I'm a longtime lurker of this website but have yet to create an LJ so i'll have to do this as an anon.
My main character has some kind of illness, one that he's had since late childhood (details are fuzzy as to how he came upon it. Can be genetic or contracted, doesn't really matter). He's now 20. The symptoms are vomiting blood (reddish, not coffee-ground, so it's from the upper GI tract) and severe abdominal pain, possibly combined with fever. What I need is a cause for these symptoms. Is there anything that would plausibly cause all of these things as a chronic illness?
I'm an EMT-B, so I've got some experience from that, and I've done some searching around on medical websites and wikipedia for the symptoms but have yet to be successful.
I have searched via Google for "Vietnam, draft, officer, white, percentage" and "Vietnam, fighter pilot, percentage, educated". Also "youngest Colonel" and "Colonel during Wartime" and "definition War." Somehow I do not get the sort of information/answer I want and before I email the armed forces, I hope someone here can answer.
My two main questions are:
1. How likely is it that certain demographic groups of people ended up serving in Vietnam?
I did read once, that only a set amount (30% of all drafted/serving men, I think, but am not sure) of soldiers (of any kind) ended up in Vietnam, and that this percentage was unevenly distributed race and education-wise as compared to the whole armed forces. I can't find these data again.
How likely is it that a white male, upper middle-class, well-educated (college, university, degree), fighter pilot, wants to become an astronaut, born around 1940-1942, not keen on serving in Vietnam, would end up being drafted there?
2. What was the youngest full bird Colonel during wartime? I seem to stumble across contradictory data.
I'm seeking the extreme there, the absolute youngest as a result of enemy action and smart career moves prior to that. Also, how likely would it be, if e.g. the enemy action was kept under wraps, that his promotion would be open to research (some 30 years ago)? Is there a career move or other means which could cover this up so the general public would not be astonished, e.g. some specific mission or becoming representant within NATO or something?
I'm not looking - in both cases - for standard fare, I am looking for the extreme which still is plausible enough to be believable.
Setting: New York, 2011 (or 2000, if absolutely necessary for this to work legally, though I'd really rather it be current)
Search terms: dna profiling, dna fingerprint, dna profile removal from national database, dna profile removal from CODIS database, dna profile removal in New York, what happens to evidence after acquittal, what happens to evidence after found not guilty, what happens to evidence when a case is closed, etc, etc.
I have a character that has been charged of murder, but acquitted at trial. Presumably, their dna and fingerprints would have been collected over the course of the investigation. Within two years of the acquittal, I need their dna profile/fingerprint profile removed or inaccessible. Basically, both the original dna sample and the documentation of their dna profile and fingerprints cannot be available for comparison later on. So,
Question 1: Where would the original sample be stored? The lab? The police station evidence room? Etc.
Question 2: Is there any way to get their dna profile and fingerprints removed from the database or at least made inaccessible after their acquittal (preferably within two years)? I know (through research) that in the past, some states would be automatically responsible for removing a person's profile from the national database upon acquittal or dismissal of the case.
If removal (even with a defense petition and court order) is implausible, is there any situation the accused's dna would not have been collected during the investigation? Keeping in mind, the accused was a close friend of the victim, and spent significant time with them, so of course their dna would be all over the victim just by default.
If it makes any difference to this answer, the accused did commit the murder; they just got off during trial. The case simply wasn't strong enough.
The most important thing is that the suspect's dna not be available for comparison during further investigation into the case. Please, reliable, knowledgeable answers. It's been very hard to find out just how an investigation like this would work, and how the profile would be removed from the database. Thanks.