the tools to keep them from contaminating himself, his home,
car and boat.

As stated already: a plastic garmage sack would have achieved the same
goal.

-- Ken from Chicago (who knows about "transference" from CSI)

Ah, thast may explain your 'reasoning'. You think CSI is a good source
of accurate crime scene investigation information.

Forensics evidence does NOT transfer from the body to the scene--and vice
versa?

Not relevant to the actions he took. His actions would preserve evidence,
not dispose of it.

P.S. Too bad he doesn't know where some sharks are so he could feed the
evidence to them.

Sharks likely won't eat stuff wrapped tightly in waterproof black plastic
since it gives off no odor. According to you, it would be too dangerous
to take the body out of the bag because of 'transference'.

He just coats it with animal blood. The sharks tear thru the bag and
remains. The water corrodes what's left. People assume whatever debris is
left is some poor dead swimmer / surfer.

Sure, surfers often wrap themselves in black plastic before getting eaten by
sharks.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... > it many times claiming it was some big coup for his argument. ... there is no evidence to support a water-side life style for human ... It's not the water that is ... Lee. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... > bonobos in shallow water are 92% bipedal. ... What other causative factor has evidence ... >> of existing apes, like your wading bonobos, it has at least a little bit ... > By pointing to the exceptions (aquatics and semi aquatics that are not ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... I was thinking that "some evidence" indicated something much less than ... > Now that all seems pretty wet to me. ... Your description provided pretty much matches the notional environment ... zebra fossils around a water hole at the edge of a forest or spider monkey ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... The earliest evidence for hominid bipedalism is ... wading apears to have been highly likely. ... from moving in water might have influenced our evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... >> move bipedally in shallow water for it to have something to do with ... Efficiency is not always the currency of selection. ... And I think the evidence favours that view. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)