Body discovery and poor disposal practices enable law enforcement to be successful in weeding out some serial killers.
Shouldn't meat slicing machines be registered?
If not...why not?
.
2007-11-12 01:00:53 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The Rival Meat slicer Model 1101E/4 works nicely and does a wide variety of slicing chores.
2007-11-12 01:05:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If anything, a meat slicer will just leave more forensic evidence to find. And a meat slicer won't handle the hardest part of rendering any animal, the bone.
There would be as much point in registering knives, meat cleavers, food processors, axes and wood chippers as there would in registering meat slicers. Which is to say, pretty pointless.
2007-11-12 01:13:20 · answer #2 · answered by curtisports2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say FALSE, with todays forensic science, it does not take much to figure out how a person was killed. Once it is determined that a meat slicer was used it is then only a matter of time before the person is caught. There was once a serial killer that killed girls that went to US Santa Cruz, he cut their bodies up and disposed of them all over the county. He later gave himself up and may have never been caught or suspected except that he also killed his mother and her friend.
2007-11-12 01:17:40 · answer #3 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
OK, now they have taken a 200lb person and created 200lbs of cold cuts. Now what einstein? You are also leaving out the little fact of bone. How do you propose a meat slicer slice all the bone involved?? Also, much of the human body involves spaces, which also wouldn't make a meat slicer work to well.
I can't believe I am actaully justifying this moronic question.
2007-11-12 01:16:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They would be caught, even better. There would be victims DNA all over the blades. Meat slicer being registered would make it more likely, not less, that the serial killer would be caught.
2007-11-12 01:12:23 · answer #5 · answered by danashelchan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, maximum serial killers are between the a while of 20 to 40, i might say. a serial killer will initiate killing at an early age - jeff dahmer replaced into 18, richard ramirez replaced into in his early 20s, ted bundy replaced into in his early Nineteen Twenties, joel rifkin replaced into in his 20s, and so on. a number of them get caught whilst they are older, yet maximum of them initiate killing whilst they are of their 20s. its real, they are often white adult males, tho` there have been females serial killers, Aileen Wourons is quite well known. a number of them are black, or the different ethnicity - China has its share of killers, we could no longer forget approximately Thug Bethram in India - he replaced right into a prolific serial killer, they think of he has killed thousands of youngsters. Richard Ramirez and Luis Garavito (lower back a murderer of two-3 hundred) have been Hispanic.
2016-10-16 05:45:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Grow up
2007-11-12 01:27:56 · answer #7 · answered by jennyღ 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
love the question....i think maybe false nobody can make that many sandwiches...and no how else are you going to get rid of people you dont like?
2007-11-12 01:25:47 · answer #8 · answered by Lee J 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Are you being serious?
2007-11-12 01:14:26 · answer #9 · answered by *Almost ready* 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋