Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Someone should have told him ...

it only works in the movies.
A doctor in Saskatchewan who planted a tube in his arm filled with someone else's blood to try to avoid a conviction for sexual assault has been deported.
The Zambian-born doctor had been ordered deported in June.

He was convicted in 1999 for two sexual assaults and of obstructing justice.

When investigators accused Schneeberger of sexual assault in 1992 and took blood samples from him, the DNA didn't match that from the crime scene.

Schneeberger had planted a plastic tube filled with someone else's blood in his arm. When he was ordered to provide a blood sample, he offered to do the procedure himself and took it from the plastic tube in his arm instead of from his vein.

Allegations from another victim eventually led to Schneeberger's 1999 conviction.
I recall how improbable was the scene (in gattaca ) where Ethan Hawke's character, Vincent, jerked away while having his blood drawn, substituting a syringe of Jerome's (Jude Law) blood, in a continuing effort to conceal his true identity. Yet, it would appear (insofar as this report indicates) that the good doctor got away with the substitution as well. Nevermind that allowing a suspect to collect his own sample is akin to, I don't know, maybe allowing a defendant to try on a bloody glove over a pair of latex gloves in front of a jury. Stupidity aside, where were they when he was collecting the blood? The article implies that he had 'internally' planted the tube in his arm. Were that the case, there would have had to have been an exposed incision. Why? First, if the blood remained in his arm long enough for healing to have occurred, the blood would have been severely hemolyzed - something that should have been noticed. Second, if the needle had to pass through his DNA-rich skin to reach the blood in the tube, the sample likely would have appeared as a contaminated sample with his own profile represented as a minor component of a mixture, which someone should have detected. On the other hand, if a portion of the tube were 'exposed' one would expect that the 'witness' (of which there should have been at least one) might have notice the incision etc., and might have wondered why the doctor would choose such a site for sample collection. Somebody should have had some serious 'xplainin' to do.


Post a Comment

<< Home