Scientist Tests Husband's DNA, Fidelity

Scientist Tests Husband's DNA, Fidelity

There are 29 comments on the The Associated Press story from Jul 3, 2007, titled Scientist Tests Husband's DNA, Fidelity . In it, The Associated Press reports that:

A state forensics scientist who said she tested DNA in her husband's underwear to find out whether he was cheating could be disciplined if investigators determine she violated the use of state equipment.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Associated Press.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Alison

District Heights, MD

#25 Jul 4, 2007
One person does not cause the other to cheat. And it has nothing to do w/ being energetic in the bedroom. The cheater is usually afraid to face up to commitment or some emotional connection w/ his partner and seeks out a cheap thrill that involves a lack of emotional connection. So don't blame the victim. Blame the deceitful, lying two-timer who is too weak to face some emotional issues in his relationship, and instead chooses to hurt his partner, and he's probably making all kinds of pathetic promises to the woman he's cheating w/ and she'll eventually feel rejected when that relationship doesn't work out. But put blame where it's due, not on the woman who was cheated on.
Ranger Tim

United States

#26 Jul 4, 2007
Why in the world would this poor woman be investigated and "disciplined" just because she has the means and knowledge to prove her husband's infidelity? What's the investigation for? Both partners acknowledge this guy's infidelity. How much of the tax payers money will be spent on this fools errand? Obviously, the Michigan State Police have too much time on their hands and no motivation to conduct investigations into real criminal activity.
Bel Gazou

United States

#27 Jul 4, 2007
I hope that some enterprising company will offer the service or come up with a home test that you can buy. It's a lot cheaper than hiring a P.I. and more conclusive.
Old Dog

Albuquerque, NM

#28 Jul 4, 2007
Although she is "on Duty", and she is a "good one" scientist...SHE IS A PUBLIC SERVANT with the all 9 yards of regulation and ethic rules attached with her contract when she signed in...Immagines...The Frustrated FBI agent, the DOD "Victim", the CIA agent who don't get his promotion, the "Soldier"...And so on..Then what???... ALL OF THEM WILL BREAK THE RULES as they may need it???...Lives and results depend of these highly qualified people's Ethic. Her husband did not commit a public crime deseving a CSI. Period.
Please don't serve with male or female situation or feeling: it is the rules.
If her husband want to sue her...It is indeed his right...At that point the Court will decide!...If he is wrong he will pay the price too!.
Besrat wrote:
It is upto the Police Department to sue her but I beleive she is still on duty on the cheating husbands case.He has no right to procecute her.She is on duty as precious sceintiest spending more of her time for public service while the other body is cheating.I think she need a pardon.
Bel Gazou

New York, NY

#29 Jul 4, 2007
So the state should charge her for use of the chemicals and the equipment and be done with it.
Bald Eagle

United States

#30 Jul 5, 2007
Bel Gazou wrote:
So the state should charge her for use of the chemicals and the equipment and be done with it.
THE article clearly stated that she was OFF duty & That the chemicals she used were to be thrown away. Where's the crime?

“Nice Gloomy, Spooky Day”

Since: Apr 07

Uniondale , NY (Nassau Cty)

#31 Jul 6, 2007
Just An Observer wrote:
Maybe in the future they'll have an over-the-counter DNA test. LOL! She's in the wrong marriage if she doesn't trust her spouse.
That is cool!!! Over the counter "Swingin Willy Buster".
Bel Gazou

New York, NY

#32 Jul 6, 2007
Bald Eagle wrote:
<quoted text> THE article clearly stated that she was OFF duty & That the chemicals she used were to be thrown away. Where's the crime?
The article clearly stated that it was SHE who claimed that she was off duty and using chemicals that were slated to be discarded. She probably cannot prove either. Also, the state code prohibits personal use of either the equipment or the supplies whether it be on/off duty. Instead of making a big braciola about it, I think that they should just charge her for the equipment and supplies used and for the time she spent using it should she not be able to prove that she was off duty.
Mig

Murfreesboro, TN

#33 Aug 12, 2007
well thats it I guess no more playing cards on the police cars laptop or playing with the GPS or maybe having a crush on someone and looking them up etc.... Tell me this.
If you could zoom in on a house or car or building and really see whats going on inside behind the doors and walls, Would you?
Well its already been done and is going on, so how far do you take this.
Watch how it turns out, Its now being closed down.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Okemos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News MSU Gets Anonymous $1 Million Gift For Gay Center (Jul '14) 56 min WATCHING LIVONIA 40
$38 Billion to Israel, Israeli Firm pays $30 MI... Jan 12 NO Free pass 1
Oig extrme audit Jan 6 Pat kruchel RPH 2
TRUMP GOLFING 1 YEAR: Taxpayers paid $ 43,000,000 Jan 2 Republicans Shill... 2
Review: Mutt And Jeff Painting LLC (Jun '14) Dec 27 Landlordman 20
Dirty Cops in Lansing (Sep '06) Dec 24 Joe McCarthy 104
News Chevy Ends SSR Pickup Production (Feb '06) May '17 mark beroth 47

Okemos Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Okemos Mortgages