From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 09:45:25 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j71DjOcW017980 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j71DjOPj017979 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:45:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Grunwald, Eric" Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 08:45:12 -0500 Message-Id: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B80345AAFA@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Per Capita Scientists Thread-Index: AcWWnz2XPpnzSAROQJeNYU2MER5ypg== From: "Grunwald, Eric" To: "Forens" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j71DjPcW017981 List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 10:47:30 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j71ElUcW020185 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j71ElT54020184 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:47:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:47:08 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j71ElUcW020186 Eric, By my projections, we have 1 scientist per 25, 000 people and 1 controlled substance analyst per 125, 000 persons. I am not sure if thsi is a true measure of resource allocation. I think the caseload may be more indicative as we have reduced service levels by curtailing certain analyses and dropping certain requirements in our analysis scheme to cope with demand. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Eric.Grunwald@state.mn.us 8/1/2005 6:45:12 AM >>> List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 13:26:05 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j71HQ5cW025153 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j71HQ5gI025151 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:26:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=2Py4ZwO8rEj1dp9fFv7NXAFpJY6n4t/D+mj2TB68s18dwf8lzlFWSGe1RErz5WaWEmPpilehyhk6UM2oRrug7bWmb5h9/x6Vxfv2/9cCExisEyA4ldWqEsk0/MYfwSefZyDtJ5P5TmbDlTfosdIr/KNOy7atX1ys/vBeeo2tRKk= ; Message-ID: <20050801172534.81567.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:25:34 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: [forens] DNA "Blends" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B80345AAFA@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have a question regarding "blending" of DNA and HLA-DQ Alpha profiles. The HLA-DQA types for each of the victims were: Victim #1 1.2, 4 Victim #2 4, 4 Victim #3 1.1, 4 Suspect #1 4, 4 Suspect #2 1.2, 4 Suspect #3 1.1, 4 Suspect #4 2, 3 HLA-DQ Alpha testing on a weapon resulted in a 1.1, 4. If the blood on the weapon was a "blend" of two of the victims, or all three victims, would the results have identified only one victim (1.1, 4)? In other words, could the reading of 4 indicate that blood from Victim #2 was also present on the knife. Additionally, could blood from Victim #1 (1.2, 4) also have been on the knife, but its detection was "obscured" by the 1.1 allele? Thanks to the DNA gurus for any help in advance. Sincerely, L. DeShong --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 14:03:19 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j71I3IcW026521 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j71I3I9D026520 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:03:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <42EE63E3.8020903@syr.edu> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:03:15 -0400 From: William Shields User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" References: <20050801172534.81567.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050801172534.81567.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You are correct in your conclusions. A result of 1.1,4 could include individuals with 4,4 and 1.2,4 neither of which would be obvious (4,4) or detectable 1.2,4) unless the amount of DNA from each donor was sufficient to result in obvious intensity differences in the dots. The best interpretation is no victim could be excluded. Bill Shields [EndPost by William Shields ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 14:04:32 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j71I4WcW026629 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j71I4W6E026628 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:04:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801105227.0342ceb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:03:36 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" In-Reply-To: <20050801172534.81567.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B80345AAFA@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> <20050801172534.81567.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 10:25 AM 8/1/2005, L DeShong wrote: >I have a question regarding "blending" of DNA and HLA-DQ Alpha profiles. > >The HLA-DQA types for each of the victims were: > >Victim #1 1.2, 4 >Victim #2 4, 4 >Victim #3 1.1, 4 > >HLA-DQ Alpha testing on a weapon resulted in a 1.1, 4. > >If the blood on the weapon was a "blend" of two of the victims, or all >three victims, would the results have identified only one victim (1.1, 4)? Some analysts are more or less comfortable making inferences about mixtures based on reaction intensities. That aside, the logic (i.e. binary interpretation) is that the kit is designed to decode any un-mixed type using control + these 8 tests: 1 = some version of 1 allele present 2 3 4 1.1 1.2 or 1.3 or 4 ("m") 1.3 all but 1.3 ("a") The various victims separately would give the responses: #1 (1.2, 4) 1+4 +m+a #2 (4,4) 4 +a #3 (1.1,4) 1+4+1.1+m+a So I understand the same as you; that the presence of #3 might mask #1 and/or #2. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 18:08:34 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j71M8YcW001413 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j71M8YNi001412 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:08:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:15:08 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <002501c596e6$7a046500$9100a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B80345AAFA@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2005 22:08:32.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E4FF890:01C596E5] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j71M8YcW001407 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 1 21:27:28 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j721RScW003395 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j721RSAS003394 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:27:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cDqSQU72GD7dvL1onb1NkrcL1dDEyzAsOMCg44RrFZuQQneDGaEVqDRkp3dE1exQjAPQJOMgAAAteKoVuwC96upQSLK2+LHKz66ddgM7Qzj1useMFiFdiO5PcsrSCXrplcGoGozMhSkfMmD5xxt1gRjaa5qocrCVSKcxT28HV0s= ; Message-ID: <20050802012043.86418.qmail@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:20:42 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801105227.0342ceb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear List, Sorry for the double post. I have no idea how that happened. Messrs. Shields (I hope I spelled that correctly) and Brenner, Thank you both for your responses. I presume that to know the real answer to the question, one would have to see the intensity of the reactions. Let me know if that's an incorrect presumption. Another question, is it possible or probable that the shared "profiles" of Victims and Suspects was the result of some error on the part of the DNA lab? Thanks, L. DeShong __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 00:35:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j724ZkcW005019 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 00:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j724ZkHL005018 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 00:35:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801211010.032132d0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:35:26 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" In-Reply-To: <20050802012043.86418.qmail@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801105227.0342ceb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> <20050802012043.86418.qmail@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 06:20 PM 8/1/2005, L DeShong wrote: >Another question, is it possible or probable that the shared "profiles" of >Victims and Suspects was the result of some error on the part of the DNA lab? Pardon if I seem to be pedantic, but this is one of those careful not to transpose the conditional situations. From the kind of data you have presented, one could never say that it is "probable" that some lab made an error. If the duplicated genotypes are rare then the chance of the results occurring "honestly" would be small and it would be cause for suspicion, but if the lab's (unknown) tendency to err is smaller still, the conclusion would be that there probably was no error. In fact, the genotypes in question are all common. In particular the allele 4 which occurs most repeatedly is the most common allele in the US -- 25%. The variants 1.1 and 1.2 are also common -- 10-15% among all alleles. I do not see cause for suspicion. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 09:01:37 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72D1bcW009279 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72D1bl4009278 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDAF2@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We have 25 permanent scientist positions in the laboratory servicing approximately 1.25 million people. Our lab consists of: Forensic Chemistry - Biological evidence screening through confirmation, trace evidence including hairs (limited), fibers and paints, and fire debris analysis 6 permanent positions - 1 Chemist III (supervisor), 1 Forensic Chemist II, 3 Forensic Chemist I's, 1 Forensic Chemist Technician. In addition, we have one FC I that is a temporary grant funded position. Forensic Biology - DNA analysis 4 permanent positions including 1 Supervisor and 3 Forensic DNA Analysts. In addition, we have 1 analyst and one technician that are temporary grant funded positions. Latent Prints - Fingerprints, footwear, tire impression and physical matching 3 permanent Forensic Scientist positions Firearms - Firearms, ballisitcs, tool mark and serial number restoration 1 permanent Forensic Scientist position and one part-time contract employee. In addition we have one part time temporary grant funded position for NIBIN entry. We do not do drugs or toxicology in our laboratory. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 09:27:15 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72DRFcW010716 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72DRFVt010714 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:27:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:27:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:42:25 -0400 From: "Thompson, Roger" Eric, We are a municipal Crime Laboratory with 4 county police townships on = service contracts. This laboratory Staffing is listed by assignment in the Excel = spreadsheet attachment. The Population we serve is approx. 785,000. >From the list you will see we have 3 full time Chemists, but only = analyzing cases papered and accepted by the District Attorney's Office. = So this limits the shotgun approach by 20% of all submitted drug cases. = The unit performs quantitative drug analysis- only, Tox. BA- only, Fire = debris, very few criminalistics cases (poison, qualitative = investigative, Homicide, Rape etc). =20 Hope this is of assistance? Roger C. Thompson Crime Laboratory Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 601 E. Trade St. Charlotte, N. C. 28202-2940 Office: 704-353-1100 Fax: 704-353-0088 E:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0rthompson@cmpd.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 application/vnd.ms-excel --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 11:02:15 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72F2FcW012787 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72F2Fdb012785 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:01:04 -0700 From: Josh Spatola Subject: Re: [forens] Per Capita Scientists To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? The Central Valley Criminalistics Laboratory for the California Department of Justice serves 5 counties which total approximately 1.46 million people. We have 24 technical staff (Criminalists & Senior Criminalists). There are other Crime Labs within the State of CA -DOJ system that serve those cities/counties who do not have their own crime labs (not sure what the numbers are for them). For our lab, we comprise one analyst for every (approximately) 60,000 citizens. 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Nearly everyone in the laboratory is proficient in controlled substances analysis, but we have a rotating groups of 3 - in that there are 3 Criminalists working in the controlled substances section (which also comprises Clan Labs) at any given time. That's one analyst for every 485,000 people. Hope this info helps... Josh ***************************************** Joshua S. Spatola, Criminalist California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services Central Valley Laboratory 1306 Hughes Lane Ripon, CA 95366 ***************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Josh Spatola ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 14:49:45 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72InjcW016414 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72InjNv016413 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:49:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:49:25 -0400 Message-Id: <8C765AA0A0D3A5F-C4-6A9C@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> From: mphill9929@aol.com References: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDAF2@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDAF2@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.13360 Subject: Re: [forens] Per Capita Scientists MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.219 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gretchen, Has your lab ever performed diatom testing on a drowned victim? Have your fingerprint techs ever sucessfully tested and retrieved latent prints on item(s) that had been submerged? I am researching both topics and have found very few case studies or histories. Anything you could relate in regard to evidence obtained underwater would be a big help. Thanks, Mark Phillips PSDiver Monthly mphill9929@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Hicks, Gretchen D To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Sent: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:31 -0400 Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have 25 permanent scientist positions in the laboratory servicing approximately 1.25 million people. Our lab consists of: Forensic Chemistry - Biological evidence screening through confirmation, trace evidence including hairs (limited), fibers and paints, and fire debris analysis 6 permanent positions - 1 Chemist III (supervisor), 1 Forensic Chemist II, 3 Forensic Chemist I's, 1 Forensic Chemist Technician. In addition, we have one FC I that is a temporary grant funded position. Forensic Biology - DNA analysis 4 permanent positions including 1 Supervisor and 3 Forensic DNA Analysts. In addition, we have 1 analyst and one technician that are temporary grant funded positions. Latent Prints - Fingerprints, footwear, tire impression and physical matching 3 permanent Forensic Scientist positions Firearms - Firearms, ballisitcs, tool mark and serial number restoration 1 permanent Forensic Scientist position and one part-time contract employee. In addition we have one part time temporary grant funded position for NIBIN entry. We do not do drugs or toxicology in our laboratory. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by mphill9929@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 16:44:34 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72KiYcW018870 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72KiYes018869 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:44:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ijJ1LJRd2ouLPUE6k+zZEryIb5ll2+kMp+SEx7ifFaioXHizEXXdTTjzghkjs7zV07MS9VaD6Ohfpd3cYsp4KqH+romUonLSn2gwbrjAMqkl2mQ88TK/PsuNw/txDb8JabOJiVMWwFdRN1+ibMPc3wsUAE+qUXDYBfDRHWG7pME= ; Message-ID: <20050802204414.70966.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801211010.032132d0@calmail.berkeley.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks, Mr. Brenner. I do not believe there was an error, due to the latter portion of your posts. Others involved in case discussion in another forum have alleged error and asserted that the shared genotype results are impossible. I sincerely apprecieate your help. Sincerely, L. Deshong Charles Brenner wrote: At 06:20 PM 8/1/2005, L DeShong wrote: >Another question, is it possible or probable that the shared "profiles" of >Victims and Suspects was the result of some error on the part of the DNA lab? Pardon if I seem to be pedantic, but this is one of those careful not to transpose the conditional situations. From the kind of data you have presented, one could never say that it is "probable" that some lab made an error. If the duplicated genotypes are rare then the chance of the results occurring "honestly" would be small and it would be cause for suspicion, but if the lab's (unknown) tendency to err is smaller still, the conclusion would be that there probably was no error. In fact, the genotypes in question are all common. In particular the allele 4 which occurs most repeatedly is the most common allele in the US -- 25%. The variants 1.1 and 1.2 are also common -- 10-15% among all alleles. I do not see cause for suspicion. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 16:47:36 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72KlacW019237 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72KlamE019236 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:47:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SCa75Cy6LzBQBuHdYonKxjJs+vIRhV43NY0eZPglisnBUSuGvWLeD5xo/K9XBPEoNNpDQYjFlrA6kYqPWaYMaRaM2nwEDUTDDw9vPQ/khbkXqJEhqTCOgsVdjH9xLgNxsfJuNv6GsoyIEHEH6sprafVxv9Cl8S9gX1zzbRh62/0= ; Message-ID: <20050802204731.79673.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:47:31 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801211010.032132d0@calmail.berkeley.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mr. Brenner, Pardon the private eMail, but I forgot an important question. Is there an online resource available that provides the frequency of the alleles as you cited them in your response? Thanks, L. DeShong Charles Brenner wrote: At 06:20 PM 8/1/2005, L DeShong wrote: >Another question, is it possible or probable that the shared "profiles" of >Victims and Suspects was the result of some error on the part of the DNA lab? Pardon if I seem to be pedantic, but this is one of those careful not to transpose the conditional situations. From the kind of data you have presented, one could never say that it is "probable" that some lab made an error. If the duplicated genotypes are rare then the chance of the results occurring "honestly" would be small and it would be cause for suspicion, but if the lab's (unknown) tendency to err is smaller still, the conclusion would be that there probably was no error. In fact, the genotypes in question are all common. In particular the allele 4 which occurs most repeatedly is the most common allele in the US -- 25%. The variants 1.1 and 1.2 are also common -- 10-15% among all alleles. I do not see cause for suspicion. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 17:02:17 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72L2HcW020595 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72L2H2n020594 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:02:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050802135656.032212a0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:01:36 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] DNA "Blends" In-Reply-To: <20050802204731.79673.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801211010.032132d0@calmail.berkeley.edu> <20050802204731.79673.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 01:47 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote: >Mr. Brenner, > >Pardon the private eMail, but I forgot an important question. Is there an >online resource available that provides the frequency of the alleles as >you cited them in your response? Try http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/WWW/MedFak/Serology/dna.html The kit came from Roche and I suspect that part of Roche is now LabCorps. I don't remember if population data was included. Regards, Charles H. Brenner, Ph.D. Consulting in forensic mathematics http://dna-view.com ++1 510 339 1911 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 2 17:34:03 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j72LY2cW021659 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j72LY2b0021658 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:34:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDAFE@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:33:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sorry, correction - clearly math is not my strongest area - we have about 25 total employees. The numbers I gave for each section are correct, though. Gretchen -----Original Message----- From: Hicks, Gretchen D To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Sent: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:31 -0400 Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have 25 permanent scientist positions in the laboratory servicing approximately 1.25 million people. Our lab consists of: Forensic Chemistry - Biological evidence screening through confirmation, trace evidence including hairs (limited), fibers and paints, and fire debris analysis 6 permanent positions - 1 Chemist III (supervisor), 1 Forensic Chemist II, 3 Forensic Chemist I's, 1 Forensic Chemist Technician. In addition, we have one FC I that is a temporary grant funded position. Forensic Biology - DNA analysis 4 permanent positions including 1 Supervisor and 3 Forensic DNA Analysts. In addition, we have 1 analyst and one technician that are temporary grant funded positions. Latent Prints - Fingerprints, footwear, tire impression and physical matching 3 permanent Forensic Scientist positions Firearms - Firearms, ballisitcs, tool mark and serial number restoration 1 permanent Forensic Scientist position and one part-time contract employee. In addition we have one part time temporary grant funded position for NIBIN entry. We do not do drugs or toxicology in our laboratory. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by mphill9929@aol.com] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 01:31:37 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j735VbcW026232 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j735Vbn4026231 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:31:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <200508030531.j735VZcW026225@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: Subject: [forens] Prints Underwater Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 01:31:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcWXk4GV5EI0W5iDTM2pJMZPTCuM+AAWCFsw In-Reply-To: <8C765AA0A0D3A5F-C4-6A9C@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mark, I don't have any case studies for you, or published research. But I was once asked a similar question about prints underwater. I found that is was possible, not only to recover prints from items that had been in the water, but that it was even possible to leave prints while submerged. The more the print residue is composed of oils rather than perspiration, the better it will survive contact with water. Regards, Daryl W. Clemens dclemens@crimeandclues.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of mphill9929@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:49 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Gretchen, Has your lab ever performed diatom testing on a drowned victim? Have your fingerprint techs ever sucessfully tested and retrieved latent prints on item(s) that had been submerged? I am researching both topics and have found very few case studies or histories. Anything you could relate in regard to evidence obtained underwater would be a big help. Thanks, Mark Phillips PSDiver Monthly mphill9929@aol.com [EndPost by "Daryl W. Clemens" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 08:34:31 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j73CYVcW029589 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j73CYU0W029588 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:34:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDB03@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:34:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mark, To my knowledge we have never done diatom testing. We had a case recently where we thought we were going to have to go down that path and had enlisted the help of a local university professor. However, the analysis was never needed. According to one of our fingerprint examiners, she has had success with submerged items while in university and also processed a safe here that had been submerged. She was able to get ridge detail, but it was not useable. They also have had success finding useable prints in cases where a vehicle has been left out in the rain. If you would like further information, please contact me off list and I can provide contact info. for the latent examiner(s). Gretchen -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of mphill9929@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:49 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Gretchen, Has your lab ever performed diatom testing on a drowned victim? Have your fingerprint techs ever sucessfully tested and retrieved latent prints on item(s) that had been submerged? I am researching both topics and have found very few case studies or histories. Anything you could relate in regard to evidence obtained underwater would be a big help. Thanks, Mark Phillips PSDiver Monthly mphill9929@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Hicks, Gretchen D To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Sent: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:31 -0400 Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have 25 permanent scientist positions in the laboratory servicing approximately 1.25 million people. Our lab consists of: Forensic Chemistry - Biological evidence screening through confirmation, trace evidence including hairs (limited), fibers and paints, and fire debris analysis 6 permanent positions - 1 Chemist III (supervisor), 1 Forensic Chemist II, 3 Forensic Chemist I's, 1 Forensic Chemist Technician. In addition, we have one FC I that is a temporary grant funded position. Forensic Biology - DNA analysis 4 permanent positions including 1 Supervisor and 3 Forensic DNA Analysts. In addition, we have 1 analyst and one technician that are temporary grant funded positions. Latent Prints - Fingerprints, footwear, tire impression and physical matching 3 permanent Forensic Scientist positions Firearms - Firearms, ballisitcs, tool mark and serial number restoration 1 permanent Forensic Scientist position and one part-time contract employee. In addition we have one part time temporary grant funded position for NIBIN entry. We do not do drugs or toxicology in our laboratory. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by mphill9929@aol.com] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 09:15:55 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j73DFtcW001135 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j73DFtnT001134 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:15:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:15:48 +0100 From: David Patton Subject: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-topic: Diatoms and Drowning Thread-index: AcWYJ+LaSTNeqD+sSTq+YyXJkmlSdQABNevw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-NAI-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered BAYES_20=-0.5 X-NAIMIME-Disclaimer: 1 X-NAIMIME-Modified: 1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j73DFscW001129 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I am not a forensic scientist. I give a lecture covering diatoms and drowning. Could listers indicate how common it is to look for diatoms to indicate drowning? Are there other tests that are tried first? Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Hicks, Gretchen D Sent: 03 August 2005 13:34 To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Mark, To my knowledge we have never done diatom testing. We had a case recently where we thought we were going to have to go down that path and had enlisted the help of a local university professor. However, the analysis was never needed. According to one of our fingerprint examiners, she has had success with submerged items while in university and also processed a safe here that had been submerged. She was able to get ridge detail, but it was not useable. They also have had success finding useable prints in cases where a vehicle has been left out in the rain. If you would like further information, please contact me off list and I can provide contact info. for the latent examiner(s). Gretchen -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of mphill9929@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:49 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Gretchen, Has your lab ever performed diatom testing on a drowned victim? Have your fingerprint techs ever sucessfully tested and retrieved latent prints on item(s) that had been submerged? I am researching both topics and have found very few case studies or histories. Anything you could relate in regard to evidence obtained underwater would be a big help. Thanks, Mark Phillips PSDiver Monthly mphill9929@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Hicks, Gretchen D To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Sent: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:01:31 -0400 Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have 25 permanent scientist positions in the laboratory servicing approximately 1.25 million people. Our lab consists of: Forensic Chemistry - Biological evidence screening through confirmation, trace evidence including hairs (limited), fibers and paints, and fire debris analysis 6 permanent positions - 1 Chemist III (supervisor), 1 Forensic Chemist II, 3 Forensic Chemist I's, 1 Forensic Chemist Technician. In addition, we have one FC I that is a temporary grant funded position. Forensic Biology - DNA analysis 4 permanent positions including 1 Supervisor and 3 Forensic DNA Analysts. In addition, we have 1 analyst and one technician that are temporary grant funded positions. Latent Prints - Fingerprints, footwear, tire impression and physical matching 3 permanent Forensic Scientist positions Firearms - Firearms, ballisitcs, tool mark and serial number restoration 1 permanent Forensic Scientist position and one part-time contract employee. In addition we have one part time temporary grant funded position for NIBIN entry. We do not do drugs or toxicology in our laboratory. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Grunwald, Eric" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by mphill9929@aol.com] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software This email has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus software has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software [EndPost by David Patton ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 12:16:02 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j73GG2cW005445 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:16:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j73GG2mS005444 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:16:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: MPhill9929@aol.com Message-ID: <1e4.40e28ace.302247b9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:15:53 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5016 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 8/3/2005 6:17:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk writes: I am not a forensic scientist. I give a lecture covering diatoms and drowning. Could listers indicate how common it is to look for diatoms to indicate drowning? Are there other tests that are tried first? Dave The research I am doing now is all encompassing to recovery of evidence or bodies form underwater. I am looking at everything I can think of as well as new ideas spawned form my research. The ultimate goal is the completion of a new text book for Public Safety Divers and Water Rescue personnel. As a diver for our fire department I am asked to recover evidence and bodies in a zero visibility environment. Most of what is discussed on the forensic sites is beyond me but after all of the research, I at least have a basic idea of what you folks are talking about. The problem I am working to address is simplistic in concept but is extraordinarily difficult in practice. If a 911 call comes in to report a body behind a dumptser at the grocery store, we -- the fire department -- are not called to locate the body, bag it and move it to a more convenient location for the LE team to investigate. We are not involved at all. But if that same body s reported in the river, we DO dispatch our dive team to locate, bag and recover the body and we DO hand it off at the shore where the LE team begins their processes. My objective is to develop both the knowledge and skills that will allow us to recognize and protect or recover evidence underwater. The first book I wrote was concerned mostly with how to set up the team, train and respond and only touched on some of the forensic aspects of underwater recovery. Now I am expanding the whole thing. As an example, we have taught for years that a rear view mirror should be the primary source of latent prints in a stolen vehicle but I have never seen an investigator check. As I was working on the latent print research, I looked for information, case history or examples where latent prints had actually been recovered from a vehicle that had been submerged. With only one or two exceptions, I was unable to find anything. Apparently it has either been assumed that they do not exist or no one had ever had the need because of preexisting assumptions. This week we launched an experiment to find out f they exist or not. We have 6 labs performing an experiment using painted automobile parts submerged in a local body of water. The test is using an SPR provided by Tri-Tech. It is to new to have reports yet but I hope to be able to prove or disprove if latent prints are still retrievable after being submerged over various time periods. My research is all encompassing in relation to water. ANY case histories or work that has been done that is related to this will be of use to me. My email address is _mphill9929@aol.com_ (mailto:mphill9929@aol.com) Thanks Again, Mark Phillips _www.psdivermonthly.ocm_ (http://www.psdivermonthly.ocm) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by MPhill9929@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 16:13:58 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j73KDwcW009661 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j73KDwID009660 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:13:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [forens] Attention Glass Examiners! Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:13:58 -0500 Message-Id: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B802D85537@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Attention Glass Examiners! Thread-Index: AcWYYeY5D4n1ubSmS2ikq1IA6wfVJgABGEewAABWTLA= From: "Koch, James" To: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j73KDxcW009662 Greetings from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension I am interested in finding out how other forensic labs do comparative exams on glass. Glass examiners, please answer the following questions. We have been updating our SOPs and would be extremely grateful for any input. 1. Do you use the GRIM? If so, do you routinely generate RI values using filters for different wavelengths (488 nm, 589 nm, and 656 nm)? Do you report out all three RI values? 2. If you use the GRIM to obtain RI values, do you routinely also analyze glass using Emmons Double Variation to generate a dispersion curve with a monochromator and hotstage? 3. How many edges per sample (assuming one edge per glass fragment) do you routinely measure for GRIM or Emmons Double Variation? Do you have a minimum number of edges? 4. What technique do you use for determining elemental composition? 5. Do you have an established SOP for annealing? When would you use annealing in your analysis scheme? 6. Do you routinely measure density? When would you not? Thank you very much for answering these questions. James Koch Forensic Scientist MN BCA Laboratory James.Koch@state.mn.us --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Koch, James" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 16:42:07 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j73Kg7cW010969 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j73Kg7dq010968 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:42:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <206.6612ac3.30228617@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:41:59 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Attention Glass Examiners! To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Will you post your findings to the list? I, for one, would be interested even though I do not do glass examinations any more. No call for it in retirement. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Chair, FSF Board of Trustees Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Aug 3 17:28:39 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j73LSdcW012002 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j73LSdwn012001 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:28:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Attention Glass Examiners! Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:28:26 +1200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Attention Glass Examiners! Thread-Index: AcWYYeY5D4n1ubSmS2ikq1IA6wfVJgABGEewAABWTLAAApB+wA== From: "Buckleton, John" To: X-imss-version: 2.029 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:39.86769 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j73LSbcW011996 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu James, we use GRIM II. We measure only Nd and do not report the RI at all. Hence we do not do dispersion at all. We do no do elemental analysis at all but do routinely use annealing and we do have an SOP. We never measure density. We have an interferometer which we speak very highly of. John Buckleton ESR New Zealand - [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Thu Aug 4 16:59:09 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j74Kx9cW028189 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j74Kx9wX028188 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:59:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Assistance in identifying a shoeprint Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 17:05:52 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000501c59938$4c3be860$9100a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <92401033-B53F-4B83-85F9-E965E125B0D1@mac.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2005 20:59:09.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C2B26B0:01C59937] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j74Kx8cW028183 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Eric, Have you tried these on-line resources? One of them may be of assistance. C.A.S.T. website (outsole databases, manufacturer's information, etc. - many links to other sources): http://members.aol.com/varfee/mastssite/home.html ENFSI Marks Working Group "Wanted" page (colleague collaboration): http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/hankkeet/wgm/home.nsf/pages/5D2BE2412FBECBE1 C2256C8E00429A6F Good luck and happy hunting! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Éric Stauffer Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:25 AM To: Forens-l (E-mail) Subject: [forens] Assistance in identifying a shoeprint Dear List Members, I have a shoeprint dating back to 1984 (in the USA) for which I am trying to see if its brand (and model) could be determined. I know it is an almost impossible task, but I would appreciate if anyone could provide any assistance. The photograph of the shoeprint is avilable at the following address: http://homepage.mac.com/arson/Shoeprint.jpg You can contact me at arson@mac.com Sincerely Yours, Eric Stauffer MME Forensic Services Suwanee, GA 30024 [EndPost by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 5 06:17:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j75AHvcW003917 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j75AHv8f003916 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:06:10 -0300 From: "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" Subject: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <42F29F62.000004.02476@PENTIUM4> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: IncrediMail (4001874) X-Priority: 3 X-FID: B2BD7C40-142F-43ED-B255-55F935D5A432 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0531-2, 03/08/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-imss-version: 2.029 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:69.29634 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:2 C:2 M:2 S:2 R:2 (0.1500 0.1500) References: <1e4.40e28ace.302247b9@aol.com> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=Windows-1252 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu As I see it diatoms are not use regularly any more as they lost credibility as a test to determine drowning. The best we can get is determination of the body of water where the body has been. King has a very good summary on this on his book of Forensic Pathology. Dr Adolfo Scatena medico forense 2a. Circunscripcion Judicial Prov de Rio Negro, Argentina -------Mensaje original------- De: MPhill9929@aol.com Fecha: 08/03/05 13:20:20 Para: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Asunto: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning In a message dated 8/3/2005 6:17:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk writes: I am not a forensic scientist. I give a lecture covering diatoms and drowning. Could listers indicate how common it is to look for diatoms to indicate drowning? Are there other tests that are tried first? Dave The research I am doing now is all encompassing to recovery of evidence or bodies form underwater. I am looking at everything I can think of as well as new ideas spawned form my research. The ultimate goal is the completion of a new text book for Public Safety Divers and Water Rescue personnel. As a diver for our fire department I am asked to recover evidence and bodies in a zero visibility environment. Most of what is discussed on the forensic sites is beyond me but after all of the research, I at least have a basic idea of what you folks are talking about. The problem I am working to address is simplistic in concept but is extraordinarily difficult in practice. If a 911 call comes in to report a body behind a dumptser at the grocery store, we -- the fire department -- are not called to locate the body, bag it and move it to a more convenient location for the LE team to investigate. We are not involved at all. But if that same body s reported in the river, we DO dispatch our dive team to locate, bag and recover the body and we DO hand it off at the shore where the LE team begins their processes. My objective is to develop both the knowledge and skills that will allow us to recognize and protect or recover evidence underwater. The first book I wrote was concerned mostly with how to set up the team, train and respond and only touched on some of the forensic aspects of underwater recovery. Now I am expanding the whole thing. As an example, we have taught for years that a rear view mirror should be the primary source of latent prints in a stolen vehicle but I have never seen an investigator check. As I was working on the latent print research, I looked for information, case history or examples where latent prints had actually been recovered from a vehicle that had been submerged. With only one or two exceptions, I was unable to find anything. Apparently it has either been assumed that they do not exist or no one had ever had the need because of preexisting assumptions. This week we launched an experiment to find out f they exist or not. We have 6 labs performing an experiment using painted automobile parts submerged in a local body of water. The test is using an SPR provided by Tri-Tech. It is to new to have reports yet but I hope to be able to prove or disprove if latent prints are still retrievable after being submerged over various time periods. My research is all encompassing in relation to water. ANY case histories or work that has been done that is related to this will be of use to me. My email address is _mphill9929@aol.com_ (mailto:mphill9929@aol.com) Thanks Again, Mark Phillips _www.psdivermonthly.ocm_ (http://www.psdivermonthly.ocm) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by MPhill9929@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 5 07:52:16 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j75BqGcW004855 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j75BqG05004854 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:52:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:52:09 +0100 From: David Patton Subject: RE: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-topic: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning Thread-index: AcWZpxsVVVHDgOXjTQyrqYKxTDwEEgADI93Q X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-NAI-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered BAYES_00=-2.5 X-NAIMIME-Disclaimer: 1 X-NAIMIME-Modified: 1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j75BqFcW004849 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks. Could you supply more details on King's book? A quick Google search did not find it but brought up: FORENSIC DIATOMOLOGY AND DROWNING Author: Michael S. Pollanen Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Adolfo Scatena Sent: 05 August 2005 00:06 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning As I see it diatoms are not use regularly any more as they lost credibility as a test to determine drowning. The best we can get is determination of the body of water where the body has been. King has a very good summary on this on his book of Forensic Pathology. Dr Adolfo Scatena medico forense 2a. Circunscripcion Judicial Prov de Rio Negro, Argentina -------Mensaje original------- De: MPhill9929@aol.com Fecha: 08/03/05 13:20:20 Para: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Asunto: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning In a message dated 8/3/2005 6:17:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk writes: I am not a forensic scientist. I give a lecture covering diatoms and drowning. Could listers indicate how common it is to look for diatoms to indicate drowning? Are there other tests that are tried first? Dave The research I am doing now is all encompassing to recovery of evidence or bodies form underwater. I am looking at everything I can think of as well as new ideas spawned form my research. The ultimate goal is the completion of a new text book for Public Safety Divers and Water Rescue personnel. As a diver for our fire department I am asked to recover evidence and bodies in a zero visibility environment. Most of what is discussed on the forensic sites is beyond me but after all of the research, I at least have a basic idea of what you folks are talking about. The problem I am working to address is simplistic in concept but is extraordinarily difficult in practice. If a 911 call comes in to report a body behind a dumptser at the grocery store, we -- the fire department -- are not called to locate the body, bag it and move it to a more convenient location for the LE team to investigate. We are not involved at all. But if that same body s reported in the river, we DO dispatch our dive team to locate, bag and recover the body and we DO hand it off at the shore where the LE team begins their processes. My objective is to develop both the knowledge and skills that will allow us to recognize and protect or recover evidence underwater. The first book I wrote was concerned mostly with how to set up the team, train and respond and only touched on some of the forensic aspects of underwater recovery. Now I am expanding the whole thing. As an example, we have taught for years that a rear view mirror should be the primary source of latent prints in a stolen vehicle but I have never seen an investigator check. As I was working on the latent print research, I looked for information, case history or examples where latent prints had actually been recovered from a vehicle that had been submerged. With only one or two exceptions, I was unable to find anything. Apparently it has either been assumed that they do not exist or no one had ever had the need because of preexisting assumptions. This week we launched an experiment to find out f they exist or not. We have 6 labs performing an experiment using painted automobile parts submerged in a local body of water. The test is using an SPR provided by Tri-Tech. It is to new to have reports yet but I hope to be able to prove or disprove if latent prints are still retrievable after being submerged over various time periods. My research is all encompassing in relation to water. ANY case histories or work that has been done that is related to this will be of use to me. My email address is _mphill9929@aol.com_ (mailto:mphill9929@aol.com) Thanks Again, Mark Phillips _www.psdivermonthly.ocm_ (http://www.psdivermonthly.ocm) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by MPhill9929@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" ] This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software This email has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus software has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software [EndPost by David Patton ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 5 08:08:59 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j75C8xcW005505 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j75C8x1d005504 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:08:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: MPhill9929@aol.com Message-ID: <1e2.418206f2.3024b0cf@aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:08:47 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 8/5/2005 5:20:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time, myrado@speedy.com.ar writes: As I see it diatoms are not use regularly any more as they lost credibility as a test to determine drowning. The best we can get is determination of the body of water where the body has been. How did Diatoms lose credibility? If diatoms from a particular body of water are found in the body, that matches the body to that body of water and if those same diatoms are found in the femoral bone marrow and / or organs isn't that an indication of drowning, in that water? It is the relationship between the water and body that I am trying to establish in this particular instance. Mark Phillips --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by MPhill9929@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Aug 6 10:09:19 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j76E9JcW026404 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j76E9Jnt026403 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:09:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "John Presser" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 00:08:45 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Thread-Index: AcWYJ+LaSTNeqD+sSTq+YyXJkmlSdQABNevwAJjPLeA= In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "John Presser" X-Virus-Scanned: Hotkey Virus Scan X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dave from Aust & New Zealand Forensic Symposium 1994 re other tests for drowning - STRONTIUM and DROWNING John Presser, Senior Forensic Scientist, GAFL Forensic Biology, New Town Tasmania Stephen Cook, Clinical Chemistry Dept. Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart Tasmania SUMMARY: The measurement of blood strontium ion levels is useful in the medico-legal diagnosis of "vital" submersion in salt water. Fresh water drowning diagnosis using copper ion levels is much less convincing. The goal of being able to detect homicidal drowning deaths where a change of water from fresh to salt or vice versa, occurs still eludes us. INTRODUCTION: The traditional diagnosis of drowning has been by acid digestion of blood or tissue, followed by a microscopic search for diatoms. The concept of a small, but normal diatom load in living persons, has beet suggested.1 The diatom species recovered from "drowned" persons must therefore be classified and compared to the diatom species present in the water, an which the person died. The taxonomy of diatom species has recently been completely revised by the study of living diatom cultures.2 CSIRO SEM studies have shown that acid digestion will destroy the diatom silica structure.3 This makes classification of diatom residues a problem. Is there a better way of diagnosing deaths by drowning than by using diatoms? REVIEW: The range, and level of the different metal ions in the human body closely parallel those of the sea itself, reflecting our evolutionary origin from sea creatures.4 Therefore, drowning in sea water is like drowning in half diluted serum with regard to the ions present. There are two large differences in our serum ion levels compared with salt water. Firstly, we have a very low strontium level, as this ion is deposited in the bones along with calcium. Secondly, we have a relatively high copper level, as the copper ion is actively absorbed. Therefore the signature of sea water drowning is an elevated strontium level in the cardiac left ventricular blood. And that of fresh water drowning, is a reduced copper level. It may therefore be possible, by comparing the strontium to copper ratio, to detect homicidal deaths where someone was drowned in fresh water and dumped in the sea, and vice versa. MATERIALS and METHODS: Post-mortem blood samples from deaths by drowning were collected in the specimen tubes reserved for aluminium measurement. The strontium levels were determined by the method of Abdallah and Mostafa 5 using atomic absorption spectroscopy. RESULTS: Table 1 Sea Water Case No Water Type Sr mg/L Cu mg/L Sr/Cu x 1000 1 Sea 290 1016 285 2 Estuarine 118 1017 116 3 Estuarine 134 890 151 4 Estuarine 90 1041 86 5 Estuarine 24 953 * 25 6 Sea 269 870 309 7 Sea 173 953 182 8 Sea 364 794 458 9 Sea 407 1865 217 10 Sea 3210 869 3694 11 Sea 377 1131 333 12 Sea 532 980 543 13 Sea 182 1120 103 14 Sea 225 930 242 15 Sea 485 2080 233 Av 280 Av 1131 Av 250 RESULTS: Table 2 Fresh water Case No Water Type Sr mg/L Cu mg/L Sr/Cu x 1000 1 Fresh 10 700 14 2 Fresh 63 321 196 3 Fresh 16 749 21 4 Fresh 33 1320 25 5 Fresh 15 750 20 6 Fresh 10 695 14 7 Fresh 48 880 55 8 Fresh 34 1010 34 9 Fresh 11 940 12 10 Fresh 20 1670 12 11 Fresh 20 1080 19 12 Fresh 20 1120 18 13 Fresh 36 1033 35 14 Fresh 30 889 34 15 Fresh 35 1080 32 Av 26.7 Av 949 Av 36.0 Normal Range 10 - 50 900 - 1500 10 - 30 Renal patients 50 - 150 800 - l500 35 - 160 Near drowned in sea 134 890 151 DISCUSSION: Where water has entered the lungs (as indicated by the increase in weight at post-mortem), the strontium levels clearly flag the diagnosis. This bears out experimental work in rabbits.6 In "DRY" drowning cases where very little water enters the lungs, the method of Sr/Cu ratios is not helpful. (see case 5 sea water.) Piette and Timperman 7 also show that strontium is a good indicator of salt water drowning. The effect of the tide in estuarine waters, with its variation of the salt/fresh water ratio, leads to the recommendation from these authors, that the level of strontium in the water that the person drowned in, be measured as well. This was not attempted in our series. We have looked at the question of the possible background elevation of serum strontium levels by toothpastes such us "Sensodyne", that contain strontium chloride 10%. No interference was found. The question of higher levels of strontium etc, in the serum of patients with renal failure, has; been addressed by using the strontium levels found in these patients as the cut-off point for diagnosis. Total copper concentration is not a good indicator for fresh water drowning diagnosis. Research is continuing to see if some form of bound or free copper is a better indicator whether some other element is a reasonable fresh water drowning indicator. REFERENCES: 1 Forensic Science Int. 21 (1983} 153-159 Foged, N "Diatoms and drowning - once again" 2 Gustav Hallergraff book Diatoms Taxonomy 3 Personal communication from Dr Gustav Hallergraf Marine Laboratory, CSIRO Hobart 4 Scientific American 239/3 (1978) 62-78, Dickerson, R. E. "Chemical Evolution" 5 Ann Chim (Soc Chim Italiana), 70 (l980) 1, Abdallah, A. M and Mostafa, M. A. 6 Forensic Science Int., 28 (1985) 47-52, Abdallah et al "Serum Sr estimation as a diagnostic criterion of drowning" 7 Medicine Science Law, 29 (1989) 162-170, Piette, M and Timperman, J. "Serum Sr estimation as a medico-legal indicator of drowning" -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of David Patton Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2005 11:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning I am not a forensic scientist. I give a lecture covering diatoms and drowning. Could listers indicate how common it is to look for diatoms to indicate drowning? Are there other tests that are tried first? Dave --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "John Presser" ] From forens-owner Sun Aug 7 10:35:53 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j77EZrcW005784 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j77EZreq005783 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:35:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:35:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "W. Raymond Cummins" Subject: RE: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:59:43 -0400 Regarding the author of the book on Forensic Diatomology and Drowning: Dr. Michael Pollanen is the chief forensic pathologist at the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario in Toronto. He is also on Faculty in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto and in the Forensic Science Program at the University of Toronto in Mississauga where he teaches Forensic Pathology. Dr. W. Raymond Cummins PhD Professor of Biology and Director of the Forensic Science Programs Chairman of the Academic Board, University of Toronto J. Tuzo Wilson Labs, 3359 Mississauga Road Mississauga ON Canada L5L 1C6 905 828 3996 Fax 905 828 3792 cummins@utm.utoronto.ca -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of David Patton Sent: August 5, 2005 7:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning Thanks. Could you supply more details on King's book? A quick Google search did not find it but brought up: FORENSIC DIATOMOLOGY AND DROWNING Author: Michael S. Pollanen Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Adolfo Scatena Sent: 05 August 2005 00:06 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning As I see it diatoms are not use regularly any more as they lost credibility as a test to determine drowning. The best we can get is determination of the body of water where the body has been. King has a very good summary on this on his book of Forensic Pathology. Dr Adolfo Scatena medico forense 2a. Circunscripcion Judicial Prov de Rio Negro, Argentina -------Mensaje original------- De: MPhill9929@aol.com Fecha: 08/03/05 13:20:20 Para: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Asunto: Re: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning In a message dated 8/3/2005 6:17:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk writes: I am not a forensic scientist. I give a lecture covering diatoms and drowning. Could listers indicate how common it is to look for diatoms to indicate drowning? Are there other tests that are tried first? Dave The research I am doing now is all encompassing to recovery of evidence or bodies form underwater. I am looking at everything I can think of as well as new ideas spawned form my research. The ultimate goal is the completion of a new text book for Public Safety Divers and Water Rescue personnel. As a diver for our fire department I am asked to recover evidence and bodies in a zero visibility environment. Most of what is discussed on the forensic sites is beyond me but after all of the research, I at least have a basic idea of what you folks are talking about. The problem I am working to address is simplistic in concept but is extraordinarily difficult in practice. If a 911 call comes in to report a body behind a dumptser at the grocery store, we -- the fire department -- are not called to locate the body, bag it and move it to a more convenient location for the LE team to investigate. We are not involved at all. But if that same body s reported in the river, we DO dispatch our dive team to locate, bag and recover the body and we DO hand it off at the shore where the LE team begins their processes. My objective is to develop both the knowledge and skills that will allow us to recognize and protect or recover evidence underwater. The first book I wrote was concerned mostly with how to set up the team, train and respond and only touched on some of the forensic aspects of underwater recovery. Now I am expanding the whole thing. As an example, we have taught for years that a rear view mirror should be the primary source of latent prints in a stolen vehicle but I have never seen an investigator check. As I was working on the latent print research, I looked for information, case history or examples where latent prints had actually been recovered from a vehicle that had been submerged. With only one or two exceptions, I was unable to find anything. Apparently it has either been assumed that they do not exist or no one had ever had the need because of preexisting assumptions. This week we launched an experiment to find out f they exist or not. We have 6 labs performing an experiment using painted automobile parts submerged in a local body of water. The test is using an SPR provided by Tri-Tech. It is to new to have reports yet but I hope to be able to prove or disprove if latent prints are still retrievable after being submerged over various time periods. My research is all encompassing in relation to water. ANY case histories or work that has been done that is related to this will be of use to me. My email address is _mphill9929@aol.com_ (mailto:mphill9929@aol.com) Thanks Again, Mark Phillips _www.psdivermonthly.ocm_ (http://www.psdivermonthly.ocm) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by MPhill9929@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" ] This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software This email has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus software has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software [EndPost by David Patton ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 8 11:11:52 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j78FBqcW020623 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j78FBqCW020622 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:11:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Message-Id: From: Bruce Weir Subject: [forens] online course Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:52:34 -0400 To: Chris Basten X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dr. Bruce Weir is offering a graduate-level online course in statistics and popuation genetics for forensic scientists this Fall. Details on this course, ST 610C, are available at http://distance.ncsu.edu [EndPost by Bruce Weir ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 8 18:07:51 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j78M7pcW028711 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j78M7o5a028710 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:07:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:14:29 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000001c59c66$8b9f7e50$9100a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2005 22:07:48.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C9FDE80:01C59C65] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j78M7ocW028705 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I should clarify that the population figure below of 500,000 is our year-round population. This being Florida, we have a very large number of seasonal residents and that greatly increases the population we serve during the winter months. In some communities of our service area, the winter population is around double the year-round population, so I would guesstimate that our per capita figures in the winter may be as much as 2/3 higher than what I gave below. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.edu] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:15 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Per Capita Scientists We have six analysts serving a population of 500,000 - three chemists for drugs (one of whom also does fire debris and another who also does BAC), two biologists for DNA, and one firearms examiner. So on a per capita basis that's one analyst per 83,000, but when you break it down it's less than one drug chemist per 167,000 (because only one of us is devoted SOLELY to drug cases - the other two also have either arson or DUI cases to deal with). We are not a full-service lab, obviously. Fingerprints are done by the LE agencies on their own, and they have to go to a state lab or private lab for blood or urine drug screens, document examination, trace evidence analysis, and other types of forensic analysis. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Grunwald, Eric Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:45 AM To: Forens Subject: [forens] Per Capita Scientists List Members, If anyone can help with answers to the following questions, please let me know. Thanks. 1) How many scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? 2) How many controlled substance scientists does your laboratory/lab system have per capita? Eric Grunwald MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension St. Paul, MN [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 8 18:24:34 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j78MOYcW029317 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j78MOYjE029316 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:24:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:36:40 -0300 From: "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" Subject: [forens] Diatoms and Drowning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <42F7C258.000001.02504@PENTIUM4> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: IncrediMail (4001874) X-Priority: 3 X-FID: B2BD7C40-142F-43ED-B255-55F935D5A432 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0532-0, 08/08/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean References: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=Windows-1252 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sorry but because of my "poor" English I misquoted a king for a knight... The book I mentioned is Bernard Knight, FORENSIC PATHOLOGY , Arnold 2004, London, 3rd Edition p.406/8. Dr Adolfo Scatena medico forense 2a. Circunscripcion Judicial Prov de Rio Negro, Argentina --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 9 13:27:38 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j79HRccW015554 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j79HRclx015553 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:27:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:27:11 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: [forens] Menstrual blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0IKY003UATTJM4@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWdB5OZoFDtGM4fQjOguPQbGGpjrQ== X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi all, just wondering if anyone knows of any tests that can be done on blood to determine if it is menstrual or not. Regards, Wayne --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 9 13:43:50 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j79HhocW016300 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j79HhnhG016299 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:43:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdef owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:43:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdef@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Menstrual blood In-Reply-To: <0IKY003UATTJM4@staff.bond.edu.au> Message-ID: References: <0IKY003UATTJM4@staff.bond.edu.au> X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu A pathologist could tell by looking at it under the microscope and observing endometrial lining tissue. Carol Define MD On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Wayne Petherick wrote: > Hi all, just wondering if anyone knows of any tests that can be done on > blood to determine if it is menstrual or not. > > > Regards, > > Wayne > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 9 13:54:19 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j79HsJcW017006 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j79HsJYx017005 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:54:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:54:03 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: RE: [forens] Menstrual blood In-reply-to: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0IKY00320V29M4@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWdCkv80h/jG397Ri2F0Kpl3nKfJAAAQDEQ Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks Carol, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Carol Define MD Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2005 3:44 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Menstrual blood A pathologist could tell by looking at it under the microscope and observing endometrial lining tissue. Carol Define MD On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Wayne Petherick wrote: > Hi all, just wondering if anyone knows of any tests that can be done on > blood to determine if it is menstrual or not. > > > Regards, > > Wayne > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 9 14:15:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j79IExcW017772 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j79IExIp017771 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:14:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [203.101.2.210] X-Originating-Email: [dr_anil@hotmail.com] X-Sender: dr_anil@hotmail.com From: "Professor Anil Aggrawal" To: References: <0IKY003UATTJM4@staff.bond.edu.au> Subject: Re: [forens] Menstrual blood Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 23:44:52 +0530 Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2096 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2096 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2005 18:14:52.0929 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D0CF710:01C59D0E] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j79IF0cW017773 Hi Wayne, Here is the extract from my latest book "MCQs in Forensic Medicine". This extract comes from Chapter 29. Sometimes in criminal investigations, it may become necessary to tell that a given stain was menstrual in origin. Following facts must be taken into account to determine this. (i) Menstrual blood is lower in pH, i.e. it is more acidic. (ii) It contains vaginal, cervical and decidual cells. (iii) Menstrual blood does not coagulate. It is because it has already coagulated within the uterine cavity and has again become fluid. It contains fibrinolysins. Fibrinogen degradation products are also present in relatively high concentration in menstrual blood. These can be detected immunologically. (iv) Menstrual blood is more fluid than ordinary blood, because, during its trickling descent, it becomes mixed with uterine and vaginal mucus. (v)There are five isozymes of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), namely LDH1, LDH2, LDH3, LDH4 and LDH5. Venous blood primarily consists of just LDH1, LDH2 and LDH3, while menstrual blood contains all five isozymes. Hope this is helpful. Regards Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Petherick" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: [forens] Menstrual blood > Hi all, just wondering if anyone knows of any tests that can be done on > blood to determine if it is menstrual or not. > > > Regards, > > Wayne > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Professor Anil Aggrawal" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 9 14:20:55 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j79IKtcW018327 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j79IKt4n018326 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:20:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:20:38 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: RE: [forens] Menstrual blood In-reply-to: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0IKY003CSWAJM4@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWdDrC5DM/56fGDTkOUuObHFWbHnAAAFSBg Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks Anil, indeed it is. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Professor Anil Aggrawal Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2005 4:15 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Menstrual blood Hi Wayne, Here is the extract from my latest book "MCQs in Forensic Medicine". This extract comes from Chapter 29. Sometimes in criminal investigations, it may become necessary to tell that a given stain was menstrual in origin. Following facts must be taken into account to determine this. (i) Menstrual blood is lower in pH, i.e. it is more acidic. (ii) It contains vaginal, cervical and decidual cells. (iii) Menstrual blood does not coagulate. It is because it has already coagulated within the uterine cavity and has again become fluid. It contains fibrinolysins. Fibrinogen degradation products are also present in relatively high concentration in menstrual blood. These can be detected immunologically. (iv) Menstrual blood is more fluid than ordinary blood, because, during its trickling descent, it becomes mixed with uterine and vaginal mucus. (v)There are five isozymes of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), namely LDH1, LDH2, LDH3, LDH4 and LDH5. Venous blood primarily consists of just LDH1, LDH2 and LDH3, while menstrual blood contains all five isozymes. Hope this is helpful. Regards Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Petherick" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: [forens] Menstrual blood > Hi all, just wondering if anyone knows of any tests that can be done on > blood to determine if it is menstrual or not. > > > Regards, > > Wayne > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Professor Anil Aggrawal" ] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 10 07:20:28 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7ABKScW028897 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7ABKSjS028896 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:20:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:20 +0100 (BST) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: [forens] Menstrual blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: <0IKY003UATTJM4@staff.bond.edu.au> Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.54.2028, Windows 2000 build 2600 (Service Pack 2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There is test based on detection of menstrual blood specific messenger RNAs. Martin Bauer and Dieter Patzelt Evaluation of mRNA Markers for the Identification of Menstrual Blood J Forensic Sci, Nov. 2002, Vol. 47, No. 6 Paper ID JFS2002049_476 Available online at: www.astm.org Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk [EndPost by Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster)] From forens-owner Wed Aug 10 18:39:53 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7AMdrcW010592 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:39:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7AMdr9f010591 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:39:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:39:00 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: RE: [forens] Menstrual blood In-reply-to: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0IL1003CM2XEHI@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWdniTvrIeTniMYTLelvnPsRiWi6AAXiD5g Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks Mark, much appreciated. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Webster Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2005 9:20 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Subject: Re: [forens] Menstrual blood There is test based on detection of menstrual blood specific messenger RNAs. Martin Bauer and Dieter Patzelt Evaluation of mRNA Markers for the Identification of Menstrual Blood J Forensic Sci, Nov. 2002, Vol. 47, No. 6 Paper ID JFS2002049_476 Available online at: www.astm.org Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk [EndPost by Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster)] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 14:10:38 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7CIAccW008530 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7CIAcIM008529 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:10:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: ida.tcs.tulane.edu: nobody set sender to hbacko@tulane.edu using -f Message-ID: <1123870233.42fce6198e8ad@webmail.tulane.edu> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:10:33 -0500 From: hbacko@tulane.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] disarticulation resources MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hello all! I am looking for any research, articles, etc that detail patterns/rates of disarticulation of remains that have been suspended, or hung above ground. Thanks very much, Heather Backo Tulane University [EndPost by hbacko@tulane.edu] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 17:08:40 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7CL8ecW012230 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7CL8etB012229 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:08:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:08:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:02:21 -0700 From: kelsi@bigasterisk.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape I am looking for the best way to separate duct-tape layers while preserving latent prints, potential biological material, and the shape of the duct tape to be able to possible perform a physical match. I understand liquid nitrogen can help with this but I have had a difficult time finding literature on this. Can anyone help? Thanks, Kelsi Hooper San Mateo County Sheriff's Office--Forensic Laboratory 650-312-5386 [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 17:09:22 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7CL9McW012280 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7CL9MiT012279 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:09:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:09:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:35:03 -0700 From: "Geoff Bruton" Subject: Re: [forens] disarticulation resources Good afternoon, Heather, Check out the following book (taken from the ForensicAnthro.com website). I used it during my Forensic Anthropology and Forensic Archaeology classes and it helped immensely. Good luck! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>>> Forensic Taphonomy : The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains Author: William D. Haglund (Editor), Marcella H. Sorg (Editor) Edition: Hardcover December 13, 1996 (672 pages) ISBN: 0849394341 Publisher: CRC Press Price: $119.95 INTRODUCTION: INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC TAPHONOMY, W.D. HAGLUND AND M.H. SORG Taphonomy in the Forensic Context Method and Theory of Taphonomic Research, W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg Context Delicti: Archaeological Context in Forensic Work, D.D. Scott and M. Connor The Role of Archaeology in the Recovery and Interpretation of Human Remains from an Outdoor Forensic Setting, D.C. Dirkmaat and J.M. Adavasio Chain of Custody from the Field to the Courtroom, J. Melbye and S.B. Jimenez Taphonomic Applications in Forensic Anthropology, D.H. Ubelaker MODIFICATIONS OF SOFT TISSUE, BONE, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: OVERVIEW, W.D. HAGLUND AND M.H. SORG Chemical Underpinnings Chemical and Ultrastructural Aspects of Decomposition, H. Gill-King Preservation and Recovery of DNA in Postmortem Specimens and Trace Samples, T.J. Parsons and V.W. Weedn Soft Tissue The Process of Decomposition: A Model from the Arizona-Sonoran Desert, A. Galloway Postmortem Changes in Soft Tissue, M.A. Clark, M.B. Worrell, and J.E. Pless Recognition of Cemetery Remains in the Forensic Setting, H.E. Berryman, W.M. Bass, S.A. Symes, and O.T. Smith Frozen Environments and Soft Tissue Preservation, M.S. Micozzi Outdoor Decomposition Rates in Tennessee, W.M. Bass, III Bone Microscopic Structure of Bone, M. Schultz Microscopic Investigation of Excavated Skeletal Remains: A Contribution to Paleopathology and Forensic Medicine, M. Schultz A Critical Evaluation of Bone Weathering as an Indication of Bone Assemblage Formation, L.R. Lyman and G.L. Fox Eskimo Skeleton Taphonomy with Identification of Possible Polar Bear Victims, C.F. Merbs Human Variables in the Postmortem Alteration of Human Bone: Examples from U.S. War Casualties, T.D. Holland, B.E. Anderson, and R.W. Mann Fire Modification of Bone: A Review of the Literature, P.M. Mayne Correia Human Bone Mineral Densities and Survival of Bone Elements: A Contemporary Sample, A. Galloway, P. Willey, and L. Snyder Cranial Bone Displacement as a Taphonomic Process in Potential Child Abuse Cases, T.A.J. Crist, A. Washburn, H. Park, I. Hood, and M.A. Hickey Associated Materials Biodegradation of Hair and Fibers, W.F. Rowe Forensic Botany, D. Hall SCAVENGED REMAINS: OVERVIEW, W.D. HAGLUND AND M.H. SORG Carnivore Scavenged Remains Dogs and Coyotes: Postmortem Involvement with Human Remains, W.D. Haglund Scattered Skeletal Remains: Search Strategy Considerations for Locating Missing Teeth, W.D. Haglund The Utilization of Faunal Evidence in the Recovery of Human Remains, T.A. Murad Rodent Scavenged Remains Rodents and Human Remains, W.D. Haglund Scavenging by Insects On the Body: Insects' Life Stage Presence, Their Postmortem Artifacts, and Entomological Collecting Procedures, N.H. Haskell, V.J. Cervenka, and M.A. Clark Scavenging by Water Organisms Human Remains Recovered from a Shark's Stomach in South Carolina, T.A. Rathbun and B.C. Rathbun BURIED AND PROTECTED REMAINS: OVERVIEW, W.D. HAGLUND AND M.H. SORG Decomposition Decomposition of Buried and Submerged Bodies, W.C. Rodriguez III Decomposition Rates of Deliberate Burials: A Case Study of Preservation, M.H. Manheim Autopsied, Embalmed, and Preserved Human Remains: Distinguishing Features in Forensic and Historic Contexts, P.S. Sledzik and M.S. Micozzi Necrosearch Revisited: Further Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Detection of Clandestine Graves, D.L. France, T.J. Griffin, J.G. Swanburg, J.W. Lindemann, G.C. Davenport, V. Trammell, C.T. Travis, B. Kondratieff, A. Nelson, K. Castellano, D. Hopkins, and T. Adair Preservation in Late 19th Century Iron Coffin Burials, D.W. Owsley and B.E. Compton REMAINS IN WATER: OVERVIEW, W.D. HAGLUND AND M.H. SORG Riverine Environments Fluvial Transport of Human Crania, S.P. Nawrocki, J.E. Pless, D.A. Hawley, and S.A. Wagner The Taphonomic Effects of Flood Waters on Bone, S. Brooks and R.H. Brooks Marine Environments Forensic Taphonomy in Marine Contexts, M.H. Sorg, J.H. Dearborn, E.I. Monahan, H.F. Ryan, K.G. Sweeney, and E. David Human Aquatic Taphonomy in the Monterey Bay Area, S. Boyle, A. Galloway, and R.T. Mason Burials at Sea, M.R. London, J.F. Krolikowski, and J.H. Davis CONCLUSIONS AND OVERVIEW, W.D. HAGLUND AND M.H. SORG Afterword, C.C. Snow >>>> >>> hbacko@tulane.edu 08/12/05 11:10:33 AM >>> Hello all! I am looking for any research, articles, etc that detail patterns/rates of disarticulation of remains that have been suspended, or hung above ground. Thanks very much, Heather Backo Tulane University [EndPost by hbacko@tulane.edu] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 18:13:04 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7CMD4cW013881 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7CMD4Ff013880 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDB89@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape (fwd) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:12:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have tried liquid nitrogen but found that it did not work well since it caused the adhesive to 'gunk up', for lack of a better term, so that the adhesive did not maintain its integrity. I also tried freezing it in a -70 freezer with similar effect. I had one pretty significant duct tape case where we were looking for biological fluids, hair patterns, fabric patterns, physical matches and latent prints. I found the most effective way to preserve the evidence was the slow and tedious method of using a scalpel blade and forceps to carefully dislodge the tape from itself. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Christopher J. Basten Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:02:21 -0700 From: kelsi@bigasterisk.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape I am looking for the best way to separate duct-tape layers while preserving latent prints, potential biological material, and the shape of the duct tape to be able to possible perform a physical match. I understand liquid nitrogen can help with this but I have had a difficult time finding literature on this. Can anyone help? Thanks, Kelsi Hooper San Mateo County Sheriff's Office--Forensic Laboratory 650-312-5386 [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 18:43:40 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7CMhecW014624 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7CMheuj014623 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:43:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bla0y5MIKT2S4NS+Fm60vzGOA2wOJqLXVzw2Ex2QusMHRPq52sTD40vG9oc1YfJdiDeBaRqgJ3Mu2azLOloY5GH5k4183SXdhV9cC1Hs1PIiMsJSSgBDwdALndGsp3dLLOXMofClJ7AfxP8MBdmLJtsHTmeKI118Yd2r5s6Bp68= ; Message-ID: <20050812224335.41954.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:43:35 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The August 5 edition of Science magazine contains an interesting article Saks and Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, Science 2005 309: 892-895 The authors studied factors in 86 DNA exoneration cases and found that forensic science testing errors occurred in 63% of those, and false or misleading testimony by forensic scientists occurred in 27%. (More than one factor was found in many cases.) Given that forensic scientists participate in only a small subset of criminal cases (10-20% according to the authors), these figures are a cause for some concern. The article states,"forensic scientists are the witnesses most likely to present misleading or fraudulent testimony." The paradigm suggested by the authors, however, seems unlikely to just shift into place. The authors suggest conforming all individualization testing to the DNA model, which seems like it would be very difficult to implement. How would one determine, for instance, the chance of a random right shoe matching a shoeprint that exhibits a triangular cut on the left side of the heel? The authors also suggest implementing blind proficiency testing, but do not offer a mechanism for doing so. Overall, the article paints a not-very-flattering picture of the state of the art. Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 21:16:07 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7D1G7cW016061 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7D1G6Ta016060 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:16:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:15:07 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7D1G6cW016055 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gretchen, Have you tried a product known as Undoo. It will separate the aadhesive to adhesive surfaces of the tape. Can purchase through Armor Forensics, although I found it for sale at a camera store. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Gretchen.D.Hicks@maine.gov 08/12/05 3:12 PM >>> I have tried liquid nitrogen but found that it did not work well since it caused the adhesive to 'gunk up', for lack of a better term, so that the adhesive did not maintain its integrity. I also tried freezing it in a -70 freezer with similar effect. I had one pretty significant duct tape case where we were looking for biological fluids, hair patterns, fabric patterns, physical matches and latent prints. I found the most effective way to preserve the evidence was the slow and tedious method of using a scalpel blade and forceps to carefully dislodge the tape from itself. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Christopher J. Basten Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:02:21 -0700 From: kelsi@bigasterisk.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Liquid Nitrogen to separate Duct-tape I am looking for the best way to separate duct-tape layers while preserving latent prints, potential biological material, and the shape of the duct tape to be able to possible perform a physical match. I understand liquid nitrogen can help with this but I have had a difficult time finding literature on this. Can anyone help? Thanks, Kelsi Hooper San Mateo County Sheriff's Office--Forensic Laboratory 650-312-5386 [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 12 21:36:22 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7D1aLcW016843 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7D1aL7c016842 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:36:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Ma. Corazon A. De Ungria" To: Subject: [forens] Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:51:27 +0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Disposition-Notification-To: "Ma. Corazon A. De Ungria" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I am looking for more information on minimum Probability of Paternity values set by different jurisdictions prior to presuming paternity. Was this minimum set through legislation, via jurisprudence or judicial guidelines? What is the basis for the minimum number? Maria Corazon A. De Ungria, PhD DNA Analysis Laboratory Natural Sciences Research Institute University of the Philippines Diliman, Q.C. 1101 PHILIPPINES http://www.dnaforensic.org Telefax 6329252965 Mobile: 639189136284 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Ma. Corazon A. De Ungria" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 15 15:16:02 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7FJG2cW023275 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:16:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7FJG29o023274 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:16:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <4300E9DC.1010607@ufl.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:15:40 -0400 From: Dave Khey Organization: University of Florida User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted References: <20050812224335.41954.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050812224335.41954.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Monahan and Walker's _Social Science in Law_ 5th ed. takes a similar view of pushing for proficiency testing - and expands on its methods/mechanism for all individualization sciences and beyond. It escapes me if Michael Saks wrote the chapter in there... but that is a possibility. The language is much the same which makes me think this is the case. In that chapter, their arguments do make more sense - but I wish they would have included it in the Science article. There truly is a need for a macro view of forensic science techniques from a social science and law prospective - however, I would stress a longitudinal approach to be taken - the data taken from the Innocence Project makes forensic science look awful as it - Only includes outlier cases - probably many with professional misconduct (they included police misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct, but do not really state if "testing errors" can be due to misconduct) N = 87 Among other issues I have with the data presentation. Perhaps the new edition of the book is out. I'll have to give it a 'google' Dave David N. Khey, MA Graduate Teacher, PhD Student Department of Criminology, Law, & Society University of Florida John Lentini wrote: >The August 5 edition of Science magazine contains an interesting article > > >Saks and Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, Science 2005 309: 892-895 > >The authors studied factors in 86 DNA exoneration cases and found that forensic science testing errors occurred in 63% of those, and false or misleading testimony by forensic scientists occurred in 27%. (More than one factor was found in many cases.) Given that forensic scientists participate in only a small subset of criminal cases (10-20% according to the authors), these figures are a cause for some concern. The article states,"forensic scientists are the witnesses most likely to present misleading or fraudulent testimony." > >The paradigm suggested by the authors, however, seems unlikely to just shift into place. The authors suggest conforming all individualization testing to the DNA model, which seems like it would be very difficult to implement. How would one determine, for instance, the chance of a random right shoe matching a shoeprint that exhibits a triangular cut on the left side of the heel? > >The authors also suggest implementing blind proficiency testing, but do not offer a mechanism for doing so. > >Overall, the article paints a not-very-flattering picture of the state of the art. > > > > > > >Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. >John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com >Certified Fire Investigator >Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics >http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by John Lentini ] > > > [EndPost by Dave Khey ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 15 15:28:09 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7FJS9cW023970 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7FJS9cI023969 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <4300ECB0.1060808@ufl.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:27:44 -0400 From: Dave Khey Organization: University of Florida User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted References: <20050812224335.41954.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> <4300E9DC.1010607@ufl.edu> In-Reply-To: <4300E9DC.1010607@ufl.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bingo - here's the cite: Faigman, David L., David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, and Joseph Sanders, 2002. Science in the Law: Forensic Science Issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group. They have been at this for quite some time. Dave Dave Khey wrote: > Monahan and Walker's _Social Science in Law_ 5th ed. takes a similar > view of pushing for proficiency testing - and expands on its > methods/mechanism for all individualization sciences and beyond. It > escapes me if Michael Saks wrote the chapter in there... but that is a > possibility. The language is much the same which makes me think this > is the case. > > In that chapter, their arguments do make more sense - but I wish they > would have included it in the Science article. There truly is a need > for a macro view of forensic science techniques from a social science > and law prospective - however, I would stress a longitudinal approach > to be taken - the data taken from the Innocence Project makes forensic > science look awful as it - > > Only includes outlier cases - probably many with professional > misconduct (they included police misconduct and prosecutorial > misconduct, but do not really state if "testing errors" can be due to > misconduct) > > N = 87 > > Among other issues I have with the data presentation. > > Perhaps the new edition of the book is out. I'll have to give it a > 'google' > > Dave > > David N. Khey, MA > Graduate Teacher, PhD Student > Department of Criminology, Law, & Society > University of Florida > > > > John Lentini wrote: > >> The August 5 edition of Science magazine contains an interesting article >> >> Saks and Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic >> Identification Science, Science 2005 309: 892-895 >> The authors studied factors in 86 DNA exoneration cases and found >> that forensic science testing errors occurred in 63% of those, and >> false or misleading testimony by forensic scientists occurred in 27%. >> (More than one factor was found in many cases.) Given that forensic >> scientists participate in only a small subset of criminal cases >> (10-20% according to the authors), these figures are a cause for some >> concern. The article states,"forensic scientists are the witnesses >> most likely to present misleading or fraudulent testimony." >> >> The paradigm suggested by the authors, however, seems unlikely to >> just shift into place. The authors suggest conforming all >> individualization testing to the DNA model, which seems like it would >> be very difficult to implement. How would one determine, for >> instance, the chance of a random right shoe matching a shoeprint >> that exhibits a triangular cut on the left side of the heel? >> >> The authors also suggest implementing blind proficiency testing, but >> do not offer a mechanism for doing so. >> >> Overall, the article paints a not-very-flattering picture of the >> state of the art. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. >> John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com >> Certified Fire Investigator >> Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics >> http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 >> >> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >> multipart/alternative >> text/plain (text body -- kept) >> text/html >> --- >> [EndPost by John Lentini ] >> >> >> > [EndPost by Dave Khey ] > [EndPost by Dave Khey ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 15 15:49:31 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7FJnVcW025310 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7FJnVcL025309 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:49:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Fw: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted To: RBost@ucok.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 Message-ID: From: DvonMinden@ucok.edu Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:49:09 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 6.5.4FP1 | June 19, 2005) at 08/15/2005 14:49:08 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7FJnUcW025304 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu For Dr. Saks, go to http://www.law.asu.edu/Apps/Faculty/Faculty.aspx?individual_id=28 >From this site: "B.A., B.S. Pennsylvania State University M.A.(1972); Ph.D., Social Psychology, (1975) Ohio State University M.S.L., Yale University (1983) Before joining the College of Law faculty, Professor Saks taught at Boston College, Georgetown University, and the University of Iowa, where he was the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law. He has served as editor of Law & Human Behavior, and is co-editor of Modern Scientific Evidence. His research focuses on empirical studies of the legal system, especially decision-making, the behavior of the litigation system, and the law’s use of science. His work has earned several awards and has been cited in a number of judicial opinions, including several by the United States Supreme Court. He serves on the Advisory Boards of the Best Practices Institute of the National Center for State Courts and of the Center for Justice and Democracy. MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY with D. Faigman, D. Kaye and J. Sanders (2d ed., West Group 2002). The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion with Risinger, Rosenthal & Thompson, 90 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 1 (2002). Decision-Making about General Damages: A Comparison of Jurors, Judges, and Lawyers with Roselle L. Wissler and Allen J. Hart, 98 MICHIGAN LAW R EVIEW 751 (1999). Be Careful What You Wish For: The Effects of Bifurcating Claims for Punitive Damages in Product Liability Cases with Stephan Landsman, Shari Diamond, and Linda Dimitropoulos, 1998 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW 297 (1998). Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the Law's Formative Encounters with Forensic Identification Science, 49 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 1069 (1998)." For Dr. Koehler, go to http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/guide/ From this site: Jay Koehler koehler@mail.utexas.edu Professor Department of Information, Risk, and Operations Management CBA 5.202    (512) 471-7856      (512) 471-0587 (fax) CBA 5.202    (512) 471-3322 http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/jonathan.koehler/ • PHD, University of Chicago, 1989 • MA, University of Chicago, 1985 • BA, Pomona College, 1982 Academic Posts: University of Texas at Austin, 1990 - present;  Stanford University (Visiting Scholar);  Harvard University (Visiting Scholar) Research Areas: Behavioral Decision Theory,  Probability and Statistics,  Psychology and Law Industry Areas: Business Decision Making,  Business Statistics,  Legal Statistics Current Research Projects: "Initial Public Offerings: Investor Perceptions versus Reality"; "Selection Effects in Mutual Fund Advertisements and Choices"; "The Psychology of Rates" Recent and Representative Publications: (click here to view all): Jonathan J. Koehler and Laura Macchi. 2004. Thinking About Low-Probability Events. Psychological Science 15, 540-546. D. H. Kaye and Jonathan J. Koehler. 2003. The Misquantification of Probative Value. Law and Human Behavior 27, 645-659. Professional Awards: CBA Foundation Research Excellence Award for Assistant Professors, 1996; Loevinger Prize: Best article in Jurimetrics Journal, 1995; National Science Foundation Decision, Risk, and Management Science Program grant, 1999-2003 1992-4 Teaching Awards: University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers, 1998; College of Business Administration Foundation Teaching Award for Assistant Prof., 1992; Outstanding Business Honors Program Professor, 2001, 1998 and 1996 [EndPost by DvonMinden@ucok.edu] From forens-owner Mon Aug 15 16:13:37 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7FKDbcW026145 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7FKDb0Z026144 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:13:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:13:38 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-reply-to: <20050812224335.41954.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <4300F772.3020201@castledesk.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20050812224335.41954.qmail@web40805.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The following is an off the cuff comment on the above. It is a gut feeling. It is without any real research. And I have been just as guilty as the rest. I am a little sick and tired of "others" defining what our science should be. I strongly believe we should spend more time defining it ourselves, not being afraid to defend it based on our proven needs, correcting problems which are real and important to us, and spend less time gnashing our teeth over other professions decisions on what our science should be. The best defense is a good offense. Said, now let the bashing begin. Sliding the soap box into the corner so no one trips over it in the dark. Azriel Gorski [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 15 20:07:51 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7G07pcW028981 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7G07pk7028980 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:07:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <145.4b767117.30328848@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:07:36 EDT Subject: [forens] Job Opening - Manager of Accreditations To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: wjt@forquality.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7G07pcW028982 MANAGER OF ACCREDITATIONS Forensic Quality Services (FQS) has a vacancy for the Manager of Accreditations to head its ISO Accreditation Division (FQS-I). The duties are: * Maintain the currency of the program and ensure its continuing development, including FQS-I’s recognition by and participation in the National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA) * Manage the program assessors in regard to training, qualification, performance feedback * Interact with new clients to identify needs and develop proposals * Arrange assessments and surveillance activities, including maintaining records, selection of Lead Assess, assistance to Lead Assessors in identifying other team members, assessment planning, and assessment arrangements * Actively market FQS-I through continuing liaison with existing and potential new clients, and identification and development of new program areas The position is supported by financial and administrative staff within FQS but is administratively separate from the client services provided directly by FQS. The successful candidate will: * Have a proven record of involvement in quality management and accreditation in forensic science * Have a sound working knowledge of the administration and implementation of ISO 17025 accreditation, for example through experience as a lead assessor or as a senior manager in an ISO accredited laboratory * Have a sound knowledge of forensic science testing as applied in law enforcement and non-law enforcement operations The position is full time (40 hour week), and is based in the FQS offices in Largo, Florida. Alternate work schedules could be considered, for example four 10-hour days. In the case of an exceptionally well-qualified candidate, a 32-hour week could be considered, but it is a requirement that the position is based at the offices of FQS in Largo, Florida. A generous compensation package in excess of $75,000 is offered with the exact terms depending on the experience and expertise of the candidate. Applications and requests for further information: Should be addressed to Dr William J Tilstone, FQS, 7881 114th Avenue, Largo, FL 33773 or by email to _wjt@forquality.org_ (mailto:wjt@forquality.org) . Further information on the business can be found by visiting _www.forquality.org_ (http://www.forquality.org/) . The closing date for applications is September 1, 2005. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Aug 15 21:25:38 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7G1PccW000015 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7G1Pb6o000014 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:25:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:51:27 +0800 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:22:45 +1200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:51:27 +0800 Thread-Index: AcWfp77dZhkLlqCOQ3qgdOIeLmKQZQCP9q+A From: "Buckleton, John" To: X-imss-version: 2.030 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:81.17755 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7G1PbcW000009 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cora, I see you have successfully joined the net. Have you already got the Hallenberg and Morling reference? John Buckleton Principal Scientist The Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd. New Zealand Ph +64-9 815 3904 Fax +64-9 849 6046 john.buckleton@esr.cri.nz -----Original Message----- From: Ma. Corazon A. De Ungria [mailto:mcadu@uplink.com.ph] Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2005 1:36 p.m. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:51:27 +0800 I am looking for more information on minimum Probability of Paternity values set by different jurisdictions prior to presuming paternity. Was this minimum set through legislation, via jurisprudence or judicial guidelines? What is the basis for the minimum number? Maria Corazon A. De Ungria, PhD DNA Analysis Laboratory Natural Sciences Research Institute University of the Philippines Diliman, Q.C. 1101 PHILIPPINES http://www.dnaforensic.org Telefax 6329252965 Mobile: 639189136284 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Ma. Corazon A. De Ungria" ] [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 16 00:00:53 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7G40rcW002357 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7G40rjR002356 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:00:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <12104955.1124164851028.JavaMail.dillonqd1@mac.com> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:00:51 -0700 From: Duayne Dillon To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: 63.202.23.16/instID=207 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The good offense. First obtain a protective academic position. Then located a handful of like minded persons. State you goal as to elevate the science of criticism of forensic science. Ridicule all practicing critics and be certain to include irrelevent derogatory historical analogies. Establish a arbitrary set of new standards to be compled with by would be critics, of course, unencombered by any practical experience. Embark on a series of articles with slightly changed titles and subject matter but echoing the same mantra. Ignore all efforts of existing critics to improve their eductional and professional qualifications and ethics. Finally enjoy the cold slimy feeling as you squirm back under your rock. Disclaimer: my remarks should not be construed as being directed toward any particular individual or group, particular emphasis is directed to the North American reptilian community. Duayne J. Dillon, DCrim Forensic Document Examiner On Monday, August 15, 2005, at 01:18PM, Azriel Gorski wrote: > >The following is an off the cuff comment on the above. It is a gut >feeling. It is without any real research. And I have been just as guilty >as the rest. > >I am a little sick and tired of "others" defining what our science >should be. I strongly believe we should spend more time defining it >ourselves, not being afraid to defend it based on our proven needs, >correcting problems which are real and important to us, and spend less >time gnashing our teeth over other professions decisions on what our >science should be. > >The best defense is a good offense. On Monday, August 15, 2005, at 01:18PM, Azriel Gorski wrote: > >The following is an off the cuff comment on the above. It is a gut >feeling. It is without any real research. And I have been just as guilty >as the rest. > >I am a little sick and tired of "others" defining what our science >should be. I strongly believe we should spend more time defining it >ourselves, not being afraid to defend it based on our proven needs, >correcting problems which are real and important to us, and spend less >time gnashing our teeth over other professions decisions on what our >science should be. > >The best defense is a good offense. > >Said, now let the bashing begin. > >Sliding the soap box into the corner so no one trips over it in the dark. > >Azriel Gorski > > >[EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] > > [EndPost by Duayne Dillon ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 16 10:20:17 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7GEKGcW008964 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7GEKGjW008963 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:20:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <20050816072013.w0ok044swksskckg@www.email.arizona.edu> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:20:13 -0700 From: banders@email.arizona.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] reptiles References: <12104955.1124164851028.JavaMail.dillonqd1@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <12104955.1124164851028.JavaMail.dillonqd1@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well said! Best to you and the Mrs. Bruce Anderson Finally enjoy the cold slimy > feeling as you squirm back under your rock. Disclaimer: my remarks > should not be construed as being directed toward any particular > individual or group, particular emphasis is directed to the North > American reptilian community. > Duayne J. Dillon, DCrim > Forensic Document Examiner [EndPost by banders@email.arizona.edu] From forens-owner Tue Aug 16 18:51:16 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7GMpGcW021288 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7GMpG4X021287 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:51:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:51:08 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: RE: [forens] reptiles To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0122D3@svexchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0 Thread-Topic: [forens] reptiles Thread-Index: AcWib1/EZ1cP7I0BTg2ZLnhnwGeHzAAQIOLA content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I find these sort of comments disturbing and sad (to say the least) when they come from scientists. I assume they do not reflect the majority view of scientists in the forensic science community. The article has implications because it appeared in one of the most prestigious scientific journals and will be read in the wider scientific community. I assume it was peer reviewed and the referees did not disagree with the article's factual contents. Personally, I don't agree with all the comments that the authors made in the article. But, surely, the question to ask is, can the data in the article be countered without resorting to personal attacks? I assume people who are attacking the authors at a personal level have evidence that the data presented is wrong. You should submit this to the Science journal by way of rebuttal as this is what science is all about. The problem you may face is that the authors have cited references to the data which can easily be checked (eg. See Collaborative testing QA results on a WEB site) so I assume it will be difficult to show they are factually incorrect. Anecdotal evidence you may wish to publish to counter the article would probably not be acceptable. Of course, if the data is correct, then we should carefully consider the article's implications for the presentation of evidence. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of banders@email.arizona.edu Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2005 12:20 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] reptiles Well said! Best to you and the Mrs. Bruce Anderson Finally enjoy the cold slimy > feeling as you squirm back under your rock. Disclaimer: my remarks > should not be construed as being directed toward any particular > individual or group, particular emphasis is directed to the North > American reptilian community. > Duayne J. Dillon, DCrim > Forensic Document Examiner [EndPost by banders@email.arizona.edu] * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 17 03:06:38 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7H76ccW026518 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7H76c5K026517 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 03:06:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0122D3@svexchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> References: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0122D3@svexchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> Message-Id: <6D4A4426-0EED-11DA-A7EA-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> From: Rob Keister Subject: Re: [forens] the Science article - if the data is correct Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:06:26 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Bentley Atchison wrote: > > Of course, if the data is correct, then we should carefully consider > the > article's implications for the presentation of evidence. > > Dr. Bentley Atchison > Manager, Molecular Biology > Hard to know if the data is correct. The article does not contain the data. Visiting the Innocence Project web site you can see case profile summaries of 161 DNA exonerations: http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_cases.php? sort=year_exoneration Unknown which of the 161 cases listed there are included in the subset of 86 that were used in the Science article to determine that 63% of the wrongful convictions involved forensic science testing errors. (Or how a testing error was defined; is an accurate but statistically weak ABO result that fails to exclude the wrongly convicted defendant a testing error?) Perhaps some of the members of this list that are closer to the Innocence Project can suggest a way one could examine the data used to calculate number of forensic testing errors. Another question I did not find an answer to on the IP web site is how many total cases have they accepted and performed the DNA testing? Presumably there are some where the DNA testing verified the conviction, even when their selection process is (understandably) geared towards seeking out wrongful convictions. And another bit of info is that not all of the 161 case profiles listed had DNA testing initiated by the Innocence Project. For example case #34 was suspected by the case investigators and confirmed by DNA testing at the crime lab at which I work. Rob Keister Orange County, CA [EndPost by Rob Keister ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 17 11:43:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7HFhvcW004258 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:43:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7HFhu66004257 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:43:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817081122.034761f0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:43:41 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] the Science article - if the data is correct Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6D4A4426-0EED-11DA-A7EA-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> References: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0122D3@svexchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> <6D4A4426-0EED-11DA-A7EA-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Bentley Atchison wrote: >>Of course, if the data is correct, then we should carefully consider >>the article's implications for the presentation of evidence. At 12:06 AM 8/17/2005, Rob Keister wrote: >Hard to know if the data is correct. The article does not contain the >data. ... >Unknown which of the 161 cases listed there are included in the subset >of 86 that were used in the Science article to determine that 63% of >the wrongful convictions involved forensic science testing errors. There are some bar graphs on the Innocence project web site -- [1] DEFECTIVE OR FRAUDULENT SCIENCE Scientific fraud by type. Many cases featured a combination of these types of fraud. http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/junkscience.php [2] The most common factors leading to wrongful convictions that were found in the first 70 DNA exonerations http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/index.php which may be comparable with Sax/Koehler's similar bar graph [3] Factors associated with wrongful conviction in 86 DNA exoneration cases, based on case analysis data provided by the Innocence Project and computed by us http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5736/892/FIG1 Note that these three graphs summarize 161 (?), 70, and 86 cases respectively. As a control for comparison, consider "mistaken ID": [3] attributes eyewitness errors 71% of the time (i.e. of 86 cases) -- 61 instances, and [2] lists 61 instances of mistaken ID in the first 70 exonerations. Moving on to forensic science: [3] attributes "Forensic science testing errors" in 63% of 86 cases -- hence 54 instances. This is a distinct category (though there may be overlapping cases) from "False/misleading testimony by forensic scientists" (27% of 86 cases = 23 instances). By comparison, [2] mentions only 26 instances of "Defective or fraudulent science" and the presumably larger survey [1] lists a total of 51 instances of "Defective or fraudulent science". I don't offhand see how to reconcile these data, especially if "computed by us" means that S/K didn't do their own categorization but only arithmetic. Charles Brenner http://dna-view.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Thu Aug 18 12:12:17 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7IGCBWv023633 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7IGCBMm023632 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:12:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 2FE86496-99AB-4F57-9D02-99DB63D2D044 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:11:43 -0700 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Agency Question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6F1A6CDA1FG40037-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear List, I have asked by my management to post a question to this List with regards to lab policies within your respective agencies. Our management would like to know which labs/states collect DNA samples from their employees for their local CODIS DNA databank? I suppose the question is only applicable to those who would have direct contact with either crime scenes or evidence - but if you are aware of your lab policy regarding this matter, please let me know. Please either post to the list or email me directly at: Many thanks in advance, and warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 19 00:21:56 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7J4LtWv006604 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:21:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7J4Ltos006603 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:21:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <002601c5a475$82a8b2f0$2802a8c0@fyreatr> From: "Donna Brandelli" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Agency Question Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:21:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7J4LuWv006605 Our DNA personnel collect the DNA from employees that have routine contact with crime scenes on a voluntary basis. They are not allowed to enter it into any state or federal database, nor are they allowed to run the voluntarily donated DNA against anything in the data base. They are creating a local database, so as not to run employees unnecessarily through the state and federal databases. Donna Brandelli "Principle -- particularly moral principle -- can never be a weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency. Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true." --Edward Lyman ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Bruton To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: [forens] Agency Question Dear List, I have asked by my management to post a question to this List with regards to lab policies within your respective agencies. Our management would like to know which labs/states collect DNA samples from their employees for their local CODIS DNA databank? I suppose the question is only applicable to those who would have direct contact with either crime scenes or evidence - but if you are aware of your lab policy regarding this matter, please let me know. Please either post to the list or email me directly at: Many thanks in advance, and warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Donna Brandelli" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 19 11:16:12 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7JFGCWv013884 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7JFGC3i013883 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:16:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 2FE86496-99AB-4F57-9D02-99DB63D2D044 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:15:43 -0700 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Agency Question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6F1B28241FG115869-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Good morning, Donna, Many thanks for the email. I would also like to ask which agency do you work for? One response I received stated that the lab personnel / crime scene investigators' profiles are ran against unknown recovered DNA *first*, before searching any of the state or federal databases in order to screen for possible contamination. When do you compare your staff profiles to DNA recovered from evidence? Many thanks, once again - it is very much appreciated! Have a great weekend. Best wishes, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> fyreatr@cox.net 08/18/05 9:21:45 PM >>> Our DNA personnel collect the DNA from employees that have routine contact with crime scenes on a voluntary basis. They are not allowed to enter it into any state or federal database, nor are they allowed to run the voluntarily donated DNA against anything in the data base. They are creating a local database, so as not to run employees unnecessarily through the state and federal databases. Donna Brandelli [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Sat Aug 20 14:39:08 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7KId8Wv003859 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7KId8ik003858 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:39:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent E. Turvey, MS" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:38:33 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <12104955.1124164851028.JavaMail.dillonqd1@mac.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Duayne & Azriel; With respect, So long as the forensic science community fails to adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific method (let alone apply them), and fails to meet the threshold that scientific rigor demands by lack of validation studies, lack of actual peer review and blind testing, lack of knowledge of examiner bias and observer effects, and a multitude of other issues raised by legitimate researchers regarding forensic science in general and the identification sciences in specific, our community will continue to be defined by others with a more educated and informed sense of these things. That is to say, we will deserve it everytime someone who knows more about these subjects takes us out for a ride and embarrasses us with our ignorance. Everything that exists suggests that a vast number of practicing forensic scientists are ignorant of what science is, what the scientific method is, and the difference between basic concepts like accuracy and validity, or identification and individuation. The words of Dr. John Thornton, who is far more literate and knowledgeable on these subjects than most, echoes a sentiment that most of us share but few of us have the courage to speak outliud let alone publish: "I find that many forensic scientists, even those who are entirely competent in their profession, have an exceedingly poor grasp of what constitutes the scientific method… [My experience] has convinced me that many, perhaps even most, forensic scientists are not just inattentive to the scientific method, but ignorant" from John I. Thornton, Courts of Law v. Courts of Science: A Forensic Scientist’s Reaction to Daubert, 1 SHEPARD’S EXPERT & SCI. EVID. Q. 475, 484-85 (1997). I would suggest that we are too preoccupied with our gut reactions to outside criticism, which is a pavlovlian response of some kind to be sure. The name calling pretty much spells that out. It also ignores and even subverts the duty of a measured response. There was also a vague admission that these criticisms were being levied without having read the research on this subject by these and other others (it has been thorough and tremendous with regards to law reviews and salient unanswered criticisms), which is kind of interesting. But then I suppose that this is the kind of thing we can expect from ourselves, when it is the official position of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences that, in the words of recent past President Ronald Singer "it is not unethical to be ignorant." This is further unexpected when such an inutellectually indefensible position is used as an excuse to sweep the incapacity of its fellows under the rug when they act in an ignorant and unethical fashion (Communication from Ronald Singer to Complainant re: Ethics Violations, September 10, 2004 - on file with with the author; discovery is sometimes a painful process). As for the legitimate reformers in forensic science, that would be the defense bar as of this date, which has again and again revealed forensic fraud and forensic scientist misconduct carefully buried by the communities concerned all over these United States. Texas DPS is coming to mind again. As well as Chuck Vaughn, Arnold Melnikoff, Joyce Gilchrist, and a series of others whose cases represent systemic problems occuring for years, with full knowedge of the local forensic community, often through multiple lab systems (see: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html to begin). In any case, I would be eager to hear of any legitimate reform attempts by actual forensic scientists. And no, TWGED doesn't count, as it responds to, and to an extent even legitimizes, public crime lab employment practices rather than define them. That and TWGED still won't come out and say explicitly that you must have a degree in science to be a forensic scientist. It recmmends it, but does not require it, and even provides that many lab positions do not currently require one (which is true but shouldn't be the case - this should have been openly condemned by TWGED). This is a blatant ommission to assuage and even protect the non-degreed law enforcement personnel which typically inhabit the inadequately researched identification "sciences" previously discussed. However I will give TWGED this, that it had to be written at all is an admission by the community that these basic requirements (a science background, etc..) were not being met. So please point me in the direction of those forensic scientists who are engaging in active efforts to reform rather than explain or even offer approval for the many demonstrable shortcomings in the forensic science community. By that I mean to say those forensic scientists who have openly identified the shortcomings in forensic science, and are working to correct them outside of political considerations and affiliations. Barring this, when the forensic science community again and again shows an incapacity to police itself, we deserve to be policed by others. Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Duayne Dillon Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:01 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted The good offense. First obtain a protective academic position. Then located a handful of like minded persons. State you goal as to elevate the science of criticism of forensic science. Ridicule all practicing critics and be certain to include irrelevent derogatory historical analogies. Establish a arbitrary set of new standards to be compled with by would be critics, of course, unencombered by any practical experience. Embark on a series of articles with slightly changed titles and subject matter but echoing the same mantra. Ignore all efforts of existing critics to improve their eductional and professional qualifications and ethics. Finally enjoy the cold slimy feeling as you squirm back under your rock. Disclaimer: my remarks should not be construed as being directed toward any particular individual or group, particular emphasis is directed to the North American reptilian community. Duayne J. Dillon, DCrim Forensic Document Examiner On Monday, August 15, 2005, at 01:18PM, Azriel Gorski wrote: > >The following is an off the cuff comment on the above. It is a gut >feeling. It is without any real research. And I have been just as guilty >as the rest. > >I am a little sick and tired of "others" defining what our science >should be. I strongly believe we should spend more time defining it >ourselves, not being afraid to defend it based on our proven needs, >correcting problems which are real and important to us, and spend less >time gnashing our teeth over other professions decisions on what our >science should be. > >The best defense is a good offense. On Monday, August 15, 2005, at 01:18PM, Azriel Gorski wrote: > >The following is an off the cuff comment on the above. It is a gut >feeling. It is without any real research. And I have been just as guilty >as the rest. > >I am a little sick and tired of "others" defining what our science >should be. I strongly believe we should spend more time defining it >ourselves, not being afraid to defend it based on our proven needs, >correcting problems which are real and important to us, and spend less >time gnashing our teeth over other professions decisions on what our >science should be. > >The best defense is a good offense. > >Said, now let the bashing begin. > >Sliding the soap box into the corner so no one trips over it in the dark. > >Azriel Gorski > > >[EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] > > [EndPost by Duayne Dillon ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] From forens-owner Sat Aug 20 15:49:25 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7KJnPWv006993 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7KJnPdg006992 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:49:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent E. Turvey, MS" To: "Forens-L" Cc: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: [forens] Illinois State Police Cancels Forensic Lab's Contract, Citing Errors Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:48:53 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This is an interesting article as it demonstrates the mechanism of use of a private lab under contract to a public lab - an occurrence that some in this community seem ignorant of when fashioning arguments against the transition to a private lab system, or when describing what comprises the forensic science community. Curiously, Mr. Trent, Director of the State Police, has not suggested that the Illinois State Police Crime Lab be held liable for the fraud and error of their examiners (Timothy Dixon; Pamela Fish; Aaron Small; etc.). Illinois State Police Cancels Forensic Lab's Contract, Citing Errors By GRETCHEN RUETHLING NY Times Published: August 20, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/national/20lab.html?ei=5070&en=eef47498239 e9ed5&ex=1125201600&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1124566828-BX+Pdt+jDl4dTqbyRxT NIw CHICAGO, Aug. 19 - The Illinois State Police canceled its contract for DNA analysis with the Bode Technology Group after finding that it failed to recognize semen on evidence in 22 percent of cases that were checked again by forensic scientists who work for the police. Out of a random sample of 51 cases that were re-analyzed for quality assurance, the police said 11 tested positive for the existence of semen. They plan to test all 1,200 cases that Bode Technology said tested negative for semen and are asking the state attorney general for permission to sue the company. "The work provided by Bode was imprecise and we can't tolerate that type of work in this business," Larry Trent, the state police director, said at a news conference on Friday. "I'm outraged that a company with their reputation would conduct business in this manner, and we're not going to let them get away with it." Mr. Trent sent letters to the Justice Department and to top law enforcement officials in every state on Friday to notify them of the findings. He said the Justice Department and at least 10 states had contracted with Bode for forensic analysis. Kevin McElfresh, the executive director of Bode, a Virginia company that is a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, said in a statement that the company had worked with the state police on revising the methodology it used to test samples after the police pointed out the discrepancies in May. "We are disappointed the Illinois State Police has announced that they plan to cancel our contract because we share the state's goal of using the latest in forensic science to solve crimes," Mr. McElfresh said, adding that the state police had "reviewed and approved the testing methods used by Bode." About 2,000 samples, at least 90 percent of which were from rape kits, had been sent to Bode for testing, Mr. Trent said. The discrepancies did not result in any suspects being erroneously released from custody, he said. The Illinois State Police has already paid $1 million to Bode for DNA testing, said Lincoln Hampton, a police spokesman. The state police are seeking payment from the company for the cost of new tests plus up to $750,000 for the initial tests. The repeated testing, which could take about two months, will be done in the state and by Orchid Cellmark of Princeton, N.J. The state police signed a three-year, $7.7 million contract with Bode in September. Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich allocated a total of $5.2 million in the fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to outsource DNA cases to work toward eliminating the state's backlog. Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] From forens-owner Sun Aug 21 13:31:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7LHV0Wv016801 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7LHV0ZV016800 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:31:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:30:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] Agency Question Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:26:24 -0400 From: "Thompson, Roger" In our DNA Unit we have a written policy that requires members of the = crime laboratory and crime scene search staff to provide a DNA standard = which is entered into our local CODIS database. Our police officers are not at this time required to provide a standard = just our staff members in which their primary assignments require = evidence collection, processing and analysis responsibilities.=20 Roger C. Thompson Crime Laboratory Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 601 E. Trade St. Charlotte, N. C. 28202-2940 Office: 704-353-1100 Fax: 704-353-0088 E:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0rthompson@cmpd.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sun Aug 21 13:31:43 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7LHVhWv016853 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7LHVhTB016852 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:31:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:31:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "E Z Brennan" Subject: Unsubscribe Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:10:14 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Donna Brandelli Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Agency Question Our DNA personnel collect the DNA from employees that have routine contact with crime scenes on a voluntary basis. They are not allowed to enter it into any state or federal database, nor are they allowed to run the voluntarily donated DNA against anything in the data base. They are creating a local database, so as not to run employees unnecessarily through the state and federal databases. Donna Brandelli "Principle -- particularly moral principle -- can never be a weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency. Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true." --Edward Lyman ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Bruton To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:11 AM Subject: [forens] Agency Question Dear List, I have asked by my management to post a question to this List with regards to lab policies within your respective agencies. Our management would like to know which labs/states collect DNA samples from their employees for their local CODIS DNA databank? I suppose the question is only applicable to those who would have direct contact with either crime scenes or evidence - but if you are aware of your lab policy regarding this matter, please let me know. Please either post to the list or email me directly at: Many thanks in advance, and warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Donna Brandelli" ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sun Aug 21 16:21:06 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7LKL6Wv019780 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7LKL6vm019779 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:21:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <1f8.104d7524.303a3c27@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:20:55 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 2340 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 8/21/2005 10:32:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu writes: In our DNA Unit we have a written policy that requires members of the = crime laboratory and crime scene search staff to provide a DNA standard = which is entered into our local CODIS database. Roger - Have you ever discovered any of the lab staff's DNA in samples processed in the lab? Lamar Miller Hendersonville, NC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Aug 21 20:58:05 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7M0w5bp023633 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7M0w5r7023632 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:58:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [65.54.161.209] X-Originating-Email: [sojen1@hotmail.com] X-Sender: sojen1@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: <1f8.104d7524.303a3c27@aol.com> From: "Stephen Ojena" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Paper strip method for examination of tilted photographs Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:57:59 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2005 00:58:00.0230 (UTC) FILETIME=[8AC33460:01C5A6B4] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I am looking for someone who is familar with the (old) paper strip method. It is a graphical methods for rectification of tilted photographs. Please contact me off the list at sojen1@hotmail.com Stephen Ojena Criminalist --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by "Stephen Ojena" ] From forens-owner Sun Aug 21 23:08:43 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7M38hbp026072 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7M38hOF026071 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:08:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <1051895.1124680121527.JavaMail.dillonqd1@mac.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:08:41 -0700 From: Duayne Dillon To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Paper strip method for examination of tilted photographs in-reply-to: Mime-Version: 1.0 references: X-Originating-IP: 67.127.73.146/instID=71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Steve, Try entering "Paper strip method for examination of tilted photographs," in Google and you will get a number of sites. Duayne On Sunday, August 21, 2005, at 06:05PM, Stephen Ojena wrote: > > >I am looking for someone who is familar with the (old) paper strip method. It is a graphical methods for rectification of tilted photographs. > > > >Please contact me off the list at sojen1@hotmail.com > > > >Stephen Ojena > >Criminalist > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >text/html (html body -- converted) >--- >[EndPost by "Stephen Ojena" ] > > [EndPost by Duayne Dillon ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 13:47:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MHl0bp008766 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MHl0Zg008765 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:47:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822104557.04400c70@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:46:38 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-Reply-To: References: <12104955.1124164851028.JavaMail.dillonqd1@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 11:38 AM 8/20/2005, Brent E. Turvey, MS wrote at length and in apparent high dudgeon but unfortunately short a few rewrites before hitting send. For example the word "we" is used so cavalierly that one might read the essay as boasting that it is courageous to admit the faults of others. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 15:07:03 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MJ73bp011262 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MJ73Nt011261 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:07:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:07:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Thompson, Roger" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:55:39 -0400 From: "Thompson, Roger" We had only one incident in the past 4 years with a crime scene = technician inadvertently touching evidence with a latex gloved hand. = There is no way to definitively identify the action that took place = other than wiping your forehead in the heat as you are working. We = emphasized changing gloves more frequently, and to eliminate the = potential for cross contamination of the scene to victim or suspect a = second CSI would be dispatched to process the victim or suspect. = Surprisingly with the extreme sensitivity of the new DNA reagents I = would have expected more inadvertent transfer than what we are seeing. It is still important to check an unknown DNA profile against our = internal staff database so we do not enter a known person into the CODIS = database for a search or add to the unsolved database file. Roger C. Thompson Crime Laboratory Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 601 E. Trade St. Charlotte, N. C. 28202-2940 Office: 704-353-1100 Fax: 704-353-0088 E:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0rthompson@cmpd.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 15:07:36 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MJ7abp011344 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MJ7a7g011343 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:07:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:07:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Becherer, Donna A" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] Agency Question Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:33:25 -0500 From: "Becherer, Donna A" Geoff, This wasn't my email, but we do check analysts' and ETU's (Evidence Technician Unit) DNA against unknowns by simply including their profiles in the database searched locally. That would normally happen before unknowns are searched at state or federal level, but not always. I'm with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Crime Lab. Donna Becherer -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Bruton Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:16 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Agency Question Good morning, Donna, Many thanks for the email. I would also like to ask which agency do you work for? One response I received stated that the lab personnel / crime scene investigators' profiles are ran against unknown recovered DNA *first*, before searching any of the state or federal databases in order to screen for possible contamination. When do you compare your staff profiles to DNA recovered from evidence? Many thanks, once again - it is very much appreciated! Have a great weekend. Best wishes, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> fyreatr@cox.net 08/18/05 9:21:45 PM >>> Our DNA personnel collect the DNA from employees that have routine contact with crime scenes on a voluntary basis. They are not allowed to enter it into any state or federal database, nor are they allowed to run the voluntarily donated DNA against anything in the data base. They are creating a local database, so as not to run employees unnecessarily through the state and federal databases. Donna Brandelli [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 15:08:08 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MJ88bp011519 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MJ88rf011518 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:08:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:08:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] the Science article - if the data is correct Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:23:43 -0600 From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" I am curious, was the reexamination of the hairs in question done (State of Montana vs. Bromgard) and if so what was the result? Using 1987 techniques was Arnie correct? -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:44 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] the Science article - if the data is correct >On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Bentley Atchison wrote: >>Of course, if the data is correct, then we should carefully consider >>the article's implications for the presentation of evidence. At 12:06 AM 8/17/2005, Rob Keister wrote: >Hard to know if the data is correct. The article does not contain the >data. ... >Unknown which of the 161 cases listed there are included in the subset >of 86 that were used in the Science article to determine that 63% of >the wrongful convictions involved forensic science testing errors. There are some bar graphs on the Innocence project web site -- [1] DEFECTIVE OR FRAUDULENT SCIENCE Scientific fraud by type. Many cases featured a combination of these types of fraud. http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/junkscience.php [2] The most common factors leading to wrongful convictions that were found in the first 70 DNA exonerations http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/index.php which may be comparable with Sax/Koehler's similar bar graph [3] Factors associated with wrongful conviction in 86 DNA exoneration cases, based on case analysis data provided by the Innocence Project and computed by us http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5736/892/FIG1 Note that these three graphs summarize 161 (?), 70, and 86 cases respectively. As a control for comparison, consider "mistaken ID": [3] attributes eyewitness errors 71% of the time (i.e. of 86 cases) -- 61 instances, and [2] lists 61 instances of mistaken ID in the first 70 exonerations. Moving on to forensic science: [3] attributes "Forensic science testing errors" in 63% of 86 cases -- hence 54 instances. This is a distinct category (though there may be overlapping cases) from "False/misleading testimony by forensic scientists" (27% of 86 cases = 23 instances). By comparison, [2] mentions only 26 instances of "Defective or fraudulent science" and the presumably larger survey [1] lists a total of 51 instances of "Defective or fraudulent science". I don't offhand see how to reconcile these data, especially if "computed by us" means that S/K didn't do their own categorization but only arithmetic. Charles Brenner http://dna-view.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 15:36:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MJakbp013638 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MJakfD013637 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:36:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:44:49 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822104557.04400c70@calmail.berkeley.edu> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles; My spelling errors aside, I would argue that it certainly is not courageous to hide fault within the community. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:47 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 11:38 AM 8/20/2005, Brent E. Turvey, MS wrote at length and in apparent high dudgeon but unfortunately short a few rewrites before hitting send. For example the word "we" is used so cavalierly that one might read the essay as boasting that it is courageous to admit the faults of others. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 15:58:42 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MJwfbp014865 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MJwfBT014864 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:58:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=DIZEjZLHr2lpoN2KgLvWtr0oJHz1OjqKIp+UOEszeuPAY0zF7z9e/IkaOPzbQkxIe97l6UFEwgDsHl6jb0hX18PcOArKfVufdB7uVIXB4qNm8IbaBWPTFT00tBOsmVu7U3OICDI82XkqxMgKVWoo27YBgOm+XjM/0pbfNMylUQQ= ; Message-ID: <20050822195837.99916.qmail@web40829.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:58:37 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: [forens] Fire debris question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'm seeing dimethyl cyclohexanes in several samples from a fire scene out of which I would not have expected survival of these compounds. Does anyone know of a use for these compounds besides lighter fluid? Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 16:06:47 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MK6kbp015572 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MK6ke6015571 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:06:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-ORBL: [67.112.217.43] Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20050822124025.02025e00@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:00:03 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 12:08 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:23:43 -0600 >From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" > >I am curious, was the reexamination of the hairs in question done (State >of Montana vs. Bromgard) and if so what was the result? Using 1987 >techniques was Arnie correct? I am not sure what "correct" means in this context. Analysis of the sexual assault evidence in the case revealed that the assailant was not Bromgard. After that analysis was done, the FBI re-examined the hairs and determined that they were "not even close." The problems with Melnikoff's work, and with the work of the other infamous hair examiners, is not their examinations, it is there testimony. When they testify that they have compared 20,000 hair samples and never seen two they could not distinguish (or some slight variation on those numbers), juries and other naive consumers of that work, not surprisingly, conclude that a hair comparison is a fairly reliable means of human identification. If the actual rate of false inclusions based on microscopic hair examination (somewhere between 12% and 50% depending on the study) was revealed to the jury, they might not place so much reliance on that evidence. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 17:42:18 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MLgIbp017529 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MLgHnc017528 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:42:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <7518135.1124746939056.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:42:18 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: lisa101999@earthlink.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't find anything like it. Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when done? Elizabeth Becka Lansky Cape Coral PD, Florida [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 19:30:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7MNUvbp019692 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7MNUvsi019691 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:30:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: WBirkby@aol.com Message-ID: <1fb.f3a0828.303bba28@aol.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:30:48 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Paper strip method for examination of tilted photographs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 X-Spam-Flag: YES Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Stephen: Don't know nutten 'bout rectum photographs (and only a little bit about rectums) but just thought that I would say "HI" after seeing yer name attached to the e-mail. Hope all is well with you and yours. Nice to know you are around and still kicking. As ever, Walt Birkby Forensic Anthropologist Tucson, AZ. [EndPost by WBirkby@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 23:02:58 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7N32wbp024700 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7N32wDZ024699 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:02:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528) From: Donna Brandelli To: Subject: Re: [forens] ["Thompson, Roger" ] (fwd) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:02:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20050823030252.FZOU550.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You might also consider that someone breathing on the evidence can sometimes transfer DNA evidence onto the scene evidence. When I am processing something that I know will be processed for DNA, especially when I am processing it up close and looking for fingerprints, for example, I wear a mask. We have also gotten fingerprints from those wearing latex gloves, when the gloves are the really thin type. Possibly some DNA evidence transferred this way? Something to think about. Donna Brandelli > > From: "Christopher J. Basten" > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 03:07:02 EDT > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] ["Thompson, Roger" ] (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message > Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:55:39 -0400 > From: "Thompson, Roger" > > We had only one incident in the past 4 years with a crime scene = > technician inadvertently touching evidence with a latex gloved hand. = > There is no way to definitively identify the action that took place = > other than wiping your forehead in the heat as you are working. We = > emphasized changing gloves more frequently, and to eliminate the = > potential for cross contamination of the scene to victim or suspect a = > second CSI would be dispatched to process the victim or suspect. = > Surprisingly with the extreme sensitivity of the new DNA reagents I = > would have expected more inadvertent transfer than what we are seeing. > > It is still important to check an unknown DNA profile against our = > internal staff database so we do not enter a known person into the CODIS = > database for a search or add to the unsolved database file. > > Roger C. Thompson > Crime Laboratory Director > Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department > Crime Laboratory > 601 E. Trade St. > Charlotte, N. C. 28202-2940 > Office: 704-353-1100 > Fax: 704-353-0088 > E:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0rthompson@cmpd.org > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > message/rfc822 > --- > [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] > [EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 23:06:39 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7N36dbp025237 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7N36d7q025236 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:06:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528) From: Donna Brandelli To: Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:06:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20050823030633.NKPQ19494.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Elizabeth, Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the other day and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting and picked up a hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use something like a lint roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for collecting evidence? Rip off the sheets and save them that way? I don't know about the sticky stuff and whether that affects the evidence. I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and trace evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section actually likes that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the evidence, you can fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper before you package it in a manilla envelope. I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any reason not to use them. Donna Brandelli > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't find anything like it. > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when done? > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > Cape Coral PD, Florida > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > [EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 23:26:11 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7N3QBbp026875 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7N3QBob026874 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:26:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <200508230326.j7N3QAbp026868@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: Subject: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:24:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 in-reply-to: <20050823030633.NKPQ19494.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> thread-index: AcWnkBIOQAolJFMhQk2COxVEBsUQ7QAAcAHA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I just use fingerprint tape wrapped around my hand into a roll. (gloved hands of course...) Works quite well, and I always have fingerprint tape handy. Daryl -------------------------------------------------------- Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime and Clues http://www.crimeandclues.com dclemens@crimeandclues.com PMB 163 3923 28th SE Grand Rapids, MI 49512 -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Donna Brandelli Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:07 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Elizabeth, Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the other day and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting and picked up a hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use something like a lint roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for collecting evidence? Rip off the sheets and save them that way? I don't know about the sticky stuff and whether that affects the evidence. I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and trace evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section actually likes that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the evidence, you can fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper before you package it in a manilla envelope. I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any reason not to use them. Donna Brandelli > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't find anything like it. > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when done? > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > Cape Coral PD, Florida > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > [EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] [EndPost by "Daryl W. Clemens" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 22 23:40:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7N3ekbp027576 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7N3ekOm027575 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:40:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-ORBL: [63.203.74.211] Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20050822202558.024ebf20@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:39:36 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers In-Reply-To: <20050823030633.NKPQ19494.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@smtp.west.co x.net> References: <20050823030633.NKPQ19494.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The problem with things like lint rollers and post-it notes is that in order to examine them you have to expose the sticky surface thereby creating a possibility for contamination. Also, fastening down a large piece of tape with the sticky side up is a problem - you can never get it flat enough for convenient scanning under a stereo 'scope. I prefer to use 2" wide clear fingerprint tape. This is preserved, mastic side down of course, on 2" x 3" glass microscope slides. The tape lifts can easily be scanned under a stereo, particles of interest circled for further examination under a high power 'scope, and if still of interest the little piece of tape with the particle can be cut out, and the particle recovered with a little ethyl acetate. For something like a hair or a large fiber or other object on the tape, just peel back the tape and pull it off. The only problem is the that mastic may adhere, but this can be removed with a little manipulation. Obviously there is a trade-off between the tackiness of the mastic, the efficiency of removal of particles from a substrate, the capacity of the sticky surface, and the ease with which the particles can be recovered for subsequent analysis. Not to mention the ease of examination. If someone could figure out the formula for solving this complicated question, let me know. Pete Barnett At 08:06 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >Elizabeth, > >Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the other >day and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting and >picked up a hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use >something like a lint roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for >collecting evidence? Rip off the sheets and save them that way? I don't >know about the sticky stuff and whether that affects the evidence. > >I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and >trace evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section actually >likes that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the evidence, you >can fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper before you package >it in a manilla envelope. > >I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any >reason not to use them. > >Donna Brandelli > > > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers > (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and > can't find anything like it. > > > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when > done? > > > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > > Cape Coral PD, Florida > > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > > > >[EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 00:10:53 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7N4Arbp029788 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7N4ArpR029787 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:10:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-ORBL: [63.203.74.211] Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20050822204611.024e0a88@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:06:03 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers In-Reply-To: <200508230326.j7N3QAbp026868@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > References: <20050823030633.NKPQ19494.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> <200508230326.j7N3QAbp026868@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu That reminds me - I forgot to say how I hold the tape. The free end is secured between my little and ring finger extending toward the back of my hand with the sticky side toward outside. Then wrap the tape around the outside op the little finger and across the hand and hold between the thumb and index finger. You can fold the tape over at that point and tear it off the roll. Now proceed to pat the surface with the sticky side of the tape, and when the tape looses its tack simply place it on a microscope slide, and tear off the loose ends, or cut the tape along the edge of the glass slide with a pen knife or scalpel. Usually, four such lifts are used for one side of a shirt or pair of pants - more if the substrate is real dirty or something with a lot of loose fibers like flannel, or less with something like a clean windbreaker. I hope the explanation is clear - if not, email me and I will send you a picture. Pete Barnett At 08:24 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >I just use fingerprint tape wrapped around my hand into a roll. (gloved >hands of course...) > >Works quite well, and I always have fingerprint tape handy. > >Daryl > >-------------------------------------------------------- >Daryl W. Clemens >Editor, Crime and Clues >http://www.crimeandclues.com > >dclemens@crimeandclues.com > >PMB 163 >3923 28th SE >Grand Rapids, MI 49512 >-------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] >On Behalf Of Donna Brandelli >Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:07 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > >Elizabeth, > >Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the other day >and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting and picked up a >hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use something like a lint >roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for collecting evidence? Rip off >the sheets and save them that way? I don't know about the sticky stuff and >whether that affects the evidence. > >I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and trace >evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section actually likes >that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the evidence, you can >fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper before you package it in >a manilla envelope. > >I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any >reason not to use them. > >Donna Brandelli > > > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers >(i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't >find anything like it. > > > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when >done? > > > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > > Cape Coral PD, Florida > > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > > > >[EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] > > > >[EndPost by "Daryl W. Clemens" ] Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 03:16:32 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7N7GWbp003532 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7N7GWas003531 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:16:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:00:42 -0600 From: JDeak Subject: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.2.20050822202558.024ebf20@mail.fsalab.com> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0ILN00L13Y4T9U@l-daemon> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-index: AcWnlqEeYoo1Amx7TfOqd7FyHfF0lgAAOHUg Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There are two other alternatives to consider for taping: 1. Use ordinary cellophane tape that can be procured in bulk (i.e. - rolls of tape that are packaged in a plastic bag or some container that minimizes the presence of extraneous contaminants on the tacky sides of the roll. Use a 6" to 7" length of tape to recover fibres, being careful not to overload the tape with recovered material. It HAS to remain tacky. The taping can then be stuck in between a "Side Load Clear Poly Sheet Protector, Open on 3 Sides" (do a Google Image search on that phrase if you aren't familiar with these), preferably a heavy gauge (the standard gauge is somewhat flimsy for manipulating under a stereomicroscope.) When one surface of the sheet protector is filled with parallel rows of tapings, it can be sealed by taping shut the sheet protector's 3 open edges. The sheet protector can then be labeled as to source etc. (and, if appropriate, each length of tape can be identified as to source on the sheet protector). The sheet protector can then be sealed in a tamper-proof exhibit bag or envelope for delivery to the lab. This facilitates the microscopic screening of the tapings THROUGH the clear sheet protector without having to open it.) The location of target hairs / fibres can then be marked with a felt pen for later recovery as Peter described. The use of the sheet protectors also facilitates the use of an automated fibre finder, if your local lab facility is lucky enough to have one that works. 2. There is also a specialized product, produced in the U.K. as I recall, that uses a sheet protector as above, but one entire surface of the sheet protector is coated with a layer of clear, colourless adhesive. After this adhesive surface is placed on the item being searched, the page protector is closed, et voila, there is an 8 1/2 x 11 taping that can be screened microscopically for forensically significant materials without physically opening it. (This is useful if a 1:1 taping is deemed appropriate / meaningful ... but I ain't gonna touch that one now!) While on the topic, two comments on fibre tapings: 1. If you're NOT wearing a bunny suit at the scene (unlikely these days), make sure that tapings of your outer garments are collected for elimination purposes. (If I had a nickel for each of the pristine dark blue uniform wool fibres that I've seen over the years....) 2. If using the microscope slide or the sheet protector method, it is helpful to the people doing the microscopy if there are as few air-bubbles as possible in the tape/substrate mount. Reason? ... if the fibre is on the tape surface, but separated from the sheet protector surface by an air pocket, the fibre can sometimes be difficult to see (... and the automated fibre finders, as I recall, will often miss seeing the fibres masked by the air bubble). This is one of the reasons why the tape surface should not be overloaded to the point that the tape loses its stickiness (as can easily happen with lint rollers unless extreme care is taken!). Some, if not all of this, might be found in the SWGMAT fibre recovery guidelines. Hope this helps. -------------------------------- And although it is not time for the Friday Follies, I leave you with the only Hair & Fibre (or Fiber, as the case may be) anecdote that I know...... Three strings walk into a bar and find a table. One of them goes up to the bartender and asks for three beers. The bartender says to him, "We don't serve strings here." The first string goes back and sits down and tells the other two strings the bad news. The second string is a wee bit angry at this and goes up to the bartender, "My good man, I would like three beers" and the string pulls out the money for the drinks. And again the barkeep glares down at him and says, "You're a string, ain't ya?" "Yes I am", he replied. And the bartender says, "Look... WE DON'T SERVE STRINGS HERE!" And the second string goes back to the table empty-handed. Now the third string is mighty upset. He stands up, tousles his fibres, gets tied up in a knot and goes to the barkeep. The other two strings watch in amazement as there is a verbal exchange between the string and the bartender. Then the bartender gets red in the face, and they see their friend returning with 3 beers. "How did you do it?", they stammered. Well, when I asked for the beers, he asked if I was a string, and I simply told him that I was a frayed knot. ----------------------------- I'll end on that knot... er .. note. Joe Deak -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: August 22, 2005 9:40 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers The problem with things like lint rollers and post-it notes is that in order to examine them you have to expose the sticky surface thereby creating a possibility for contamination. Also, fastening down a large piece of tape with the sticky side up is a problem - you can never get it flat enough for convenient scanning under a stereo 'scope. I prefer to use 2" wide clear fingerprint tape. This is preserved, mastic side down of course, on 2" x 3" glass microscope slides. The tape lifts can easily be scanned under a stereo, particles of interest circled for further examination under a high power 'scope, and if still of interest the little piece of tape with the particle can be cut out, and the particle recovered with a little ethyl acetate. For something like a hair or a large fiber or other object on the tape, just peel back the tape and pull it off. The only problem is the that mastic may adhere, but this can be removed with a little manipulation. Obviously there is a trade-off between the tackiness of the mastic, the efficiency of removal of particles from a substrate, the capacity of the sticky surface, and the ease with which the particles can be recovered for subsequent analysis. Not to mention the ease of examination. If someone could figure out the formula for solving this complicated question, let me know. Pete Barnett At 08:06 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >Elizabeth, > >Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the >other day and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting >and picked up a hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use >something like a lint roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for >collecting evidence? Rip off the sheets and save them that way? I >don't know about the sticky stuff and whether that affects the evidence. > >I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and >trace evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section >actually likes that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the >evidence, you can fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper >before you package it in a manilla envelope. > >I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any >reason not to use them. > >Donna Brandelli > > > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and > > fibers > (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and > can't find anything like it. > > > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them > > when > done? > > > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > > Cape Coral PD, Florida > > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > > > >[EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 22/08/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 22/08/2005 [EndPost by JDeak ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 06:30:28 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NAUSbp005551 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:30:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NAUSLt005550 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:30:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:30:13 -0300 From: "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" Subject: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <430AFAB5.000001.03704@PENTIUM4> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: IncrediMail (4001874) X-Priority: 3 X-FID: 0F4F1472-E703-43F4-A411-80D6836A668F X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0534-0, 22/08/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean References: <6.0.0.22.2.20050822204611.024e0a88@mail.fsalab.com> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=Windows-1252 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi: could you send me a picture of your explanation ? TK Dr Adolfo Scatena medico forense 2a. Circunscripcion Judicial Prov de Rio Negro, Argentina -------Mensaje original------- De: Peter D. Barnett Fecha: 08/23/05 01:19:00 Para: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Asunto: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers That reminds me - I forgot to say how I hold the tape. The free end is secured between my little and ring finger extending toward the back of my hand with the sticky side toward outside. Then wrap the tape around the outside op the little finger and across the hand and hold between the thumb and index finger. You can fold the tape over at that point and tear it off the roll. Now proceed to pat the surface with the sticky side of the tape, and when the tape looses its tack simply place it on a microscope slide, and tear off the loose ends, or cut the tape along the edge of the glass slide with a pen knife or scalpel. Usually, four such lifts are used for one side of a shirt or pair of pants - more if the substrate is real dirty or something with a lot of loose fibers like flannel, or less with something like a clean windbreaker. I hope the explanation is clear - if not, email me and I will send you a picture. Pete Barnett At 08:24 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >I just use fingerprint tape wrapped around my hand into a roll. (gloved >hands of course...) > >Works quite well, and I always have fingerprint tape handy. > >Daryl > >-------------------------------------------------------- >Daryl W. Clemens >Editor, Crime and Clues >http://www.crimeandclues.com > >dclemens@crimeandclues.com > >PMB 163 >3923 28th SE >Grand Rapids, MI 49512 >-------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu">owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] >On Behalf Of Donna Brandelli >Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:07 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > >Elizabeth, > >Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the other day >and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting and picked up a >hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use something like a lint >roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for collecting evidence? Rip off >the sheets and save them that way? I don't know about the sticky stuff and >whether that affects the evidence. > >I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and trace >evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section actually likes >that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the evidence, you can >fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper before you package it in >a manilla envelope. > >I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any >reason not to use them. > >Donna Brandelli > > > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers >(i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't >find anything like it. > > > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when >done? > > > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > > Cape Coral PD, Florida > > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > > > >[EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] > > > >[EndPost by "Daryl W. Clemens" ] Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif image/jpeg --- [EndPost by "Dr. Adolfo Scatena" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 06:39:07 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NAd7bp006127 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NAd75v006126 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:39:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <20798187.1124793545947.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:39:05 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: lisa101999@earthlink.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks for the responses! When I did hairs and fibers, I used 2" wide 3M packaging tape and placed the strips adhesive-side down on sheets of clear acetate. We'd get those from an art supply store. Xylene would dissolve the adhesive but not the acetate. I just thought a roller would be much easier than individual pieces of tape. That 8 1/2 x 11 sheet sounds handy, too. Elizabeth [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 08:40:27 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NCeRbp008609 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NCeRlK008608 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:40:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:40:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Thread-Index: AcWnlqEeYoo1Amx7TfOqd7FyHfF0lgAAOHUgABGiGTA= Importance: normal From: "Allen Miller" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2005 12:40:26.0807 (UTC) FILETIME=[D67E3C70:01C5A7DF] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7NCeQbp008603 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Besides using off the shelf cellophane, you can find three adhesive soluble tapes on the market. They can be found through Armor Forensics. The first two are methanol soluble tapes, they come in 2" and 3" widths, 60 yards long. The third is a water soluble tape, 1" x 36yds. After collection they can be placed in a clean zip top bag or attached to a Mylar backer. The advantage to these tapes versus the "packing" type tapes is that the evidence can be removed without destruction, tearing, shearing, etc. Another handling technique besides the roll-around-the-hand style would be to fold over the leading edge of the tape to make a non-sticky edge for handling. Then place the flat tape against the surface for collection, patting it against the surface and lifting. The tape then can be placed flat on the storage surface for examination at the lab. This will lessen the "handling" at the lab and not cause the examiner grief when having to unroll the tape from itself. If hair/fiber evidence is to be collected in the field by non-laboratory personnel, it would only be proper to check with your local laboratories to make sure that they will receive evidence collected with tapes or similar techniques. I believe some labs will only accept hairs/fibers that have been collected by the flashlight and tweezers method. Allen Miller Forensic Technical Manager Armor Forensics 904-741-1787 904-741-5407 fax amiller@armorholdings.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of JDeak Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:01 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers There are two other alternatives to consider for taping: 1. Use ordinary cellophane tape that can be procured in bulk (i.e. - rolls of tape that are packaged in a plastic bag or some container that minimizes the presence of extraneous contaminants on the tacky sides of the roll. Use a 6" to 7" length of tape to recover fibres, being careful not to overload the tape with recovered material. It HAS to remain tacky. The taping can then be stuck in between a "Side Load Clear Poly Sheet Protector, Open on 3 Sides" (do a Google Image search on that phrase if you aren't familiar with these), preferably a heavy gauge (the standard gauge is somewhat flimsy for manipulating under a stereomicroscope.) When one surface of the sheet protector is filled with parallel rows of tapings, it can be sealed by taping shut the sheet protector's 3 open edges. The sheet protector can then be labeled as to source etc. (and, if appropriate, each length of tape can be identified as to source on the sheet protector). The sheet protector can then be sealed in a tamper-proof exhibit bag or envelope for delivery to the lab. This facilitates the microscopic screening of the tapings THROUGH the clear sheet protector without having to open it.) The location of target hairs / fibres can then be marked with a felt pen for later recovery as Peter described. The use of the sheet protectors also facilitates the use of an automated fibre finder, if your local lab facility is lucky enough to have one that works. 2. There is also a specialized product, produced in the U.K. as I recall, that uses a sheet protector as above, but one entire surface of the sheet protector is coated with a layer of clear, colourless adhesive. After this adhesive surface is placed on the item being searched, the page protector is closed, et voila, there is an 8 1/2 x 11 taping that can be screened microscopically for forensically significant materials without physically opening it. (This is useful if a 1:1 taping is deemed appropriate / meaningful ... but I ain't gonna touch that one now!) While on the topic, two comments on fibre tapings: 1. If you're NOT wearing a bunny suit at the scene (unlikely these days), make sure that tapings of your outer garments are collected for elimination purposes. (If I had a nickel for each of the pristine dark blue uniform wool fibres that I've seen over the years....) 2. If using the microscope slide or the sheet protector method, it is helpful to the people doing the microscopy if there are as few air-bubbles as possible in the tape/substrate mount. Reason? ... if the fibre is on the tape surface, but separated from the sheet protector surface by an air pocket, the fibre can sometimes be difficult to see (... and the automated fibre finders, as I recall, will often miss seeing the fibres masked by the air bubble). This is one of the reasons why the tape surface should not be overloaded to the point that the tape loses its stickiness (as can easily happen with lint rollers unless extreme care is taken!). Some, if not all of this, might be found in the SWGMAT fibre recovery guidelines. Hope this helps. -------------------------------- And although it is not time for the Friday Follies, I leave you with the only Hair & Fibre (or Fiber, as the case may be) anecdote that I know...... Three strings walk into a bar and find a table. One of them goes up to the bartender and asks for three beers. The bartender says to him, "We don't serve strings here." The first string goes back and sits down and tells the other two strings the bad news. The second string is a wee bit angry at this and goes up to the bartender, "My good man, I would like three beers" and the string pulls out the money for the drinks. And again the barkeep glares down at him and says, "You're a string, ain't ya?" "Yes I am", he replied. And the bartender says, "Look... WE DON'T SERVE STRINGS HERE!" And the second string goes back to the table empty-handed. Now the third string is mighty upset. He stands up, tousles his fibres, gets tied up in a knot and goes to the barkeep. The other two strings watch in amazement as there is a verbal exchange between the string and the bartender. Then the bartender gets red in the face, and they see their friend returning with 3 beers. "How did you do it?", they stammered. Well, when I asked for the beers, he asked if I was a string, and I simply told him that I was a frayed knot. ----------------------------- I'll end on that knot... er .. note. Joe Deak -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: August 22, 2005 9:40 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers The problem with things like lint rollers and post-it notes is that in order to examine them you have to expose the sticky surface thereby creating a possibility for contamination. Also, fastening down a large piece of tape with the sticky side up is a problem - you can never get it flat enough for convenient scanning under a stereo 'scope. I prefer to use 2" wide clear fingerprint tape. This is preserved, mastic side down of course, on 2" x 3" glass microscope slides. The tape lifts can easily be scanned under a stereo, particles of interest circled for further examination under a high power 'scope, and if still of interest the little piece of tape with the particle can be cut out, and the particle recovered with a little ethyl acetate. For something like a hair or a large fiber or other object on the tape, just peel back the tape and pull it off. The only problem is the that mastic may adhere, but this can be removed with a little manipulation. Obviously there is a trade-off between the tackiness of the mastic, the efficiency of removal of particles from a substrate, the capacity of the sticky surface, and the ease with which the particles can be recovered for subsequent analysis. Not to mention the ease of examination. If someone could figure out the formula for solving this complicated question, let me know. Pete Barnett At 08:06 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >Elizabeth, > >Funny you should mention this. I was just using a lint roller the >other day and inadvertantly dropped it in the house when I was dusting >and picked up a hair. I then thought of the same thing. Could we use >something like a lint roller that you buy at Costco in 6 packs for >collecting evidence? Rip off the sheets and save them that way? I >don't know about the sticky stuff and whether that affects the evidence. > >I do know that when I have used the post it notes to collect hair and >trace evidence, we didn't have a problem. The Physical section >actually likes that method because the sticky part doesn't affect the >evidence, you can fold it over itself, and you can write on the paper >before you package it in a manilla envelope. > >I'll have to run it by our Physical section and see if they know of any >reason not to use them. > >Donna Brandelli > > > > From: lisa101999@earthlink.net > > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 05:42:18 EDT > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers > > > > Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and > > fibers > (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and > can't find anything like it. > > > > Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them > > when > done? > > > > Elizabeth Becka Lansky > > Cape Coral PD, Florida > > [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] > > > >[EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 22/08/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 22/08/2005 [EndPost by JDeak ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. [EndPost by "Allen Miller" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 09:24:27 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NDORbp009772 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:24:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NDORcM009771 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:24:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: EColquhoun@monroecounty.gov Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:24:20 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on MCNOTES4/Monroe(Release 5.0.13aIF1|September 24, 2004) at 08/23/2005 09:25:05 AM, Serialize complete at 08/23/2005 09:25:05 AM X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cheap lint rollers from a local 'Dollar' store. After going over the item, the adhesive is removed from the roller and attached to the inside surface of a clear plastic bag. The trace examiner then can cut through the plastic to retieve the item of interest. Ellyn Colquhoun Forensic Biologist II Monroe County Crime Lab Rochester, NY 14614 585.428.3441 Ecolquhoun@monroecounty.gov lisa101999@earthlink.net Sent by: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 08/22/2005 05:42 PM Please respond to forens To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu cc: Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't find anything like it. Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when done? Elizabeth Becka Lansky Cape Coral PD, Florida [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EColquhoun@monroecounty.gov] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 10:56:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NEuvbp013448 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NEuvcR013447 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:56:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:56:46 -0400 From: forensic022@aol.com Message-Id: <8C7760A04897897-D68-AB6A@MBLK-M16.sysops.aol.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.13507 Subject: [forens] question MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-AOL-IP: 64.12.136.49 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have a digital photograph of what we believe is a used surgical staple. It was removed from the copper jacket of a projectile which was removed from a body. The object is made of thin wire, roughly in the shape of the letter B, with points on both ends. It measures approx. 0.40 inches, and is magnetized. If anyone on the list is familiar with surgical staples and would be willing to take a look at the photo let me know. Just FYI the file is more than 3.5 MB. Thanks Brad Brown New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center Trace Evidence Section --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by forensic022@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 11:01:12 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NF17bp014004 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NF173V014003 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:01:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:00:26 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] ["Thompson, Roger" ] (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7NF1Cbp014006 Interested List Members, Something that I have observed over the years of doing crime scene investigations particularly in hot humid regions of the country is that the frequent changing of gloves may be causing the contamination. After wearing gloves for several minutes to hours, one will perspire profusely, thus when changing gloves frequently one may contaminate the surfaces of the new gloves with one's own perspiration. I have noticed my hands become literally shriveled and the interior of the gloves become thoroughly soaked. While double and triple gloving will help in this situation it is by that time when you go back to get a new pair of gloves that the possibility of contamination occurs. Of course, being careful when one samples can probably be the most effective way of avoiding contamination. I can't see the reason to change gloves between samples especially if one has five or more samples to collect. Those that advocate frequent changing of gloves must have stock in the latex and nitrile glove industries. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> fyreatr@cox.net 8/22/2005 8:02:50 PM >>> You might also consider that someone breathing on the evidence can sometimes transfer DNA evidence onto the scene evidence. When I am processing something that I know will be processed for DNA, especially when I am processing it up close and looking for fingerprints, for example, I wear a mask. We have also gotten fingerprints from those wearing latex gloves, when the gloves are the really thin type. Possibly some DNA evidence transferred this way? Something to think about. Donna Brandelli > > From: "Christopher J. Basten" > Date: 2005/08/22 Mon PM 03:07:02 EDT > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] ["Thompson, Roger" ] (fwd) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message > Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:55:39 -0400 > From: "Thompson, Roger" > > We had only one incident in the past 4 years with a crime scene = > technician inadvertently touching evidence with a latex gloved hand. = > There is no way to definitively identify the action that took place = > other than wiping your forehead in the heat as you are working. We = > emphasized changing gloves more frequently, and to eliminate the = > potential for cross contamination of the scene to victim or suspect a = > second CSI would be dispatched to process the victim or suspect. = > Surprisingly with the extreme sensitivity of the new DNA reagents I = > would have expected more inadvertent transfer than what we are seeing. > > It is still important to check an unknown DNA profile against our = > internal staff database so we do not enter a known person into the CODIS = > database for a search or add to the unsolved database file. > > Roger C. Thompson > Crime Laboratory Director > Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department > Crime Laboratory > 601 E. Trade St. > Charlotte, N. C. 28202-2940 > Office: 704-353-1100 > Fax: 704-353-0088 > E:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0rthompson@cmpd.org > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > message/rfc822 > --- > [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] > [EndPost by Donna Brandelli ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 13:56:29 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NHuTbp020408 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NHuT40020407 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:56:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823091336.04bdf6b0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:47:05 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822104557.04400c70@calmail.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 12:44 PM 8/22/2005, Brent Turvey wrote: >Charles; > >My spelling errors "Spelling errors"? I generously described the deficiencies of your exercise in self-indulgence as short a few rewrites, not a proofread. Perhaps I was insufficiently blunt. An emailing to forens-L is a broadcast to 800 or so people as I recall. A meandering stream of consciousness essay takes each person (except those who have previously decided that nothing you say is worth considering -- probably not many in your case since you are usually an intelligent and reasonably concise and careful writer) 10 minutes longer to absorb than a carefully written one. Easily 100 person-hours. So even if you devote 8 hours to whip it into coherent, courteous, and concise shape, there is a huge net economy in professional time. Failure to do this is acting as if your time is (vastly) more important than our time. That offends me. > aside, I would argue that it certainly is not courageous to hide fault > within the community. Well said. Personally I don't find it relevant to what Duayne or Azriel said, but that's between you and them; I don't really have a dog in this hunt. And it took you only a few minutes, not even 8 hours, to hone it down like that. A few examples of excess from your diatribe: Para 1 & 2 say "we" deserve it when called to task for the ignorance of the forensic science community of e.g. examiner bias. Obviously you don't include yourself. Did you really feel justified in condescending to the entire community with this "we" of pretended participation? Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, as you do in your closing? Para 3 ends on a grand note: "Few of us have the courage to [say the following]." Really! May I be the second to congratulate you. "As for the legitimate reformers in forensic science, that would be the defense bar at this date ..." Were you intoxicated on more than your own rhetoric? Seriously -- the defense bar as a collective? I've met plenty of lawyers who are wonderful -- most that I've worked with -- and a few who are not so honest or not so high-minded or not very thoughtful, both prosecution and defense. In the profession of forensic science I suspect similar. What did you think of John Lentini's remarks in this very thread? Spelling too, Brent, spelling errors are an unnecessary distraction. But they're not what I meant. Regards, Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 14:46:08 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NIk8bp021976 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NIk8qT021975 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:46:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:54:12 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823091336.04bdf6b0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles; I'll try not to offend your sentiments re: my spelling and grammar in the future. Such is the nature of email, however. Though I expect you to be consistent and go tirelessly after every single offender. Which would include everyone on this list on any given day. Aside from your lesson on netiquette and spelling, you have further posted only that you seem to disagree with some of my statements. However your disagreement does not prove them incorrect, and as such have you have not responded to any of the issues that I've raised in a meaningful fashion. This is, again, disappointing. Though I will respond to this - I do include myself in the "we" of forensic scientists that I am critical of, and I hold myself to the same standards. I firmly endeavor to set higher standards for myself, and in failing to reach them I have learned much. Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, which is I believe if both the adversarial process, and of independent peer review. And I don't pretend to participate - I actually do participate through research, publication, teaching, and no small amount of forensic casework and expert testimony. Also, my admiration of those who speak up on tough issues does not extend to myself - but rather to people like Thornton, Inman, Rudin, Midkiff, etc... So, before you wade further into a subject with a load of assumptions and preconceptions, I can perhaps suggest some further references that might assist you. The following is a small bibliography of sources that may be cited in support of the positions I rendered in the previous email. And I'm going to ask that before you criticize these sources, that you will have read them - that was one of the criticisms that I levied in the previous email, and it stands (unless you regard it as valid to criticize works before having read them): - Craig M. Cooley, Reforming the Forensic Community to Avert the Ultimate Injustice, 15 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 381, 401-408 (2004) - Edward J. Imwinkelried, Attempts to Limit the Scope of the Frye Standard for the Admission of Scientific Evidence: Confronting the Real Cost of the General Acceptance Test, 10 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 441, 442-43 (1992) - Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Evolution of the American Test for the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence, 30 MED. SCI. & L. 60, 61 (1990 - David L. Faigman, Mapping the Labyrinth of Scientific Evidence, 46 HASTINGS L.J. 555, 556 (1995) - KEITH INMAN & NORAH RUDIN, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF CRIMINALISTICS: THE PROFESSION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE (2000) - John I. Thornton, Courts of Law v. Courts of Science: A Forensic Scientist 's Reaction to Daubert, 1 SHEPARD'S EXPERT & SCI. EVIDENCE Q. 475, 482 (1994) - John I. Thornton & Joseph L. Peterson, The General Assumptions and Rationale of Forensic Identification, in SCIENCE IN THE LAW: FORENSIC SCIENCE ISSUES ? 1-5.4 (David L. Faigman et al. eds. 2002). - Michael J. Saks, Banishing Ipse Dixit: The Impact of Kumho Tire of Forensic Identification Science, 57 WASH. & LEE L. REV. - Michael J. Saks, Scientific Evidence and the Ethical Obligation of Attorneys, 49 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 421, 423 (2001) - Michael Risinger, Defining the "Task at Hand": Non-Science Forensic Science After Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 57 WASH. & LEE. L. REV 767 (2000) - Michael Risinger et al., The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effect in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion, 90 CAL. L. REV. 1, 3-6 (2002) - Charles R. Midkiff, More Mountebanks, in FORENSIC SCIENCE HANDBOOK Vol. II, at 55-60 (Richard Saferstein, ed.) (2d ed. 2004) - David L. Faigman et al., Check Your Crystal Ball at the Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring the Past, Understanding the Present, and Worrying About the Future of Scientific Evidence, 15 CARDOZO L. REV. 1799, 1801 (1994) - Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 COLUM. L. REV. 1197, 1200-01 (1980) - Paul C. Giannelli, Fabricated Reports, 16 CRIM. JUST. 49 (Winter 2002). - Paul C. Gianelli, The Abuse Of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: The Need For Independent Crime Laboratories, 4 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 439 (1997) - Randolph N. Jonakait, Real Science and Forensic Science, 1 SHEPARD'S EXPERT & SCI. EVID. Q. 435, 436 n. 8 (1994) - William C. Thompson & Dan E. Krane, DNA in the Courtroom, in PSYCHOLOGICAL & SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS ? 11:42 at 11-68 (Jane c. Moriarty ed. 2004). - William C. Thompson, Evaluating the Admissibility of New Genetic Identification Tests: Lessons From the "DNA War", 84 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 22 (1993) If you have not read these, and the rest of the vast body of published literature on these subjects, and have not at least considered the information, concerns, conclusions, and reforms they suggest, I can understand how my post might have seemed to come out of left field. Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:47 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 12:44 PM 8/22/2005, Brent Turvey wrote: >Charles; > >My spelling errors "Spelling errors"? I generously described the deficiencies of your exercise in self-indulgence as short a few rewrites, not a proofread. Perhaps I was insufficiently blunt. An emailing to forens-L is a broadcast to 800 or so people as I recall. A meandering stream of consciousness essay takes each person (except those who have previously decided that nothing you say is worth considering -- probably not many in your case since you are usually an intelligent and reasonably concise and careful writer) 10 minutes longer to absorb than a carefully written one. Easily 100 person-hours. So even if you devote 8 hours to whip it into coherent, courteous, and concise shape, there is a huge net economy in professional time. Failure to do this is acting as if your time is (vastly) more important than our time. That offends me. > aside, I would argue that it certainly is not courageous to hide fault > within the community. Well said. Personally I don't find it relevant to what Duayne or Azriel said, but that's between you and them; I don't really have a dog in this hunt. And it took you only a few minutes, not even 8 hours, to hone it down like that. A few examples of excess from your diatribe: Para 1 & 2 say "we" deserve it when called to task for the ignorance of the forensic science community of e.g. examiner bias. Obviously you don't include yourself. Did you really feel justified in condescending to the entire community with this "we" of pretended participation? Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, as you do in your closing? Para 3 ends on a grand note: "Few of us have the courage to [say the following]." Really! May I be the second to congratulate you. "As for the legitimate reformers in forensic science, that would be the defense bar at this date ..." Were you intoxicated on more than your own rhetoric? Seriously -- the defense bar as a collective? I've met plenty of lawyers who are wonderful -- most that I've worked with -- and a few who are not so honest or not so high-minded or not very thoughtful, both prosecution and defense. In the profession of forensic science I suspect similar. What did you think of John Lentini's remarks in this very thread? Spelling too, Brent, spelling errors are an unnecessary distraction. But they're not what I meant. Regards, Charles [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 17:52:47 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NLqlbp028676 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NLql9e028675 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:52:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:52:36 -0400 Message-Id: <8C776441BDF8974-EC4-EA1@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> From: forensic022@aol.com References: <7518135.1124746939056.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <7518135.1124746939056.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.13507 Subject: Re: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-AOL-IP: 64.12.136.86 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We use slotted sections of PVC pipe and a paint roller handle. I can send you the plans. Steve Swinton published an article on this in JFS around 1999. Brad Brown New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center Trace Evidence Section Albany -----Original Message----- From: lisa101999@earthlink.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:42:18 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't find anything like it. Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when done? Elizabeth Becka Lansky Cape Coral PD, Florida [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by forensic022@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 18:47:56 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7NMlubp029827 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:47:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7NMluBk029826 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:47:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:47:23 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823091336.04bdf6b0@calmail.berkeley.edu> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0ILP002QW5Z1T6@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWoDG4WreVSD/gZQCmlYYjqnnQm9QAJ67dw Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles, I may be reading this wrong, but your main objections to what was said include: 1) spelling mistakes 2) the emails take too long to read Am I wrong? If we are pointing out the functional flaws in arguments, I must say that I am confused by the tautological convulsion of: Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, as you do in your closing? Regards, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 3:47 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 12:44 PM 8/22/2005, Brent Turvey wrote: >Charles; > >My spelling errors "Spelling errors"? I generously described the deficiencies of your exercise in self-indulgence as short a few rewrites, not a proofread. Perhaps I was insufficiently blunt. An emailing to forens-L is a broadcast to 800 or so people as I recall. A meandering stream of consciousness essay takes each person (except those who have previously decided that nothing you say is worth considering -- probably not many in your case since you are usually an intelligent and reasonably concise and careful writer) 10 minutes longer to absorb than a carefully written one. Easily 100 person-hours. So even if you devote 8 hours to whip it into coherent, courteous, and concise shape, there is a huge net economy in professional time. Failure to do this is acting as if your time is (vastly) more important than our time. That offends me. > aside, I would argue that it certainly is not courageous to hide fault > within the community. Well said. Personally I don't find it relevant to what Duayne or Azriel said, but that's between you and them; I don't really have a dog in this hunt. And it took you only a few minutes, not even 8 hours, to hone it down like that. A few examples of excess from your diatribe: Para 1 & 2 say "we" deserve it when called to task for the ignorance of the forensic science community of e.g. examiner bias. Obviously you don't include yourself. Did you really feel justified in condescending to the entire community with this "we" of pretended participation? Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, as you do in your closing? Para 3 ends on a grand note: "Few of us have the courage to [say the following]." Really! May I be the second to congratulate you. "As for the legitimate reformers in forensic science, that would be the defense bar at this date ..." Were you intoxicated on more than your own rhetoric? Seriously -- the defense bar as a collective? I've met plenty of lawyers who are wonderful -- most that I've worked with -- and a few who are not so honest or not so high-minded or not very thoughtful, both prosecution and defense. In the profession of forensic science I suspect similar. What did you think of John Lentini's remarks in this very thread? Spelling too, Brent, spelling errors are an unnecessary distraction. But they're not what I meant. Regards, Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 23 22:54:35 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7O2sZbp004060 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7O2sZuW004059 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:54:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:54:25 -0400 Message-Id: <8C7766E45CFD025-834-13838@MBLK-M08.sysops.aol.com> From: mphill9929@aol.com References: <7518135.1124746939056.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <8C776441BDF8974-EC4-EA1@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <8C776441BDF8974-EC4-EA1@MBLK-M42.sysops.aol.com> X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.13507 Subject: [forens] Statistic help needed MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-AOL-IP: 64.12.136.41 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I can not find specific statistics related to homicide by drowning. I have searched a number of documents relating homicide and accidental death statistics but can find nothing that directly related to homicide drowning. Any ideas? Mark Phillips www.psdivermonthly.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by mphill9929@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 01:16:26 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7O5GQbp006456 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7O5GQZ4006455 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:16:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823161830.05314eb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:15:46 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-Reply-To: <0ILP002QW5Z1T6@staff.bond.edu.au> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823091336.04bdf6b0@calmail.berkeley.edu> <0ILP002QW5Z1T6@staff.bond.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 03:47 PM 8/23/2005, you wrote: >Charles, I may be reading this wrong, but your main objections to what was >said include: > >1) spelling mistakes No. Brent pretends that I said that, but he's just clowning around. >2) the emails take too long to read I criticized one email, not emails, and the problem is not that it is long but that it is an incoherent rant, full of generalities and full of itself but not really saying anything clearly. Very frustrating and certainly a waste of time to try to understand something like that. Notice that in the several days before I responded to his post no one did. Sound and fury ... . Brent is thankfully less florid now that the weekend is over, but even so consider this sentence from his latest post: >Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, >which is I believe if both the adversarial process, and of independent peer >review. Can you make sense out of it? I can't. I tried substituting various other words for "if" but no luck. > If we are pointing out the functional flaws in arguments, I >must say that I am confused by the tautological convulsion of: > >Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't >claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, >as you do in your closing? Not my best constructed sentence but I think I can parse it. Put a comma before "can" if you prefer. The meaning: 1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; opinions could differ. 2. On his web site he states that forensic profiling, which I think is what he does, is not a science. 3. That says to me that as a forensic profiler he would not regard himself as a forensic scientist. 4. However, "we" in the closing phrase "when the forensic science community again and again shows an incapacity to police itself, we deserve to be policed by others" implies the opposite. My point is that inconsistencies like this littering the pages is fatally bad writing because where there are contradictions there is no meaning. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 01:42:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7O5gvbp007344 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7O5gvb8007343 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:42:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent E. Turvey, MS" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:42:11 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823161830.05314eb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles; It's clear that you have read selected bits from my website, but that you do not have a stranglehold on me or what I do or what I might think about certain subjects. Just ask me directly. You'll find it easier than guessing. The section below that you cite as confusing, despite numerous your attempts, should read (but was mutilated by my spell checker in combination with my bad email typing) as follows: "Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, which is why I believe in both the adversarial process, and in independent peer review." Does this help? I'm pretty sure that you could have guessed that on your own, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you are just being selectively picky. But that's just what I think. Instead of creating a whole new thread about how you can't understand things and don't like to read, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by merely asking what I mean in specific places where there exists a misspelling or a word drop. Communication is the best way to clear up misunderstandings. Beyond that, you are free to make all manner of inferences regarding science and forensic science and the like. Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 03:47 PM 8/23/2005, you wrote: >Charles, I may be reading this wrong, but your main objections to what was >said include: > >1) spelling mistakes No. Brent pretends that I said that, but he's just clowning around. >2) the emails take too long to read I criticized one email, not emails, and the problem is not that it is long but that it is an incoherent rant, full of generalities and full of itself but not really saying anything clearly. Very frustrating and certainly a waste of time to try to understand something like that. Notice that in the several days before I responded to his post no one did. Sound and fury ... . Brent is thankfully less florid now that the weekend is over, but even so consider this sentence from his latest post: >Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, >which is I believe if both the adversarial process, and of independent peer >review. Can you make sense out of it? I can't. I tried substituting various other words for "if" but no luck. > If we are pointing out the functional flaws in arguments, I >must say that I am confused by the tautological convulsion of: > >Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't >claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, >as you do in your closing? Not my best constructed sentence but I think I can parse it. Put a comma before "can" if you prefer. The meaning: 1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; opinions could differ. 2. On his web site he states that forensic profiling, which I think is what he does, is not a science. 3. That says to me that as a forensic profiler he would not regard himself as a forensic scientist. 4. However, "we" in the closing phrase "when the forensic science community again and again shows an incapacity to police itself, we deserve to be policed by others" implies the opposite. My point is that inconsistencies like this littering the pages is fatally bad writing because where there are contradictions there is no meaning. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 01:51:21 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7O5pLbp008008 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7O5pLsG008007 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:51:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent E. Turvey, MS" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:50:36 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles; See, it happened again. I edit and edit and still the stray word creed in or drops out. Not sure how. Must be getting old. The word "your" appears magically in my post where it should not be in the second paragraph. You've convinced me. I need sleep. I'll get some next month. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Brent E. Turvey, MS Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Charles; It's clear that you have read selected bits from my website, but that you do not have a stranglehold on me or what I do or what I might think about certain subjects. Just ask me directly. You'll find it easier than guessing. The section below that you cite as confusing, despite numerous your attempts, should read (but was mutilated by my spell checker in combination with my bad email typing) as follows: "Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, which is why I believe in both the adversarial process, and in independent peer review." Does this help? I'm pretty sure that you could have guessed that on your own, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you are just being selectively picky. But that's just what I think. Instead of creating a whole new thread about how you can't understand things and don't like to read, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by merely asking what I mean in specific places where there exists a misspelling or a word drop. Communication is the best way to clear up misunderstandings. Beyond that, you are free to make all manner of inferences regarding science and forensic science and the like. Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 03:47 PM 8/23/2005, you wrote: >Charles, I may be reading this wrong, but your main objections to what was >said include: > >1) spelling mistakes No. Brent pretends that I said that, but he's just clowning around. >2) the emails take too long to read I criticized one email, not emails, and the problem is not that it is long but that it is an incoherent rant, full of generalities and full of itself but not really saying anything clearly. Very frustrating and certainly a waste of time to try to understand something like that. Notice that in the several days before I responded to his post no one did. Sound and fury ... . Brent is thankfully less florid now that the weekend is over, but even so consider this sentence from his latest post: >Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, >which is I believe if both the adversarial process, and of independent peer >review. Can you make sense out of it? I can't. I tried substituting various other words for "if" but no luck. > If we are pointing out the functional flaws in arguments, I >must say that I am confused by the tautological convulsion of: > >Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't >claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, >as you do in your closing? Not my best constructed sentence but I think I can parse it. Put a comma before "can" if you prefer. The meaning: 1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; opinions could differ. 2. On his web site he states that forensic profiling, which I think is what he does, is not a science. 3. That says to me that as a forensic profiler he would not regard himself as a forensic scientist. 4. However, "we" in the closing phrase "when the forensic science community again and again shows an incapacity to police itself, we deserve to be policed by others" implies the opposite. My point is that inconsistencies like this littering the pages is fatally bad writing because where there are contradictions there is no meaning. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 01:54:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7O5skbp008456 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7O5skoZ008455 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:54:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent E. Turvey, MS" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:54:00 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles; And yet a third time; this time the spell checker turned "creeps" into "creed". Now you've really convinced me. I'm turning off the spell check on send feature of outlook. Bear with my many email imperfections. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Brent E. Turvey, MS Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:51 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Charles; See, it happened again. I edit and edit and still the stray word creed in or drops out. Not sure how. Must be getting old. The word "your" appears magically in my post where it should not be in the second paragraph. You've convinced me. I need sleep. I'll get some next month. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Brent E. Turvey, MS Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Charles; It's clear that you have read selected bits from my website, but that you do not have a stranglehold on me or what I do or what I might think about certain subjects. Just ask me directly. You'll find it easier than guessing. The section below that you cite as confusing, despite numerous your attempts, should read (but was mutilated by my spell checker in combination with my bad email typing) as follows: "Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, which is why I believe in both the adversarial process, and in independent peer review." Does this help? I'm pretty sure that you could have guessed that on your own, but maybe I'm wrong. I think you are just being selectively picky. But that's just what I think. Instead of creating a whole new thread about how you can't understand things and don't like to read, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by merely asking what I mean in specific places where there exists a misspelling or a word drop. Communication is the best way to clear up misunderstandings. Beyond that, you are free to make all manner of inferences regarding science and forensic science and the like. Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 03:47 PM 8/23/2005, you wrote: >Charles, I may be reading this wrong, but your main objections to what was >said include: > >1) spelling mistakes No. Brent pretends that I said that, but he's just clowning around. >2) the emails take too long to read I criticized one email, not emails, and the problem is not that it is long but that it is an incoherent rant, full of generalities and full of itself but not really saying anything clearly. Very frustrating and certainly a waste of time to try to understand something like that. Notice that in the several days before I responded to his post no one did. Sound and fury ... . Brent is thankfully less florid now that the weekend is over, but even so consider this sentence from his latest post: >Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, >which is I believe if both the adversarial process, and of independent peer >review. Can you make sense out of it? I can't. I tried substituting various other words for "if" but no luck. > If we are pointing out the functional flaws in arguments, I >must say that I am confused by the tautological convulsion of: > >Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't >claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, >as you do in your closing? Not my best constructed sentence but I think I can parse it. Put a comma before "can" if you prefer. The meaning: 1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; opinions could differ. 2. On his web site he states that forensic profiling, which I think is what he does, is not a science. 3. That says to me that as a forensic profiler he would not regard himself as a forensic scientist. 4. However, "we" in the closing phrase "when the forensic science community again and again shows an incapacity to police itself, we deserve to be policed by others" implies the opposite. My point is that inconsistencies like this littering the pages is fatally bad writing because where there are contradictions there is no meaning. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 02:13:51 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7O6Dpbp009933 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7O6Dpod009932 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:13:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:41 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823161830.05314eb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0ILP00JNCQMT2J@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWoa3sXIGRcx8qfQ7uMN/GXFGddAQABnTZg Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles, responses marked with a **, see below: >Charles, I may be reading this wrong, but your main objections to what was >said include: > >1) spelling mistakes No. Brent pretends that I said that, but he's just clowning around. >2) the emails take too long to read I criticized one email, not emails, and the problem is not that it is long but that it is an incoherent rant, full of generalities and full of itself but not really saying anything clearly. Very frustrating and certainly a waste of time to try to understand something like that. Notice that in the several days before I responded to his post no one did. Sound and fury ... . ** You are right, your perception of the singular is as sharp as your spelling. I won't do that again. I don't find it incoherent at all, but rather well written and insightful. Brent is thankfully less florid now that the weekend is over, but even so consider this sentence from his latest post: >Moreover, I am the most skeptical of my own work, >which is I believe if both the adversarial process, and of independent peer >review. Can you make sense out of it? I can't. I tried substituting various other words for "if" but no luck. ** Yes, I could > If we are pointing out the functional flaws in arguments, I >must say that I am confused by the tautological convulsion of: > >Para 1 says you regard forensic science as a science, but as you don't >claim to be a scientist yourself can you claim to be a forensic scientist, >as you do in your closing? Not my best constructed sentence but I think I can parse it. Put a comma before "can" if you prefer. The meaning: 1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; opinions could differ. ** I should think that most people would classify forensic science as a science. How would you define a science? This may help clear this up. 2. On his web site he states that forensic profiling, which I think is what he does, is not a science. ** Correct, it is not, and you have read right. A lot of psychologists engage in profiling which is not a science, does that by extension mean psychology is not a science? 3. That says to me that as a forensic profiler he would not regard himself as a forensic scientist. ** Hmm, this is what I could call a long bow to draw. 4. However, "we" in the closing phrase "when the forensic science community again and again shows an incapacity to police itself, we deserve to be policed by others" implies the opposite. My point is that inconsistencies like this littering the pages is fatally bad writing because where there are contradictions there is no meaning. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 08:57:59 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OCvxbp013667 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OCvxLv013666 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:57:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:57:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Ammen, Alice" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:02:05 -0600 From: "Ammen, Alice" I tried using masking tape-type lint rollers, but didn't like them because: 1) I don't like cutting through sheet protectors/transparencies to retrieve trace materials. Tape is thinner and easier to cut through. Contamination of tape lifts should not be an issue at this point. (Because masking-tape isn't see-through, the transparency must be cut.); 2) masking tape didn't allow for the use of differently-colored background papers to assist searching by stereomicroscopy; and 3) long hairs had a tendency to catch on more than one section of roller tape and tear when removing a section. I use pre-cut 2" x 6" 3M ScotchPad High Performance Packaging Tape Pads, Part No. 051131, Product No. 3750-P Transparent. These have a tab on one end, which makes it convenient for tape lifting. Hold the tab end with one hand while patting the top, non-adhesive surface with the other hand. Lifts are affixed to a transparency which is sealed in a manila envelope. As someone who examines tape lifts, I would never ever recommend folding tape back onto itself. I agree with Joe Deak that a heavy gauge substrate is easier to manipulate for stereomicroscopical viewing. I prefer transparencies to page protectors or plastic bags. A heavy gauge "stiff" substrate helps keep all in one plane under the stereomicroscope. When making lifts, I don't like to fiddle with opening up page protectors. The transparency brand I like (Highland 902) has a white stripe/border on one side that is handy for writing on, and the writing doesn't rub off accidentally like it can on plastic. When removing trace materials from lifts I use Shandon(R) substitute xylene, not xylene. Xylene can have a deleterious effect on some trace materials. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of lisa101999@earthlink.net Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 3:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] RE: collecting hairs and fibers Does anyone know of a round tape holder for collecting hairs and fibers (i.e., a lint roller?). I've checked the major product suppliers and can't find anything like it. Does anyone just use cheap lint rollers? How do you package them when done? Elizabeth Becka Lansky Cape Coral PD, Florida [EndPost by lisa101999@earthlink.net] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 10:21:32 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OELWbp016450 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OELW3S016449 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:21:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050824065921.049d9c30@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:21:21 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-Reply-To: <0ILP00JNCQMT2J@staff.bond.edu.au> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050823161830.05314eb0@calmail.berkeley.edu> <0ILP00JNCQMT2J@staff.bond.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 11:13 PM 8/23/2005, Wayne Petherick wrote: >Charles, responses marked with a **, see below: > >** You are right, your perception of the singular is as sharp as your >spelling. It's a funnier joke when Brent tells it. >1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to >adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific >method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. >That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; >opinions could differ. >** I should think that most people would classify forensic science as a >science. How would you define a science? This may help clear this up. I have no argument whether Brent wants to classify forensic science as a science or not; I was disputing his consistency (and I acknowledge your "long bow" remark as relevant in that respect). I don't think my definition or classification would be pertinent. It might be an interesting discussion for another time. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 11:36:42 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OFagdk019006 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OFag9X019005 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:36:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-WebMail-UserID: lnc001 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:50:47 -0400 From: lnc001 To: forens X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002446 Subject: [forens] [forens} student question Message-ID: <430C6747@heart.uncp.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Infinite Mobile Delivery (Hydra) SMTP v3.62.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I know a student who is getting ready to graduate from college with a BA in Chemistry, she's had some hard times throughout her college years which her low GPA now proves. She wanting me to ask if her low GPA could possible keep her from a rewarding job in forensics. Though her grades aren't the best she has great work ethic, an avid volunteer for her community, and has great potential. She says she would like to obtain a career in a forensic crime lab, hopefully toxicology (drug chemistry). If anyone could offer any advice for her please respond at lnc001@uncp.edu. Thanks [EndPost by lnc001 ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 12:54:19 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OGsJdk020811 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OGsJeu020810 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:54:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.3 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:53:46 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: [forens] Openings for Criminalist Postions in Kern County Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division has openings for position of Criminlaist. Please visit our website at http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/forensic.asp for more information. Applications can be completed online through the Kern County Personell Department. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 12:56:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OGukdk021097 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OGukaf021096 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:56:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:56:01 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] [forens} student question Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7OGukdk021098 I can only speak for our laboratory and that transcripts from all prospective applicants are requested and reviewed. A poor GPA particularly in the area of hard scieinces would most likely eliminate the canditate as a prospective employee. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lnc001@uncp.edu 8/24/2005 8:50:47 AM >>> I know a student who is getting ready to graduate from college with a BA in Chemistry, she's had some hard times throughout her college years which her low GPA now proves. She wanting me to ask if her low GPA could possible keep her from a rewarding job in forensics. Though her grades aren't the best she has great work ethic, an avid volunteer for her community, and has great potential. She says she would like to obtain a career in a forensic crime lab, hopefully toxicology (drug chemistry). If anyone could offer any advice for her please respond at lnc001@uncp.edu. Thanks [EndPost by lnc001 ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 16:43:51 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OKhpdk000230 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:43:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OKhpKu000229 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:43:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:43:44 +1000 From: Wayne Petherick Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.2.20050824065921.049d9c30@calmail.berkeley.edu> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0ILQ00DANUWUY6@staff.bond.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-index: AcWot5tsdaVHkfZ1Qlm0EOApvLWTgAANBdsg Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Charles, it wasn't meant to be a joke. I should also think that the definition of a science is highly pertinent to this list given the number of forensic practitioners who can't define a science or the scientific method. I would argue that it isn't even about consistency, but a point of splitting hairs. What you essentially argued was the people should be/can't be multi-skilled. How many people who work in a crime lab have more than one proficiency? Regards, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2005 12:21 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 11:13 PM 8/23/2005, Wayne Petherick wrote: >Charles, responses marked with a **, see below: > >** You are right, your perception of the singular is as sharp as your >spelling. It's a funnier joke when Brent tells it. >1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to >adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific >method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. >That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; >opinions could differ. >** I should think that most people would classify forensic science as a >science. How would you define a science? This may help clear this up. I have no argument whether Brent wants to classify forensic science as a science or not; I was disputing his consistency (and I acknowledge your "long bow" remark as relevant in that respect). I don't think my definition or classification would be pertinent. It might be an interesting discussion for another time. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 18:35:26 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7OMZQdk002068 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7OMZLZ4002067 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:35:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent E. Turvey, MS" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:34:35 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <0ILQ00DANUWUY6@staff.bond.edu.au> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Wayne; It is difficult to disagree with you when you are right. Support for this position may also be found in the comments of David L. Grieve, who is one of the nation's top fingerprint examiners. He, along with Thornton, agrees that an intolerable number of forensic practitioners are in fact scientifically illiterate: "What is usually not taught is the protocol of the scientific method, how to formulate a hypothesis, the prudent value in the formulation of a counter or null hypothesis, the way in which experimentation and comparative analysis are used to prove or disprove the state theory and the means by which evaluation and validation are applied to the results. In short, students are usually not properly taught about sameness and difference, at least not in a way that enables them to understand what each truly is, how each is caused and to what extent each may be recognized." Ref: David L. Grieve, The Identification Process: SWGFAST and the Search for Science, 50 J. FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 145, 148 (2000) Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Wayne Petherick Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:44 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted Charles, it wasn't meant to be a joke. I should also think that the definition of a science is highly pertinent to this list given the number of forensic practitioners who can't define a science or the scientific method. I would argue that it isn't even about consistency, but a point of splitting hairs. What you essentially argued was the people should be/can't be multi-skilled. How many people who work in a crime lab have more than one proficiency? Regards, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2005 12:21 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paradigm Shift predicted At 11:13 PM 8/23/2005, Wayne Petherick wrote: >Charles, responses marked with a **, see below: > >** You are right, your perception of the singular is as sharp as your >spelling. It's a funnier joke when Brent tells it. >1. Brent began: "So long as the forensic science community fails to >adequately understand and consistently define science and the scientific >method " from which I infer he classifies forensic science as a science. >That's not a tautology by the way. It might be considered a science or not; >opinions could differ. >** I should think that most people would classify forensic science as a >science. How would you define a science? This may help clear this up. I have no argument whether Brent wants to classify forensic science as a science or not; I was disputing his consistency (and I acknowledge your "long bow" remark as relevant in that respect). I don't think my definition or classification would be pertinent. It might be an interesting discussion for another time. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] [EndPost by Wayne Petherick ] [EndPost by "Brent E. Turvey, MS" ] From forens-owner Wed Aug 24 19:22:05 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7ONM5dk002818 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7ONM5Ag002817 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:22:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Grffnhr@aol.com Message-ID: <1c6.2f60c2f0.303e5b16@aol.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:21:58 EDT Subject: [forens] Re: Tape Lifts To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6036 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I agree with all of Alice's reasons for not using the masking tape-type lint rollers, plus the type our lab uses has a surface texture to the adhesive side that results in reflections and shadows that make searching very difficult. The only time I use the rollers is when I have already done a search for any visible/low magnification evidence that can be removed with tweezers and am making certain that I haven't missed anything. If the area I need to lift is large and I already have the most probative evidence collected, I will use the roller. I usually recommend the page protectors to people because of my personal paranoia about crime scene contamination. I have visions of transparency sheets falling out of the box and being put back in and objects being set on top of the open box. With the transparencies having a perfect surface for collecting trace through static attraction, I feel like the page protectors are a better option when the criminalist is not the crime scene person. Please note that these are my personal opinions and not necessarily held by anyone else in my lab. Helen Griffin Ventura County Sheriff's Trace Section --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Grffnhr@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Aug 25 10:43:54 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7PEhsdk015929 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7PEhsFL015928 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:43:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [203.101.5.91] X-Originating-Email: [dr_anil@hotmail.com] X-Sender: dr_anil@hotmail.com From: "Professor Anil Aggrawal" To: "Forensic Newsgroup" Subject: [forens] Lateral flow assasy Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:13:38 +0530 Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2096 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2096 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2005 14:43:42.0510 (UTC) FILETIME=[638074E0:01C5A983] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7PEhsdk015930 Dear List, Hello everyone. Can somebody tell me what is so "lateral" in so-called lateral flow assasy? As far as I can understand, the sample flows from the sample pad to the absorbent pad. It could equally well be a "forward flow", which seems like a better way of expressing the flow. Then why do we call it a "lateral" flow. It sounds as if there is a "side-to-side" flow. Please enlighten and oblige. Regards Anil Aggrawal --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Professor Anil Aggrawal" ] From forens-owner Thu Aug 25 23:18:49 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7Q3Indk028658 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:18:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7Q3ImJO028657 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:18:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Ashton, Jason" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Subject: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:08:12 +1200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Thread-Index: AcWp62Tj08lhLaG+ShWe1uxHiJUnGg== From: "Ashton, Jason" To: X-imss-version: 2.030 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:70.63136 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7Q3Imdk028652 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Does anyone have the 10th or 12th (or 13th if it is out) Proceedings of the European Fibres Group? And would you be willing to make a copy of each for us? Regards, Jason ------------------------------------------- Jason Ashton Information & Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science & Research Private bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand -- [EndPost by "Ashton, Jason" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 26 19:16:39 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7QNGddk021102 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7QNGdAx021101 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:16:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:23:27 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000401c5aa95$29f0e7b0$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20050822124025.02025e00@mail.fsalab.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2005 23:16:29.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[304F43F0:01C5AA94] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7QNGcdk021096 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu But if hairs are not particularly good ways to distinguish between individuals (as now seems to be the case), then were any of them really "false" inclusions? If multiple people have hair that is indistinguishable microscopically, then including an innocent person who has the same hair "type" as the perpetrator is not a false inclusion. It is a true inclusion in that both of them are included in the group (of whatever size) of people who have that same hair "type." It is like classical blood typing. If an innocent has the same ABO blood type as a perpetrator (say, Type A), and you include the innocent based on the fact that he has Type A blood, that is not a false inclusion. It is a correct inclusion. It simply doesn't mean very much in terms of individualization because many other people have the same blood type. The true problem, as you say, is not in the examinations (or the inclusions) but rather in statements made about them that give an unjustified weight and air of significance to the inclusion, thereby wrongly insinuating that it is an individualization rather than merely an inclusion. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 4:00 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) At 12:08 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote: >Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:23:43 -0600 >From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" > >I am curious, was the reexamination of the hairs in question done (State >of Montana vs. Bromgard) and if so what was the result? Using 1987 >techniques was Arnie correct? I am not sure what "correct" means in this context. Analysis of the sexual assault evidence in the case revealed that the assailant was not Bromgard. After that analysis was done, the FBI re-examined the hairs and determined that they were "not even close." The problems with Melnikoff's work, and with the work of the other infamous hair examiners, is not their examinations, it is there testimony. When they testify that they have compared 20,000 hair samples and never seen two they could not distinguish (or some slight variation on those numbers), juries and other naive consumers of that work, not surprisingly, conclude that a hair comparison is a fairly reliable means of human identification. If the actual rate of false inclusions based on microscopic hair examination (somewhere between 12% and 50% depending on the study) was revealed to the jury, they might not place so much reliance on that evidence. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 26 19:19:28 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7QNJRdk021278 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7QNJRZF021277 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:19:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] [forens} student question Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:26:22 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000b01c5aa95$91b4a030$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <430C6747@heart.uncp.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2005 23:19:23.0324 (UTC) FILETIME=[9813BFC0:01C5AA94] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7QNJRdk021272 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The student's overall GPA isn't as important as her SCIENCE GPA, so it depends to a certain extent on what subjects she had "trouble" with. Many employers are more interested in the fact that you achieved the degree (and therefore met the requirements of your institution), that it was from a reputable institution, and that the curriculum was appropriate (contained all the necessary classes) than they are in your specific grades. BUT: given that there is a large excess of applicants in relation to the number of available positions, competition for positions is fierce, so someone with a low GPA will not fare well in comparison to someone with a similar curriculum and a significantly better GPA. If her GPA is exceptionally low, her best bet may be in repeating the classes she had trouble with and significantly improving her grades (even if this means delaying graduation). Many institutions have "forgiveness" policies wherein only the final grade from a repeated class is included in the GPA. The results of previous attempt(s) will remain on the transcript, but in my opinion, repeating a difficult class and significantly improving one's grade demonstrates tenacity, determination, dedication, and perseverance (all admirable qualities). It also demonstrates eventual mastery of the material, and to my mind the final outcome is more important than stumbles made along the way. Thinking employers recognize that there can be a variety of reasons why a student does poorly in a given class that may have nothing to do with aptitude or work ethic. One must keep the competition in mind, however, and accept the fact that even a great improvement in performance will not be as impressive as excellent performance to begin with. BTW, toxicology is not the same thing as drug chemistry. As commonly used in this profession, "drug chemistry" or "drug analysis" refers to analysis of licit and illicit dosage drugs (powders, tablets, capsules, paraphernalia, etc.), while "toxicology" refers to analysis of biological tissues and fluids (blood, urine, liver, heart, brain, etc.) for the presence of drugs, poisons, and their metabolites. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of lnc001 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:51 AM To: forens Subject: [forens] [forens} student question I know a student who is getting ready to graduate from college with a BA in Chemistry, she's had some hard times throughout her college years which her low GPA now proves. She wanting me to ask if her low GPA could possible keep her from a rewarding job in forensics. Though her grades aren't the best she has great work ethic, an avid volunteer for her community, and has great potential. She says she would like to obtain a career in a forensic crime lab, hopefully toxicology (drug chemistry). If anyone could offer any advice for her please respond at lnc001@uncp.edu. Thanks [EndPost by lnc001 ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Aug 26 19:31:09 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7QNV9dk022027 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7QNV9mV022026 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:31:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:38:03 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000f01c5aa97$33d3f680$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2005 23:31:04.0819 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A336430:01C5AA96] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7QNV8dk022021 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Most proceedings documents are copyrighted by the organization which held the meeting. If this Proceedings document is copyrighted, then making copies without permission of the copyright holder would be a violation of international copyright law (you could lawfully copy a small portion of the Proceedings under the "fair use" doctrine, but not the entire document). I suggest you try contacting the publisher of the proceedings. They may be able to provide a legal copy for a reasonable fee. You can inquire about availability of the proceedings by writing one of the officers of the group on their web page: http://www.enfsi.org/ewg/efg/ According to the site, Proceedings are published in both hard copy and CD format. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Ashton, Jason Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:08 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Does anyone have the 10th or 12th (or 13th if it is out) Proceedings of the European Fibres Group? And would you be willing to make a copy of each for us? Regards, Jason ------------------------------------------- Jason Ashton Information & Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science & Research Private bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand -- [EndPost by "Ashton, Jason" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Aug 27 12:22:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7RGMkdk001465 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7RGMkxH001464 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:22:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Grffnhr@aol.com Message-ID: <1f1.42a91f0c.3041ed4d@aol.com> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:22:37 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6036 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This is the first time on forens-l that I have heard anyone being rational about the hair examination debate. The reality is that, even using Gaudette's statistics, hair examiners seldom identified a hair to a person, but placed them into a group of people with those hair characteristics. I am completely ignorant of how similar the hairs Arnie examined were to the suspect. However, he did treat two dependant variables as independent and used them with Gaudette's statistics to come up with too high a number - that translates into too small a group of inclusion. The main problem here seems to be that hair examiners relied on Gaudette and used statistics without any training in statistics. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Grffnhr@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Aug 27 15:37:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7RJb0dk002914 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7RJax3O002913 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:36:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-ORBL: [63.203.76.126] Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20050827120822.0256e3a0@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:32:34 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) In-Reply-To: <1f1.42a91f0c.3041ed4d@aol.com> References: <1f1.42a91f0c.3041ed4d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 09:22 AM 8/27/2005, you wrote: >The main problem here seems to be that hair >examiners relied on Gaudette and used statistics without any training in >statistics. If you are saying that hair examiners used Gaudette's numbers without any training in statsitcs, I think you are missing the point. Gaudette's numbers are entirely inapplicable to the problem faced by hair examiners. It is not possible to use his numbers to derive any useful information about the ability of hair examiners, in general or in any specific instance, to individualize hair. Gaudette's statistics simply deal with another problem not very closely related to the problem of individualization faced by forensic hair examiners, and and the experiments he conducted to arrive at the numbers were very poorly designed and executed. The problem with most hair examiners is that in their testimony, and never in their reports so that people could anticipated what their testimony would be, they vastly overstated their own experience. I even heard one examiner state, in Federal court testimony about a year ago, the she has never been wrong in a hair comparison in which she made a microscopic comparison that was then confirmed by mDNA. (Inferring, of course, that the microscopic comparison in the instant case, which was not confirmed by the unsuccessful mDNA analysis, was an identification of the source of the hair.) How is that even possible? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Sun Aug 28 15:25:28 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7SJPSdk010983 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7SJPSPf010982 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:25:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [203.101.1.197] X-Originating-Email: [dr_anil@hotmail.com] X-Sender: dr_anil@hotmail.com From: "Professor Anil Aggrawal" To: "Forensic Newsgroup" Subject: [forens] William Butler Yeats' hair Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:55:22 +0530 Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2096 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2096 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2005 19:25:22.0807 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C1A6070:01C5AC06] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7SJPSdk010984 Dear list, I have been reading about hair analysis of famous men. A recent book by Humana Press "Drugs of Abuse - Body Fluid testing" edited by Wong and Tse, on page 19 mentions three great people whose hair were tested for poisons - Napoleon, Beethoven and William Butler Yeats. I am aware that arsenic was found in Napoleon's hair and lead in Beethoven's hair. But I am not at all sure about Yeats. Can somebody help me please? Thanks. Regards Anil Aggrawal --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Professor Anil Aggrawal" ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 29 08:49:45 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7TCnjvc020053 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7TCnjMi020052 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:49:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=j5NPd7R10HBU2IJrJoiK11FjiTA3qYBbbv5hjvT2KKqvBpLot03Km+O/8qGIOkzAzEECSXLxNT1py6UczC6gvj2bRmCRVzAL5D5oreSLnd16oFYz7yx0Uohkhs62CXIj/E9LPNJnB4A14MVBuYZNwW6lGhWs4U+YIvjKEAz1rW4= ; Message-ID: <20050829124931.98914.qmail@web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:49:31 +0100 (BST) From: Runa Bakshi Subject: Re: [forens] William Butler Yeats' hair To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Could you please tell me how one can determine poisoning of the victim through testing the hair? Whats so special in the hair? Could you tell me the whole biology? There's another question I needed to ask. I want to do my college studies in the USA. What are the tests I will have to give to do so? How much do my ICSE and ISC marks count during admission? Thanking you, Runa --- Professor Anil Aggrawal wrote: > Dear list, > I have been reading about hair analysis of famous > men. A recent book by Humana Press "Drugs of Abuse - > Body Fluid testing" edited by Wong and Tse, on page > 19 mentions three great people whose hair were > tested for poisons - Napoleon, Beethoven and William > Butler Yeats. > I am aware that arsenic was found in Napoleon's hair > and lead in Beethoven's hair. But I am not at all > sure about Yeats. Can somebody help me please? > Thanks. > Regards > Anil Aggrawal > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Professor Anil Aggrawal" > ] > > __________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your friends 'n family snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://in.photos.yahoo.com [EndPost by Runa Bakshi ] From forens-owner Mon Aug 29 11:37:56 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7TFbuvc024018 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7TFbu1S024017 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:37:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <37085173BA7AD511B5970001026A046F0548FC91@DOJEXCHANGE02> From: "Polakowski, Sharon M." To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] Chargeswitch by Invitrogen Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:35:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To the list: Our DNA Unit has been looking at the Chargeswitch forensic extraction kit by Invitrogen, and we have the following questions for anyone who has tried the forensic kit specifically: What are your impressions of the kit? Do you feel it lives up to the company's claims? Did you receive any information regarding developmental validation following SWGDAM guidelines from Invitrogen? What has your experience been like with the technical service from Invitrogen? Any help/feedback would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to reply on-list or to my email polakowskism@doj.state.wi.us Thank you, Sharon Polakowski Forensic Scientist - Senior DNA Analysis Unit Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory - Milwaukee --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Polakowski, Sharon M." ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 30 10:59:41 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7UExfvc012885 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7UExfxR012884 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:59:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [forens] Fire debris ovens Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:59:39 -0400 Message-ID: <755CA9FAD0B0E340BD9CF4AEA4836AEBF06F35@h3-exch-01.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Fire debris ovens Thread-Index: AcWtc3GYK17SDfD1S3Gz7WBdYP4rfA== From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7UExfvc012886 We are planning to get new ovens in which to heat fire debris samples for ignitable liquids recovery. My questions are: Does your lab use gravity or mechanical ovens for this purpose? Would a gravitic oven be suitable for this purpose considering a 4 to 6 hr heating span at 85C. You may respond to me off line at the address below if you like. Thank you. Tony Aldridge 704-353-1064 maldridge@cmpd.orgmailto:Maldridge@CMPD.org CMPD-Crime Lab 601 E Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28202 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif --- [EndPost by "Aldridge, Michael" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 30 14:47:50 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7UIlovc018414 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7UIloqE018413 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:47:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:47:00 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Fire debris ovens Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7UIlovc018415 Troy, Our laboratory purchased a VWR Model 1330 GM gravitu oven several years ago for the purposes of heating arson debris. It works fine, so I would recommend one. We heat overnight at 70 C. That temperature tends to mitigate the lids popping off the paint cans when they are filled with liquid. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> maldridge@cmpd.org 8/30/2005 7:59:39 AM >>> We are planning to get new ovens in which to heat fire debris samples for ignitable liquids recovery. My questions are: Does your lab use gravity or mechanical ovens for this purpose? Would a gravitic oven be suitable for this purpose considering a 4 to 6 hr heating span at 85C. You may respond to me off line at the address below if you like. Thank you. Tony Aldridge 704-353-1064 maldridge@cmpd.orgmailto:Maldridge@CMPD.org CMPD-Crime Lab 601 E Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28202 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif --- [EndPost by "Aldridge, Michael" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 30 15:30:41 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7UJUfvc019673 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7UJUfHD019672 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:30:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=f6pcX10nX+tLOwGZ0t5RZ3gYEFoBUbEgnRdeo1tNnYsYgw+6dtBf/sC9iOb/KDaPHgMmTqr6/3zc71WaGcfEYd6pL+p/ioa/4AzGzgKULuWRabcCgi+x3rQM5eO6KQKBoO0QkkYNYcLImEWFt8YaZXz99UPziI4W9eBYyUxqq50= ; Message-ID: <20050830193036.99966.qmail@web40801.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:30:36 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Fire debris ovens To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <755CA9FAD0B0E340BD9CF4AEA4836AEBF06F35@h3-exch-01.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We occasionally have additional uses for our oven, so we own a Precision Thelco programmable model 51221159. Mechanical convection. There is no reason gravity wouldn't work, though. A page of ovens can be seen at http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,10122203,00.html We usually run fire debris at 80C overnight. For wet samples, we use a "pressure relief device" (a small hole punched in the lid covered with cellophane tape). "Aldridge, Michael" wrote: We are planning to get new ovens in which to heat fire debris samples for ignitable liquids recovery. My questions are: Does your lab use gravity or mechanical ovens for this purpose? Would a gravitic oven be suitable for this purpose considering a 4 to 6 hr heating span at 85C. You may respond to me off line at the address below if you like. Thank you. Tony Aldridge 704-353-1064 maldridge@cmpd.orgmailto:Maldridge@CMPD.org CMPD-Crime Lab 601 E Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28202 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif --- [EndPost by "Aldridge, Michael" ] Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 30 15:48:05 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7UJm4vc020360 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7UJm4ZT020359 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:48:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C057CDC9B@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Fire debris ovens Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:47:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We have the Fisher IsoTemp 700 gravity flow. We got the largest model I think, which holds approximately 10 paint cans. We process at 70C for 16 hours as a rule. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Aldridge, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:00 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Fire debris ovens We are planning to get new ovens in which to heat fire debris samples for ignitable liquids recovery. My questions are: Does your lab use gravity or mechanical ovens for this purpose? Would a gravitic oven be suitable for this purpose considering a 4 to 6 hr heating span at 85C. You may respond to me off line at the address below if you like. Thank you. Tony Aldridge 704-353-1064 maldridge@cmpd.orgmailto:Maldridge@CMPD.org CMPD-Crime Lab 601 E Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28202 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif --- [EndPost by "Aldridge, Michael" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Tue Aug 30 20:00:41 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7V00evc023526 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j7V00eln023525 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:00:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Ashton, Jason" Subject: RE: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:00:29 +1200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Thread-Index: AcWqlnA6SDLiI1AMSVaZ1y6ahjqAZADJwu1w From: "Ashton, Jason" To: X-imss-version: 2.031 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:49.17228 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j7V00evc023520 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Bob Parsons, I have tried the European Fibres Group and they have said they have no spare copies and that I should seek other members for copies. Our address is listed with them, but for some reason we infrequently get copies of their proceedings, despite our interest and repeated requests. Jason ------------------------------------------- Jason Ashton Information & Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science & Research Private bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.edu] Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 11:38 a.m. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Most proceedings documents are copyrighted by the organization which held the meeting. If this Proceedings document is copyrighted, then making copies without permission of the copyright holder would be a violation of international copyright law (you could lawfully copy a small portion of the Proceedings under the "fair use" doctrine, but not the entire document). I suggest you try contacting the publisher of the proceedings. They may be able to provide a legal copy for a reasonable fee. You can inquire about availability of the proceedings by writing one of the officers of the group on their web page: http://www.enfsi.org/ewg/efg/ According to the site, Proceedings are published in both hard copy and CD format. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Ashton, Jason Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:08 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Seeking copies of Proceedings of the European Fibres Group Does anyone have the 10th or 12th (or 13th if it is out) Proceedings of the European Fibres Group? And would you be willing to make a copy of each for us? Regards, Jason ------------------------------------------- Jason Ashton Information & Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science & Research Private bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand -- [EndPost by "Ashton, Jason" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Ashton, Jason" ]