Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


The "evil gene" would also be a profiling goldmine too.

There's a whole series of genes that approx 96% of convicted criminals have and a really high proportion of rapists in particular. Unfortunatly to suspect everyone with those genes we'd be looking at half the worlds population..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS I don't know if it's come up in this 9 page thread, but in the UK if you remain silent the court may 'infer from silence' that you're guilty of stuff. If arrested they say 'it may harm your defence if you do no say anything which you later rely on in court' now that's just BS but the whole 'I ain't saying nothin' ' doesn't fly too well in the UK.

I thought when you got arrested it was "It may harm your defence if you say something you later rely on in court"

So... DNA tests have eliminated her family and friends from the list of suspects...

But what about eliminating suspects through, I don't know, actual bloody police work? Compare schedules/times on campus/canvas potential witnesses... you know.. do things to solve the crime the way they did before DNA tests and peoples' willingness to surrender their privacy became the default "easy button" in police investigations.

There is a very real posibility that this was a crime of opportunity committed by someone who wasn't even a student or teacher at the school. If that is the case, what do the police do when the DNA tests come up with no hits? Swab every male in the city? Then what?

Cops used to be able to solve crimes through actual investigations and effort. DNA used to be just the evidence you used to back up the results of your investigation, not the whole investigation itself.

I'm having Gattaca flashbacks here.

squidhills wrote:
But what about eliminating suspects through, I don't know, actual bloody police work? Compare schedules/times on campus/canvas potential witnesses... you know.. do things to solve the crime the way they did before DNA tests and peoples' willingness to surrender their privacy became the default "easy button" in police investigations.

You have any idea how long it would take to completely vette 500 people? That's thousands of man hours.

There is a very real posibility that this was a crime of opportunity committed by someone who wasn't even a student or teacher at the school.

Apparently this is the case which makes all the time they saved vetting 500 people even more important, because now instead of investigating 500 people who definitely didn't do it for thousands of hours (this would take weeks to do) they can start looking for points of entry, witnesses outside the school, etc. The worst case scenario is that it was a random passer by who doesn't even live or frequent the area, at which point the police will likely never find him.

Seriously people

If they have enough time to swab for DNA they have enough time to ask for an alibi.

I'm kind of shocked so many people on this thread are so cavalier about throwing away their rights.....

 cincydooley wrote:
If they have enough time to swab for DNA they have enough time to ask for an alibi.

Police interviews can take hours. Collecting DNA takes all of fifteen seconds.

 cincydooley wrote:
If they have enough time to swab for DNA they have enough time to ask for an alibi.

I'm kind of shocked so many people on this thread are so cavalier about throwing away their rights.....

You're not depriving yourself of any rights by agreeing to this though. You're within your full rights to cooperate with police if you want to.

In the reports it is clearly stated that the rape took place six months ago and the police have been driven to the DNA testing because they have exhausted other means.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the reports it is clearly stated that the rape took place six months ago and the police have been driven to the DNA testing because they have exhausted other means.

After six months of work, they haven't managed to eliminate anyone in the student body at all? Every one of those nearly 600 men were in proximity to the place where the rape was committed at the time it was committed?

squidhills wrote:


After six months of work, they haven't managed to eliminate anyone in the student body at all?

Wisdom, from House (and cynics everywhere). I guess they did this because they were out of options rather than trying to save time.

Every one of those nearly 600 men were in proximity to the place where the rape was committed at the time it was committed?

The rape was committed at her school. The campus is closed to the public, so under normal circumstances only faculty and students would have access to the grounds.

 LordofHats wrote:

The rape was committed at her school. The campus is closed to the public, so under normal circumstances only faculty and students would have access to the grounds.

And they haven't bothered checking to see who was in class during that time? Who was involved in extracurricular activities (sports, drama club, etc). The attendance rolls for that day would be a huge source of information that would help the police narrow their search from 500+ to something much lower. I can understand that after 6 months, they want to get some results, but 500+ people is too wide of a net to cast. If they narrowed it down to 20-ish people who couldn't account for their whereabouts at the time of the rape, I'd have a lot less problem, because it would show that they were at least aware of basic investigative procedures. Also, if they didtched that "anyone who refuses is automatically a suspect" line of fearmongering I'd think more highly of them. It's not a "voluntary" action when the alternative to giving your DNA is for the police to scrutinize you for the crime of not surrendering your privacy rights.

squidhills wrote:


And they haven't bothered checking to see who was in class during that time?

If they started the investigation 6 months go they probably did it ages ago.

The attendance rolls for that day would be a huge source of information that would help the police narrow their search from 500+ to something much lower.

Really? When you go to school how many people are absent on a given day? Maybe two, three? According to articles the 527 being tested are only those confirmed on campus at time of the rape. It would be stupid to even bother asking people confirmed not to be present on the day of the attack (though at this point, maybe followups on that are warranted)

I can understand that after 6 months, they want to get some results, but 500+ people is too wide of a net to cast.

If it were a public space I'd agree, but its not.

If they narrowed it down to 20-ish people who couldn't account for their whereabouts at the time of the rape, I'd have a lot less problem, because it would show that they were at least aware of basic investigative procedures.

Effectively impossible apparently. Police investigation isn't a prime time drama (except when it is, but then its fictional).

It's not a "voluntary" action when the alternative to giving your DNA is for the police to scrutinize you for the crime of not surrendering your privacy rights.

They're already being scrutinized for the crime, so... It's hard to threaten someone with something you're already doing.

squidhills wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

The rape was committed at her school. The campus is closed to the public, so under normal circumstances only faculty and students would have access to the grounds.

And they haven't bothered checking to see who was in class during that time? Who was involved in extracurricular activities (sports, drama club, etc). The attendance rolls for that day would be a huge source of information that would help the police narrow their search from 500+ to something much lower. I can understand that after 6 months, they want to get some results, but 500+ people is too wide of a net to cast. If they narrowed it down to 20-ish people who couldn't account for their whereabouts at the time of the rape, I'd have a lot less problem, because it would show that they were at least aware of basic investigative procedures. Also, if they didtched that "anyone who refuses is automatically a suspect" line of fearmongering I'd think more highly of them. It's not a "voluntary" action when the alternative to giving your DNA is for the police to scrutinize you for the crime of not surrendering your privacy rights.

By checking the registers you see who was in school at the time: these are the people who you would get the DNA samples off of.
School registers (In my experience at least) don't account for people going to the toilets or people on free periods etc and friends will quite often cover for absent friends as well

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:


By checking the registers you see who was in school at the time: these are the people who you would get the DNA samples off of.
School registers (In my experience at least) don't account for people going to the toilets or people on free periods etc and friends will quite often cover for absent friends as well

No, but interviewing teachers and staff sure as heck helps cut down numbers for both teachers and kids.

But hey, I guess a mass DNA test is easier, right?

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. There's also no 'need' for you to hold the door for someone with their hands full, or help an elderly person who has just fallen over to stand up, or offer first aid to someone who has been in an accident.

I am under no obligation to help in any of the above cases. Furthermore none of the above cases relate to a government storing my DNA, or other personal data. As such they are inappropriate comparisons.

 insaniak wrote:
To return to that other chestnut from the start of the thread, though, turn it around. How would you feel if it was your daughter who was raped, and the perpetrator wasn't caught because the person who saw it happen decided to exercise their 'right' to not speak to police?

Appeal to emotion. Appeal dismissed

 LordofHats wrote:
They're already suspects. She was raped on campus. The campus is closed to the public. Unless someone broke in, there only a set number of people who could have committed the crime which is how they got permission from the magistrate to go ahead with this plan.

You appear to be confusing under investigation, and being a suspect. Two different things as was previously outlined.

 LordofHats wrote:
That no one matched presents a serious problem for the investigation. Someone got onto the campus from outside, or there's someone on the campus who avoided anyone knowing they were present (everyone the police expected to be present volunteered apparently).

So the rights of 500 people, including hundreds of minors, were violated and the police have nothing to show for it. What a fantastic use of public funds and police time.

 LordofHats wrote:
Its hard to overstate how ridiculous people are about that word.

You mean being a suspect? Here is a little experiment, next gathering were you are with people you don't know drop into casual conversation that you are a suspect in an active child rape investigation. Let us know what the reaction is.

 LordofHats wrote:
The NSA doesn't define the whole of the government because most of the government doesn't have a free pass to keep anything secret.

How about the IRS then? Another government body that holds confidential material, but provided it to political opponents of certain groups. Starting to see a pattern? Or how about a whistleblower that decides to leak information (like medical details) from the DNA database? Because we all know that could never happen

 LordofHats wrote:
The defining debate of American politics in the 21st century is going to be liberty vs security (not that it hasn't always been there, but we've been big on equality the last century). We could be cheeky and point out that PRISM shows progress on that front. Everyone's rights were equally violated

PRISM showed that once the government gets power and "useless" information, as you described it, they are staunch in their refusal to relinquish it

 LordofHats wrote:
In France they don't seem to have probable cause (well they have something like it, but the standard for exercising police power seems lower, but the standard of evidence to go to trial is much higher than here.

Cool. Remember how the OP asked us to relate this case to beyond France? And we've been discussing the UK's approach to DNA retention, and the US's predilection for violating its citizen's rights?

 LordofHats wrote:
As for the US, the police are free to use your refusal against you. They can be biased as they want (makes for a bad cop but they can do it). We have warrants for that and a police bias isn't enough to get one. The law gives you the right to say no, it doesn't protect you from being asked questions or from other people being asked questions about you. You have every right to refuse and the police are completely within their powers to follow up on that. Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd.

Another fine strawman you're building there

 LordofHats wrote:
All the suspicion in the world means jack without evidence. Hence why being suspect doesn't mean what you think it means.

You might remember my constant references to the social stigma of being branded a suspect in a child rape cases. If you have not read them already you may wish to do so

 LordofHats wrote:
The approach is that the police have to investigate the school. Even if the perpetrator isn't there they still have to rule everyone because at trial they can't have the accused saying they didn't do it, so and so did it, and the police not knowing what so and so was doing or where they were. If the police are going to investigate you anyway (and they will) its not coercive to tell you that they are going to investigate you and 499 other people but if you want you can skip the whole thing by volunteering DNA. That's 100% legal here. It happens two or three times a year.

So you do understand the differences between investigating a crime and labeling someone a suspect. Good, I'd hate to have to repeat the conversation yet again. Shame it seems that we might have to repeat the distinction between volunteering and being coerced

 LordofHats wrote:
No it doesn't. The police practically need no evidence to suspect someone. You're protected from potential bias by warrants and probable cause. The police can suspect you all day long. They can tell everyone you're suspected (though that's libel to be grounds for a civil suit these days, so they'd be foolish to say it) and it's legal.

No. The police need reasonable grounds for suspicion.

 LordofHats wrote:
Police aren't accountable for the idiocy of the masses.

So you are aware of the social stigma, glad we cleared that up
I don't recall saying that they were. What I did say thought was that there was a serious social stigma attached to being a suspect in a child rape case, something that I am sure the police are more than well aware of.

 LordofHats wrote:
France apparently isn't as heavy on it. And as I said before US jurisdictions don't even like the word anymore for this exact reason. But because people are idiots (so says the great Gregory House), I doubt changing what we call it will really help.

You remember when the discussion went beyond the limits of just discussing the matter in relation to France? The horse is long bolted from that stable


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Police interviews can take hours. Collecting DNA takes all of fifteen seconds.

How long does it take to analyze? What is the cost to the public? How much time was wasted on this DNA collection, and what leads have gone cold because of it?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You appear to be confusing under investigation, and being a suspect. Two different things as was previously outlined.

Except they aren't (not in France anyway, in the US the difference is marginal). Being a suspect just means the police have reason to suspect you. Since there's no court oversight on what that means (suspect has no specific legal meaning in investigations) it means just about everything under the sun or whatever a department has decided they want it to mean.

You mean being a suspect? Here is a little experiment, next gathering were you are with people you don't know drop into casual conversation that you are a suspect in an active child rape investigation. Let us know what the reaction is.

Yeah. I expect them to irrationally jump to conclusions, but everyone else is already doing that here so...

How about the IRS then? Another government body that holds confidential material, but provided it to political opponents of certain groups.

It's almost like my theory of the inevitability of corruption has mountains of useable examples

Cool. Remember how the OP asked us to relate this case to beyond France? And we've been discussing the UK's approach to DNA retention, and the US's predilection for violating its citizen's rights?

We are. Seaward asked about France specifically so I got curious and started looking it up. Might as well share

Another fine strawman you're building there

You're the one talking about how its coercive to tell people that refusal will make them suspect. Describing how that doesn't matter is as far from a straw man as one can get.

You might remember my constant references to the social stigma of being branded a suspect in a child rape cases. If you have not read them already you may wish to do so

Yeah. That's why policing are moving away from the word. Because people are stupid about it. You probably still see it a lot in reporting, and that's because reporters still use it (it's less wordy than person of interest). So feel free to blame the media.

So you do understand the differences between investigating a crime

I understand the difference between criminal investigations and people jumping to conclusions about what that entails.

Good, I'd hate to have to repeat the conversation yet again.

Hey, if that were an Olympic event, we'd both have the gold by now

No. The police need reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Only when they show up at court... Where suspect doesn't mean anything.

What I did say thought was that there was a serious social stigma attached to being a suspect in a child rape case, something that I am sure the police are more than well aware of.

And as I keep repeating over and over, police in the US are moving away from the word.

How long does it take to analyze?

If there were only 20 people (as suggested by another above), I'd consider blanket testing a waste of time. The testing becomes more useful the more people are involved. If there's too few people, the time saved isn't worth it. You'd probably need to go up to about 100 till I started considering that blanket testing was cost/time worthwhile.

Ohhhhh....so long as there are TONS of people to blanket DNA test we're good.

So if there were 2000 people, it would be an even better to DNA test everyone or else label them suspect.

Gotcha.

DNA test the entire city! Rule people out! For the greater good!

 cincydooley wrote:
Ohhhhh....so long as there are TONS of people to blanket DNA test we're good.

So if there were 2000 people, it would be an even better to DNA test everyone or else label them suspect.

Gotcha.

DNA test the entire city! Rule people out! For the greater good!

Announcing DNA FASTPASS! For the low price of $20 you can deposit your own DNA to your local government building and avoid all the 'hassle' by police

 cincydooley wrote:
Ohhhhh....so long as there are TONS of people to blanket DNA test we're good.

In that case I'm not talking about legality/morality/ethics or whatever just practicality. Less than 'tons' of people and its just wasting money (like carpet bombing to hit 1 shake in the middle of a suburb. Waste of resources issue).

Thanks for proving my point about irrational jumping to conclusions though

I just expanded upon the scenario that you presented. 20 is too few. 100 is better. Therefore, 2000 must be great.

 cincydooley wrote:
I just expanded upon the scenario that you presented. 20 is too few. 100 is better. Therefore, 2000 must be great.

And the point continues to be missed.

squidhills wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the reports it is clearly stated that the rape took place six months ago and the police have been driven to the DNA testing because they have exhausted other means.

After six months of work, they haven't managed to eliminate anyone in the student body at all? Every one of those nearly 600 men were in proximity to the place where the rape was committed at the time it was committed?

I suggest you ask the prosecutor who is investigating the case.

Do you require 10%, or 15% perhaps of the total group of possible suspects to have been exonerated by some type of solid alibi, to make it all right to test the rest of them?

 LordofHats wrote:
Except they aren't (not in France anyway, in the US the difference is marginal). Being a suspect just means the police have reason to suspect you. Since there's no court oversight on what that means (suspect has no specific legal meaning in investigations) it means just about everything under the sun or whatever a department has decided they want it to mean.

1) We're talking in relation to the US, and have been for quite some time
2) We have already covered the difference between being a suspect and being under investigation

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. I expect them to irrationally jump to conclusions, but everyone else is already doing that here so...

Oh good. So you are aware of the social stigma, and the consequences that may occur if labeled a suspect in a child rape case. Then it is fair to say that the police also know of this, and how persuasive it may be in getting people to provide DNA.
BTW, basing a healthy suspicion on government on plenty of past examples is not "irrationally jump to conclusions". This was already covered when you made accusations of paranoia.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's almost like my theory of the inevitability of corruption has mountains of useable examples

In that case you should have no problem understanding why people would be skeptical of giving the government even more power

 LordofHats wrote:
We are. Seaward asked about France specifically so I got curious and started looking it up. Might as well share

Cool. I'm not Seaward though. He is an aviator and probably more handsome than I (although I get points with the ladies for the accent )

 LordofHats wrote:
You're the one talking about how its coercive to tell people that refusal will make them suspect. Describing how that doesn't matter is as far from a straw man as one can get.

The line "Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd." is what I was most strenuously objecting to as it was as far removed from what I was saying.
Yes, the police may make inferrences from your silence or refusal to submit to DNA testing. But that in itself does not establish probable cause. Other factors would need to be present also e.g. eyewitnesses placing you at the scene, circumstantial evidence linking you to the crime scene. Merely being in the same building is a stretch too far

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. That's why policing are moving away from the word. Because people are stupid about it. You probably still see it a lot in reporting, and that's because reporters still use it (it's less wordy than person of interest). So feel free to blame the media.

So you understand the stigma then, and why it can be a coercive tool in such an investigation

 LordofHats wrote:
I understand the difference between criminal investigations and people jumping to conclusions about what that entails.

If you're going to reply at least have the courtesy to respond to the entire thing and not take a sentence out of context.

 LordofHats wrote:
Only when they show up at court... Where suspect doesn't mean anything.

No. The police need reasonable grounds for suspicion. For a criminal charge in court they must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. The second sentence in that quote is redundant as if a person has been charged they have gone from being the suspect to being the accused

 LordofHats wrote:
And as I keep repeating over and over, police in the US are moving away from the word.

Cool. Repeat the social experiment I mentioned prior and substitute person of interest for suspect

 LordofHats wrote:
If there were only 20 people (as suggested by another above), I'd consider blanket testing a waste of time. The testing becomes more useful the more people are involved. If there's too few people, the time saved isn't worth it. You'd probably need to go up to about 100 till I started considering that blanket testing was cost/time worthwhile.

That's funny, I consider blanket testing a serious breach of individual liberties as by its very nature it is taking place without establishing probable cause.
Where did you pull the number 20 from? What if you do not have 100 people who were in the vicinity? Do you widen the search net to benefit from the supposed economies of scale? If so how far? Building? Block? County? State? Country?

Oh, and you may have missed the questions from the rest for that quote you cut short; "What is the cost to the public? How much time was wasted on this DNA collection, and what leads have gone cold because of it?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you require 10%, or 15% perhaps of the total group of possible suspects to have been exonerated by some type of solid alibi, to make it all right to test the rest of them?

No. I require the police to show probable cause


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
In that case I'm not talking about legality/morality/ethics or whatever just practicality. Less than 'tons' of people and its just wasting money (like carpet bombing to hit 1 shake in the middle of a suburb. Waste of resources issue).

Thanks for proving my point about irrational jumping to conclusions though

Except for the fact that cincydooley's post was not irrational. Your post as it stood was extolling the virtues of as wide a blanket as possible for DNA (which, out of 500 people still produced no results BTW)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

2) We have already covered the difference between being a suspect and being under investigation

No you've insinuated a difference where one doesn't really exist.

BTW, basing a healthy suspicion on government on plenty of past examples is not "irrationally jump to conclusions".

People taking a drone that wakes a wide area picture and then zooms in on a crime and making wild rants about how the government is going to start scanning everyone's faces and putting them in a facial recognition database, is a pretty irrational jump in logic. Likewise, people make the irrational logical jump that if the government has your DNA, they'll do something with it. Like what? CODIS has been around for over a decade and thus far there's never been a major scandal with its use and it contains murders, rapists, and other people no one gives a damn about.

What happens to often in the US is that the government does something and people lose their minds talking about all the things that might happen instead of what is happening. Sometimes its mild and understandable, other times is completely flying rodent gak insane.

The line "Acting like the police shouldn't do that is absurd, and acting like that'll immediately lead to your door being busted in or being arrested is more absurd."

You base your concerns on government abuse of power. What abuse? What do you think is going happen? They'll keep your DNA and never let it go? To what end? That's not a question about whether its moral or legal for them to keep it, merely a question of what you think they'll do with it?

Yes, the police may make inferrences from your silence or refusal to submit to DNA testing. But that in itself does not establish probable cause. Other factors would need to be present also

Yeah I just said that. They can suspect you all day long and with no evidence to put grounds on that suspicion, they can't go to court and get anything (unless the Judge is crazy, which is a legitimate concern cause we have a lot of crazy judges and getting rid of them is a complete pain in the ass).

So you understand the stigma then, and why it can be a coercive tool in such an investigation

It's only coercive (again) if they weren't already looking at you. All it is is getting upset at the word used, not what the police are actually doing, and in the US when I look up these things the police don't use the word. They simply say they'll check up on people who refuse, which sounds a little nicer, but is frankly the exact same thing.

So again. People get butt hurt over that word.

For a criminal charge in court they must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime.

Being suspect != accused in court in any US jurisdictions. This logic is completely circular. The police need a suspect before they can go to court and argue probable cause. If they can't have a suspect without probable cause they'd never solve any crime anywhere.

Your post as it stood was extolling the virtues

It was extolling cost effectiveness, which has no connection to legality, morality, or any other ity about the valid use of government power. Lots of things that are cost effective are illegal and should be (killing all our convicts for example, would be far more cost effective than housing them for 30 year runs on their private stash, but that seems like a overreaction... Like 30 year sentences for private stashes).

My typical assumption in politics is that the side with the least irrational argument wins (cause there are no rational arguments in politics ). You want to know why security has been winning the last 14 years? Exposing noble ideals about rights and liberty make for good sound bites, but they don't make anyone feel safer. When you move away from lofty ideals and go to Irrationally jumping to conclusions, well, those people who want to feel safer just see crazy.

If people want liberty to win, they need more perspective than I'm seeing in this thread.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:


By checking the registers you see who was in school at the time: these are the people who you would get the DNA samples off of.
School registers (In my experience at least) don't account for people going to the toilets or people on free periods etc and friends will quite often cover for absent friends as well

In every high school I have been to, attendance was taken before every class; if someone was late arriving, it would be noted. While you couldn't account for people going to the bathroom, you could at least see who was late going from one class to the next (assuming the rape occurred between classes) and maybe find a few more likely suspects that way. Or you could see who had a hole in their schedule. I've seen high schools where some students had a study period in the middle of the day, and often were permitted to take that period in the library, rather than a classroom... if something like that is present in this case, maybe someone in a mid-day study period could have opportunity and would be worth looking at. What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.

squidhills wrote:
. What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.

Which begs the question: are the police in this case actually as incompetent as some people seem to wasn't to believe, or was there a reason that narrowing things down in this fashion wasn't possible...?

 insaniak wrote:

squidhills wrote:
. What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.

Which begs the question: are the police in this case actually as incompetent as some people seem to wasn't to believe, or was there a reason that narrowing things down in this fashion wasn't possible...?

Narrowing it down as far as 527 people(according to the article in the OP) is kind of impressive to begin with--especially considering it is a school of 1300 students.
From the numbers given in the article that was 475 male pupils, 31 staff members, and 21 "other employees"(most likely janitorial/upkeep staff) who were all known/supposed to be on the premises at the time of the attack.

In regards to how the actual investigation is being handled, it seems like this is kind of a last ditch thing to try to smoke out anyone they were not originally looking at. When they're trying to match "trace amounts of genetic material", there is going to be serious issues since the samples could be degraded or just not useful at all...but the magic words "genetic material" can make otherwise careful assailants slip up royally trying to cover their traces.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

squidhills wrote:
. What I'm trying to say is that with 24 hours, the attendance rolls for the day the rape happened, and an Excel spreadsheet, I could narrow the search down to less than 572 people, and I'm not a cop.

Which begs the question: are the police in this case actually as incompetent as some people seem to wasn't to believe, or was there a reason that narrowing things down in this fashion wasn't possible...?

Narrowing it down as far as 527 people(according to the article in the OP) is kind of impressive to begin with--especially considering it is a school of 1300 students.
From the numbers given in the article that was 475 male pupils, 31 staff members, and 21 "other employees"(most likely janitorial/upkeep staff) who were all known/supposed to be on the premises at the time of the attack.

The only narrowing down they did was take out the females. EVERY male student or staff member was tested.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is the UK case I was thinking of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork

5,000 local men were voluntarily screened. The rapist/murderer paid a colleague £200 to give a sample for him, but that guy was overheard boasting about it and a woman reported it to the police.

It seems to me that rather than being considered a suspect, the people who are screened are merely being eliminated from the enquiry, similar to if you took a statement from them, to establish their alibi, and then checked all the alibis.

By screening everyone, no-one is singled out as a specific suspect. To refuse to be screened is obviously suspicious because the DNA is such a direct piece of physical evidence in the case.

But your singling out males as suspects, change male to white, black, arabs or chinese instead.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
But your singling out males as suspects, ....

That tends to happen when a woman is raped by a man.