From forens-owner Mon Dec 1 12:34:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1HYi9L006360 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:34:44 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:34:11 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13D5A42B4473047-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hB1HYhhm006355 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 Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? Who does your blood spatter interpretation? 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 1 12:59:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1HxY6c007675 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) 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 See below: Tony Aldridge 353-1064,maldridge@cmpd.org -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Bruton [mailto:Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 12:34 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other Who does your bullet trajectory analysis?[Aldridge, Tony] criminalists Who does your blood spatter interpretation?[Aldridge, Tony] criminalists 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes,[Aldridge, Tony] see below 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to?[Aldridge, Tony] we go only if a special request issued to any kind of major scene >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime 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 "Aldridge, Michael" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 1 13:12:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1IClGU008703 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031201181246.86308.qmail@web20508.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:12:46 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: 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 > 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists > with BS degree) to all homicide related crime > scenes? ANSWER - Our Physical Evid Tech Unit (Crime Scene) respond to most homicides. When specialized knowledge and/or abilities are needed, qualified crime lab staff respond. This happens in about 1 out of 15 homicide scenes. > 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? > a) Field Evidence Technicians > b) Police Officer c) Other ANSWER - The PET Unit (above) is made up of both sworn and non-sworn staff. All have received a rigorous basic training followed by on-going and continuing training relating to crime scene response and processing. > Who does your bullet trajectory > analysis? ANSWER - 'Basic' bullet trajectory determinations are done by the PET Unit. When they (or the investigators) feel something is outside the 'norm', criminalists who work in the FA/TM unit would respond and assist. > Who does your blood spatter > interpretation? ANSWER - Same as above, except those who respond from the crime lab will have had at least one formal course in blood spatter interpretation. > 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of > crime scenes? ANSWER - No. Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory Oakland, CA __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 1 13:35:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1IZcMi010093 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:35:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:35:03 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? 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 hB1IZcMj010093 Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:x85367 ORG:District Attorney;Forensic Sciencd Division TEL;PREF;FAX:x85675 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 Dec 1 15:32:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1KWkJY014982 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:32:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:32:43 -0900 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab ! for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 1 16:27:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1LRJ1m018584 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:27:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.4 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:19:44 -0800 From: "Josh Spatola" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hB1LRIhm018579 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 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, ANSWER: Scientists with BS (or higher) degrees will respond to SOME , but not all. It is at the discretion of the investigating officer, detective, etc. 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other ANSWER: We are a state facility and can provide assistance to many different city, county, etc agencies who do not have criminalistic facilities. Some agencies have their own evidence tech unit or crime scene response units. These units do not usually require BS degrees. Other agencies have no such help and request our assistance more frequently.. We usually only get requests for more complex scenes. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? ANSWER: Only those Criminalists with necessary prerequisite training. Mostly FA/TM analysts. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? ANSWER: Only those Criminalists with necessary prerequisite training. Most primary Crime Scene responders who are Criminalists have this training. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? ANSWER: Yes. Officer Involved Shootings and Clandestine Drug Laboratories.. ***************************************** 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. [EndPost by "Josh Spatola" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 1 17:58:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB1Mw8dh022643 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:58:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3105275.1070323110949.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp11> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:58:30 -0500 (EST) From: Theodore Mozer To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CC Mailer IV X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu --------------------------------------- Original Email From: Geoff Bruton Sent: Dec 01, 2003 12:34 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES . Some, definately not all. Only if requested by the agency (we service State, County and City agencies throughout the State of NJ). If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other Varies by the investigating agency..... Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? Our ballistics unit. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? Not us..... 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Sure, if requested. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? >>>> Rapes and other assaults, B&E's, arsons, whatever involves evidence we examine (when requested). Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 10:07:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2F7IVP011612 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:07:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031202150713.62671.qmail@web11302.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:07:12 -0800 (PST) From: john simms Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3105275.1070323110949.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp11> 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 We do not send criminalists to all homicides....only to select ones. We always send an evidence technician who is responsible for collecting and documenting the evidence. At the discretion of either the sargeant, evidence tech or homicide lt., a criminalist will be called in for reconstruction purposes. We also have a criteria list....sexual homicide, body dump, multiple victims. We always send a firearms criminalist and an evidence tech to an officer involved shooting. Our program is working well with lots of callouts for the criminalists. John Simms __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by john simms ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 10:59:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2FxomM014044 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:59:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:58:43 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] DNA academy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hB2Fxmhm014037 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 have some questions for anyone presently enrolled in the NFSTC DNA academy. Thanks Brad Brown Forensiuc Scientist II NYSP Forensic Investigation Center Albany, NY 12226 [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 12:34:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2HYYlq022640 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:34:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:34:09 -0500 From: Mrjmfab@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] fingerprint training MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0FEBFC8C.62AE2CBD.00190F8F@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 166.107.155.225 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 are looking to send several of our folks to training courses for latent print processing. Any suggestions on course providers? We would like to stay in CA, but would consider out of state as well. Thank you, Joe Fabiny, Supervising Criminalist ACSO Crime Lab [EndPost by Mrjmfab@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 13:31:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2IVq6f024535 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:31:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [forens] fingerprint training To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:31:41 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mail02/SVR/DPS/LAGOV(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 12/02/2003 12:31:51 PM 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 Joe, Try contacting your nearest State Lab. They may be willing to put on a few days of training for your guys. I know we routinely get requests for training. Once or twice a year we will invite all the interested parties to come for training. It helps out the agencies we support (part of our mission statement) and helps use by getting better results and cases from our ":customers". It should also be cheap! As for specific training classes, I would highly recommend contacting the CA chapter of the IAI. These state meetings tend to be great places to get fingerprint training. Also check to see if CA has a state group of Crime Scene personnel that hold training sessions. In Louisiana we have the Louisiana Association of Scientific Crime Investigators, LASCI. When we meet it is usually for only a few hours in the afternoon, but we are able to put on short training and refresher courses for the Crime Scene Units of smaller agencies. This is an enormous benefit to both the smaller agencies and the larger labs in that the quality of the evidence we receive is directly related to training given/received at these meetings. To all of you out there in larger State Labs...Give this some thought, you will reap many benefits if you can get an organization like this rolling in your area. Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab 225 925-6216 Mrjmfab@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] fingerprint training 12/02/2003 11:34 AM Please respond to forens We are looking to send several of our folks to training courses for latent print processing. Any suggestions on course providers? We would like to stay in CA, but would consider out of state as well. Thank you, Joe Fabiny, Supervising Criminalist ACSO Crime Lab [EndPost by Mrjmfab@aol.com] [EndPost by CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 14:39:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2Jdn6N000066 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:39:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:38:54 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] fingerprint training 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 hB2Jdn6O000066 Joe, My understanding is that the FBI will come to your area and put on basic and advanced fingerprint processing classes. You may have to contact agencies in your area to provide students, but if you fill the classes, they will come. 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 >>> Mrjmfab@aol.com 12/2/2003 9:34:09 AM >>> We are looking to send several of our folks to training courses for latent print processing. Any suggestions on course providers? We would like to stay in CA, but would consider out of state as well. Thank you, Joe Fabiny, Supervising Criminalist ACSO Crime Lab [EndPost by Mrjmfab@aol.com] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:x85367 ORG:District Attorney;Forensic Sciencd Division TEL;PREF;FAX:x85675 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 Dec 2 14:53:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2JrxAW000742 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:53:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Ryan Davis" To: Subject: [forens] FW: DNA Profiling Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:52:14 -0800 Message-ID: <000d01c3b90d$c89f91c0$25b04f98@SPARTAN> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Davis [mailto:rrdavis@ucdavis.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:12 AM To: 'owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: DNA Profiling Hi, I wanted to know if anyone could recommend a good book/Website on DNA profiling? Are SNP's arrays being used widely now? I appreciate everyones help Ryan Davis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Ryan Davis" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 15:50:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2KoocS003149 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:50:50 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] FW: DNA Profiling Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:50:16 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <000d01c3b90d$c89f91c0$25b04f98@SPARTAN> Thread-Index: AcO5DgKNynefSi7oR7u33cJgY89WHgAB4eHg Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Ryan, Personally I like Norah Rudin and Keith Inman's book "An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis" Second Edition. I'll poke around and find out if I can find some web sites for you. Regards, Lynn Coceani lynncoceani@connexus.net.au Student Member American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Colorado) Member Australia and New Zealand Forensic Science Society Sessional lecturer CSI, risk assessment and victimology (RMIT - Melbourne) -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan Davis Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2003 6:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] FW: DNA Profiling -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Davis [mailto:rrdavis@ucdavis.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:12 AM To: 'owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: DNA Profiling Hi, I wanted to know if anyone could recommend a good book/Website on DNA profiling? Are SNP's arrays being used widely now? I appreciate everyones help Ryan Davis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Ryan Davis" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 2 17:26:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB2MQvKS014969 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:26:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000801c3b923$60589d80$5a4bfea9@LAPTOP1> From: "Al Burns" To: References: <0FEBFC8C.62AE2CBD.00190F8F@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] fingerprint training Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:26:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Joe, I believe if you contact your local FBI liason, they can bring in an instructor , I can't remember if they charged us anything or not. But we've had them put on a couple of courses. Hope this helps. Al Burns 1st Sgt (Ret) Chesapeake Police Dept. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: [forens] fingerprint training > We are looking to send several of our folks to training courses for latent print processing. Any suggestions on course providers? We would like to stay in CA, but would consider out of state as well. Thank you, > > Joe Fabiny, Supervising Criminalist > ACSO Crime Lab > [EndPost by Mrjmfab@aol.com] > > [EndPost by "Al Burns" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 03:49:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB38n06m025593 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:49:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004501c3b97a$4445ce40$90badf82@IPS.ad.unil.ch> From: "Nicole Egli" To: Subject: [forens] book Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:48:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 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 hB38n06n025593 Dear list, Does anybody know the book 'The essence of criminological Odorology' by A.L.Protopopov? I would be very interested in knowing the full reference (publication date, editor...) and, if possible, a place where it could be consulted or bought. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Nicole Egli" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 09:06:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3E626v029267 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:06:02 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Message-Id: Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:48:19 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: ASCLD-LAB corporate proficiency tests and their effect on ABC personal certification validity Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -0700 On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:09 PM, Tim Sliter wrote: > I would agree, with an exception. > > The ASLCD/LAB requirement for a single PT to be > submitted to the external testing agency for review > makes it pretty clear that the primary intent is lab > accreditation. It's the accredited lab's > responsibility then to internally certify its own > analysts. > Folks: All this discussion led me to a realization: the ASCLD-LAB policy essentially trashes the ABC purpose and requirement for annual proficiency tests to maintain an individual's certification in a particular area of forensic analysis/examination. If I'm not mistaken, ABC is a certification program for individuals, not organizations. If an individual takes a test that their organization reviews prior to submittal of a report for ASCLD-LAB requirements, then that same individual will have to take an additional, unreviewed test to satisfy ABC requirements. ABC is about individuals, not organizations, and certainly not about accreditation. ABC doesn't evaluate organizations as far back as I can remember. I also seem to remember, from the early days of ABC, that the certification body was developed because a group of people didn't trust "organizations" to properly train their criminalists. Current ASCLD-LAB requirements essentially prevent an individual from using their proficiency results in an accredited organization from being used to establish their personal qualifications to conduct examinations under ABC certification or fellowship. We are forced to either pass a test under conditions that satisfy ACLD-LAB or under conditions that satisfy ABC, or we take two mutually exclusive tests to maintain our status with both organizations. We can't have it both ways. How many supposedly personal/individual proficiency tests has ABC accepted for certification approval or maintenance that were in fact not individual but organizational/corporate? Does ABC know? How many of those corporate tests results has ABC accepted unknowingly? What does that fact do to the credibility of ABC certification? Those tests would seemingly leave ABC in the sad position of granting certifications to individuals that had the benefit of organizational second guessing (in-house cheating, if you will) and, in effect, makes their subsequent, personal, ABC certification(s) fictitious. I wish I'd had that kind of help when I was in college, wouldn't you have? Or, is it as Tim has stated above? Does ABC want labs to "internally CERTIFY" their own criminalists? That would seem to limit ABC's efficacy to the point that the organization could not survive. Maybe we're gradually getting to the heart of this discussion...? Just some thoughts, Mike Eyring [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 10:06:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3F6lk5001457 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:06:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D11A7@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:06:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) 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 Mike, Yes, the ABC has recognized this situation. We've also discussed the point I made earlier in the year reference your 50/50 chance of getting the "right answer" on a PT without knowing jack squat about the material being tested. The goal of the ABC proficiency review committee is to review the data (theoretically initialed by the reporting analyst)to determine whether or not the individual has appropriately applied the peer approved techniques to present data which supports the conclusion. In other words, the case file itself has to be reviewed by other Fellows in the same specialty. ABC requires Fellows and Technical Specialists to retain their data from PT for the entire 5 year recertification period. Not the Official spokesperson for the ABC Lynn Henson, D-ABC, Member-At-Large of the ABC Board of Directors -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:48 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: ASCLD-LAB corporate proficiency tests and their effect on ABC personal certification validity Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -0700 On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:09 PM, Tim Sliter wrote: > I would agree, with an exception. > > The ASLCD/LAB requirement for a single PT to be > submitted to the external testing agency for review > makes it pretty clear that the primary intent is lab > accreditation. It's the accredited lab's > responsibility then to internally certify its own > analysts. > Folks: All this discussion led me to a realization: the ASCLD-LAB policy essentially trashes the ABC purpose and requirement for annual proficiency tests to maintain an individual's certification in a particular area of forensic analysis/examination. If I'm not mistaken, ABC is a certification program for individuals, not organizations. If an individual takes a test that their organization reviews prior to submittal of a report for ASCLD-LAB requirements, then that same individual will have to take an additional, unreviewed test to satisfy ABC requirements. ABC is about individuals, not organizations, and certainly not about accreditation. ABC doesn't evaluate organizations as far back as I can remember. I also seem to remember, from the early days of ABC, that the certification body was developed because a group of people didn't trust "organizations" to properly train their criminalists. Current ASCLD-LAB requirements essentially prevent an individual from using their proficiency results in an accredited organization from being used to establish their personal qualifications to conduct examinations under ABC certification or fellowship. We are forced to either pass a test under conditions that satisfy ACLD-LAB or under conditions that satisfy ABC, or we take two mutually exclusive tests to maintain our status with both organizations. We can't have it both ways. How many supposedly personal/individual proficiency tests has ABC accepted for certification approval or maintenance that were in fact not individual but organizational/corporate? Does ABC know? How many of those corporate tests results has ABC accepted unknowingly? What does that fact do to the credibility of ABC certification? Those tests would seemingly leave ABC in the sad position of granting certifications to individuals that had the benefit of organizational second guessing (in-house cheating, if you will) and, in effect, makes their subsequent, personal, ABC certification(s) fictitious. I wish I'd had that kind of help when I was in college, wouldn't you have? Or, is it as Tim has stated above? Does ABC want labs to "internally CERTIFY" their own criminalists? That would seem to limit ABC's efficacy to the point that the organization could not survive. Maybe we're gradually getting to the heart of this discussion...? Just some thoughts, Mike Eyring [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 11:30:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3GUuE4004126 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:30:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7C5F@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:29:38 -0500 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 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, - As a rule a member of the laboratory will attend a homicide scene. However, the members who respond to the homicide scenes are auxillary members of the state police Evidence Response Team, so they are trained in crime scene response (not all members of the lab fall into this category - it is voluntary). The ERT members may also be called out to any scene where state or local officials need additional help in processing and/or collecting evidence. In the rare instance, a scientist may be dispatched to a scene if there are special needs, or they just need an extra body (a live one). All members of the laboratory have a minimum of a BS, or a BA in a science. 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? - our firearms examiners Who does your blood spatter interpretation? - I must preface this with - we are a really small state ... We currently have one state police detective who does most of the blood spatter work. He is dispatched to generally any scene in the state where such analysis is required. He also does the interpretation on clothing and whatnot in the lab. Our deputy chief medical examiner is also trained and does some work on his own cases and consulting with the aforementioned detective. We have one scientist in house who is training on interpretation. We do have two larger city police agencies who may have individuals who do their own interpretation, but since they aren't necessarily affiliated with the laboratory or state police I wouldn't know much about them. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, - Yes, but generally the more serious crimes such as armed robbery, bank robberies, etc. Typically the latent print examiners are called to scenes for fingerprint and footwear evidence collection. We also have a presence of some sort at all police involved shootings, however those are investigated by the attorney general's office. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 12:56:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3HuGMA007190 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:56:16 -0500 (EST) From: Lisa Hudson Organization: Total LegalNurse Consultants To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Question Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:55:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20031203175604.IPGQ2192.lakemtao03.cox.net@smtp.east.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 Hello all...I am looking for some ideas for Christmas for my son, a senior student in Criminal Justice at Oklahoma State University. He has asked for some books for his library. What are the thoughts of the "seasoned" criminologists out there for "must have" additions to your reference libraries? His interests are varied and at this point, his mind is open to what his future holds...he is especially interested in crime scene analysis and social profiles of career criminals. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Lisa Hudson Lisa Hudson, RN, BSN 1616 S. State Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 PH: (405)414-7005 FAX: (405)720-1884 email: LisaLegalNurse@cox.net This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is legally privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail and/or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please delete it from your computer system and notify Lisa Hudson at lisalegalnurse@cox.net. [EndPost by Lisa Hudson ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 13:39:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3Id3bb008880 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:39:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Question Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:38:56 -0000 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 V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031203175604.IPGQ2192.lakemtao03.cox.net@smtp.east.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 Why not get him a good reading copy of one of the early editions of one of Alfred Swaine Taylor's books, such as "Medical Jurisprudence". Should be available for <$100. It's full of fascinating 19th century like arsenic and sulphuric acid poisoning as well as Taylor's account of his involvement in some notorious cases. A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, CChem, FRSC Professor of Forensic Toxicology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Lisa Hudson Sent: 03 December 2003 17:56 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Question Hello all...I am looking for some ideas for Christmas for my son, a senior student in Criminal Justice at Oklahoma State University. He has asked for some books for his library. What are the thoughts of the "seasoned" criminologists out there for "must have" additions to your reference libraries? His interests are varied and at this point, his mind is open to what his future holds...he is especially interested in crime scene analysis and social profiles of career criminals. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Lisa Hudson Lisa Hudson, RN, BSN 1616 S. State Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 PH: (405)414-7005 FAX: (405)720-1884 email: LisaLegalNurse@cox.net This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is legally privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail and/or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please delete it from your computer system and notify Lisa Hudson at lisalegalnurse@cox.net. [EndPost by Lisa Hudson ] [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 14:37:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3JbYdg010616 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:37:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:37:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [forens] Question Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "E. J. Wagner" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <28AD9717-25C8-11D8-8296-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Great idea. Good sources are Patterson Smith, in New Jersey US (he's antitquarian book dealer who specializes in crime) or ABE-(antuquarian book exchange) on the web, which lists the wares of many dealers EJ On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Robert Forrest wrote: > Why not get him a good reading copy of one of the early editions of > one of > Alfred Swaine Taylor's books, such as "Medical Jurisprudence". Should > be > available for <$100. It's full of fascinating 19th century like > arsenic and > sulphuric acid poisoning as well as Taylor's account of his > involvement in > some notorious cases. > > A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, CChem, FRSC > Professor of Forensic Toxicology > Medico-legal Centre > Watery Street > SHEFFIELD > S3 7ES > UK > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Lisa Hudson > Sent: 03 December 2003 17:56 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] Question > > > Hello all...I am looking for some ideas for Christmas for my son, a > senior > student in Criminal Justice at Oklahoma State University. He has > asked for > some books for his library. What are the thoughts of the "seasoned" > criminologists out there for "must have" additions to your reference > libraries? His interests are varied and at this point, his mind is > open to > what his future holds...he is especially interested in crime scene > analysis > and social profiles of career criminals. Any help would be > appreciated. > Thank you! Lisa Hudson > > Lisa Hudson, RN, BSN > 1616 S. State Street > Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 > PH: (405)414-7005 > FAX: (405)720-1884 > email: LisaLegalNurse@cox.net > > > This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential > information belonging to the sender, which is legally privileged. The > information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or > entity > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > that any copying, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail > and/or > attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission > in > error, please delete it from your computer system and notify Lisa > Hudson at > lisalegalnurse@cox.net. > > [EndPost by Lisa Hudson ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] > > - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 26-July-2003 [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 15:02:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB3K2fDR011440 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:02:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031203200234.37058.qmail@web41010.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:02:34 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D11A7@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> 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 Mike: I was the ABC Proficiency Administration Committee chair for a very long time. Designing and implementing the program was a difficult task. I hope the following will improve your understanding of the program (Note: I'm off the ABC Board, and speaking only as a knowledgeable individual). The PT requirement of the ABC is not at all like a college exam. What ABC requires is that the participant certify that he or she has successfully participated in proficiency testing. Their lab director or qa person has to sign off on the form, and the lab or individual has to maintain the records for review for five years. ABC fellows and technical specialists are required to analyze the PT sample "to the greatest extent practicable, in the same manner as similar cases." If that includes technical and administrative review (and one surely hopes it does) such a review does not constitute "in-house cheating," even if you apply a very active imagination to the concept. In the past, there was a 100% review of all PT, but the process was too cumbersome. Now there is a spot check. PT is only part of the requirement to achieve and maintain fellow or technical specialist status. Perfect performance is not required, as the ABC realizes that a PT is a "snapshot". If someone boots a PT (and they have), they need to do two the next year. If they don't do any PT, or if they boot two in five years, their status is subject to suspension, and if the deficiency is not corrected, revocation. PT is just a small part of the very large process that is certification. Certification of individuals is but one leg of the quality triangle in forensic scienmce. The other two legs are organizational accreditation, and method standardization. PT ties all three components together. There is no conflict between the ABC and ASCLD-LAB requirements.Lab directors who allow PTs to be used for both purposes are making appropriate use of their resources. --- "Henson, Lynn" wrote: > Mike, > > Yes, the ABC has recognized this situation. > We've also discussed the point > I made earlier in the year reference your 50/50 > chance of getting the "right > answer" on a PT without knowing jack squat > about the material being tested. > The goal of the ABC proficiency review > committee is to review the data > (theoretically initialed by the reporting > analyst)to determine whether or > not the individual has appropriately applied > the peer approved techniques to > present data which supports the conclusion. In > other words, the case file > itself has to be reviewed by other Fellows in > the same specialty. ABC > requires Fellows and Technical Specialists to > retain their data from PT for > the entire 5 year recertification period. > > > > Not the Official spokesperson for the ABC > > Lynn Henson, D-ABC, Member-At-Large of the ABC > Board of Directors > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:48 AM > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified > by basten) > > > > From: Mike & Donna Eyring > > Subject: Re: ASCLD-LAB corporate proficiency > tests and their effect on > > ABC personal certification validity > > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -0700 > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:09 PM, Tim Sliter wrote: > > > > > I would agree, with an exception. > > > > > > The ASLCD/LAB requirement for a single PT to > be > > > submitted to the external testing agency for > review > > > makes it pretty clear that the primary intent > is lab > > > accreditation. It's the accredited lab's > > > responsibility then to internally certify its > own > > > analysts. > > > > > > > Folks: > > > > All this discussion led me to a realization: > the ASCLD-LAB policy > > essentially trashes the ABC purpose and > requirement for annual > > proficiency tests to maintain an individual's > certification in a > > particular area of forensic > analysis/examination. > > > > If I'm not mistaken, ABC is a certification > program for individuals, > > not organizations. If an individual takes a > test that their > > organization reviews prior to submittal of a > report for ASCLD-LAB > > requirements, then that same individual will > have to take an > > additional, unreviewed test to satisfy ABC > requirements. > > > > ABC is about individuals, not organizations, > and certainly not about > > accreditation. ABC doesn't evaluate > organizations as far back as I can > > remember. I also seem to remember, from the > early days of ABC, that > > the certification body was developed because a > group of people didn't > > trust "organizations" to properly train their > criminalists. > > > > Current ASCLD-LAB requirements essentially > prevent an individual from > > using their proficiency results in an > accredited organization from > > being used to establish their personal > qualifications to conduct > > examinations under ABC certification or > fellowship. > > > > We are forced to either pass a test under > conditions that satisfy > > ACLD-LAB or under conditions that satisfy ABC, > or we take two mutually > > exclusive tests to maintain our status with > both organizations. We > > can't have it both ways. > > > > How many supposedly personal/individual > proficiency tests has ABC > > accepted for certification approval or > maintenance that were in fact > > not individual but organizational/corporate? > Does ABC know? How many > > of those corporate tests results has ABC > accepted unknowingly? What > > does that fact do to the credibility of ABC > certification? > > > > Those tests would seemingly leave ABC in the > sad position of granting > > certifications to individuals that had the > benefit of organizational > > second guessing (in-house cheating, if you > will) and, in effect, makes > > their subsequent, personal, ABC > certification(s) fictitious. I wish > > I'd had that kind of help when I was in > college, wouldn't you have? > > > > Or, is it as Tim has stated above? Does ABC > want labs to "internally > > CERTIFY" their own criminalists? That would > seem to limit ABC's > > efficacy to the point that the organization > could not survive. > > > > Maybe we're gradually getting to the heart of > this discussion...? > > > > Just some thoughts, > > > > Mike Eyring > > > > [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 3 22:17:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB43HiFT021575 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:17:44 -0500 (EST) From: Lisa Hudson Organization: Total LegalNurse Consultants To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: [forens] Question Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:17:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20031204031731.HGCL4890.lakemtao07.cox.net@smtp.central.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 I wanted to thank everyone who responded to my requests for some good references for my son for Christmas. What a wonderful list of reading...I WILL be borrowing these from him! You all saved me hours of research on the internet with no guarantee of "good" information. I appreciate your efforts to give back to an eager mind! Lisa From: "E. J. Wagner" Date: 2003/12/03 Wed PM 02:37:41 EST To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: "E. J. Wagner" Subject: Re: [forens] Question Great idea. Good sources are Patterson Smith, in New Jersey US (he's antitquarian book dealer who specializes in crime) or ABE-(antuquarian book exchange) on the web, which lists the wares of many dealers EJ On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Robert Forrest wrote: > Why not get him a good reading copy of one of the early editions of > one of > Alfred Swaine Taylor's books, such as "Medical Jurisprudence". Should > be > available for <$100. It's full of fascinating 19th century like > arsenic and > sulphuric acid poisoning as well as Taylor's account of his > involvement in > some notorious cases. > > A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, CChem, FRSC > Professor of Forensic Toxicology > Medico-legal Centre > Watery Street > SHEFFIELD > S3 7ES > UK > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Lisa Hudson > Sent: 03 December 2003 17:56 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] Question > > > Hello all...I am looking for some ideas for Christmas for my son, a > senior > student in Criminal Justice at Oklahoma State University. He has > asked for > some books for his library. What are the thoughts of the "seasoned" > criminologists out there for "must have" additions to your reference > libraries? His interests are varied and at this point, his mind is > open to > what his future holds...he is especially interested in crime scene > analysis > and social profiles of career criminals. Any help would be > appreciated. > Thank you! Lisa Hudson > > Lisa Hudson, RN, BSN > 1616 S. State Street > Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 > PH: (405)414-7005 > FAX: (405)720-1884 > email: LisaLegalNurse@cox.net > > > This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential > information belonging to the sender, which is legally privileged. The > information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or > entity > addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified > that any copying, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail > and/or > attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission > in > error, please delete it from your computer system and notify Lisa > Hudson at > lisalegalnurse@cox.net. > > [EndPost by Lisa Hudson ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] > > - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 26-July-2003 [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] Lisa Hudson, RN, BSN 1616 S. State Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 PH: (405)414-7005 FAX: (405)720-1884 email: LisaLegalNurse@cox.net This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is legally privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail and/or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please delete it from your computer system and notify Lisa Hudson at lisalegalnurse@cox.net. [EndPost by Lisa Hudson ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 08:29:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4DT3Si000966 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:29:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Message-Id: From: owner-dforens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:36:38 -0500 (EST) To: owner-dforens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Gilbert, John (DAIS)" To: dforens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] book Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:04:16 +1030 To Nicole Egli, Protopopov A.L. The Essence of Criminological Odorology There is reference to this publication at: http://pravoved.jurfak.spb.ru/Default.asp?cnt=602#top I am completely illiterate in Russian but, from the look of the web page, it looks like the work may be a paper in a Russian journal. Dr John Gilbert Forensic Pathologist (and student of mostly bad odours) Forensic Science Centre 21 Divett Place Adelaide SA 5000 Email: gilbert.john@saugov.sa.gov.au [EndPost by owner-dforens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 08:31:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4DV0Zp001209 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:31:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312041331.hB4DV0Zp001209@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:21:14 -0700 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Dec 3, 2003, at 1:02 PM, John Lentini wrote: > Mike: > I was the ABC Proficiency Administration > Committee chair for a very long time. (snip) > In the past, there was a 100% review of all PT, > but the process was too cumbersome. Now there is > a spot check. > > PT is only part of the requirement to achieve and > maintain fellow or technical specialist status. (snip) > PT ties all three components together. There is > no conflict between the ABC and ASCLD-LAB > requirements.Lab directors who allow PTs to be > used for both purposes are making appropriate use > of their resources. > Dear John: I was very saddened to receive your reply. It just begs the question. I can assure you that individuals that are unjustly jailed are only interested in one test. That's the one that a criminalist "blew" while working on their case. There was, and will be, no second chance and no review the next year or five years later. Just more jail time. These individuals might be a bit at odds with you about things being "cumbersome" or subject to the "appropriate use of their resources" . I thought ABC was the one group that was above all the administrative and corporate spin. Guess I was wrong. Freedom is priceless. Mike Eyring [EndPost by Mike & Donna Eyring ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 08:32:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4DWij3001642 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:32:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:32:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312041332.hB4DWgts001614@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> To: forens From: MajorDomo@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Welcome to bounces Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu -- Welcome to the bounces mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe bounces or from another account, besides forens: unsubscribe bounces forens If you ever need to get in contact with the owner of the list, (if you have trouble unsubscribing, or have questions about the list itself) send email to . This is the general rule for most mailing lists when you need to contact a human. Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: ________________________________________________________________________________ Bounces List + Organized by Christopher J. Basten (cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu) + Maintained by Chris Basten (basten@statgen.ncsu.edu) + Managed by MajorDomo (MajorDomo@statgen.ncsu.edu) + Post messages to bounces@statgen.ncsu.edu You have been placed on the mailing list 'bounces' on the MajorDomo server statgen.ncsu.edu. The 'bounces' mailing list is the repository for bad email addresses from other mailing lists on this MajorDomo server. On a monthly basis this message will be sent to the people on this list reminding them that they have been moved to it. Are you wondering why you are on the bounces list? Well, from the list owner's point of view, your email address started bouncing messages back to the MajorDomo server. This can be extremely annoying for a busy list. The list owner may get hundreds of bounced messages over the course of a few days. Instead of simply deleting your email address from the list you were on, the list owner switched you to the bounces list so that you may get a reminder to resubscribe once your email address is working again. So, why wouldn't your email address be working? Don't ask the list owner. He/she probably has no idea why. Ask your systems administrator. Sometimes it is as simple as a full mailbox. Other times it is due to a configuration change at your site. Finally, if you find yourself on this list, simply unsubscribe from it and resubscribe to the list from which you were bounced. There is no need to send any petulant messages to the list owner. From now on, such messages will simply be ignored. You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this list by yourself. You can send messages to all the people on the list, and will receive any messages posted to the list. You can even subscribe or unsubscribe other people, but such commands must be OK'd by the list owner (cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu). This mailing list is managed by MajorDomo. You send commands in the body of an email message to MajorDomo@statgen.ncsu.edu. Here is a list of commands (note that [address] is an optional email address, and "file" is a file in the archive): =============================================================================== Command Parameters Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- subscribe bounces [address] Subscribe yourself [address] to bounces unsubscribe bounces [address] Unsubscribe yourself [address] to bounces who bounces Show the members of bounces info bounces Show the introductory info for bounces index bounces Show the files in the archive get bounces "file" Get "file" from the archive for bounces which [address] Find out which lists you [address] are on. lists Show all the lists handled by this server help Retrieve a help message, explaining these commands end Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer appends a signature). =============================================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________ [This file generated on Thu Sep 25 11:08:01 2003.] [EndPost by MajorDomo@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 11:19:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4GJ93l007801 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:19:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Message-Id: <969702B4-2675-11D8-8B4D-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Chris Basten Subject: [forens] Apology Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:19:08 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To all, I attempted to unsubscribe a bad email address from the forens list today, and inadvertantly put the forens list on the bounces list. I've already corrected it. Chris ------------------- Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 Bioinformatics Res. Center Fax: (919)515-7315 N. C. State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu Raleigh, NC 27695-7566 Location: 1523 Partners II Building URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/~basten [EndPost by Chris Basten ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 12:29:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4HT3Xm010662 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:29:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031204172856.52055.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:28:56 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <200312041331.hB4DV0Zp001209@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> 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 Mike: I'm sorry you're sad, but by using your logic, any forensic scientist who does not get a proficiency test right should go and find another line of work, because obviously, if they got that test wrong on that day, nothing they have ever done was correct. Extending your logic to proficiency tests gotten wrong by a laboratory, the laboratory should just shut down because obviously if the lab performed badly on one test, it means they are unable to do forensic work. Proficiency testing should be a part of any laboratory's quality assurance proggram. It helps the lab to spot potential problems, and lets the director know which cases might need to be reviewed. Without PT, the quality system suffers. Thinking like that described below only encourages directors NOT to use proficiency testing. That is so 70s! Your beef seems to be with certification, rather than with proficiency testing. (I note that despite your impressive credientials, you have not chosen to become ABC certified). Maybe you also have a beef with accreditation. Neither system is perfect, but having them is far better than not having them. It is interesting for me to be placed in a group that wants to convict the innocent. I'll bet that I have kept more innocent people out of the penitentiary than most folks on this list. I'm usually accused of helping bad guys (arsonists) get off. I agree that freedom is priceless, and that it is better to let 100 guilty folks go than to convict one innocent person. (I also think OJ is guily as hell). I just don't see how you would practically operate a proficiency testing system, or a certification system, or an accreditation system without having provisions that allow for humans to make an error without destroying their employer or even their career. --- Mike & Donna Eyring wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2003, at 1:02 PM, John Lentini wrote: > > > Mike: > > I was the ABC Proficiency Administration > > Committee chair for a very long time. > (snip) > > In the past, there was a 100% review of all > PT, > > but the process was too cumbersome. Now > there is > > a spot check. > > > > PT is only part of the requirement to achieve > and > > maintain fellow or technical specialist > status. > (snip) > > PT ties all three components together. There > is > > no conflict between the ABC and ASCLD-LAB > > requirements.Lab directors who allow PTs to > be > > used for both purposes are making appropriate > use > > of their resources. > > > Dear John: > I was very saddened to receive your reply. It > just begs the question. > > I can assure you that individuals that are > unjustly jailed are only > interested in one test. That's the one that a > criminalist "blew" while > working on their case. There was, and will be, > no second chance and no > review the next year or five years later. Just > more jail time. > > These individuals might be a bit at odds with > you about things being > "cumbersome" or subject to the "appropriate use > of their resources" . > I thought ABC was the one group that was above > all the administrative > and corporate spin. Guess I was wrong. > > Freedom is priceless. > > Mike Eyring > > [EndPost by Mike & Donna Eyring ] ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 12:41:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4HfC2T011674 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:41:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A60F@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Apology Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:29:56 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Oh, good. You caught me before I erroneously assailed our IM folks for changing the "no reception" limits on oversize inboxes (one of which mine was). And you also got me to do the overdue mailbox pruning. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Chris Basten [mailto:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu] To all, I attempted to unsubscribe a bad email address from the forens list today, and inadvertantly put the forens list on the bounces list. I've already corrected it. Chris [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 13:42:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4IgYpH015757 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:42:34 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20031204100225.00a087a0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:13:38 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) In-Reply-To: <20031204172856.52055.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200312041331.hB4DV0Zp001209@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 I have included a couple of recent comments to put the below in context: Proficiency testing does not, and cannot, assure that every result that comes from a lab is correct. It cannot, and does not, assure anyone that the results of immediate concern in any particular case are correct. It should provide some assurance to laboratory management the workers are doing reasonably good jobs. But Mike is correct that it is the results in a particular case that are of concern. The ONLY WAY to assure that is the case is by peer review, and the obligation of the forensic scientist is to facilitate that process. What does that mean? 1. Proper collection and preservation of evidence. That would include preservation of analytical samples for re-analysis. 2. Complete disclosure of methods, data, and conclusions and opinions. It should not be necessary to utilize extraordinary discovery or FOIA processes to get that information - and there should be no surprises in testimony. 3. A professional attitude that embraces the belief that the best way to get at the truth in a scientific inquiry is a process of independent peer review. Pete Barnett At 09:28 AM 12/4/03 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >I'm sorry you're sad, but by using your logic, >any forensic scientist who does not get a >proficiency test right should go and find another >line of work, >Extending your logic to proficiency tests gotten >wrong by a laboratory, the laboratory should just >shut down because obviously if the lab performed >badly on one test, it means they are unable to do >forensic work. and Mike Eyring previously wrote: > > I can assure you that individuals that are > > unjustly jailed are only > > interested in one test. That's the one that a > > criminalist "blew" while > > working on their case. There was, and will be, > > no second chance and no > > review the next year or five years later. Just > > more jail time. [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 14:16:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB4JGK1S017833 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:16:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:16:12 -0500 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 It is interesting to note that NRC-II which was comprised of peers from all the fields that are relevant to forensic testing in DNA ( including those from Law ) concluded that the only way to ensure that the results in a particular case are correct is to leave a portion of the evidence at the earliest stage so that it can be retested. The commission even discouraged calculation of error rates as being not practical. The commission naturally recommends taking all kinds of precautions ( following QA/QC guidelines of TWGDAM, ASCLD/LAB accreditation etc ) to avoid errors, but relies on possible retesting of remaining evidence to ensure no possibility of error in cases of doubt. What surprises me is what about all those analysts ( a vast majority ) who are not ABC certified? How come no one seems to be concerned about them? Their proficiencies ( except external and that too if ASCLD/LAB accredited ) are not checked by anyone externally. If the lab is not accredited no one ( except CODIS participating labs) even has to take a proficiency. It is this huge proportion of analysts and labs that should be a concern to all the defendents and not the ABC certified analysts from ASCLD/LAB accredited labs. The above are my individual opinions. Bharat Lakhkar D-ABC -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) I have included a couple of recent comments to put the below in context: Proficiency testing does not, and cannot, assure that every result that comes from a lab is correct. It cannot, and does not, assure anyone that the results of immediate concern in any particular case are correct. It should provide some assurance to laboratory management the workers are doing reasonably good jobs. But Mike is correct that it is the results in a particular case that are of concern. The ONLY WAY to assure that is the case is by peer review, and the obligation of the forensic scientist is to facilitate that process. What does that mean? 1. Proper collection and preservation of evidence. That would include preservation of analytical samples for re-analysis. 2. Complete disclosure of methods, data, and conclusions and opinions. It should not be necessary to utilize extraordinary discovery or FOIA processes to get that information - and there should be no surprises in testimony. 3. A professional attitude that embraces the belief that the best way to get at the truth in a scientific inquiry is a process of independent peer review. Pete Barnett At 09:28 AM 12/4/03 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >I'm sorry you're sad, but by using your logic, >any forensic scientist who does not get a >proficiency test right should go and find another >line of work, >Extending your logic to proficiency tests gotten >wrong by a laboratory, the laboratory should just >shut down because obviously if the lab performed >badly on one test, it means they are unable to do >forensic work. and Mike Eyring previously wrote: > > I can assure you that individuals that are > > unjustly jailed are only > > interested in one test. That's the one that a > > criminalist "blew" while > > working on their case. There was, and will be, > > no second chance and no > > review the next year or five years later. Just > > more jail time. [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Lakhkar, Bharat" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 4 21:32:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB52Wfbu028449 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:32:41 -0500 (EST) From: RiIwan@aol.com Message-ID: <1dd.15f2a8d8.2d014833@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:32:19 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 45 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 A chemist from the Massachusetts State Police Lab asked me to post this response: 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? Who does your blood spatter interpretation? 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? >>>> The fast answers for us are: 1. yes, but not all homicides 2. it's up to the requesting agency, but we only have criminalists in this laboratory, no technicians who would go The State Police have a unit of troopers who are firearms examiners and who do everything involved with guns (except serial number restorations). There are several chemists who are qualified to do bloodspatter interpretation. 3. yes 4. any case where the evidence at the scene might be best anylyzed at our lab and the investigator is unsure how to best collect it. In Mass., chemists respond to scenes at the request of the investigating agency. Our lab is under the State Police, but that doesn't mean we only go to State Police cases. In fact, we might even respond to more non-homicide cases than to homicides. If a homicide occurs, the State Police assigned to that county's district attorney's office are to be notified. They will work the case with the local agency and will decide if a chemist may be needed at the scene. That happens primarily if there is blood or trace evidence (which would end up here anyway). If a sexual assault or motor vehicle incident occurs and is being investigated by the local agency, they may decide to call us to help collect evidence. We can respond to anything where we'd be useful, as long as they call us. We have chemists on call to respond 24/7. We've been doing it long enough that it is covered (sorta) by our contract (yes, we're union, though in the same one as workers who don't do things anything like this). We get stand-by pay (piddly) and overtime if we're out past our regular shift. We cover the entire state except Boston (they have their own lab who also sends chemists out to scenes when requested) and we usually wouldn't know about some cases without calls from the investigator. [EndPost by RiIwan@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Dec 5 09:59:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB5ExNKc009165 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:59:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:59:12 -0500 From: Gunis77@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1DEAEB8E.05574960.0017CE10@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 64.7.25.5 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 Hi all! I have curious question. I have seen several responses to the survey about who goes to scenes and who performs blood spatter (which is incorrect. The correct term for the discipline is bloodstain pattern analysis). My question is this, how do you determine who is qualified to perform this analysis? I am very hopeful that a one 40 hour class does not fulfill this requirement. Just curious to hear all your comments! Thanks! Jeff Gurvis [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Dec 5 17:11:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB5MBoS5020210 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:11:50 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:07:37 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-reply-to: <1DEAEB8E.05574960.0017CE10@aol.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-index: AcO7QG7vG+sk4IGJT0SD5sTNBt1RqwAOsElA Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Jeff, I'd be interested in hearing this as well as I'm about to embark on a 12 or 14 month blood spatter analysis project as part of my degree. I have to do experiments, assignments and various other weird things which will certainly take more than 40 hours I should hope! I'm still trying to find more reading material but I can't and won't just write something that I have read in various text books - what's the point? Anyone can read those books and it's nothing new and I want write something original. This is a major project for me as it's leading into my Masters. So all suggestions on reading materials, and answers to Jeff's questions will be gratefully received! Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2003 1:59 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Hi all! I have curious question. I have seen several responses to the survey about who goes to scenes and who performs blood spatter (which is incorrect. The correct term for the discipline is bloodstain pattern analysis). My question is this, how do you determine who is qualified to perform this analysis? I am very hopeful that a one 40 hour class does not fulfill this requirement. Just curious to hear all your comments! Thanks! Jeff Gurvis [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 2/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 2/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 5 18:11:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB5NBPLV022063 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:11:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] "CSI" question Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:14:31 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000501c3bb85$89f22c60$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-reply-to: <047701c3a2f6$240be640$ba0042ac@davelaptop> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 23:11:23.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[19E07210:01C3BB85] 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 >From what I hear and have seen, just about every single episode qualifies. I quickly became disgusted with these series so I admit I haven't seen all that many episodes, but every "CSI" episode I DID see personally had several major errors and many minor ones. I still catch an episode every now and then (usually when visiting someone else who watches the show), and the gulf between fact and fiction in these shows hasn't improved any. Based on what others continue to say here and in other forums, my own observations are regularly being confirmed by others. There's even a web site dedicated to "CSI" factual errors, although most of the people posting there are amateurs, some of whom make some whopping errors of their own. It can be interesting to browse through the site: http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/jboze3131/csifacts.htm There was also an article earlier this year in USA Today about some of the ridiculous medical errors on the show: http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-02-24-csi_x.htm There is so much concern about the detrimental effect the "CSI" TV show (and shows like it) may be having on the Justice System, that the upcoming 5th Annual National Conference on Science and the Law is dedicating half a day to what it calls "the CSI Effect": http://www.nijpcs.org/SL/SL2004/finalized_agenda1.pdf (see page 4, schedule for Tuesday, 8:00-11:30 AM) 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 Dave Khey Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:08 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] "CSI" question List... Do any of you know of specific episodes of CSI or CSI:Miami or any tv series that has a huge gap between fact/fiction... besides the usual strech.. I'm reading about how the CSI "techs" injected caulking into a stab wound and retracted the mold of the knife blade (which episode is that?!) I am giving a presentation tomorrow on the influence of these types of shows on the american juror... Help! Thanks in advance, Dave Khey ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 5 18:13:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB5NDlkp022374 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:13:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] "CSI" question Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:53 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000601c3bb85$de573ed0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 23:13:45.0162 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E45D2A0:01C3BB85] 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 Yes, but at least those shows don't CLAIM to accurately portray forensic science - they're just run-of-the-mill cop shows with a forensic twist added because it's the "hot" thing to do in TV today. With the other shows, you know what you're getting - simple (mostly mindless) entertainment; but with CSI, they purposely give the impression you're seeing a "docudrama" not only inspired by real cases but based mostly on fact. The "CSI" producers have repeatedly claimed that their depictions of forensic science are highly true-to-life and insist they are technically accurate, with only minor embellishments to enhance the storytelling. In the early years of the original show they used that claim as their main publicity ploy in countless ads, promos, articles and interviews. While I haven't heard or seen many of those claims recently (perhaps because I have an intestinal aversion to the shows and avoid anything connected to them like the plague), I haven't seen them recant the claims either. This gross misrepresentation of the degree of realism in the "CSI" stable of shows is what, IMHO, makes these programs particularly odious and dangerously potentially poisonous to our jury pools, not to mention the unhealthily unrealistic expectations they plant in the minds of investigators, attorneys, victims, and the general public. I'd have no problem with the "CSI" shows if their producers openly admitted "Hey, folks, this is total FICTION - it isn't intended to be an accurate representation. We make this stuff up!" However they don't openly admit that, and instead continue to maintain a pretense of realism where there is in fact precious little. 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 Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 4:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] "CSI" question Hey, If you think CSI is bad, take a look at Crossing Jordan or Navy NCIS or the new LA Dragnet. Now these shows reallly do forensic Science a disservice. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> irish_pride@planet-save.com 11/05 9:35 AM >>> Ha ha this is a funny one. I am a chemistry student aspiring to become a forensic chemist. When CSI first came out I was hooked and couldn't miss an episode; however you all spoiled it for me and well I am utterly thankful for that. I guess sometimes when a show such as CSI comes out, and aspiring person such as myself at least tries to glean some knowledge from an entertaining show such as this. Anymore I can hardly watch it without making wise cracks at some of the stupid things they do on that show, and the caulking in the stab wound is a major folly. Also, I have been in some area in law enforcement since I was 19 years old (Federal with the U.S. Coast Guard) and I know the amazing hoops one must jump through in order to preserve the integrity of a case. I was told the best way to preserve integrity is to "Document, Document, Document" and never allow your uncovered hands to come in contact with evidence. This folly is shown in many an episode where the CSI dudes pick up! objects with out gloves and with out photographing it first. WOW how many cases do you all think would hold up if your colleagues practiced their investigations as such. This Semester I am enrolled in a Intro to Criminal Justice Class and it makes me crazy when I hear the students refer so often to CSI in class discussions. What scares me is that it seems as though the show while entertaining is coercing people to study in various fields of forensic science because it looks "cool". Well I guess I will climb off of my soap box and head to Organic Chemistry class. Take care. Justin P. McCarty (University of Wyoming) --- "Dave Khey" wrote: List... Do any of you know of specific episodes of CSI or CSI:Miami or any tv series that has a huge gap between fact/fiction... besides the usual strech.. I'm reading about how the CSI "techs" injected caulking into a stab wound and retracted the mold of the knife blade (which episode is that?!) I am giving a presentation tomorrow on the influence of these types of shows on the american juror... Help! Thanks in advance, Dave Khey ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] _____________________________________________________________ Save rainforest for free with a Planet-Save.com e-mail account: http://www.planet-save.com [EndPost by Justin McCarty ] [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 5 18:20:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB5NKdFE023010 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:20:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Black Powder test Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:23:44 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000701c3bb86$d3b71a30$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-reply-to: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0ECD6@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 23:20:36.0847 (UTC) FILETIME=[63A7F7F0:01C3BB86] 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 term "definitive color test" is an oxymoron. Color tests are only screening tests; hence they can never be "definitive." They all have false positives (i.e., will all react to things other than the analyte of interest). All color tests must be confirmed by additional laboratory testing (instrumental and/or microscopic). There are various formulations for black powder, but the basic ingredients are potassium nitrate (oxidizer), charcoal (fuel), and sulfur (catalyst - lowers ignition temperature and increases rate of combustion). So any spot tests that detect these substances and their post-combustion products are useful for screening. Traditional spot tests for detection of black powder post-combustion residues include tests for the presence of sulfide, sulfite and thiosulfate. For example, two classic spot tests for sulfur salts are acid fuschsin and iodine/sodium azide. Tests for nitrates include diphenylamine and Griess. As previously noted, none of these tests are specific for black powder, and will react to the same salts from other sources (of which there are a great many). However, the presumptive detection can be bolstered by the visual appearance of the residue (mostly black crumbs, with whitish deposits from molten salts), combined with a sulfurous odor and negative tests for metals and sugar or other fuels (oxidizable material). Most modern gun powders, however, are so-called "smokeless" powders, not black powder. Smokeless powders are nitrocellulose-based and require different procedures. The easiest way to tell unconsumed black powder from smokeless powder is the ignition susceptibility test: one grain is slowly moved into an open flame - black powder will burn instantly in one quick "poof," while smokeless powders will ignite and then burn evenly and smoothly. 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 Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 2:58 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Black Powder test Does anyone know if there is a simple, difinitive color test for black powder? I'm aware of the microcrystal tests for the elements, but I was wondering if there was any color test that could be used on the powder directly, without separating particles. Thanks --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 5 18:38:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB5NcLZ9023749 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:38:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Evidence Handbook Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:41:27 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <001001c3bb89$4d2af380$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 23:38:19.0637 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD20DA50:01C3BB88] 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 Geoff, The Treasury Department had a pretty good pocket-sized guide, called "Crime Scene and Evidence Collection Handbook," which was produced by the BATF and made available through the US Government Printing Office (stock number 486-874). Unfortunately, the copy I have is dated 1985, and I don't know if it's still available or it there's a newer version. NIJ has three guidebooks that are useful to responders on the street, produced by TWGs and published in their "research reports" series: Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement (January 2000, NCJ 178280) Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel (June 2000, NCJ 181584) A Guide for Explosion and Bombing Scene Investigation (June 2000, NCJ 181869) A new and very timely publication available through the GPO is "Best Practices for Seizing Electronic Evidence," Stock Number: 008-047-00410-9 Interfire.org has an excellent resource page for evidence collection, drawing together many reference sources: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/m_fse_cr.asp Also, the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation both have pretty good evidence submission manuals. GBI's is available on-line at http://www.ganet.org/gbi/labmanual.html FDLE's printed manual can be had by contacting one of the labs listed on their web page: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/CrimeLab/ 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 Geoff Bruton Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:39 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: [forens] Forensic Evidence Handbook Dear List, I have been asked by a colleague at our lab to check to see if any of you have any information with regards to a forensic evidence handbook? We are interested in finding a preferably pocket-sized handbook on evidence collection that we can distribute to the agencies who submit evidence to us. I understand that the FBI has one on-line, but was curious as to what other labs use. Any information on what 'standards' are out there would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance, and warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 6 15:05:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB6K5UoC009602 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:05:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:05:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: 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] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:50:46 -0600 From: "Banning, Steven" To: That is an interesting question. I have attended a 40 hours class that had numerous exercises and a practical at the end. I have also been to numerous crime scenes prior to the class and observed other trained analysts. We are also required to have our analysis peer reviewed by another analyst. I do not pretend to be able to interpret every bloodstain pattern I see and will only report on the ones I can. I will still attend further training when I can. I have had defense attorneys bring up your point in my testimony. In spite of that, I have still been accepted by the courts as an expert. Our lab is currently preparing for ASCLA/LAB accreditation in crimes scenes. Part of what we have to do is to show competency in bloodstain pattern analysis. This is prepared internally by our laboratory. We will also participate in an outside proficiency. This of course can bring us all back to the proficiency testing discussion. I am interested to know what you feel is necessary as a qualification(s). -----Original Message----- From: Gunis77@aol.com [mailto:Gunis77@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:59 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Hi all! I have curious question. I have seen several responses to the survey about who goes to scenes and who performs blood spatter (which is incorrect. The correct term for the discipline is bloodstain pattern analysis). My question is this, how do you determine who is qualified to perform this analysis? I am very hopeful that a one 40 hour class does not fulfill this requirement. Just curious to hear all your comments! Thanks! Jeff Gurvis [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 6 15:06:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB6K6bhu009661 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:06:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:06:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: 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: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] ABC, ASCL-LAB, Proficiency Concerns Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:19:26 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Dec 4, 2003, at 12:16 PM, Lakhkar, Bharat wrote: > (snip) > What surprises me is what about all those analysts ( a vast majority ) > who > are not ABC certified? How come no one seems to be concerned about > them? > Their proficiencies ( except external and that too if ASCLD/LAB > accredited ) > are not checked by anyone externally. If the lab is not accredited no > one ( > except CODIS participating labs) even has to take a proficiency. It is > this > huge proportion of analysts and labs that should be a concern to all > the > defendants and not the ABC certified analysts from ASCLD/LAB accredited > labs. > Dear Bharat: It's interesting that you have such serious doubts about the work of non-certified forensic scientists. It includes the work of some notable people like: Doug Lucas, Jim Croker, Mike Grieve, Ken Wiggins, Wilfried Stoecklein, Tony Longhetti, Fred Whitehurst, Scott Ryland and, for a major part, if not most, of their professional lives, Pete Barnett, John Lentini, Sue Ballou, Mike Sheppo and Carl Selavka. These individuals were and are good forensic scientists, not because of some abbreviations behind their names, but because they were personally dedicated to continuous study and to doing good work. Quite honestly, it's been a pleasure and privilege know and/or work with all of these people, even if the relationship may have been a tad contentious at times. (My apology to many friends and several hundred other splendid scientists I failed to list.) Test results have always been at the disposal of defense attorneys and reporters, all of ours have been reviewed numerous times. But, then again, perhaps you'd like to question and review all the previous work of all the individuals I just listed? We've always been concerned about the work of our profession. Perhaps you missed it? Mike Eyring [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 6 15:07:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB6K7JtF009844 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:07:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:07:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: 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: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:51:21 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Dec 4, 2003, at 10:28 AM, John Lentini wrote: > Mike: > > I'm sorry you're sad, but by using your logic, > (snip) > I just don't see how you would practically > operate a proficiency testing system, or a > certification system, or an accreditation system > without having provisions that allow for humans > to make an error without destroying their > employer or even their career. > John: Unfortunately, that's exactly what tends to happen. We seem to live in a, media fed, assassination mentality, society. No, you weren't placed in a conviction manic group. I share your interest in forcing prosecutors and investigators to prove their cases and they haven't always liked me because of it. Again, I'm not against proficiency testing. I've done up to a half dozen a year to cover all of my work. When the state lab stopped subscribing to tests for a couple of years, I bought them for myself. What I want are valid tests and detailed reviews of the work leading to the conclusions reached. It's not simple and it's not cheap and I know it eats time. I just don't accept a shortcut around the complete process. By the way, forgive me for not asking before I used your name in a recent post. Mike [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 6 17:04:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB6M4eRm013646 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:04:40 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:03:52 -0800 Subject: [forens] how do they judge? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Rob Keister To: Forensic In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <140FDBAC-2838-11D8-B1A7-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I don't think any of us have doubts about the work of non-certified forensic scientists based only on non-certification (or lack of lab accreditation). As forensic scientists we know those names listed below from membership in professional organizations, authorship of published articles, presentations at professional meetings, and instructors of classes. But the typical juror doesn't know that. So we tell them as part of witness qualification. But another way the non-expert can judge the expert is to know that they have submitted their qualifications to an independent review by an organization like the ABC. One might disagree with the qualifications of a specific organization like the ABC, ASCLD/LAB, or Crims-R-Us, but I think the public is comfortable with the concept of using licensing, certification, and accreditation to evaluate specialists that they have to decide whether to trust. Rob Keister Orange Co. Sheriff Dept. ---------------------------------------------------- "Anonymity is my claim to fame." (What'd you say?) ---------------------------------------------------- On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 12:06 PM, Christopher J. Basten wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mike & Donna Eyring > Subject: Re: [forens] ABC, ASCL-LAB, Proficiency Concerns > Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:19:26 -0700 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > > On Dec 4, 2003, at 12:16 PM, Lakhkar, Bharat wrote: > >> (snip) > >> What surprises me is what about all those analysts ( a vast majority ) >> who >> are not ABC certified? How come no one seems to be concerned about >> them? >> Their proficiencies ( except external and that too if ASCLD/LAB >> accredited ) >> are not checked by anyone externally. If the lab is not accredited no >> one ( >> except CODIS participating labs) even has to take a proficiency. It is >> this >> huge proportion of analysts and labs that should be a concern to all >> the >> defendants and not the ABC certified analysts from ASCLD/LAB >> accredited >> labs. >> > Dear Bharat: > > It's interesting that you have such serious doubts about the work of > non-certified forensic scientists. It includes the work of some > notable people like: > Doug Lucas, Jim Croker, Mike Grieve, Ken Wiggins, Wilfried Stoecklein, > Tony Longhetti, Fred Whitehurst, Scott Ryland and, for a major part, if > not most, of their professional lives, Pete Barnett, John Lentini, Sue > Ballou, Mike Sheppo and Carl Selavka. These individuals were and are > good forensic scientists, not because of some abbreviations behind > their names, but because they were personally dedicated to continuous > study and to doing good work. Quite honestly, it's been a pleasure and > privilege know and/or work with all of these people, even if the > relationship may have been a tad contentious at times. (My apology to > many friends and several hundred other splendid scientists I failed to > list.) > > Test results have always been at the disposal of defense attorneys and > reporters, all of ours have been reviewed numerous times. But, then > again, perhaps you'd like to question and review all the previous work > of all the individuals I just listed? > > We've always been concerned about the work of our profession. Perhaps > you missed it? > > Mike Eyring > > [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] > > ------------------------------------------------- "Anonymity is my claim to fame." (What'd you say?) [EndPost by Rob Keister ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 00:37:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB85bj3a005071 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:37:45 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:26:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2003 05:37:38.0556 (UTC) FILETIME=[641253C0:01C3BD4D] 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 Lynn: It would be refreshing to find some novel insights into fluid dynamics after sitting through several identical courses on the subject of blood stain analysis taught by well respected and accreditted experts on the subject. I hope you'll publish your paper on the list, as the few handouts I've gathered over the years. Jeff's question is a bit nebulous though, as he makes no mention of what the ultimate purpose of the analysis is. An analyst who's credentials might past muster at a probable cause hearing (a bizarre consequence of our Bill of Rights) might not make it into court at trial, or worse, if their testimony is admitted an appellate court might not agree with the trial court's discretion (this is an extreme case and generally requires abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony) and reverse. Congratulations on your return to full health, acceptance to graduate school and hopefully at least a modest reduction in your usual amount of evasiveness. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:07 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > Jeff, I'd be interested in hearing this as well as I'm about to embark on a > 12 or 14 month blood spatter analysis project as part of my degree. I have > to do experiments, assignments and various other weird things which will > certainly take more than 40 hours I should hope! I'm still trying to find > more reading material but I can't and won't just write something that I have > read in various text books - what's the point? Anyone can read those books > and it's nothing new and I want write something original. This is a major > project for me as it's leading into my Masters. > > So all suggestions on reading materials, and answers to Jeff's questions > will be gratefully received! > > Regards > > Lynn > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 00:37:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB85bmvb005095 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:37:48 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] FW: DNA Profiling Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:46:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2003 05:37:41.0087 (UTC) FILETIME=[659486F0:01C3BD4D] 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 Lynn: What an opportune moment for you to make such an observation, as only this past week I had a request for such information from a science teacher at a local school. What is it you liked best about Norah and Keith's book that you like it better than others? What other books did you compare it to? Both of those authors are well respected but so nobody has expressed such a strong endorsement as you have and clearly you have compared it to other publications and I'm sure my good friend will appreciate your technical observation as to the advantages and disadvantages of the balance of the field. I'm confidence that since this is a topic of wide interest you're onlist reply will help persuade many to make a wise and well informed choice. BTW, what area of science was it that you are planning your graduate degree in again, I missed it earlier. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:50 PM Subject: RE: [forens] FW: DNA Profiling > Hi Ryan, Personally I like Norah Rudin and Keith Inman's book "An > Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis" Second Edition. I'll poke around and > find out if I can find some web sites for you. > > Regards, > > > > Lynn Coceani > lynncoceani@connexus.net.au > Student Member American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Colorado) > Member Australia and New Zealand Forensic Science Society > Sessional lecturer CSI, risk assessment and victimology (RMIT - Melbourne) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Ryan Davis > Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2003 6:52 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] FW: DNA Profiling > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Davis [mailto:rrdavis@ucdavis.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:12 AM > To: 'owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: DNA Profiling > > > Hi, > > I wanted to know if anyone could recommend a good book/Website on DNA > profiling? Are SNP's arrays being used widely now? > I appreciate everyones help > > Ryan Davis > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Ryan Davis" ] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 00:37:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB85bmmT005096 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:37:48 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 03:07:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2003 05:37:41.0682 (UTC) FILETIME=[65EF5120:01C3BD4D] 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 Brent: It would appear, based on your post, that I have made a gross error of fact. In the five years that I have read your testimony, your resumes and your curriculum vitaes (many of them actually), I have yet to find even a single independently corroborable account of you working for any law enforcement agency, coroner, medical examiner or crime lab. Despite the extensive depositions and interrogatories brought in your suit against the City of Sitka, et al, I feel confident that this is simply an oversight on my part rather than a gross mistatement of fact on your's. Just to clarify, so that there is no mistunderstanding, what agency is it that you have ever (since your graduation from UNH in 1996) done any forensic laboratory work? It seems rather remarkable to me that in the many records I have of your testimony or affadavits, none of them make any reference to this kind of experience or employment, nor do any of those individuals familiar with your work. Laura Farley, an attorney who I believe deposed you and John Baeza, seemed to be completely unaware of this experience you now reference when I spoke with her last year. Since she has apparently invested a fairly sizable amount of effort into investigating your background it seems rather odd that both of us should have overlooked something so obvious in your relatively short career. Thanks in advance for your assistance in clarifying the record, so that there is no misunderstanding. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Geoff et al; > > This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those > of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who > do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 08:18:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB8DIwQ9010927 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:18:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:17:48 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hB8DIwhm010922 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 Lynn - You might want to check the IAI website (theiai.org). I believe that they have a recommended reading list for their certificate in bloodstain pattern analysis. Brad Brown Forensic Scientist II NYSP Forensic Investigation Center Albany, NY 12226 >>> "Lynn Coceani" 12/05 5:07 PM >>> Jeff, I'd be interested in hearing this as well as I'm about to embark on a 12 or 14 month blood spatter analysis project as part of my degree. I have to do experiments, assignments and various other weird things which will certainly take more than 40 hours I should hope! I'm still trying to find more reading material but I can't and won't just write something that I have read in various text books - what's the point? Anyone can read those books and it's nothing new and I want write something original. This is a major project for me as it's leading into my Masters. So all suggestions on reading materials, and answers to Jeff's questions will be gratefully received! Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2003 1:59 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Hi all! I have curious question. I have seen several responses to the survey about who goes to scenes and who performs blood spatter (which is incorrect. The correct term for the discipline is bloodstain pattern analysis). My question is this, how do you determine who is qualified to perform this analysis? I am very hopeful that a one 40 hour class does not fulfill this requirement. Just curious to hear all your comments! Thanks! Jeff Gurvis [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 2/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 2/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 18:55:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB8NtHRJ029177 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:55:17 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: <1c8.12ecee12.2d06695c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:55:08 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 19:37:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB90b4RP000313 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:37:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00af01c3bdec$8c0e3a20$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: Subject: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:36:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 hB90b4RQ000313 List, Has anyone been thrown out of court due to a past proficiency test or know of a case in which this occurred? I am trying to get a handle on how much prominence this problem has on why proficiency testing is not popular with some individuals. Is this an forensic "urban legend"? And off the list, can someone please give me a crash course on the use/prominence of proficiency testing in your local labs if you had a few seconds? Is it about right that 2/3rds of labs run tests on their personnel? Thanks for letting me continue to pick your collective brains! Dave Khey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 23:06:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB946HHv005404 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:06:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:08:47 +1100 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: [forens] Blood grouping To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3FD54ACE.753B8D64@vifm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en 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 have been asked by a detective here (Melbourne, Australia) to try and locate a laboratory who can still do blood grouping tests (ABO blood group, PGM, AK and Haptoglobin). I gather they have an old case (prior to DNA testing) and need to compare the results obtained in the 1970s to a current suspect. If anyone knows of laboratory that still does these tests, I would appreciate if they could email me at bentleya@vifm.org. Thanks Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 23:17:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB94H8Vk005879 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:17:08 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:16:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Rob Keister To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <00af01c3bdec$8c0e3a20$c10042ac@davelaptop> Message-Id: <7297D00F-29FE-11D8-A948-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hB94H7hm005874 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I haven't heard of someone being barred from testifying because of a proficiency test problem. It's usually goes to the weight of the testimony and not its admissibility. Rob Keister Orange County Sheriff Dept. On Monday, December 8, 2003, at 04:36 PM, Dave Khey wrote: > List, > > Has anyone been thrown out of court due to a past proficiency test or > know of a case in which this occurred? I am trying to get a handle on > how much prominence this problem has on why proficiency testing is not > popular with some individuals. Is this an forensic "urban legend"? > > And off the list, can someone please give me a crash course on the > use/prominence of proficiency testing in your local labs if you had a > few seconds? Is it about right that 2/3rds of labs run tests on their > personnel? > > Thanks for letting me continue to pick your collective brains! > > Dave Khey > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > > David Khey > Graduate Assistant > Center for Studies in Criminology and Law > Department of Sociology > Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences > University of Florida > 201 Walker Hall > PO Box 115950 > Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 > Tel: 352-392-1025 > Fax: 352-392-5065 > DKhey@ufl.edu > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- "Everyone knows rock and roll achieved perfection in 1974.  It's a scientifically proven fact." -- Homer Simpson [EndPost by Rob Keister ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 8 23:28:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB94SKtU007058 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:28:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008a01c3be0c$e265c030$0200a8c0@8sv5f01> From: "Bob Kegel" To: "Forensic Science List" Subject: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:00:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 My department has recently encountered what initially appears to be methamphetamine. It turns the Nik U (methamphetamine) reagent a bright purple. It gives a cranberry red result with the Nik Q (ephedrine) test. We've sent samples to the state crime lab, of course, but an answer may be weeks away. Can anyone ID the substance from this description? LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA [EndPost by "Bob Kegel" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 09:47:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9ElMHa015131 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:47:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031209064440.01ad8ee8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 06:47:13 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] Blood grouping In-Reply-To: <3FD54ACE.753B8D64@vifm.org> 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 03:08 PM 12/9/2003 +1100, you wrote: >I have been asked by a detective here (Melbourne, Australia) to try and >locate a laboratory who can still do blood grouping tests (ABO blood >group, PGM, AK and Haptoglobin). I gather they have an old case (prior >to DNA testing) and need to compare the results obtained in the 1970s to >a current suspect. > >If anyone knows of laboratory that still does these tests, I would >appreciate if they could email me at bentleya@vifm.org. Hi Bentley, I passed your message along to a friend in Germany, figuring the expertise still exists there if anywhere. "Prof. Peter M. Schneider" wrote >Regarding blood grouping, what exactly are you looking for? There are >numerous labs that still perform these methods, however, for forensic >samples, it might be more difficult to find someone - we stopped doing >it at least about 5 years ago. Best regards, Charles [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 11:06:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9G6tMr017301 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:06:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:06:32 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Blood grouping 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 hB9G6tMs017301 You might thry the Serological reasearch Institute located at 3053 Research Drive Richmond, CA USA 94720 Phone (510) 223-7374 They were at the forefront of this type of testing in the United States. If they don't perform this type of testing they may be aware as to who still does. 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 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 12/8/2003 8:08:47 PM >>> I have been asked by a detective here (Melbourne, Australia) to try and locate a laboratory who can still do blood grouping tests (ABO blood group, PGM, AK and Haptoglobin). I gather they have an old case (prior to DNA testing) and need to compare the results obtained in the 1970s to a current suspect. If anyone knows of laboratory that still does these tests, I would appreciate if they could email me at bentleya@vifm.org. Thanks Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] 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 Dec 9 12:13:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9HDO44019878 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:13:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031209171321.60161.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:13:21 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: [forens] Job Announcement To: Forensic Science Mailing List 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 The Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory (Oakland, California) is currently seeking a qualified and experienced latent print examiner. Please read the attached document for the specifics. If, for some reason you're unable to open/view the attachment, feel free to contact me and I'll see that you receive the general job announcement. Thanks, Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone - - 510.238.3386 FAX - - 510.238.6555 Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/msword --- [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 12:14:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9HEfoA020011 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:14:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:14:20 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony 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 hB9HEfoB020011 David, No one in our jurisdiction has had an issue regarding proficiency tests in the courts. I believe that we pass them on a regular basis. The problem with the proficiency tests from the bench analyst position is that they feel that they take valuable time from case work particularly if the the test design is not straightforward. There are some instances where the design of the test or the integrity of the evidence due to packaging was suspect. Also, labs pay good money to participate in the tests, but the test providers do not supply sufficient control samples leaving it up to lab personnel to purchase test materials with their own funds. I feel that this is not what proficiency tests are designed to test. In some areas, the analyst must agonize over making a call that is inconclusive. This is time that is not well served particularly if there is a backlog of real cases. Proficiency tests must be cut and dried and easily reviewable. If the peer reviewer or technical reviewer is having difficulty with a particular test, then was wait for input from the referee lab. Do you suspend casework at this point because the proficiency test has become so all important. In reviewing some of the response from others in this forum, one would think the world must stop because a proficiency test was not completed in terms of a very narrow view. I am sure this post will generated the usual diatribe that justice is not served without proficiency tests, and that this is a quality issue and it is the only way of measuring a laboratory's or analysts competence, etc., etc. Because of accreditation and certification, there is a fear among analysts of whether they should speak out. They grumble and continue to do their jobs feeling the issue has been already decided, which well be the case, but that might say something about why there are so few people applying for certification. There is the cost involved. Many analysts belong to a variety of professional organizations and that membership used and still should mean something. They have to pay dues to those organizations, and some had fairly stringent membership criteria. What is the sense in paying dues to another organization that essentially was supposed support what the organizations originally stood for? there are many, who feel that they are under the control of the laboratory's accrediting body. The initial accreditation was supposed to demonstrate the laboratory's competence and demonstration to the adherence of a philosophy. Now that accrediting body wants to swerve into a more universal, more stringent accreditation system. It simply means more paperwork and more time and resources taken away from the lab mission. Really, the only people concerned about these issues are those that promote these systems, and the lawyers, only when it fits their agenda. One can see it in the courtroom when the lab analyst comes in with the certified initial s behind their name to testify about the small part they played in analyzing a piece of evidence from a case, then the academic comes in with the advanced degree offered by opposing counsel and can opine ad infinitum. I am not questioning the legitimacy of certification or accreditation, but I think the honesty, the veracity of the everyday analyst is going to be questioned whether they are certified or not. That is the nature of the system. That person's results, when offered at trial should be questioned honestly and openly. Was good science applied to that test? Is there dat to support the conclusions? Is the result correct or interpretable. Can a peer review the test or duplicate the test? Isn't that more important than passing one proficiency test, which may or may not be properly conceived, prepared and distributed? Just some food for thought. 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 >>> dkhey@ufl.edu 12/8/2003 4:36:54 PM >>> List, Has anyone been thrown out of court due to a past proficiency test or know of a case in which this occurred? I am trying to get a handle on how much prominence this problem has on why proficiency testing is not popular with some individuals. Is this an forensic "urban legend"? And off the list, can someone please give me a crash course on the use/prominence of proficiency testing in your local labs if you had a few seconds? Is it about right that 2/3rds of labs run tests on their personnel? Thanks for letting me continue to pick your collective brains! Dave Khey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] 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 Dec 9 13:03:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9I3WdL022126 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:03:32 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Message-Id: <001F9931-2A72-11D8-8B4D-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 01:02:30 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] how do they judge? Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:04:25 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Dec 6, 2003, at 3:03 PM, Rob Keister wrote: > I don't think any of us have doubts about the work of non-certified > forensic scientists based only on non-certification (or lack of lab > accreditation). As forensic scientists we know those names listed > below from membership in professional organizations, authorship of > published articles, presentations at professional meetings, and > instructors of classes. But the typical juror doesn't know that. So > we tell them as part of witness qualification. But another way the > non-expert can judge the expert is to know that they have submitted > their qualifications to an independent review by an organization like > the ABC. One might disagree with the qualifications of a specific > organization like the ABC, ASCLD/LAB, or Crims-R-Us, but I think the > public is comfortable with the concept of using licensing, > certification, and accreditation to evaluate specialists that they > have to decide whether to trust. > > Rob Keister > Dear Rod: You're begging the question. No juror has any interest beyond the immediate case. They're not allowed to have one. Each criminalist stands alone during testimony on any given case and only their work on that case is open to evaluation. Yes, we state our qualifications, but they're for the judge, not the jury. I won't bore you with the judge's definition of "expert". When the judge accepts us as an expert we "are" and the jury has to accept that opinion, no questions. The fact that a criminalist may have done good work last week is beside the point. They have to account for the work on the specific case in question and that's what attorneys are paid to dig out. None of us are in a position to take the stand in a criminalist's place, not ABC or ASCLD-LAB or the even their own lab. This is why proficiency testing should be personal and individual, not corporate. Public "comfort" is not the issue. Valid analysis is. Mike Eyring [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 13:16:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9IG5fY022864 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:16:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031209181600.82025.qmail@web20515.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:16:00 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: [forens] Job Announcement To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <20031209171321.60161.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> 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 It appears that the attachment failed to attach - so I've copied it into this message - - sorry. CITY OF OAKLAND Oakland Police Department Criminalistics Division (Crime Laboratory) POSITION: Latent Print Examiner CLOSING DATE: Opening anticipated January 2004; open until filled. DUTIES: The position of experienced latent print examiner for the Oakland Police Department is a professional civilian position that works within the Criminalistics Laboratory. The laboratory is accredited by ASCLD/LAB. Primary duties include the development, collection, and comparison of latent fingerprints or other impression evidence either submitted to the laboratory or found at crime scenes. Additionally, latent print examiners respond to crime scenes, operate the CAL-ID Automated Fingerprint Identification System, provide training related to their area of expertise, prepare laboratory notes, write comprehensive reports of their findings, and testify in court as expert witnesses. REQUIREMENTS: Several combinations of education and experience may be qualifying: 1. A Baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university and at least one full year of work as a casework qualified latent print examiner; OR 2. An Associate of Arts degree from an accredited community college (or documentation of 60 semester units of college credit) and three years of forensic latent print experience, at least 1.5 years of which is as a casework qualified latent print examiner; OR 3. High school diploma (or GED) and five years of forensic latent print experience, at least 3 years of which is as a casework qualified latent print examiner. CERTIFICATION: Unless already achieved by the time of appointment, incumbents are expected to acquire Latent Print Examiner Certification by the International Association for Identification within one year of meeting the requirements of the IAI program. A valid drivers license is also required. CURRENT SALARY: $51,246 annually (based on a 37.5 hour work-week). TO APPLY: Send a resume or contact letter via email, US mail or FAX to the following individual: J. T. Abercrombie, Criminalist Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street – Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: 510.238.3386 FAX: 510.238.6555 Email: jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com --- Tom Abercrombie wrote: > The Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory > (Oakland, California) is currently seeking a > qualified > and experienced latent print examiner. Please read > the attached document for the specifics. > > If, for some reason you're unable to open/view the > attachment, feel free to contact me and I'll see > that > you receive the general job announcement. > > Thanks, > > Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist Supervisor > Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory > 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 > Oakland, CA 94607 > > Phone - - 510.238.3386 > FAX - - 510.238.6555 > Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > application/msword > --- > [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 16:14:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9LE7Bs029200 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:14:07 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:12:23 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO95uw88UQawwa+T7yqjkGP9tPCcgAsf2mQ In-Reply-To: <1c8.12ecee12.2d06695c@aol.com> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll be studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 16:45:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9LjM6x001137 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:45:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:45:00 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis 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 hB9LjM70001137 Lynn, It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to that specific organization. Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the testimony. 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 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll be studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] 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 Dec 9 17:34:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9MYIYB002665 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:34:18 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:31:51 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO+naHJDwB6yjIjSc+SO4Xh0K0KfQABNhPQ In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Greg, thanks for writing. My Lordy, how could you do this topic in a one week course! I am doing my project and study over 12 to 14 months. I don't intend to read a bunch of books written by other people and then just re-word it. I've kindly been sent some experiments which I can try at home and if anyone has any other suggestions, they will all be gratefully received. I intend to write my own interpretation of my findings and readings. I'm no Einstein but I hope I can write something intelligent! I am an undergrad of Criminology, Criminal Justice Admin and Forensics (I've finished Forensics but want to branch out into bloodstain pattern) and I will be graduating next year. How could you do your own experiments after a one week course is beyond me! I was trying to find an online course because I couldn't find a course focusing on bloodstain at my Uni - or any other in Australia for that matter. So, I'll do my own thing! I can't believe the number of people from the US who have been kind enough to offer to help me. I haven't had one offer of help from my OWN country. It drives me crazy! Well, being the stubborn old broad that I am, I'll get there by doing my own thing. As for visiting a crime scene - ha! You must be joking. That will never happen here. Tell me, how do people get to become experts in the area of their choice when they are blocked at every turn, such as visiting a crime scene, etc? You couldn't do it , could you? Well I'm expected to. I intend to apply for membership to the IAI. Please stay in touch. And thanks! Lynn Coceani lynncoceani@connexus.net.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2003 8:45 AM To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Lynn, It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to that specific organization. Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the testimony. 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 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll be studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] 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" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 18:28:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9NSFtA003752 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:28:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1795644.1071012489502.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp11> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:28:09 -0500 (EST) From: Theodore Mozer To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CC Mailer IV X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Assuming you consider yourself an expert in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (you instruct and consult on same), what are your qualifications??? What do you or would you offer to the court?? --------------------------------------- Original Email From: Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Dec 08, 2003 06:55 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 9 18:45:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hB9Njmnk004692 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:45:48 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:45:39 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 Tmozer ( you know I know who you are:), I offer my education, training, experience, and research as qualifications but my question is not one of self-promotion. I honestly do not think there is an answer. I am just curious what other people think. But I do have a feel for what doesn't make the cut. Jeff Gurvis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 01:26:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBA6QD59010857 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:26:13 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:25:09 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO+rnv4qQJmBXg6SRaDO5mwqli9EwAN3/RQ In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Good Lord, don't tell me we have another one of THOSE on here. Jeff I stick by what I said earlier. I would b e more than happy for your help. Don't tell me this is another Wheeler-type! I have your private email address so in future I'll use that. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2003 10:46 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Tmozer ( you know I know who you are:), I offer my education, training, experience, and research as qualifications but my question is not one of self-promotion. I honestly do not think there is an answer. I am just curious what other people think. But I do have a feel for what doesn't make the cut. Jeff Gurvis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 08:03:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAD3YDA015567 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:03:34 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:03:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4B2EAA9D52142E4E97BEF4C4900ECCD30802BB@DOITLHHQEXR.fldoi.gov> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Thread-Index: AcO+rnv4qQJmBXg6SRaDO5mwqli9EwAN3/RQAA37OFA= From: "Michael Koussiafes" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2003 13:03:19.0367 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBA9C570:01C3BF1D] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBAD3Yhm015562 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I don't recall if anyone has mentioned it yet, but there is an organization of bloodstain analysts, the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts: http://www.iabpa.org/ Also, a links page ot other bloodstain pages: http://www.law-forensic.com/bloodstainlinks.htm [EndPost by "Michael Koussiafes" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 08:55:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBADtMqL016745 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:55:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:55:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200312101355.FAA07714@scn.org> From: bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Listmembers: Attacking a person who posts to the list, or smearing them my innuendo, is usually a sign that the attacker does not have a reasoned OPINION about the topic at hand. I know who Ted Mozer is, too - a thoughtful forensic scientist who values good work and is dedicated to the field. Whether or not you like him, you might notice that he has not posted ad hominem attacks. He simply asked for someone to give the BASIS for what they are doing. Regarding Shaun Whell 9oops) Wheeler, he has a right to ask questions and ex- press his opinions. If you do not like them, ignore them. Or answer them, with reasoned argument. Anything else is simply gossip. Chesterene Cwiklik -- Cwiklik & Associates 2400 6th Avenue South #257 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 [EndPost by bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 10:29:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAFTGkT019283 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:29:16 -0500 (EST) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: <55.4cc9d230.2d0895c1@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:29:05 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 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 As presumptive tests are not intended to be specific, any attempt to identify a drug from color tests as these has to be purely subjective. The best that can be provided, if anybody has seen these two results would only be as an indication. Wayne Morris Morris-Kopec Forensics, Inc [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 10:33:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAFXXwO019654 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: <128.371df22a.2d0896c0@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:33:20 EST Subject: [forens] Re: tobacco testing To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 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 color test for nicotine/tobacco. Thank you. Wayne Morris [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 10:56:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAFuWgv020685 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:56:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001001c3bf35$8c672e10$10f7e88a@uibk.ac.at> From: "Dr. Walter Rabl" To: References: <128.371df22a.2d0896c0@aol.com> Subject: [forens] mysterious substance Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:51:55 +0100 Organization: Institute for Legal Medicine, University of Innsbruck, http://www.gerichtsmedizin.at/ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: -3.5 () RCV_UIBK,REFERENCES X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 at uibk.ac.at 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 colleagues, our local police department confronted us with some reports of persons who declare that they unknowingly consumed a substance which affected their will in such a way, that they went home and took their money and bankbook and handed it to the offenders. Afterwards they could remind all details, had no amnesia and told that they just had no will of their own. I don´t know such a substance which could have these effects, but the cases seem to recur in other contries too. The police told me that some men are arrested, who confessed these crimes. Most of the victims come from Thailand. Are such phenomens known in the forensic community ?? (maybe some sort of hypnosis ??) Thank you for your remarks Walter Rabl A.Univ.Prof. Dr. Walter Rabl Institute of Forensic Medicine University of Innsbruck Muellerstrasse 44 A-6020 Innsbruck [EndPost by "Dr. Walter Rabl" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:03:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAG3eBv021249 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:03:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000501c3bf37$1bd92cf0$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: Subject: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American Juror Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:03:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 hBAG3eBw021249 List, As promised to some interested folks on this list, here is a preliminary report of my progress in investigating the possible affects of forensics as depicted on television and media sources has on the American juror and the American justice system. I will release any information contained in this article to outside sources until I have the permission to quote some individuals that have responded to my inquiries on this list. I thought it would be okay to release it to you as you have already seen it before! Comments and criticism are very welcome as my primary interests have been embedded in forensic pathology. There is still plenty I need to add to this before engaging the thick of this study...so I stress that this is very preliminary. Enjoy, Dave Khey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html application/pdf --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:08:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAG8oFl021732 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:08:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005b01c3bf37$e1047ca0$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <000601c3bb85$de573ed0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Subject: Re: [forens] "CSI" question Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:08:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Mr. Parsons, I wanted to ask your permission to take excerpts from your reply below to cite in an article that I am slowing churning out on the effects of this sort of influence on the American juror. As per a pervious e-mail, I have released a preliminary version of this article to the forens-l in case you wanted to review it. I thought this input was insightful...and I could not put it better than what you have below... please let me know if this would be alright. Thanks in advance, Dave Khey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [forens] "CSI" question > Yes, but at least those shows don't CLAIM to accurately portray forensic > science - they're just run-of-the-mill cop shows with a forensic twist > added because it's the "hot" thing to do in TV today. With the other > shows, you know what you're getting - simple (mostly mindless) > entertainment; but with CSI, they purposely give the impression you're > seeing a "docudrama" not only inspired by real cases but based mostly on > fact. > > The "CSI" producers have repeatedly claimed that their depictions of > forensic science are highly true-to-life and insist they are technically > accurate, with only minor embellishments to enhance the storytelling. > In the early years of the original show they used that claim as their > main publicity ploy in countless ads, promos, articles and interviews. > While I haven't heard or seen many of those claims recently (perhaps > because I have an intestinal aversion to the shows and avoid anything > connected to them like the plague), I haven't seen them recant the > claims either. This gross misrepresentation of the degree of realism in > the "CSI" stable of shows is what, IMHO, makes these programs > particularly odious and dangerously potentially poisonous to our jury > pools, not to mention the unhealthily unrealistic expectations they > plant in the minds of investigators, attorneys, victims, and the general > public. > > I'd have no problem with the "CSI" shows if their producers openly > admitted "Hey, folks, this is total FICTION - it isn't intended to be an > accurate representation. We make this stuff up!" However they don't > openly admit that, and instead continue to maintain a pretense of > realism where there is in fact precious little. > > 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 Greg Laskowski > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 4:50 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] "CSI" question > > Hey, > > If you think CSI is bad, take a look at Crossing Jordan or Navy NCIS or > the new LA Dragnet. Now these shows reallly do forensic Science a > disservice. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> irish_pride@planet-save.com 11/05 9:35 AM >>> > > Ha ha this is a funny one. I am a chemistry student aspiring to become a > forensic chemist. When CSI first came out I was hooked and couldn't miss > an episode; however you all spoiled it for me and well I am utterly > thankful for that. I guess sometimes when a show such as CSI comes out, > and aspiring person such as myself at least tries to glean some > knowledge from an entertaining show such as this. Anymore I can hardly > watch it without making wise cracks at some of the stupid things they do > on that show, and the caulking in the stab wound is a major folly. Also, > I have been in some area in law enforcement since I was 19 years old > (Federal with the U.S. Coast Guard) and I know the amazing hoops one > must jump through in order to preserve the integrity of a case. I was > told the best way to preserve integrity is to "Document, Document, > Document" and never allow your uncovered hands to come in contact with > evidence. This folly is shown in many an episode where the CSI dudes > pick up! > objects with out gloves and with out photographing it first. WOW how > many cases do you all think would hold up if your colleagues practiced > their investigations as such. This Semester I am enrolled in a Intro to > Criminal Justice Class and it makes me crazy when I hear the students > refer so often to CSI in class discussions. What scares me is that it > seems as though the show while entertaining is coercing people to study > in various fields of forensic science because it looks "cool". Well I > guess I will climb off of my soap box and head to Organic Chemistry > class. Take care. > > Justin P. McCarty (University of Wyoming) > > --- "Dave Khey" wrote: > List... > > Do any of you know of specific episodes of CSI or CSI:Miami or any tv > series that has a huge gap between fact/fiction... besides the usual > strech.. I'm reading about how the CSI "techs" injected caulking into a > stab wound and retracted the mold of the knife blade (which episode is > that?!) I am giving a presentation tomorrow on the influence of these > types of shows on the american juror... > > Help! > > Thanks in advance, > > Dave Khey > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > David Khey > Graduate Assistant > Center for Studies in Criminology and Law > Department of Sociology > Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences > University of Florida > 201 Walker Hall > PO Box 115950 > Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 > Tel: 352-392-1025 > Fax: 352-392-5065 > DKhey@ufl.edu > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Save rainforest for free with a Planet-Save.com e-mail account: > http://www.planet-save.com > > [EndPost by Justin McCarty ] > > > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:10:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAGA8in021954 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:10:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006701c3bf38$0858ffb0$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: Subject: [forens] and the attachment... Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:09:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 hBAGA8io021954 Sorry. The article failed to attached. Here it is --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html application/pdf --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:14:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAGEHm4022644 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:14:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009001c3bf38$a302f660$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: Subject: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:14:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 hBAGEHm5022644 There seems to be an issue of posting .pdfs to this list-serv. For those that are interested in receiving this article, please contact me off the list. I apologize for flooding your inboxes! Truly, Dave Khey --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:25:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAGP2GF023874 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:25:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Patton, David" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror In-Reply-To: <009001c3bf38$a302f660$c10042ac@davelaptop> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:25:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (47-uwe) X-Authentication: IMSP 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 Are you thinking of putting your article on a web site? Dave On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:14:06 -0500 Dave Khey wrote: > There seems to be an issue of posting .pdfs to this list-serv. For those that are interested in receiving this article, please contact me off the list. I apologize for flooding your inboxes! > > Truly, > > Dave Khey > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > > > This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software > > ---------------------------------------- Patton, David Email: David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk "University of the West of England" [EndPost by "Patton, David" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:39:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAGd1a6025235 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:39:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00d101c3bf3c$185bd3c0$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:38:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 would, except that I did not want to release it to the public just yet. I want to get some permissions to cite first. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patton, David" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror > Are you thinking of putting your article on a web site? > > Dave > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:14:06 -0500 Dave Khey > wrote: > > > There seems to be an issue of posting .pdfs to this list-serv. For those that are interested in receiving this article, please contact me off the list. I apologize for flooding your inboxes! > > > > Truly, > > > > Dave Khey > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > > > > > > > This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > Patton, David > Email: David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk > "University of the West of England" > > [EndPost by "Patton, David" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 11:40:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAGea6D025485 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:40:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20031210104016.008894d0@earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:40:16 -0600 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror In-Reply-To: <009001c3bf38$a302f660$c10042ac@davelaptop> 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 I think it's safe to say that most of us would be interested in your article -- could you put it into plain text and send it to the list as an email? --Peter Nothnagle At 11:14 AM 12/10/03 -0500, you wrote: >There seems to be an issue of posting .pdfs to this list-serv. For those that are interested in receiving this article, please contact me off the list. I apologize for flooding your inboxes! > >Truly, > >Dave Khey > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > [EndPost by Peter Nothnagle ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 12:18:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAHIRrm027618 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:18:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <012201c3bf41$94f8ab10$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20031210104016.008894d0@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:18:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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'll see what I can do to make it readable in plain text or put a password protected link on my website. I'll keep you posted. For now, feel free to contact me off the list for a copy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Nothnagle" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror > I think it's safe to say that most of us would be interested in your > article -- could you put it into plain text and send it to the list as an > email? > > --Peter Nothnagle > > At 11:14 AM 12/10/03 -0500, you wrote: > >There seems to be an issue of posting .pdfs to this list-serv. For those > that are interested in receiving this article, please contact me off the > list. I apologize for flooding your inboxes! > > > >Truly, > > > >Dave Khey > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > >multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > >--- > >[EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > > > > [EndPost by Peter Nothnagle ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 12:37:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAHbFUB029206 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:37:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA85A04ACB@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Long, Julie" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Hewitt, Deborah" , "Muller, Connie" Subject: [forens] Latent Prof Question Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:37:04 -0700 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 Here is a question from our latent print examiners. Please reply off-list. Thanks. Has anyone taken the CTS proficiency, 03-517 and if so, how many points of identification were you able to ascertain from latent 5I? Also, does anyone have a charted enlargement of this latent that they could share? Julie Long Montana State Crime Lab Quality Manager 406-329-1132 [EndPost by "Long, Julie" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 14:31:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAJVfhx003374 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:31:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6289834.1071084695267.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp14> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:31:35 -0500 (EST) From: Theodore Mozer To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CC Mailer IV X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Actually, what I wrote to Jeff (a friend and forensic colleque in a fashion) was tougue-in-cheek. But I guess, for those who would not know, it might not have read that way! Sorry..... But I must thank Chesterene. You made my day! I will continue to try to live up (forensically) to your endorsement....... --------------------------------------- Original Email From: Chesterene Cwiklik Sent: Dec 10, 2003 08:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Listmembers: Attacking a person who posts to the list, or smearing them my innuendo, is usually a sign that the attacker does not have a reasoned OPINION about the topic at hand. I know who Ted Mozer is, too - a thoughtful forensic scientist who values good work and is dedicated to the field. Whether or not you like him, you might notice that he has not posted ad hominem attacks. He simply asked for someone to give the BASIS for what they are doing. Regarding Shaun Whell 9oops) Wheeler, he has a right to ask questions and ex- press his opinions. If you do not like them, ignore them. Or answer them, with reasoned argument. Anything else is simply gossip. Chesterene Cwiklik -- Cwiklik & Associates 2400 6th Avenue South #257 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 [EndPost by bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 14:35:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAJZOWH003721 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:35:24 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <1e1.15450b38.2d08cf6c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:35:08 EST Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 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 Yes, I'm interested in receiving the article, Dave. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS 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 Dec 10 14:49:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAJnGcw004519 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:49:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:47:46 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: tmozer@occ.mailcruiser.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBAJnFhm004514 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 for the clarification. I can take my safety glasses off now. I put them on with all the sand flying around..... >>> Theodore Mozer 12/10 2:31 PM >>> Actually, what I wrote to Jeff (a friend and forensic colleque in a fashion) was tougue-in-cheek. But I guess, for those who would not know, it might not have read that way! Sorry..... But I must thank Chesterene. You made my day! I will continue to try to live up (forensically) to your endorsement....... --------------------------------------- Original Email From: Chesterene Cwiklik Sent: Dec 10, 2003 08:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Listmembers: Attacking a person who posts to the list, or smearing them my innuendo, is usually a sign that the attacker does not have a reasoned OPINION about the topic at hand. I know who Ted Mozer is, too - a thoughtful forensic scientist who values good work and is dedicated to the field. Whether or not you like him, you might notice that he has not posted ad hominem attacks. He simply asked for someone to give the BASIS for what they are doing. Regarding Shaun Whell 9oops) Wheeler, he has a right to ask questions and ex- press his opinions. If you do not like them, ignore them. Or answer them, with reasoned argument. Anything else is simply gossip. Chesterene Cwiklik -- Cwiklik & Associates 2400 6th Avenue South #257 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 [EndPost by bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 14:49:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAJnNiB004559 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:49:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031210194915.23183.qmail@web60210.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:49:15 -0800 (PST) From: Keli Masten Subject: [forens] Education To: List 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 Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 14:54:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAJsFNp005517 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:54:15 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:53:58 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO/U/y9CfWbMNbjTAS3fpuNGvd3XwAAzQ7A In-Reply-To: <6289834.1071084695267.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp14> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Fair enough - but I wouldn't waste my time on Wheeler. I apologise for being so negativistic - my goodness, such a big word for me at 7am! Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Theodore Mozer Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 6:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Actually, what I wrote to Jeff (a friend and forensic colleque in a fashion) was tougue-in-cheek. But I guess, for those who would not know, it might not have read that way! Sorry..... But I must thank Chesterene. You made my day! I will continue to try to live up (forensically) to your endorsement....... --------------------------------------- Original Email From: Chesterene Cwiklik Sent: Dec 10, 2003 08:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Listmembers: Attacking a person who posts to the list, or smearing them my innuendo, is usually a sign that the attacker does not have a reasoned OPINION about the topic at hand. I know who Ted Mozer is, too - a thoughtful forensic scientist who values good work and is dedicated to the field. Whether or not you like him, you might notice that he has not posted ad hominem attacks. He simply asked for someone to give the BASIS for what they are doing. Regarding Shaun Whell 9oops) Wheeler, he has a right to ask questions and ex- press his opinions. If you do not like them, ignore them. Or answer them, with reasoned argument. Anything else is simply gossip. Chesterene Cwiklik -- Cwiklik & Associates 2400 6th Avenue South #257 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 [EndPost by bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 14:58:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAJwElZ006416 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:58:14 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:56:55 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO/VkrTZ/om1GD5TP6pGw/i9yCzCwAATWFw In-Reply-To: <20031210194915.23183.qmail@web60210.mail.yahoo.com> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Keli, I suppose it depends on where you live. The rules change so much from country to country. I'm in Australia so it's not that difficult to get into a Uni course on forensics. But I don't know where you are so someone else will have to answer you. Sorry, Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Keli Masten Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 6:49 AM To: List Subject: [forens] Education Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 15:01:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAK11mT007055 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:01:01 -0500 (EST) From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <11.1e314102.2d08d56b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:00:43 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5100 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 12/10/2003 2:51:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, kelibeli80@yahoo.com writes: My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten Keli: To work in a lab as a forensic scientist you will need a degree in one of the sciences, preferably chemistry. Perhaps you could talk with someone in a local forensic science lab for additional suggestions. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences has a Young Forensic Scientist program where you could possible establish contact with a bench worker in your area. (AAFS.org). Good Luck, Lamar Miller Forensic Document Examiner Hendersonville, NC/Little Torch Key, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 15:04:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAK45S1007493 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:04:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:02:52 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBAK44hm007488 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 Lynn - A few years back I took a shooting reconstruction course through the Henry Lee Institute of Forensic Science. As part of the program, we conducted an exercise to demonstrate forward spatter and backspatter resulting from a projectile striking a "bloody" object. We soaked a sponge in red paint, and suspended it from a pvc frame. We suspended a piece of plain white paper in front of the sponge, and a second piece behind the sponge. A handgun round was fired through the approximate center of the first piece, through the sponge and through the second sheet of paper. The sheets of paper were replaced, varying the distance between the paper and the sponge. Obviously, paint does not behave exactly like blood, but pigs blood could be used. If you have access to a range, this might be a worthwhile experiment. Please don't try this at home.....(lol) Good luck Brad >>> "Lynn Coceani" 12/09 5:31 PM >>> Hi Greg, thanks for writing. My Lordy, how could you do this topic in a one week course! I am doing my project and study over 12 to 14 months. I don't intend to read a bunch of books written by other people and then just re-word it. I've kindly been sent some experiments which I can try at home and if anyone has any other suggestions, they will all be gratefully received. I intend to write my own interpretation of my findings and readings. I'm no Einstein but I hope I can write something intelligent! I am an undergrad of Criminology, Criminal Justice Admin and Forensics (I've finished Forensics but want to branch out into bloodstain pattern) and I will be graduating next year. How could you do your own experiments after a one week course is beyond me! I was trying to find an online course because I couldn't find a course focusing on bloodstain at my Uni - or any other in Australia for that matter. So, I'll do my own thing! I can't believe the number of people from the US who have been kind enough to offer to help me. I haven't had one offer of help from my OWN country. It drives me crazy! Well, being the stubborn old broad that I am, I'll get there by doing my own thing. As for visiting a crime scene - ha! You must be joking. That will never happen here. Tell me, how do people get to become experts in the area of their choice when they are blocked at every turn, such as visiting a crime scene, etc? You couldn't do it , could you? Well I'm expected to. I intend to apply for membership to the IAI. Please stay in touch. And thanks! Lynn Coceani lynncoceani@connexus.net.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2003 8:45 AM To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Lynn, It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to that specific organization. Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the testimony. 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 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll be studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] 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" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 15:12:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAKCFhR008517 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:12:15 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain PatternAnalysis Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:10:41 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO/WFH7TfM5cXb5TSC1qPO41/u0mgAATASQ In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 You just took all the fun out of it with that last line! Anyway I'd probably miss and hit the house next door! (With any luck!) Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bradley Brown Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 7:03 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain PatternAnalysis Lynn - A few years back I took a shooting reconstruction course through the Henry Lee Institute of Forensic Science. As part of the program, we conducted an exercise to demonstrate forward spatter and backspatter resulting from a projectile striking a "bloody" object. We soaked a sponge in red paint, and suspended it from a pvc frame. We suspended a piece of plain white paper in front of the sponge, and a second piece behind the sponge. A handgun round was fired through the approximate center of the first piece, through the sponge and through the second sheet of paper. The sheets of paper were replaced, varying the distance between the paper and the sponge. Obviously, paint does not behave exactly like blood, but pigs blood could be used. If you have access to a range, this might be a worthwhile experiment. Please don't try this at home.....(lol) Good luck Brad >>> "Lynn Coceani" 12/09 5:31 PM >>> Hi Greg, thanks for writing. My Lordy, how could you do this topic in a one week course! I am doing my project and study over 12 to 14 months. I don't intend to read a bunch of books written by other people and then just re-word it. I've kindly been sent some experiments which I can try at home and if anyone has any other suggestions, they will all be gratefully received. I intend to write my own interpretation of my findings and readings. I'm no Einstein but I hope I can write something intelligent! I am an undergrad of Criminology, Criminal Justice Admin and Forensics (I've finished Forensics but want to branch out into bloodstain pattern) and I will be graduating next year. How could you do your own experiments after a one week course is beyond me! I was trying to find an online course because I couldn't find a course focusing on bloodstain at my Uni - or any other in Australia for that matter. So, I'll do my own thing! I can't believe the number of people from the US who have been kind enough to offer to help me. I haven't had one offer of help from my OWN country. It drives me crazy! Well, being the stubborn old broad that I am, I'll get there by doing my own thing. As for visiting a crime scene - ha! You must be joking. That will never happen here. Tell me, how do people get to become experts in the area of their choice when they are blocked at every turn, such as visiting a crime scene, etc? You couldn't do it , could you? Well I'm expected to. I intend to apply for membership to the IAI. Please stay in touch. And thanks! Lynn Coceani lynncoceani@connexus.net.au -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2003 8:45 AM To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Lynn, It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to that specific organization. Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the testimony. 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 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll be studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] 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" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 15:46:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAKkVAs010667 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:46:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <232810-2200312310204621156@M2W072.mail2web.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Originating-IP: 140.241.0.20 X-URL: http://mail2web.com/ From: "amybridgeford@erols.com" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: HayesD.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us Subject: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:46:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2003 20:46:20.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[AACD5400:01C3BF5E] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBAKkVhm010662 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 Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 15:53:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAKrocZ011361 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:53:18 -0500 From: "Melisa Staples" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBAKrnhm011356 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 Amy-We do have Examination Request forms which are required to be submitted with any evidence. They generally list victim and suspect information, submitting agency info, the items which are being submitted, the type of analysis requested, and chain info. If Don is coming to NH on Friday for our Crime Lab Director's meeting, I can give one to him to bring back. Just have him remind me. If not, I'll fax one down to you. Melisa W. Staples Assistant Laboratory Director NHSP Forensic Lab (603) 271-3573 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be subject to criminal prosecution. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by telephone at 603-271-3573. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us. >>> amybridgeford@erols.com 12/10/03 03:46PM >>> Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] [EndPost by "Melisa Staples" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 15:56:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAKunbG011701 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:56:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031210205633.89120.qmail@web10803.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Ana C. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6289834.1071084695267.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp14> 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 Mr. Mozer, It's simply that you have many loyal fans! :) --- Theodore Mozer wrote: > Actually, what I wrote to Jeff (a friend and > forensic colleque in a fashion) was tougue-in-cheek. > But I guess, for those who would not know, it might > not have read that way! Sorry..... > > But I must thank Chesterene. You made my day! I > will continue to try to live up (forensically) to > your endorsement....... > > > --------------------------------------- > Original Email > From: Chesterene Cwiklik > Sent: Dec 10, 2003 08:55 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] Ad hominem attacks > > Listmembers: > > Attacking a person who posts to the list, or > smearing them my innuendo, is > usually a sign that the attacker does not have a > reasoned OPINION about the > topic at hand. > > I know who Ted Mozer is, too - a thoughtful forensic > scientist who values good work and is dedicated to > the field. > > Whether or not you like him, you might notice that > he has not posted ad hominem attacks. > > He simply asked for someone to give the BASIS for > what they are doing. > > Regarding Shaun Whell 9oops) Wheeler, he has a right > to ask questions and ex- > press his opinions. If you do not like them, ignore > them. Or answer them, with > reasoned argument. > > Anything else is simply gossip. > > Chesterene Cwiklik > > -- > Cwiklik & Associates > 2400 6th Avenue South #257 > Seattle, WA 98134 > (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 > [EndPost by bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)] > > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by "Ana C. Rodriguez" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 16:00:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAL0coq012185 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:00:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4BE1C327F83E4748BEE4B1FFD00870711991F4@espr1exc2.state.sd.local> From: Stacey.Smith@state.sd.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:00:09 -0600 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 The South Dakota Forensic Laboratory has a request and it is available online for our submitting agencies to fill out online and print off for submission with their evidence. If we get evidence with no accompanying request. They get the evidence back with a "Right of Refusal" letter stating why and how to rectify the situation. After once or twice, recidivism has cut way back! http://dci.sd.gov/lab/pubs/Request%20for%20Laboratory%20Examination.pdf Stacey Smith QA Officer South Dakota Forensic Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: Melisa Staples [mailto:mstaples@safety.state.nh.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:53 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Amy-We do have Examination Request forms which are required to be submitted with any evidence. They generally list victim and suspect information, submitting agency info, the items which are being submitted, the type of analysis requested, and chain info. If Don is coming to NH on Friday for our Crime Lab Director's meeting, I can give one to him to bring back. Just have him remind me. If not, I'll fax one down to you. Melisa W. Staples Assistant Laboratory Director NHSP Forensic Lab (603) 271-3573 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be subject to criminal prosecution. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by telephone at 603-271-3573. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us. >>> amybridgeford@erols.com 12/10/03 03:46PM >>> Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] [EndPost by "Melisa Staples" ] [EndPost by Stacey.Smith@state.sd.us] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 16:54:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBALsFEu014900 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:54:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:53:59 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: [forens] Analysis Request Forms 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 hBALsFEv014900 Amy, We currently are using a double sided form tat allowed the infomation request to be filled out by the officer, and the backside information could have included a short form hand written report completed by the analyst. Since the installation of a LIMS system. all hand written reports have been discontinued. The back of the form would indicate what happended to the evidence and was signed off by the analyst. We are now switching to a one page service request that will allow e-mail or fax transmittal. all reports are generated electronically from our LIMS section. BTW, is there a Mike working there that took some courses at the FBI Academy. If there is, ask him if he remembers trying to kidnap a canine from a sleeping marine. I would be happy to fax you a copy of our current "old" form. 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 >>> amybridgeford@erols.com 12/10/2003 12:46:21 PM >>> Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] 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 Dec 10 16:59:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBALx2q8015449 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:59:02 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: <129.370fa978.2d08f112@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:58:42 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 List, I agree with Chesterene. I know Ted very well and I know the tone of his question. He is a great guy and his intention was more of a friendly quip rather than an attack on me. He knows who I am and all my qualifications. He was just trying to further the discussion. Keep it up Ted! Thanks! Jeff Gurvis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 18:03:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBAN3oHP018272 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:03:50 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:03:49 -0800 (PST) From: Justin McCarty To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education X-Originating-Ip: [129.72.244.65] Message-Id: <20031210230349.498DE726A@sitemail.everyone.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] _____________________________________________________________ Save rainforest for free with a Planet-Save.com e-mail account: http://www.planet-save.com [EndPost by Justin McCarty ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 18:58:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBANwgdw019704 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:58:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:01:52 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <001b01c3bf79$fb821460$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <232810-2200312310204621156@M2W072.mail2web.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2003 23:58:40.0413 (UTC) FILETIME=[88D53CD0:01C3BF79] 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 Amy, Yours is the first lab that I have heard of that does NOT use a submittal form of some kind. I sympathize with the problems this must cause for you. How in the world do you track what was submitted, what case it belongs to, and what needs to be done with it? Are you supposed to guess what kind of analysis needs to be done, what questions the investigator needs answered? Aside from serving as case and evidence tracking documents, submittal forms are the first line of communication between the investigator and the analyst. Most labs I have been to have their own form that they supply to submitting agencies, as my lab does. Some labs allow agencies to use their own forms, so long as they contain the minimum information required by the lab (that can get confusing - too many different formats, no standardization). Some labs automate the process with software - for example, the commercial crime lab LIMS system my lab uses offers a "Pre-log" utility that can be distributed to agencies who then fill out the required information at their agency on their agency's own computers, then upload it to the Laboratory's computer when they later submit the evidence. This can be done via direct (wired) connection over a LAN or WAN, or via floppy disk, flash drive, PDA, e-mail, or over the internet. We don't use the Pre-log function yet, but hope to one day. The usual format for submission forms includes name and contact information for the submitting agency and investigator, name and other identifying info for the suspects and victims, agency case number, lab case number, a short synopsis of the case, charges (offenses), type(s) of analysis requested, unique identifier (item #) and physical description for each item of evidence, and signature lines for chain of custody. There is also usually a space for special requests or remarks from the investigator to the lab. If you're interested, I'd be happy to fax you a copy of our submittal form. 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 amybridgeford@erols.com Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:46 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: HayesD.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us Subject: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 21:28:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBB2SP6N022367 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:28:25 -0500 (EST) From: RiIwan@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:27:39 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 45 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 A Chemist from the Massachusetts State Police Crime lab asked me to pass this on to the list: Our lab considers someone qualified to write a bloodstain pattern analysis report if they have completed basic and advanced bloodstain pattern classes (this would be 80 hours) with syllaby approved / set out by the IABPA as well as successfully completed a proficiency test within the past year. In a number of scenes, it's enough to have a basic grasp of the analysis as the point is frequently to be able to choose the stains which may be from a different individual or that would show a certain action happened. Bloodstain pattern reports go through a fairly extensive review process before getting sent to the investigator. It's not something that gets done "on the fly." At a scene, a chemist with at least a basic knowledge can still make some judgements about what happened and where - it's all logical. [EndPost by RiIwan@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 10 22:00:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBB30KIF023178 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:00:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031211030013.97672.qmail@web41009.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:00:13 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Re: tobacco testing To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <128.371df22a.2d0896c0@aol.com> 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 Wayne, I don't know of a color test, but finding nicotine by GC/MS is a piece of cake, and way more definitive. --- WMorris400@aol.com wrote: > Does anyone know of a color test for > nicotine/tobacco. Thank you. > > Wayne Morris > [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 02:05:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBB75riu026931 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:05:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006201c3bfb5$2ae1c210$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <1e1.15450b38.2d08cf6c@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:05:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime 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 Not a problem! Let me know what you think... Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror > Yes, I'm interested in receiving the article, Dave. > > Carla > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > 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] > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pdf --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 04:50:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBB9o25n029765 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:50:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002b01c3bfcc$1ffc5510$8178e344@ALEISHA> From: "Aleisha Heuer" To: References: <1e1.15450b38.2d08cf6c@aol.com> <006201c3bfb5$2ae1c210$c10042ac@davelaptop> Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:49:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 If anyone has been able to receive Dave's attachment, can you please see if you can save it in a format that can be posted to the list? I was unable to open it on my computer (even with him sending it to me directly). Thanks. Aleisha H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Khey" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror > Not a problem! Let me know what you think... > > Dave > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:35 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror > > > > Yes, I'm interested in receiving the article, Dave. > > > > Carla > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > 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] > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > application/pdf > --- > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > [EndPost by "Aleisha Heuer" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 05:22:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBAMHBB000504 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:22:17 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:19:19 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcO/caSV7igFKArpT7i6UmgoexrHPAAXSbMg In-Reply-To: <20031210230349.498DE726A@sitemail.everyone.net> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Justin and Keli, like I said to someone else a day or so ago, I guess it depends on which country you are in. I'm in Australia. I started out just doing a certificate in criminology, crim justice and forensics then thought, blast this is too easy, so I went on to the Bachelors course - I still wonder what on earth I was thinking when I enrolled in that!! I've finished forensics but not all the scientific bits so I'm taking 2 months of this year and all of next year to focus on bloodstain pattern analysis. We have to do placements (or internships) here, one goes for 362 hours (why 362 hours I'll never know! But that's what I'm using to do my bloodstain project instead of a placement.) I can't afford to work for five days a week at the coroner's court for nothing when I have a secretarial service to run as well. And I don't particularly want to do anything in the "court room" situation as my interests lie more in forensics. With any luck I will make it to LosAngeles in 2005 for an internship in CSU - if I don't then I'll study something else! I graduate at the end of next year (she says hopefully!) Criminology and CJA are interesting and I am glad that I have done those courses but I hate the management part of the course - it's boring! I still have to do Terrorism, Ethics (of some sort), Corrections and International Policing. It's a great course and I'm more than happy with my results. I personally didn't think I had it in me to get this far! I do hope you get to where you want. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Justin McCarty Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] _____________________________________________________________ Save rainforest for free with a Planet-Save.com e-mail account: http://www.planet-save.com [EndPost by Justin McCarty ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 08:31:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBDV5TI004288 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:31:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [forens] Analysis Request Forms To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:18:50 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 12/11/2003 07:30:58 AM 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 Amy, I will fax you a copy of our Laboratory Analysis Request forms. Good luck. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 "amybridgeford@ero ls.com" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 08:50:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBDos7K005075 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:50:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <166C2EE2EC7ED711A7C800508BE3734C02DAFC44@hqexch_server.bostonpolice.ci.boston.ma.us> From: "Kupferman, Mitchell" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:50:24 -0500 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 Hi Keli Basically the way it was explained to me when i started school was that lab directors look for people with a degree in one of the major sciences (ie biology, chemistry, etc...) but it would also help to get some forensic classes or forensic theory i should say under your belt. The reason i say this is because forensic science has a different mindset when approaching a problem and it is important to realize this and prepare yourself for it. Some forensic methods classes may help you in this sense. Finally it may also help to get a tour through a lab or maybe (if possible) to get an internship in a lab, its always important to know what youre going to get yourself into because this field isnt for everyone. Good luck and best wishes Mitch Boston PD [EndPost by "Kupferman, Mitchell" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 09:11:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBEBexr005883 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:11:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CA8@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: HayesD.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us Subject: RE: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:11:22 -0500 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 Amy, We require investigators to bring along certain information for entry into our LIMS system, but they are not required to have papers completed before they come to the lab. In fact, we discourage superfluous papers because that just means more for us to keep track of (in the past some would submit the entire officer's report which could be dozens to hundreds of pages). We require: primary investigator name, title, and agency; agency case number; date of incident; town of incident; county of incident; offense; victim name; suspect name; and brief case history. In fire debris cases we ask whether the item was screened and which K-9 and handler, something the FMO asked us to track for them. Each item of evidence is supposed to be labeled with a number of things, including the item description. When the evidence is entered, it is entered as 'Paper bag labeled "blue shirt" ' or some variation thereof. LIMS also allows us to relate the item to the individual. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab -----Original Message----- From: amybridgeford@erols.com [mailto:amybridgeford@erols.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:46 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: HayesD.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us Subject: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 09:39:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBEdgan006864 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:39:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031211063222.024ef0c8@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:38:15 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] Analysis Request Forms In-Reply-To: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CA8@dps-sphqasmail1.p s.state.me.us> References: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CA8@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> 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 To the discussion about evidence submission forms, let me add the following: The relationship of the submitted evidence to the incident should be included, and that information should be included in the lab report. Reading a lab report in which the item examined is identified as "One paper bag containing a blue shirt" requires the reader to do further investigation to determine whose blue shirt this is. This information MIGHT be available conveniently , or it might require digging through property records and police reports. It seems to me that the laboratory would not examine this evidence unless the relationship to the incident was known, so that information should be included. It is understood that the lab does not have personal knowledge (and the report could make a blanket statement to that if necessary), but the information is important to anyone trying to understand the significance of the report. Pete Barnett At 06:11 AM 12/11/2003, you wrote: >Amy, > >We require investigators to bring along certain information for entry into >our LIMS system, but they are not required to have papers completed before >they come to the lab. In fact, we discourage superfluous papers because >that just means more for us to keep track of (in the past some would submit >the entire officer's report which could be dozens to hundreds of pages). We >require: primary investigator name, title, and agency; agency case number; >date of incident; town of incident; county of incident; offense; victim >name; suspect name; and brief case history. In fire debris cases we ask >whether the item was screened and which K-9 and handler, something the FMO >asked us to track for them. Each item of evidence is supposed to be labeled >with a number of things, including the item description. When the evidence >is entered, it is entered as 'Paper bag labeled "blue shirt" ' or some >variation thereof. LIMS also allows us to relate the item to the >individual. > >Gretchen Hicks >Maine State Police Crime Lab > >-----Original Message----- >From: amybridgeford@erols.com [mailto:amybridgeford@erols.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:46 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Cc: HayesD.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us >Subject: [forens] Analysis Request Forms > > >Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is >required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime >lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently >receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is >contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the >Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to >find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a >form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so >long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would >anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? >Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will >appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. > >Amy Brodeur >Criminalist >Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab >1 Schroeder Plaza >Boston, MA 02120 >ph.617-343-4690 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . > > >[EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] >[EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] 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 Thu Dec 11 10:49:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBFnsg6008854 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:49:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031211154948.59578.qmail@web60204.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:49:48 -0800 (PST) From: Keli Masten Subject: [forens] Re: Education To: List 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 Dear List: Thank you so much for your feedback regarding the "impossible question". I have been mulling this over for too long, and it is wonderful to get some real world answers to my questions. I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan and have been working toward my future (with a husband and son along the way) for the past four years, going to school part time while working. It is really encouraging to hear from all of you. Thanks so much for all your help!!! Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 12:10:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBHAOQt011402 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:10:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031211171023.39826.qmail@web20503.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:10:23 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <002b01c3bfcc$1ffc5510$8178e344@ALEISHA> 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 Aleisha, It's a .pdf file, so you'll need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader on your system. If you don't, you can easily download from their website (and it's free). Once you get it and the file still doesn't open up, then you should do the following: (1) open the file (2) save it someplace (to a floppy or someplace on your desktop) (3) open the Adobe Acrobat reader and in the upper left hand corner under 'FILE', get the pull down and click on open. (4) indicate where you put the file, then hit enter (5) it should open up then. If you have any problems, talk to one of your computer people wherever you work. They should be able to walk you through the process. By the way, Dave's article is 17 pages long, so make sure your printer is fully functional . . . Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory Oakland, CA --- Aleisha Heuer wrote: > If anyone has been able to receive Dave's > attachment, can you please see if > you can save it in a format that can be posted to > the list? I was unable to > open it on my computer (even with him sending it to > me directly). Thanks. > > Aleisha H. > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 12:56:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBHuLB8012741 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:56:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <160EFE5C63929A478393701146FDD8A4014E8CF7@1-shq-mail.lasd.org> From: "Watson, Sarah A." To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:47:20 -0800 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 will do thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Dave Khey [mailto:dkhey@ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:06 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror Not a problem! Let me know what you think... Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [forens] A primer of media's affects on the American juror > Yes, I'm interested in receiving the article, Dave. > > Carla > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > 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] > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pdf --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] [EndPost by "Watson, Sarah A." ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 15:59:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBKxS3K016757 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:59:28 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Message-Id: Subject: [forens] BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["dnippes" ] (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:07:58 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBBKxShm016752 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "dnippes" To: Subject: RE: [forens] mysterious substance Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:11:10 -0500 I know it is not Friday yet, but... Although I don't believe she's been to Austria lately, sounds like you might want to talk with my wife! Seems this happens to her on a relatively routine basis! Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Walter Rabl Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] mysterious substance Dear colleagues, our local police department confronted us with some reports of persons who declare that they unknowingly consumed a substance which affected their will in such a way, that they went home and took their money and bankbook and handed it to the offenders. Afterwards they could remind all details, had no amnesia and told that they just had no will of their own. I don´t know such a substance which could have these effects, but the cases seem to recur in other contries too. The police told me that some men are arrested, who confessed these crimes. Most of the victims come from Thailand. Are such phenomens known in the forensic community ?? (maybe some sort of hypnosis ??) Thank you for your remarks Walter Rabl A.Univ.Prof. Dr. Walter Rabl Institute of Forensic Medicine University of Innsbruck Muellerstrasse 44 A-6020 Innsbruck [EndPost by "Dr. Walter Rabl" ] [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 16:01:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBBL1B1r016903 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:01:11 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Message-Id: <2635B567-2C1D-11D8-8B4D-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:41:13 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: References: <20031211154948.59578.qmail@web60204.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Re: Education Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:40:57 -0500 Keli, Given your location, you should consider Michigan State University. The Forensic Science Masters program there is well regarded. There is also a Michigan State Police Crime Lab in G.R., I don't think they allow tours, but you may be able to speak with someone on the phone. Regards, Daryl ------------------------------------------------------------- Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime and Clues http://www.crimeandclues.com Moderator, forensic-science mail list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/ ------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keli Masten" To: "List" Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: [forens] Re: Education > Dear List: > > Thank you so much for your feedback regarding the "impossible > question". I have been mulling this over for too long, and it is wonderful to get some real world answers to my questions. I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan and have been working toward my future (with a husband and son along the way) for the past four years, going to school part time while working. It is really encouraging to hear from all of you. > > Thanks so much for all your help!!! > > Keli Masten > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Keli Masten ] > [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Dec 11 20:33:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBC1XK9c021951 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:33:20 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:34:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 01:33:13.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8A2F950:01C3C04F] 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 No need to apologize, I'm more interested in how you would manage to do the bloodstain test with a firearm in Australia. I thought they took all your guns away? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:53 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Ad hominem attacks > Fair enough - but I wouldn't waste my time on Wheeler. I apologise for > being so negativistic - my goodness, such a big word for me at 7am! > > Regards > > Lynn > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 02:03:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBC73Z1j028034 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:03:35 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:02:51 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPAT6nJ8D830FYVQRGVr/cLlaLOBAALi6+g In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 I personally didn't have any to take away. Ever heard of Ballistics Departments? Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of shaun wheeler Sent: Friday, 12 December 2003 12:35 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks No need to apologize, I'm more interested in how you would manage to do the bloodstain test with a firearm in Australia. I thought they took all your guns away? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:53 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Ad hominem attacks > Fair enough - but I wouldn't waste my time on Wheeler. I apologise for > being so negativistic - my goodness, such a big word for me at 7am! > > Regards > > Lynn > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 17:24:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCMOubK016761 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:24:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACB97@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] When doesn't null mean no Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:24:56 -0700 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 Dear list, Recently I became interested in the difference between ASCLD/LAB's Class I & II error definitions and Type I & II error definitions used in forensic books and articles (see list below). A Class I error was similar to a Type II error (false positive), while a Class II error was similar to a Type I error (false negative). Then it was brought to my attention that in other fields (medical, statistical), Type I & II errors are defined in accordance with Class I & II, but opposite the definitions of Gaudette et al. Evidently, the error definition is related to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis described by Aitken is a working hypothesis, e.g., broken glass on a suspect originated from a broken window at the crime scene. In other fields, the null hypothesis is one of non-association. Why did published forensic scientists use definitions opposite to the rest of the scientific community? Does it matter? Which is preferable? B.D. Gaudette, "A Supplementary Discussion of Probabilities and Human Hair Comparisons," JFS 27(2), pp 279-289, (1982). R. Saferstein, Forensic Science Handbook, Vol II, (1988), pg 255. C.G.G. Aitken, Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, (1991), pg 95. C.G.G. Aitken and D.A. Stoney, The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science, (1991) pg 216. Examples of websites in which the null hypothesis means non-association: http://www.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-650/Notes/Handouts/node23.html Hypothesis testing can be thought of as analogous to a court room trial. The null hypothesis is that the defendant is ``innocent'' while the alternate hypothesis is that the defendant is ``guilty''. The role of the prosecutor is to gather evidence that is inconsistent with the null hypothesis. If the evidence is so unusual (under the assumption of innocence), the null hypothesis is rejected. http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html The null hypothesis - In the criminal justice system this is the presumption of innocence. In both the judicial system and statistics the null hypothesis indicates that the suspect or treatment didn't do anything. The null is the logical opposite of the alternative. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 17:44:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCMiwcH017662 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:44:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] "CSI" question Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:48:10 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000801c3c102$04b91680$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031106094143.00a057c0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 22:44:56.0071 (UTC) FILETIME=[908BB970:01C3C101] 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 Just a guess (not my specialty) - sterile swabs are used to avoid adding other bacterial, fungal, plant, or animal DNA from unsterile cotton to the samples being collected? It seems unlikely but possible that human DNA deposited during the harvesting and processing of cotton and the manufacture and packaging of the swabs could conceivably contaminate the swabs, complicating analysis and interpretation. As DNA technology advances and detection limits continue to drop, this likely becomes more and more of a concern. I recently heard it said, for example, that some of the newly developing DNA methods will potentially allow DNA profiling from a single cell nucleus in the not too distant future. Non-human DNA won't "type" as human and so is much less of a concern, but could conceivably complicate the analysis given the right circumstances. One might think that the analysis of an unused swab as a control would eliminate any problems, but there is no guarantee that any two unsterile swabs will be contaminated with the same pre-existing DNA, even if they are from the same package. It seems logical to me that the only way to eliminate absolutely all possibility of pre-existing contamination is to use swabs that have been processed to destroy (or inactivate) any DNA present. Of course, it all depends on the use of the word "sterile" and the procedure the manufacturer used to "sterilize" the swabs. A method that destroys human DNA (e.g., autoclaving) would be needed to completely eliminate the concern, I would think. 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: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:45 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] "CSI" question At 08:54 AM 11/6/03 -0700, you wrote: >We normally use sterile cotton swatches handled with tweezers to collect >wet samples and will moisten the swatch with distilled water to collect >dry stains. Along the same rhetorical lines as my previous question, why use sterile swabs? I can understand why clean ones are useful, but why sterile? When is evidence collected from a sterile place? Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 17:48:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCMmUMX017984 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:48:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Evaluating Information Sources (was: What do you think of this?) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:51:41 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000901c3c102$81fc5940$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A5D0@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 22:48:26.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[0DD11F10:01C3C102] 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 Great post by Dave Hause! (Thanks, Dave) An update, however: The Dr. Solomon's page is no more. "Datafellows" is now "F-Secure." The McAfee and CIAC pages have new addresses, as do the pages for evaluating information sources. I have amended Dave's clever message with the up-to-date addresses (and added a couple of my own). I encourage using Dave's message as the solution for answering the well-intentioned but all too gullible people who naively forward these hoaxes. 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 Hause, David W LTC GLWACH Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:36 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] What do you think of this? I've been fond of sending the following to people who send me such stuff. It's a couple years old, so there may be an invalid link or two. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil ****** WARNING, CAUTION, DANGER, AND BEWARE! Gullibility Virus Spreading over the Internet! ***** WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Institute for the Investigation of Irregular Internet Phenomena announced today that many Internet users are becoming infected by a new virus that causes them to believe without question every groundless story, legend, and dire warning that shows up in their inbox or on their browser. The Gullibility Virus, as it is called, apparently makes people believe and forward copies of silly hoaxes relating to cookie recipes, email viruses, taxes on modems, and get-rich-quick schemes. "These are not just readers of tabloids or people who buy lottery tickets based on fortune cookie numbers," a spokesman said. "Most are otherwise normal people, who would laugh at the same stories if told to them by a stranger on a street corner." However, once these same people become infected with the Gullibility Virus, they believe anything they read on the Internet. "My immunity to tall tales and bizarre claims is all gone," reported one weeping victim. "I believe every warning message and sick child story my friends forward to me, even though most of the messages are anonymous." Another victim, now in remission, added, "When I first heard about Good Times, I just accepted it without question. After all, there were dozens of other recipients on the mail header, so I thought the virus must be true." It was a long time, the victim said, before she could stand up at a Hoaxees Anonymous meeting and state, "My name is Jane, and I've been hoaxed." Now, however, she is spreading the word. "Challenge and check whatever you read," she says. Internet users are urged to examine themselves for symptoms of the virus, which include the following: * The willingness to believe improbable stories without thinking. * The urge to forward multiple copies of such stories to others. * A lack of desire to take three minutes to check to see if a story is true. T. C. is an example of someone recently infected. He told one reporter, "I read on the Net that the major ingredient in almost all shampoos makes your hair fall out, so I've stopped using shampoo." When told about the Gullibility Virus, T. C. said he would stop reading email, so that he would not become infected. Anyone with symptoms like these is urged to seek help immediately. Experts recommend that at the first feelings of gullibility, Internet users rush to their favorite search engine and look up the item tempting them to thoughtless credence. Most hoaxes, legends, and tall tales have been widely discussed and exposed by the Internet community. Courses in critical thinking are also widely available, and there is online help from many sources, including: * Department of Energy Computer Incident Advisory Capability at http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/ * Symantec Anti Virus Research Center at http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/index.html * McAfee Associates Virus Hoax List at http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=hoaxes * The Urban Legends Web Site at http://www.urbanlegends.com * Urban Legends Reference Pages at http://www.snopes.com * F-secure (formerly Datafellows) Hoax Warnings at http://www.f-secure.com/virus-info/hoax/ Those people who are still symptom free can help inoculate themselves against the Gullibility Virus by reading some good material on evaluating sources, such as: * Evaluating Internet Research Sources at http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm * Evaluation of Information Sources at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/evaln.htm * Bibliography on Evaluating Internet Resources at http://www.lib.vt.edu/research/evaluate/evalbiblio.html * Internet Detective - Interactive Tutorial on Evaluating the Quality of Internet Resources at http://sosig.ac.uk/desire/internet-detective.html * Critically Evaluating Information Sources: http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill26.htm * Another bibliography at http://www.mindspring.com/~klv/eval.html Lastly, as a public service, Internet users can help stamp out the Gullibility Virus by sending copies of this message to anyone who forwards them a hoax. **************************************************************** This message is so important, we're sending it anonymously! Forward it to all your friends right away! Don't think about it! This is not a chain letter! This story is true! Don't check it out! This story is so timely, there is no date on it! This story is so important, we're using lots of exclamation points! Lots!! For every message you forward to some unsuspecting person, the Home for the Hopelessly Gullible will donate ten cents to itself. (If you wonder how the Home will know you are forwarding these messages all over creation, you're obviously thinking too much.) **************************************************************** ACT NOW! DON'T DELAY! LIMITED TIME ONLY! NOT SOLD IN ANY STORE! > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 18:01:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCN1iGS018636 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:01:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] What to put in a report Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:04:56 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000c01c3c104$5bce42e0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031123171406.83032.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 23:01:41.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7A24560:01C3C103] 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 Ah, but what KIND of "scientific report" is needed, John? I've heard it opined that our reports should be in the form of a research report (hypothesis, materials, methods, data, results, and conclusions), but we are not conducting research. We are conducting analysis, and an analytical report is by nature of a different structure and content. An analytical report is a summary of what was done and what was determined; not an exhaustive description of the analysis with all the supporting documentation attached. It tells what was analyzed, how it was analyzed, what the results were and what the significance of those results are. It does not include raw data and instrumental printouts, as some here have unreasonably insisted it should. In the forensic field, the analytical report, not the research report, is the proper format. I agree a forensic analytical report should include a list of the evidence examined, a description of the methodology used, a summary of the results and an interpretation of those results. As you noted, an outside expert can tell from this whether or not the analysis done is adequate to support the conclusions presented. I do not agree that we should be attaching mass spectra, gas chromatograms, and other technical materials that would be meaningless to the primary users you mentioned - cops and attorneys. They neither understand nor are interested in the technical data, they simply want to know the bottom line - what did we find and what does it mean? If another expert needs to view the supporting data to judge whether the conclusions were _correct_ (rather than merely whether the analytical methods used were sufficient to draw the conclusions), that can be obtained through discovery - which in my opinion should be a simple, straightforward process: you ask for it, the lab provides it to you openly, completely, and without resistance or hassle, and you simply pay the cost of reproduction. But routinely attaching all the supporting analytical documentation to each and every report is an unreasonable proposition. It would be ridiculous to do that because that additional documentation would be unintelligible to the primary users and would go unused (and unneeded) 99% of the time; and therefore is an unjustified expense and needless complication, turning a simple one or two page report containing everything the primary users need into a many page report with reams of data that is of no use to them whatsoever. In the far less than 1% of cases where there are defense experts involved who need that data, it should be a simple matter to request and receive it. I recognize that in some places it's not so simple and the defense has a hard time getting the data. That should not be so. That's what needs to be changed (making the data freely available on request), not routinely adding the data to every report. Otherwise, I don't think you are asking for too much. Every report (IMHO) should indicate what was analyzed, how it was analyzed, what the final results were, and what those results mean (if not immediately obvious to the layperson). [These opinions are my own personal ones. I am not speaking in any official capacity for any given organizational body] 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 John Lentini Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 12:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] What to put in a report --- "French, Tim" wrote: > According to Peter, we are obligated > to put in our report every > result of each test, and what the possible > significance of those findings. > Our job in a forensics lab is to help the > jurors understand the findings. > That is not done by inundating them with raw > data. They are not trained to > know what that data means. Jurors are the LAST people who learn the contents of our reports. Investigating officers, prosecutors and defense attorneys make decisions based on those reports long before jurors hear the results. Attorneys need to know not only what our opinion is, but the bases therefor. They frequently require advice from other forensic scientists in order to interpret the report. Neither the attorneys nor their consulting forensic scientists should be required to resort to compulsory processes to obtain the opinion and the basis for the opinion. Defendants have a right to confront their accusers, and a right to effective assistance of counsel. (That assistance is frequently in the form of advice to plead guilty.) I think that ALL forensic lab reports should follow the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (yes, even in criminal cases), at least as far as reporting the opinion is concerned. "I hold the following opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty (opinion). The bases for that opinion are as follows (bases)." More simply, say what you did with the evidence. What is hard about that? In my field, when I see a lab report that says "gasoline detected," I have no clue as to whether that opinion has any credibility. The scientist could have used a Ouija board, or worse, an EPA procedure, to make the determination. If the report says "GC/MS analysis reveals the presence of components having retention times and mass spectra characteristic of components of known weathered gasoline," I know what thought processes the scientist used in reaching his or her conclusions. A "bottom line" conclusion can be added for those uninterested in those processes. In the old days, when reports had to be typed individually, crime lab scientists complained that using all those words was too much work. These days, there is no such excuse. Check-off forms that do not describe what was done with the evidence tell me that the scientist's organization insists on legal gamesmanship in order for a defendant to learn exactly what his or her accusers are going to say. It shows a distinct lack of objectivity. It shows bias. There is no valid reason that a forensic SCIENCE laboratory report cannot take the form of a real scientific report. ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 18:04:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCN4LA3018991 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:04:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Sperm Search Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:07:32 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000d01c3c104$b9222b00$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031120110007.00a08620@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 23:04:17.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[44F39570:01C3C104] 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 >And, in many jurisdictions, if there is 01.% or 90% cocaine in >that sample the consequences are quite different. Not relevant to the current discussion below, but what jurisdictions are you talking about Pete? There is no difference whatsoever under Federal law, and most state controlled substance statutes are patterned after the Federal one. The typical catch phrase "...containing any of the following substances, OR MIXTURES of the following substances..." found in most laws makes the concentration of drug present irrelevant under the law, which is why very, very few crime labs do any quantitation of controlled substances - their analyses are purely qualitative because that is all that is required to prove or refute the charges under the law. Total weight is legally important, but not purity (at least in most jurisdictions). So in which jurisdictions does concentration/purity make a difference? Just curious. 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: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Sperm Search Tim - At 01:27 PM 11/20/03 -0500, you wrote: >I would hope that the investigator, in your example would be intelligent >enough to ask the expert if the low sperm count, in that case was indicative >of a recent assault. How is the investigator to know it is a low sperm count if it is not in the report? Assuming the investigator does understand the importance of knowing what the significance of the number of sperm is, why not just put it in the report. Why force him to call? >The examiner could then give other possible reasons for >this; oligospermic donor, poor smear slide preparation, pre-ejaculatory >fluid or incomplete ejaculation to name a few. The fact that you recognize the importance of this information to the investigators simply underscores the precise reason it should be in the report. > For the investigator to make >a decision based on a number of sperm on a report would, to me, be a grave >error. That is true, that's why the report should include information about the significance of the level of sperm that was found. >I do not feel that having data in the lab notes supporting the report, but >not specifically spelled out in the report is concealing anything. Lab notes >are covered under discovery and FOIL. The disclosure of relevant scientific information should not be a contest between laboratory concealment and legal process. Discovery and FOIL were not passed to allow people to conceal relevant information until some legal process forces disclosure. These laws and rules were enacted because people WERE concealing such information which should have been revealed in the first place. >Isn't it enough when asked if a >substance is present to answer "yes it is present"? Does a drug chemist have >to report the retention time on the report as well as the statement "cocaine >was detected"? If "cocaine" detected means a positive presumptive test on a wiping from the inside of an apparently empty baggie, isn't that different than a GCMS analysis of a sample removed from 100 grams of material in a plastic baggie. And, in many jurisdictions, if there is 01.% or 90% cocaine in that sample the consequences are quite different. The analyst has to know the relevance analysis being conducted. There are only rare occasions when finding a sperm on a slide prepared from a swab taken from a vagina is going to be evidence of much of anything that is important in an investigation. The critical issue, as you pointed out in your initial paragraph, is "how much"? >In my opinion, the more simplistic the report, the more >easily it is understood by investigators, attorneys and jurors. The methods >and the data can all be presented when asked for (either in court or >discovery request). Why write a 3 page report stating all of the data used >to come to the one line conclusion? In my experience, the reader of the >report gets confused and loses interest in what is written, even >investigators and attorneys. If readers of anything get uninterested in it, it must mean whatever is in whatever they are reading is unimportant to them. Whatever they don't want to read, they don't have to. That is why there are various sections in all types of communications - especially scientific ones. If you are not interested in the data, skip that section. If you are not interested in the conclusions, skip that section. Pete Barnett >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:01 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: [forens] Sperm Search > >If the investigator gets a report that "sperm were detected on the slide" >when he is investigating a case in which a victim states she was assaulted >an hour before the exam, does it not make a difference if there was one >sperm found on the slide, or 50 per high powered field? That's the real >world in which a decision of how to proceed has to be made. > >If a defense attorney decides to have a DNA analysis done by another >laboratory, would not the finding of 5 sperm or 5000 sperm on the slide be >meaningful information to the other laboratory. Should this information be >concealed until someone knowledgeable enough to know its relevance goes to >the trouble to obtain all of the laboratory records and plow through them >to find the answer. Why NOT just put it in the report where it is >available to all, along with the scientists opinions on relevant questions. > >Pete Barnett > >At 12:27 PM 11/20/03 -0500, you wrote: > >Surely Peter you are not suggesting that there may be a different > >interpretation of the results in the "real world" if someone reports "semen > >detected", or "spermatozoa observed" as opposed to "10 sperm cells observed > >on the smear slide" are you? Would someone decide NOT to file criminal > >charges simply because there were only a few sperm cells? > >In our lab, we are being asked to detect the presence (or absence) of a > >substance (blood, semen, etc.). Quantitation of the substance will not make > >much difference in the "real world". It will matter in the lab, when the > >determination to proceed with some further testing such as DNA is made. > > > >Tim French > >Criminalist II > >CMPD Crime Laboratory > >704-336-7750 > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] > >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:45 AM > >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: Re: [forens] Sperm Search > > > >How could one even consider the possibility of reporting as "negative" a > >slide which has less than some magic number of sperm. By the same token, > >if the examiner determines that there are some number of sperm per high > >power field, or a total number of sperm on a slide, or whatever is > >determined, why not just report it. The idea that data is not reported > >thus allowing people who read the report to put whatever interpretation > >they want on the results is pretty offensive. > > > >It is the responsibility of the forensic scientist to interpret the result > >within the context of the questions that are being asked (Is DNA profiling > >possible? Is there evidence of recent intercourse? etc.). No one really > >cares that the spem search is "negative" or "positive." Someone is going > >to have to decide what to do - file a criminal complaint, proceed to DNA > >analysis, continue with the investigation, etc. If the implications of > >whatever are on the slide are not stated by the scientist, they will be > >misinterpreted or misrepresented by other people who have to make > >real-world decisions. > > > >And, if the forensic scientist's role is to provide the interpretation (and > >how can it be argued otherwise?), then the basis for the interpretation > >should be in the report. Otherwise, how is anyone to know what the basis > >is for the interpretation, or if there *is* any basis for the > >interpretation. > > > >Pete Barnett > > > >At 08:51 AM 11/20/03 -0600, you wrote: > > >"Negative" to me means "No sperm identified." It doesn't mean "Less than >X > > >per high power field." Forensic lab is the same as a clinical lab. Let > >the > > >user make what he or she wants of any positive result. Of course, for my > > >current practice, what it usually means is "Your vasectomy patient isn't > > >firing blanks yet." > > >Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > > >David.Hause@us.army.mil > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Hicks, Gretchen D [mailto:Gretchen.D.Hicks@maine.gov] > > >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:18 AM > > > > > >I have a question regarding reporting of sperm search results. Do > > >laboratories set a limit as to what is considered a positive sperm search > > >result? For instance, anything less than five sperm per slide would be > > >considered a negative. If you do set a limit, how are your reports >worded? > > >Currently we report any sperm seen as 'Sperm cells were identified in X.' > > >[EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > > > >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 "French, Tim" ] > >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 "French, Tim" ] [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 18:10:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCNAbpn019509 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:10:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Sperm Search Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:13:50 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000e01c3c105$9a53b440$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A5D5@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 23:10:35.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[2624D090:01C3C105] 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'd have to disagree somewhat regarding the level explanation needed in forensic lab reports. Clinical lab results are read by doctors and other clinicians who presumably are capable of properly interpreting them. Forensic lab results are read by cops, attorneys, and other people with no background in science. They often haven't a clue about what the results in our reports mean, unless we explicitly tell them what they mean. Interpreting our results for the user of our reports is a very important part of our job as I see it. We have a responsibility to ensure that the laypeople reading our reports do not misconstrue their meaning or implications. This obviously often means providing an explanation/interpretation of our results, but it also sometimes means reporting a technically positive result as a practical negative, for legal purposes. For example, forensic or occupational drug testing labs typically set "cut-off" levels for the concentration of detected drugs (NIDA-certified labs are required to use them); below these levels, the results are reported as "negative" even though they are factually positive. This is to discount low-level positive results attributable to innocent sources such as incidental/environmental exposure (e.g., being in the same room or car and breathing the same air as those actively smoking drugs) and dietary exposure to innocuous amounts of controlled substances (e.g., morphine in poppy seeds). The drug residues are in fact present, but at levels which may have innocent explanations and so are not considered to constitute a violation of law, which gives the benefit of the doubt to the person being tested. The same is true for blood alcohol analyses - most labs set either 0.01 or 0.02g% as the cut-off for a positive BAC result, and will report positive results lower than this as negative, even though modern instrumentation can easily measure lower levels accurately; but levels that low have no medicolegal significance. That said, I don't see a parallel with sperm. I suppose if there is a great deal of sperm present, it would indicate that ejaculation likely occurred (whereas a few sperm might not necessarily mean that), but I can't think of any situation where a greater number of sperm would lead to a different probative conclusion in a sex crime than a lesser number would. It's either present (indicating sexual activity by a male) or it's not - so I can't imagine any reason to set a "cut-off" limit for the determination of the presence or absence of spermatozoa. Anyone else see one? 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 Hause, David W LTC GLWACH Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:51 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Sperm Search "Negative" to me means "No sperm identified." It doesn't mean "Less than X per high power field." Forensic lab is the same as a clinical lab. Let the user make what he or she wants of any positive result. Of course, for my current practice, what it usually means is "Your vasectomy patient isn't firing blanks yet." Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Hicks, Gretchen D [mailto:Gretchen.D.Hicks@maine.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:18 AM I have a question regarding reporting of sperm search results. Do laboratories set a limit as to what is considered a positive sperm search result? For instance, anything less than five sperm per slide would be considered a negative. If you do set a limit, how are your reports worded? Currently we report any sperm seen as 'Sperm cells were identified in X.' [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 12 18:17:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBCNHQQv019964 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:17:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Kennedy Assassination Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:20:40 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000f01c3c106$8ea1aa70$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031120152208.14280.qmail@web60206.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 23:17:25.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A7278A0:01C3C106] 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 saw the show back in November (I'm still catching up on old e-mails from this list) I found it interesting, although not much was revealed that has not been previously established. The conclusion of all the experts who conducted the experiments discussed on the show was "no, there wasn't a second gunman, or at least there is no physical evidence of it." Contrary to prior claims based on older technological testing, modern testing demonstrated that the police audio tape revealed no fourth shot, and the "magic bullet theory" was conclusively demonstrated to not require anything magical at all. Three shots by Oswald, with the third fatal shot hitting both JFK and Governor Connelly is entirely plausible and consistent with the evidence. Ironically, most of this was demonstrated years ago at an AAFS meeting I attended, which convinced me even then that the "single bullet theory" was in fact correct. The additional investigations done by experts hired by Court TV came to the same conclusions. Of course, that doesn't prove there WASN'T a conspiracy, or even that there wasn't a second shooter, it only proves that Oswald could easily have acted alone, that there is absolutely no evidence of a second shooter, and that at the very least, he was the only shooter to hit his target. The question remaining in my mind is: Did Oswald act on his own impetus, or was he put up to it by other conspirators? Was he truly acting alone, or was he merely the lone trigger man acting on behalf of other coconspirators? I never could understand why Ruby, a convicted criminal and known mobster associate, would have loved JFK so much as to be moved to seek personal revenge on his killer. Eliminating an unsophisticated and therefore dangerously unreliable pawn (Oswald wasn't the brightest bulb in the box), in order to shut him up and prevent his divulging information about others involved, seems a much more likely motivation to me. Personally, I believe the evidence indicates that Oswald acted alone on the day of the assassination, but I still have reservations about whether or not he was acting at someone else's behest. No analysis of the crime scene events can conclusively answer the latter question, as there is no way to prove a negative, no way to prove something (like a conspiracy) doesn't exist. Just because there's no evidence of existence doesn't necessarily prove non-existence, so unless someone involved in a conspiracy or aware of a conspiracy comes forward to prove one existed, we'll never know for sure. Otherwise, all we will ever be able to say is that there is no evidence of it. 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 Keli Masten Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:22 AM To: List Subject: [forens] Kennedy Assassination Good morning! Out of curiousity, did any of you catch the Kennedy special on Forensic Files last night on Court TV? If so, what did you think of their observations regarding the "magic bullet"? The tumbling of the bullet they discussed in regard to the ballistics was of particular interest to me. So... was there a second gunman on the grassy knoll? Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 13 12:38:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBDHcfTs005605 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:38:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDB4E9D.CE713489@forensicdna.com> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:38:37 -0800 From: Norah Rudin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] When doesn't null mean no References: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACB97@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Alice, The formal definition of the null hypothesis is the hypothesis that can be disproved. (see any of the writings of Karl Popper) Failing to disprove it (by rigorous and appropriate methodology), it must be accepted, at least as the working hypothesis. Further testing might always disprove it. Although the words might sound similar, null has nothing to do with negative and can be either a negative or positive statement. In forensic science, it is almost always the positive statement (the evidence item came from the reference object) because that is the hypothesis that we are in position to disprove. This is contrary to most people's initial inclinations. It is the false positives, Type II errors, that incorrectly link an evidence and reference item, that we strive to avoid, because in many cases (but not all!) they may falsely implicate a suspect. The null hypothesis may be different for the forensic scientist than for the legal or judicial system because the questions, hence they hypotheses, are different. In the US, at least, the burden is on the prosecution to "disprove" the null hypothesis of innocence. This night be accomplished by failing to disprove (hence accepting) that the blood on the suspect's clothing came from the victim. Where does ASCLD/LAB talk about class I and II errors?. We discuss this the null hypotheses and the concept of alternative hypotheses, as well as other soporific philosophy of science topics as applied to forensic science, in our book "Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science", Inman and Rudin, CRC Press, 2001. Also see "Articulating Hypotheses: The Null Hypothesis and Beyond" Rudin and Inman, CACNews 1st Quarter, 2003, pg. 7 or Norah Rudin -- Norah Rudin, Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html Nature photos: http://www.norahrudin.com "Ammen, Alice" wrote: Dear list, Recently I became interested in the difference between ASCLD/LAB's Class I & II error definitions and Type I & II error definitions used in forensic books and articles (see list below). A Class I error was similar to a Type II error (false positive), while a Class II error was similar to a Type I error (false negative). Then it was brought to my attention that in other fields (medical, statistical), Type I & II errors are defined in accordance with Class I & II, but opposite the definitions of Gaudette et al. Evidently, the error definition is related to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis described by Aitken is a working hypothesis, e.g., broken glass on a suspect originated from a broken window at the crime scene. In other fields, the null hypothesis is one of non-association. Why did published forensic scientists use definitions opposite to the rest of the scientific community? Does it matter? Which is preferable? B.D. Gaudette, "A Supplementary Discussion of Probabilities and Human Hair Comparisons," JFS 27(2), pp 279-289, (1982). R. Saferstein, Forensic Science Handbook, Vol II, (1988), pg 255. C.G.G. Aitken, Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, (1991), pg 95. C.G.G. Aitken and D.A. Stoney, The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science, (1991) pg 216. Examples of websites in which the null hypothesis means non-association: http://www.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-650/Notes/Handouts/node23.html Hypothesis testing can be thought of as analogous to a court room trial. The null hypothesis is that the defendant is ``innocent'' while the alternate hypothesis is that the defendant is ``guilty''. The role of the prosecutor is to gather evidence that is inconsistent with the null hypothesis. If the evidence is so unusual (under the assumption of innocence), the null hypothesis is rejected. http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html The null hypothesis - In the criminal justice system this is the presumption of innocence. In both the judicial system and statistics the null hypothesis indicates that the suspect or treatment didn't do anything. The null is the logical opposite of the alternative. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by Norah Rudin ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 13 22:44:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBE3ioi4016735 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:44:50 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:46:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2003 03:44:43.0638 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C626160:01C3C1F4] 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 Lynn: Yup, I've heard of "ballistics departments", but you don't appear to have any connection to one. I don't suppose that they are located at the same place you picked up that urban legend you posted to the list a couple months ago, are they? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:02 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Ad hominem attacks > I personally didn't have any to take away. Ever heard of Ballistics > Departments? > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of shaun wheeler > Sent: Friday, 12 December 2003 12:35 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Ad hominem attacks > > No need to apologize, I'm more interested in how you would manage to do the > bloodstain test with a firearm in Australia. I thought they took all your > guns away? > > Shaun > > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Dec 14 17:14:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBEMEEGM000348 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:14:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:07:59 +1100 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3FDCDF3F.36F2350B@vifm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en 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 Re Comments by Robert Parsons. The idea of autoclaving solutions/tubes was introduced into molecular biology perhaps 40 years ago to inactivate DNAases supposedly in the buffers used for DNA extraction. Generally, this is not necessary but it is still a common practice. For some obscure reason the idea has come about that autoclaving destroys DNA so that it cannot be amplified. I have never seen published data supporting the hypothesis that autoclaving destroys all DNA. Has anyone seen this data published or it is one of the many "myths" which arise over the years? Incidentally, low level nuclear DNA testing has led to the concept of DNA "falling from the ceiling" (not literally). This concept has come from the relatively high frequency of reagent (extraction) blanks showing alleles in low level DNA testing. This, and other factors, complicates the statistics of such testing. If one was to attempt single cell analysis, presumably this will become even more of a problem. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 11:45:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFGjKXX016521 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:45:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.4 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:30 -0800 From: "Terry Spear" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. 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 hBFGjKXY016521 Several years ago we did some fairly simple experiments to see what was required to destroy DNA so that it could not be amplified. At the time, we used the ABI reagents kits that targeted the HLA DQ alpha and/or "Polymarker" loci. One of the "treatments" that we look at was a standard autoclave cycle which we were using on our polypropylene microfuge tubes. What we found was that: (1) placing (separately) 10ul and 40 ul of saliva in microfuge tubes [duplicate samples] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle and (2) placing (separately) 4ng and 40 ng of extracted DNA in microfuge tubes [samples also run in duplicate] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle resulted in samples that could not be amplified. HOWEVER, putting 1 or 10 ul of amplified product into a microfuge tube and autoclaving these samples for the appropriate loci did not prevent this type of template from being successfully amplified. Although this did not come as a big surprise, we found that it was extremely difficult to destroy amplified DNA. About the only thing we found to work on relatively small amounts of amplified DNA was a 20% bleach solution. Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 12/14/03 02:07PM >>> Re Comments by Robert Parsons. The idea of autoclaving solutions/tubes was introduced into molecular biology perhaps 40 years ago to inactivate DNAases supposedly in the buffers used for DNA extraction. Generally, this is not necessary but it is still a common practice. For some obscure reason the idea has come about that autoclaving destroys DNA so that it cannot be amplified. I have never seen published data supporting the hypothesis that autoclaving destroys all DNA. Has anyone seen this data published or it is one of the many "myths" which arise over the years? Incidentally, low level nuclear DNA testing has led to the concept of DNA "falling from the ceiling" (not literally). This concept has come from the relatively high frequency of reagent (extraction) blanks showing alleles in low level DNA testing. This, and other factors, complicates the statistics of such testing. If one was to attempt single cell analysis, presumably this will become even more of a problem. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] 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 "Terry Spear" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 12:02:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFH2dj2017366 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:02:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Melissa Jacob" To: Subject: [forens] STR DNA Profiling Probability Estimate Questions Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:04:21 -0600 Message-ID: <014d01c3c32d$7c2d15e0$5da74a82@MRJDell> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-UofMississippi-MailScanner: Found to be clean 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 hBFH2dj3017366 Hello, I had a few questions regarding generating probability estimates in STR analysis: 1) When a certain population is studied for their genotype at a particular locus, say THO1, 2 alleles (same or different) are generated for each person. So when one plots FREQUENCY of a certain allele, then EVERY occurrence of that allele makes up the frequency?: a. 5 African Americans are sampled at THO1 and the result is: i. 6, 6 ii. 5, 6 iii. 7, 6 iv. 7, 7 v. 5, 7 b. The frequency for allele 6 would then = 4, for 5 = 2, for 7 = 4 ? c. If just using this example, the probability of an African American having the allele 5 = 2/5 = 40%; allele 6 = 4/5 = 80%, allele 7 = 4/5 = 80% d. From the information in "c", then the probability of an African American having a genotype of 5,6 would then be 0.4 X 0.8 = 0.32 or 32%? Am I understanding this correctly. I know it is oversimplified and there are exceptions, but is this the basic idea? So if you are using the 13 CODIS loci, then you would multiply 26 probabilities together (probability for each allele at each locus)? How does gender enter? Are there frequency charts in female vs. male ethnicities? 2) How are mixed races handled? 3) If you have an unknown sample, then you do not know the race of the donor (assuming it's a pure sample). Do you just report the probability in each racial class? 4) I heard that for the Baton Rouge serial killer recently caught (according to Patricia Cornwell), markers (I'm not sure if it was STR) were used to "estimate" race. Is this possible? Are people doing this? Thanks for any info you can provide. Melissa Jacob, Ph.D Associate Research Scientist National Center for Natural Products Research Thad Cochran Center School of Pharmacy University of Mississippi University, MS 38677 Ph: 662-915-7860 Fax: 662-915-7062 Email: mjacob@olemiss.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Melissa Jacob" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 13:53:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFIriMS021170 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:53:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACB98@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] When doesn't null mean no Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:53:32 -0700 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 Norah- Thanks very much for your help. You asked where ASCLD/LAB talks about class I and II errors. See their Proficiency Review Program, starting on page 14, at http://www.ascld-lab.org/pdf/PRPMaster-Nov2002.pdf Alice -----Original Message----- From: Norah Rudin [mailto:norah@forensicdna.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 10:39 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] When doesn't null mean no Alice, The formal definition of the null hypothesis is the hypothesis that can be disproved. (see any of the writings of Karl Popper) Failing to disprove it (by rigorous and appropriate methodology), it must be accepted, at least as the working hypothesis. Further testing might always disprove it. Although the words might sound similar, null has nothing to do with negative and can be either a negative or positive statement. In forensic science, it is almost always the positive statement (the evidence item came from the reference object) because that is the hypothesis that we are in position to disprove. This is contrary to most people's initial inclinations. It is the false positives, Type II errors, that incorrectly link an evidence and reference item, that we strive to avoid, because in many cases (but not all!) they may falsely implicate a suspect. The null hypothesis may be different for the forensic scientist than for the legal or judicial system because the questions, hence they hypotheses, are different. In the US, at least, the burden is on the prosecution to "disprove" the null hypothesis of innocence. This night be accomplished by failing to disprove (hence accepting) that the blood on the suspect's clothing came from the victim. Where does ASCLD/LAB talk about class I and II errors?. We discuss this the null hypotheses and the concept of alternative hypotheses, as well as other soporific philosophy of science topics as applied to forensic science, in our book "Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science", Inman and Rudin, CRC Press, 2001. Also see "Articulating Hypotheses: The Null Hypothesis and Beyond" Rudin and Inman, CACNews 1st Quarter, 2003, pg. 7 or Norah Rudin Norah Rudin,Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html Nature photos: http://www.norahrudin.com "Ammen, Alice" wrote: Dear list, Recently I became interested in the difference between ASCLD/LAB's Class I & II error definitions and Type I & II error definitions used in forensic books and articles (see list below). A Class I error was similar to a Type II error (false positive), while a Class II error was similar to a Type I error (false negative). Then it was brought to my attention that in other fields (medical, statistical), Type I & II errors are defined in accordance with Class I & II, but opposite the definitions of Gaudette et al. Evidently, the error definition is related to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis described by Aitken is a working hypothesis, e.g., broken glass on a suspect originated from a broken window at the crime scene. In other fields, the null hypothesis is one of non-association. Why did published forensic scientists use definitions opposite to the rest of the scientific community? Does it matter? Which is preferable? B.D. Gaudette, "A Supplementary Discussion of Probabilities and Human Hair Comparisons," JFS 27(2), pp 279-289, (1982). R. Saferstein, Forensic Science Handbook, Vol II, (1988), pg 255. C.G.G. Aitken, Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, (1991), pg 95. C.G.G. Aitken and D.A. Stoney, The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science, (1991) pg 216. Examples of websites in which the null hypothesis means non-association: http://www.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-650/Notes/Handouts/node23.html Hypothesis testing can be thought of as analogous to a court room trial. The null hypothesis is that the defendant is ``innocent'' while the alternate hypothesis is that the defendant is ``guilty''. The role of the prosecutor is to gather evidence that is inconsistent with the null hypothesis. If the evidence is so unusual (under the assumption of innocence), the null hypothesis is rejected. http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html The null hypothesis - In the criminal justice system this is the presumption of innocence. In both the judicial system and statistics the null hypothesis indicates that the suspect or treatment didn't do anything. The null is thelogical opposite of the alternative. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by Norah Rudin ] [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 14:10:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFJAkFV021976 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:10:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031215103436.01a74790@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:10:36 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] STR DNA Profiling Probability Estimate Questions In-Reply-To: <014d01c3c32d$7c2d15e0$5da74a82@MRJDell> 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 11:04 AM 12/15/2003 -0600, Melissa Jacob wrote: >1) When a certain population is studied for their genotype at a >particular locus, say THO1, 2 alleles (same or different) are generated for >each person. So when one plots FREQUENCY of a certain allele, then EVERY >occurrence of that allele makes up the frequency?: yes >a. 5 African Americans are sampled at THO1 and the result is: > i. 6, 6 > ii. 5, 6 > iii. 7, 6 > iv. 7, 7 > v. 5, 7 >b. The frequency for allele 6 would then = 4, for 5 = 2, for 7 = 4 ? If you divide each of those numbers by 10, and mean "probability" or "expected frequency", then yes. >c. If just using this example, the probability of an African American >having the allele 5 = 2/5 = 40%; allele 6 = 4/5 = 80%, allele 7 = 4/5 = 80% Not quite. The probability is 20% that any particular allele is a 5, so the probability that it is not 5 is 80%. Square 80% to get the probability that each of two alleles are not 5's, and subtract from 100% to get the complementary probability that at least one of them is a 5. The result is only 36% -- somewhat less than double the 20% (because your method overcounts people who are 5,5). >d. From the information in "c", then the probability of an African >American having a genotype of 5,6 would then be 0.4 X 0.8 = 0.32 or 32%? No, and even if you replace 0.4 and 0.8 with the 0.36 and 0.64, still multiplying them won't give the right answer. The reason is that the probabilities are not independent. If the person is known to have at least one 5, then the chance to have a 6 is less than 0.64 -- I guess because the possibility of 6,6 has been eliminated. This approach could be modified still further to give the right answer, but the standard method is possibly more straightforward. It is this: Being 5,6 can occur either via 5 from mother x 6 from father OR 6 from mother x 5 from father. Therefore it is 2 x (Prob of 5 from mother) x (Prob of 6 from father) = 2 x (4/10) x (2/10) = 0.16. >Am I understanding this correctly. I know it is oversimplified and there >are exceptions, but is this the basic idea? So if you are using the 13 >CODIS loci, then you would multiply 26 probabilities together (probability >for each allele at each locus)? 26 individual allele probabilities, times an additional factor of 2 for each heterozygous locus. See http://dna-view.com/profile.htm. >How does gender enter? Are there frequency charts in female vs. male >ethnicities? Gender doesn't affect the calculation (except for sex markers). >2) How are mixed races handled? If you mean, what is the probability of finding a specific profile among people who are half and half race A and race B, the calculation would not be difficult but is never done because it would not be relevant in any real-life situation. Instead, the typical situation is this: The suspect matches the stain. Maybe the suspect is half A and half B, but what is relevant is, what is the probability of ANY other person, of whatever race(s), coincidentally having the same profile. The answer to this question can be approximated in several ways, such as to calculate the probability separately for each race and then combine those numbers in some way (weighted average is the logical answer, report all of them is the usual practice, conservatively report just the largest is usually the most sensible). >3) If you have an unknown sample, then you do not know the race of the >donor (assuming it's a pure sample). Do you just report the probability in >each racial class? See previous. Again, you virtually never know the race of the donor, just that of the suspect. >4) I heard that for the Baton Rouge serial killer recently caught >(according to Patricia Cornwell), markers (I'm not sure if it was STR) were >used to "estimate" race. Is this possible? Are people doing this? Yes. I did it with STR markers. (GenePrint used SNP's.) Charles _____________________ Charles Brenner, Ph.D. Consulting in forensic mathematics http://dna-view.com [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 14:27:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFJRrOh022705 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001801c3c341$96b34f10$4b56b1c8@Micro1> From: "Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia" To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@itaim.terra.com.br> References: Subject: [forens] Crime Scene Check List Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:28:12 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 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 hBFJRrOi022705 Dear Friends, I´m looking for a check list use in Crime Scene to use in a Criminalistic class. I´ll try to do a comparative with the Brasilian Check List. Cheers, Prof. Dr. Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia Crime Scene and Forensic Entomology Expert Full Professor of Criminalistics at the Police Academy Forensic Examiner and Forensic Analyst Health Security Engeneer Lawyer Caixa Postal, 179 15030-200 São José do Rio Preto, SP - Brasil http://www.pericias-forenses.com.br peritus@e24x7.com.br j_peritus@hotmail.com (MSN) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 15:46:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFKk7lL025116 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:46:07 -0500 (EST) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: <16d.25b14c59.2d0f7781@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:45:53 EST Subject: [forens] stabilizing phenophthalein To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 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 "stabilizer" to be added to phenophthalein solutions, other than excess zinc, that would give an extended shelf life? Thank you [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 18:11:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFNBRUu000485 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:11:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: , "'Dave Khey'" Subject: RE: [forens] "CSI" question Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:14:41 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <009d01c3c361$38104420$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <005b01c3bf37$e1047ca0$c10042ac@davelaptop> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2003 23:11:24.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2C19890:01C3C360] 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 Mr. Khey, Please call me "Bob," at least in this informal forum. I would like to see the proposed article and what exact "excerpts" you plan to use before granting permission. I'm afraid I've been burned a couple of time by gross misquotations attributed to me by some less-than-meticulous reporters, so I'm a little more cautious than I used to be in granting permission for formal publication (I'm very free with my comments in an informal public discussion group like Forens-L, but a formal publication is something that has to be considered a little more carefully). By the way, I and many others have discussed this issue a great many times in the past, both here and in other discussion lists (e.g., the "forensic-science" group at Yahoo Groups), so I am certain you can find more specific examples and more thorough discussions than the below if you search the archives. 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 Dave Khey Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:09 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] "CSI" question Mr. Parsons, I wanted to ask your permission to take excerpts from your reply below to cite in an article that I am slowing churning out on the effects of this sort of influence on the American juror. As per a pervious e-mail, I have released a preliminary version of this article to the forens-l in case you wanted to review it. I thought this input was insightful...and I could not put it better than what you have below... please let me know if this would be alright. Thanks in advance, Dave Khey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [forens] "CSI" question > Yes, but at least those shows don't CLAIM to accurately portray forensic > science - they're just run-of-the-mill cop shows with a forensic twist > added because it's the "hot" thing to do in TV today. With the other > shows, you know what you're getting - simple (mostly mindless) > entertainment; but with CSI, they purposely give the impression you're > seeing a "docudrama" not only inspired by real cases but based mostly on > fact. > > The "CSI" producers have repeatedly claimed that their depictions of > forensic science are highly true-to-life and insist they are technically > accurate, with only minor embellishments to enhance the storytelling. > In the early years of the original show they used that claim as their > main publicity ploy in countless ads, promos, articles and interviews. > While I haven't heard or seen many of those claims recently (perhaps > because I have an intestinal aversion to the shows and avoid anything > connected to them like the plague), I haven't seen them recant the > claims either. This gross misrepresentation of the degree of realism in > the "CSI" stable of shows is what, IMHO, makes these programs > particularly odious and dangerously potentially poisonous to our jury > pools, not to mention the unhealthily unrealistic expectations they > plant in the minds of investigators, attorneys, victims, and the general > public. > > I'd have no problem with the "CSI" shows if their producers openly > admitted "Hey, folks, this is total FICTION - it isn't intended to be an > accurate representation. We make this stuff up!" However they don't > openly admit that, and instead continue to maintain a pretense of > realism where there is in fact precious little. > > 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 Greg Laskowski > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 4:50 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] "CSI" question > > Hey, > > If you think CSI is bad, take a look at Crossing Jordan or Navy NCIS or > the new LA Dragnet. Now these shows reallly do forensic Science a > disservice. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> irish_pride@planet-save.com 11/05 9:35 AM >>> > > Ha ha this is a funny one. I am a chemistry student aspiring to become a > forensic chemist. When CSI first came out I was hooked and couldn't miss > an episode; however you all spoiled it for me and well I am utterly > thankful for that. I guess sometimes when a show such as CSI comes out, > and aspiring person such as myself at least tries to glean some > knowledge from an entertaining show such as this. Anymore I can hardly > watch it without making wise cracks at some of the stupid things they do > on that show, and the caulking in the stab wound is a major folly. Also, > I have been in some area in law enforcement since I was 19 years old > (Federal with the U.S. Coast Guard) and I know the amazing hoops one > must jump through in order to preserve the integrity of a case. I was > told the best way to preserve integrity is to "Document, Document, > Document" and never allow your uncovered hands to come in contact with > evidence. This folly is shown in many an episode where the CSI dudes > pick up! > objects with out gloves and with out photographing it first. WOW how > many cases do you all think would hold up if your colleagues practiced > their investigations as such. This Semester I am enrolled in a Intro to > Criminal Justice Class and it makes me crazy when I hear the students > refer so often to CSI in class discussions. What scares me is that it > seems as though the show while entertaining is coercing people to study > in various fields of forensic science because it looks "cool". Well I > guess I will climb off of my soap box and head to Organic Chemistry > class. Take care. > > Justin P. McCarty (University of Wyoming) > > --- "Dave Khey" wrote: > List... > > Do any of you know of specific episodes of CSI or CSI:Miami or any tv > series that has a huge gap between fact/fiction... besides the usual > strech.. I'm reading about how the CSI "techs" injected caulking into a > stab wound and retracted the mold of the knife blade (which episode is > that?!) I am giving a presentation tomorrow on the influence of these > types of shows on the american juror... > > Help! > > Thanks in advance, > > Dave Khey > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > David Khey > Graduate Assistant > Center for Studies in Criminology and Law > Department of Sociology > Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences > University of Florida > 201 Walker Hall > PO Box 115950 > Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 > Tel: 352-392-1025 > Fax: 352-392-5065 > DKhey@ufl.edu > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Save rainforest for free with a Planet-Save.com e-mail account: > http://www.planet-save.com > > [EndPost by Justin McCarty ] > > > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 18:14:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBFNEBrY000709 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:14:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:17:24 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <009e01c3c361$98ee6470$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2003 23:14:07.0340 (UTC) FILETIME=[239F6AC0:01C3C361] 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 exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its repeated false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like any other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic science -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet its promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is within this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show does far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with plausible-sounding misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab ! for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 20:27:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBG1R3VA003882 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:27:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.4 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:26:06 -0800 From: "Joel Duncan" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Crime Scene Check List Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBG1R3hm003877 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 Would you be so kind as to post the Brasilian check list. Our laboratory is currently working on our checklist as several key pieces are also in use in the laboratory on a regular basis (e.g. the alternate light source). When it is complete, I'll be happy to post it. Joel Joel R. Duncan - Criminalist BFS Freedom Laboratory 440 Airport Blvd, Bldg. A Watsonville, CA 95076 831-761-7620 voice 831-761-7629 fax email - joel.duncan@doj.ca.gov >>> peritus@e24x7.com.br 12/15/03 11:28AM >>> Dear Friends, I m looking for a check list use in Crime Scene to use in a Criminalistic class. I ll try to do a comparative with the Brasilian Check List. Cheers, Prof. Dr. Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia Crime Scene and Forensic Entomology Expert Full Professor of Criminalistics at the Police Academy Forensic Examiner and Forensic Analyst Health Security Engeneer Lawyer Caixa Postal, 179 15030-200 São José do Rio Preto, SP - Brasil http://www.pericias-forenses.com.br peritus@e24x7.com.br j_peritus@hotmail.com (MSN) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia" ] 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. [EndPost by "Joel Duncan" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 15 23:44:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBG4ilDc006958 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:44:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDE8DBC.747AAB50@forensicdna.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:44:45 -0800 From: Norah Rudin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] When doesn't null mean no References: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACB98@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Alice, Thanks for the reference. From reading the document, it appears that ASCLD/LAB is using Class I, II and III error categories to designate the severity of the error within the specific context of forensic science proficiency tests. It appears to be be a strictly internal definition that is not meant to relate to the formal statistical Type I and Type II definitions. I'm sure someone from ASCLD/LAB can comment further. Norah -- Norah Rudin, Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html Nature photos: http://www.norahrudin.com "Ammen, Alice" wrote: Norah- Thanks very much for your help. You asked where ASCLD/LAB talks about class I and II errors. See their Proficiency Review Program, starting on page 14, at http://www.ascld-lab.org/pdf/PRPMaster-Nov2002.pdf Alice -----Original Message----- From: Norah Rudin [ mailto:norah@forensicdna.com ] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 10:39 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] When doesn't null mean no Alice, The formal definition of the null hypothesis is the hypothesis that can be disproved. (see any of the writings of Karl Popper) Failing to disprove it (by rigorous and appropriate methodology), it must be accepted, at least as the working hypothesis. Further testing might always disprove it. Although the words might sound similar, null has nothing to do with negative and can be either a negative or positive statement. In forensic science, it is almost always the positive statement (the evidence item came from the reference object) because that is the hypothesis that we are in position to disprove. This is contrary to most people's initial inclinations. It is the false positives, Type II errors, that incorrectly link an evidence and reference item, that we strive to avoid, because in many cases (but not all!) they may falsely implicate a suspect. The null hypothesis may be different for the forensic scientist than for the legal or judicial system because the questions, hence they hypotheses, are different. In the US, at least, the burden is on the prosecution to "disprove" the null hypothesis of innocence. This night be accomplished by failing to disprove (hence accepting) that the blood on the suspect's clothing came from the victim. Where does ASCLD/LAB talk about class I and II errors?. We discuss this the null hypotheses and the concept of alternative hypotheses, as well as other soporific philosophy of science topics as applied to forensic science, in our book "Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science", Inman and Rudin, CRC Press, 2001. Also see "Articulating Hypotheses: The Null Hypothesis and Beyond" Rudin and Inman, CACNews 1st Quarter, 2003, pg. 7 < http://forensicdna.com/Articles.htm > or < http://cacnews.org/archives.htm > Norah Rudin Norah Rudin,Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html Nature photos: http://www.norahrudin.com "Ammen, Alice" wrote: Dear list, Recently I became interested in the difference between ASCLD/LAB's Class I & II error definitions and Type I & II error definitions used in forensic books and articles (see list below). A Class I error was similar to a Type II error (false positive), while a Class II error was similar to a Type I error (false negative). Then it was brought to my attention that in other fields (medical, statistical), Type I & II errors are defined in accordance with Class I & II, but opposite the definitions of Gaudette et al. Evidently, the error definition is related to the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis described by Aitken is a working hypothesis, e.g., broken glass on a suspect originated from a broken window at the crime scene. In other fields, the null hypothesis is one of non-association. Why did published forensic scientists use definitions opposite to the rest of the scientific community? Does it matter? Which is preferable? B.D. Gaudette, "A Supplementary Discussion of Probabilities and Human Hair Comparisons," JFS 27(2), pp 279-289, (1982). R. Saferstein, Forensic Science Handbook, Vol II, (1988), pg 255. C.G.G. Aitken, Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, (1991), pg 95. C.G.G. Aitken and D.A. Stoney, The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science, (1991) pg 216. Examples of websites in which the null hypothesis means non-association: http://www.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-650/Notes/Handouts/node23.html Hypothesis testing can be thought of as analogous to a court room trial. The null hypothesis is that the defendant is ``innocent'' while the alternate hypothesis is that the defendant is ``guilty''. The role of the prosecutor is to gather evidence that is inconsistent with the null hypothesis. If the evidence is so unusual (under the assumption of innocence), the null hypothesis is rejected. http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html The null hypothesis - In the criminal justice system this is the presumption of innocence. In both the judicial system and statistics the null hypothesis indicates that the suspect or treatment didn't do anything. The null is thelogical opposite of the alternative. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by Norah Rudin ] [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by Norah Rudin ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 00:23:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBG5N7Qf008078 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:23:07 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:21:44 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <009e01c3c361$98ee6470$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Thread-Index: AcPDYUJq+LkB0e8kQvOX6T+iBPF2gAAMcEpQ Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 10:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? This is exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its repeated false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like any other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic science -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet its promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is within this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show does far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with plausible-sounding misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab ! for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 01:27:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBG6RN2w009166 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:27:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:27:16 -0900 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 V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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 Lynn; Quite a number of these kinds of shows shell out money to various forensic scientists as consultants, with credits at the tend of each episode. What is the onus of an expert asked to do such consulting (I have been asked on a number of occasions to consult on various things, and have generally declined or given such honest criticism that they shop somewhere else rather than do a page 1 re-write)? Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 10:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? This is exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its repeated false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like any other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic science -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet its promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is within this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show does far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with plausible-sounding misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 10:14:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGFERwa015354 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:14:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Donaghey, Claire" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] contaminated currency Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:10:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2003 15:23:31.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[9061BFA0:01C3C3E8] Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Could anyone refer me to published studies regarding drug contaminated currency? Thank you, Claire Donaghey DuPage County Crime Lab Wheaton, IL [EndPost by "Donaghey, Claire" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 10:55:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGFt260016477 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: RE: [forens] contaminated currency Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:54:42 -0000 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 V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 Application of tandem mass spectrometry to the detection of drugs on cash D.J. Roberts and J.F. Carter Environmental and Analytical Section, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Cantock’s Close, Bristol, BS8 1TS,UK R. Sleeman and I.F.A. Burton Mass Spec Analytical Ltd, Building 20F, Golf Course Lane, PO Box 77, Filton, Bristol, BS99 7AR,UK Spectroscopy Europe 8/5 (1996) I'll sen the .pdf to Claire off list. Robert Forrest -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Donaghey, Claire Sent: 16 December 2003 15:10 To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] contaminated currency Could anyone refer me to published studies regarding drug contaminated currency? Thank you, Claire Donaghey DuPage County Crime Lab Wheaton, IL [EndPost by "Donaghey, Claire" ] [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 13:11:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGIBZl9019463 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:11:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Paul Flowers" To: Subject: RE: [forens] contaminated currency Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:11:27 -0500 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 V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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 >Could anyone refer me to published studies regarding drug contaminated >currency? >Thank you, >Claire Donaghey >DuPage County Crime Lab >Wheaton, IL ...the article by Sleeman et al. (and many references cited therein) are likely relevant to your info quest: Analytical Chemistry, 2000, 72 (11), 397A (...if you've an online subscription to this journal, the direct link is http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/article.cgi/ancham-a/0000/72/i11/html/carter.htm l ) regards, paul [EndPost by "Paul Flowers" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 13:38:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGIcLRU020503 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:38:21 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:37:26 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13C18E8A1SS1737-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBGIcKhm020498 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 Dear Lynn, Actually, there _are_ qualified technical staff that provide expertise to the creators of "CSI". One of them happens to be a good friend and colleague of mine, with a good few years forensic science and crime scene experience under his belt. Unfortunately, no matter how hard the technical advisors try and explain how something works, or what the characters _should_ be doing, or wearing, or what-have-you, the fact remains that they are _just_ advisors. Sadly, the money that comes from on-high to fund these shows will occasionally/sometimes/frequently throw out whatever was technically _advised_, since it doesn't fit with their story. No matter how strong the objection, if the studio wants to show their actors & actresses wearing something skimpy, without a face-mask or gloves, doing something that perhaps would definitely _not_ be done at a given scene, they pay the big bucks, and they want to see their stars' faces on the silver screen. The advisors are therefore overruled. Initially, I had more faith, perhaps, in human nature in that the Average Joe would be able to differentiate between the TV show "CSI" and the real deal, in the same way that folks cannot possibly believe that shows like "Fast Lane" are anything like cops in the real world (it isn't, right?). After reading numerous posts on this list (I won't name names, but I truly respect these professionals), it seems to me that perhaps I was a wee bit naive. As someone posted, the show purports to be scientifically accurate. Since I get annoyed when I see real-life crime documentaries on Court TV that get it wrong (such as dusting for prints as if they're painting a wall, or collecting evidence such as cartridge cases in plastic bags - with metal tweezers), I guess I may have misjudged the potential for damage to the average juror - especially when this particular show is promoted on the grounds of the science being accurately portrayed. Anyway, just my two cents! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/15/03 09:21PM >>> It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 13:51:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGIp0LU021152 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:51:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <184670-2200312216185054303@M2W089.mail2web.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Originating-IP: 140.241.0.20 X-URL: http://mail2web.com/ From: "amybridgeford@erols.com" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:50:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2003 18:50:54.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[88B1F370:01C3C405] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBGIp0hm021147 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 Thank you to everyone who answered my question about evidence submission forms and/or sent me a copy of their lab's forms. This information will be very useful in designing an evidence submission form for our lab. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Crime Lab Original Message: ----------------- From: amybridgeford@erols.com amybridgeford@erols.com Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:46:21 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, HayesD.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us Subject: [forens] Analysis Request Forms Do any labs use an evidence submission/request for analysis form that is required to be filled out by investigators who bring evidence to the crime lab? Currently our lab does not require such a document and we frequently receive evidence without any accompanying information other than what is contained in the police report. Needless to say, this often results in the Criminalists spending a lot of time trying to track down investigators to find out what exactly was submitted and why. We would like to design a form that will give us a maximum amount of information without being so long and complicated that the investigators dread filling it out. Would anyone be willing to share how their laboratory handles such matters? Examples of analysis request forms can be faxed to 617-343-4818. I will appreciate any suggestions. Thank you. Amy Brodeur Criminalist Boston Police Dept. Crime Lab 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 ph.617-343-4690 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "amybridgeford@erols.com" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 14:59:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGJxneI022965 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:59:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:59:27 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? 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 hBGJxneJ022965 Well said Geoff! In case no one else is aware, the show CSI said up a $700,000 endowment with the Southern California Research Institute in Los Angeles California specifically for the continued education and training of criminalists in addition to new students interested in the field of criminalistics. While the show may not be completely accurate and will never suit some of us that work in the field, it is none the less the most watched television series, and general paints the forensic scientist in a positive light. The writers, researchers, and producers do strive for authenticity. They take actual cases and frame a story or twist around them, then simply ask their team of consultants if something is possible, whether a particular lab has capabilities or not is irrelevant. They want to deal in the realm of the possible. Directors have the final show as to what is depicted and how it is to be depicted, though they will consult with their on scene consultant. Again, it is a television drama. If some of us can't separate fact from fiction, then it is their problem. I and many of my colleagues actually enjoy the show despite it inaccuracies and hyperbole. Those of us who work crime scenes can find some familiarity with what we encounter, and on occasion our spouses, children and families get an inkling of what we are doing, and why we can't discuss our casework with them. As far as jury pool poisoning, I find argument laughable. The show has been broadcast for four years now, and I have testified in a number of cases. The only thing that I have noticed in the courtroom is that jurors tend to be more attentive when we are on the stand. And to those who complain about the show, then say they don't watch it, and want to discourage any one from watching it, much less demand that it be removed from the airways seem to know more about each and every episode than those who are fans of the show. I think this says something about their credibility, and I would look at their posts with a jaundiced eye. Because, how can you continually criticize the show unless you view it? I'm sure those posters would like to ban Sherlock Holmes, the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, and the rest of the mystery books from book stores and libraries as well. Maybe, they'll become the Blockbuster police, screen every DVD or video tape for accuracy and appropriateness, just so that potential jurors mind's are not poisoned. Nuff said! 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/16/2003 10:37:26 AM >>> Dear Lynn, Actually, there _are_ qualified technical staff that provide expertise to the creators of "CSI". One of them happens to be a good friend and colleague of mine, with a good few years forensic science and crime scene experience under his belt. Unfortunately, no matter how hard the technical advisors try and explain how something works, or what the characters _should_ be doing, or wearing, or what-have-you, the fact remains that they are _just_ advisors. Sadly, the money that comes from on-high to fund these shows will occasionally/sometimes/frequently throw out whatever was technically _advised_, since it doesn't fit with their story. No matter how strong the objection, if the studio wants to show their actors & actresses wearing something skimpy, without a face-mask or gloves, doing something that perhaps would definitely _not_ be done at a given scene, they pay the big bucks, and they want to see their stars' faces on the silver screen. The advisors are therefore overru! led. Initially, I had more faith, perhaps, in human nature in that the Average Joe would be able to differentiate between the TV show "CSI" and the real deal, in the same way that folks cannot possibly believe that shows like "Fast Lane" are anything like cops in the real world (it isn't, right?). After reading numerous posts on this list (I won't name names, but I truly respect these professionals), it seems to me that perhaps I was a wee bit naive. As someone posted, the show purports to be scientifically accurate. Since I get annoyed when I see real-life crime documentaries on Court TV that get it wrong (such as dusting for prints as if they're painting a wall, or collecting evidence such as cartridge cases in plastic bags - with metal tweezers), I guess I may have misjudged the potential for damage to the average juror - especially when this particular show is promoted on the grounds of the science being accurately portrayed. Anyway, just my two cents! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/15/03 09:21PM >>> It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] 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 Dec 16 15:11:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGKB3El023596 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:11:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031216120724.01a84968@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] STR DNA Profiling Probability Estimate Questions Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20031215103436.01a74790@pop.earthlink.net> References: <014d01c3c32d$7c2d15e0$5da74a82@MRJDell> 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 11:10 AM 12/15/2003 -0800, Charles Brenner wrote: >At 11:04 AM 12/15/2003 -0600, Melissa Jacob wrote: >> markers (I'm not sure if it was STR) were >>used to "estimate" race. > >(GenePrint used SNP's.) > >Charles sorry -- DNAPrint. Tony Frudakis' group Charles [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 15:13:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGKDl23023888 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:13:42 -0900 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Geoff; I feel for your friend. It must be frustrating for them. I know some TV folk who do work on a particular network's fictional forensic program, and each time I have contact with them they immediately apologize for the innaccuracies in their program (not CSI), assuming that I've been watching and picked up on every mistake. This show also has a forensic scientist that consults on the episodes, gets a credit, and gets paid. And the only part that concerns me. The question is this: what is the onus of a professional who lends their name to something that they know to be inaccurate, even if only in part? Doesn't the lending of their name amount to a seal of approval? Also, if the documentary people can't get it right, and they are supposed to be the educator / watchdog genre, then what are the chances of any fictional program getting it right? Speaking of which, Court TV is doing a series based on Henry Lee's cases with him starring, titled at the moment "TRACE EVIDENCE: THE CASE FILES OF DR. HENRY LEE". http://www.courttvpress.com/about/press/programming/9_17_2003_lee.html At first, I read somewhere that this would be a fictionalized series starring Henry Lee. Now it appears to be billed as a documentary series. It will be interesting to see how much poetic license is taken in the rendering of these cases for television. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Geoff Bruton Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:37 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Dear Lynn, Actually, there _are_ qualified technical staff that provide expertise to the creators of "CSI". One of them happens to be a good friend and colleague of mine, with a good few years forensic science and crime scene experience under his belt. Unfortunately, no matter how hard the technical advisors try and explain how something works, or what the characters _should_ be doing, or wearing, or what-have-you, the fact remains that they are _just_ advisors. Sadly, the money that comes from on-high to fund these shows will occasionally/sometimes/frequently throw out whatever was technically _advised_, since it doesn't fit with their story. No matter how strong the objection, if the studio wants to show their actors & actresses wearing something skimpy, without a face-mask or gloves, doing something that perhaps would definitely _not_ be done at a given scene, they pay the big bucks, and they want to see their stars' faces on the silver screen. The advisors are therefore overru! led. Initially, I had more faith, perhaps, in human nature in that the Average Joe would be able to differentiate between the TV show "CSI" and the real deal, in the same way that folks cannot possibly believe that shows like "Fast Lane" are anything like cops in the real world (it isn't, right?). After reading numerous posts on this list (I won't name names, but I truly respect these professionals), it seems to me that perhaps I was a wee bit naive. As someone posted, the show purports to be scientifically accurate. Since I get annoyed when I see real-life crime documentaries on Court TV that get it wrong (such as dusting for prints as if they're painting a wall, or collecting evidence such as cartridge cases in plastic bags - with metal tweezers), I guess I may have misjudged the potential for damage to the average juror - especially when this particular show is promoted on the grounds of the science being accurately portrayed. Anyway, just my two cents! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/15/03 09:21PM >>> It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 15:56:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGKufjd025412 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:56:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:56:33 -0900 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Greg; I am not surprised that a forensic scientist working for a DA in a police crime lab has little experience with this kind of conduct from an attorney. DA's do not tend to tell their own people what their job is (among the many things they often do not tell their own people), and defense attorney's do not like to risk being wrong in areas they know little about (forensic science). That is, if the DA calls on their stable of forensic scientists to testify at all. A DA's forensic scientists do not fully concur with the working case theory (or outright contradict it); subsequently DA's come in to court and pretend that such things as forensic evidence are unreliable or inimportant. They then either call no forensic experts, shop for one in Canada, or worse, call an FBI expert. Allow me to cite a case: State of California v. Louis Peoples (capital murder case tried in 1999). In that case, the DA, George Dunlap of the San Joaquin Co. Prosecutor's Office, firmly argued that DOJ forensic scientists responded to every homicide crime scene and that this was standard policy; he suggested to the jury that any statement to the contrary was either ignorant or an outright lie. Of course this was false, but the jury could either believe the DA and the proliferation of fictional tv programs, or an independant forensic scientist saying that they do not respond to all homicides and that they usually do so by invitation. It wasn't a big issue but it was made in to an issue of credibility because that's what attorney's do with opposing experts, especially when they cannot attack reasoning, evidence or subsequent findings. DA George Dunlap was of course fired for misconduct a few years later when his car-crashing and false reporting behavior from that time period caught up to him finally (http://www.premises-liability.net/record_081702.html). The judge in that case was also later fired for misconduct. But I digress... In another case, State of California v. Gerald Johnson, Orange County, Case No. GG00WF0080, the DA cited CSI when discussing the same issue above in his attempt to impeach me as an expert. Of course this failed and I was qualified, but the jury was left having to decide who was not telling the truth about this small issue. In both cases, the DA's were shouting and waving their arms around with disgust and disbelief as they were decrying the crime scene presence and prowess of their lab people. And in neither case was this issue addressed with the state's forensic experts, all of whom were treated with high degrees of professionalism by both sides. When police forensic scientists go independant, if they do go independant, away from the protection that a DA's office affords, they find themselves seeing and experiencing some of these new things. Also, I have watched CSI and I preferred Emily Procter when she was Ainsley Hayes on West Wing. The writing was smarter and her long hair was less of a contaminant. And I admit I'm warming up to the original series in syndication as entertaining. But many of the character's are smug and omniscient with regard to forensic science. This is absolutely the wrong image to portray unless one is of the entirely false view that forensic scientists only work for the police. At any rate, professionals have a responsibility not to lend their names to something that they know is inaccurate. Otherwise their name means less. Doesn't it? Others are free to disagree. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:59 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well said Geoff! In case no one else is aware, the show CSI said up a $700,000 endowment with the Southern California Research Institute in Los Angeles California specifically for the continued education and training of criminalists in addition to new students interested in the field of criminalistics. While the show may not be completely accurate and will never suit some of us that work in the field, it is none the less the most watched television series, and general paints the forensic scientist in a positive light. The writers, researchers, and producers do strive for authenticity. They take actual cases and frame a story or twist around them, then simply ask their team of consultants if something is possible, whether a particular lab has capabilities or not is irrelevant. They want to deal in the realm of the possible. Directors have the final show as to what is depicted and how it is to be depicted, though they will consult with their on scene consultant. Again, it is a television drama. If some of us can't separate fact from fiction, then it is their problem. I and many of my colleagues actually enjoy the show despite it inaccuracies and hyperbole. Those of us who work crime scenes can find some familiarity with what we encounter, and on occasion our spouses, children and families get an inkling of what we are doing, and why we can't discuss our casework with them. As far as jury pool poisoning, I find argument laughable. The show has been broadcast for four years now, and I have testified in a number of cases. The only thing that I have noticed in the courtroom is that jurors tend to be more attentive when we are on the stand. And to those who complain about the show, then say they don't watch it, and want to discourage any one from watching it, much less demand that it be removed from the airways seem to know more about each and every episode than those who are fans of the show. I think this says something about th! eir credibility, and I would look at their posts with a jaundiced eye. Because, how can you continually criticize the show unless you view it? I'm sure those posters would like to ban Sherlock Holmes, the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, and the rest of the mystery books from book stores and libraries as well. Maybe, they'll become the Blockbuster police, screen every DVD or video tape for accuracy and appropriateness, just so that potential jurors mind's are not poisoned. Nuff said! 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 [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 17:25:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGMPl3k027679 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:25:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031216222545.44232.qmail@web20503.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:25:45 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: [forens] New Topic To: Forensic Science Mailing List 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 Sorry to get off the intriguing and entertaining pro/con CSI thread, but I'd like to query the group on another issue that is actually real. Feel free to contact me off-list at any of the contact info listed below with your response. Background: Under various penal code sections in California, a felon possessing a weapon is liable to some substantial penal exposure if it can be proven they actually had it in their possession. Most DA offices demand latent print processing of the firearm to lend substance to other information (eyewitness, etc.) that might be utilized to prosecute cases of this type. The success rate for finding latent prints that can later be used for an actual identification is pretty low (less than 10% of the submitted firearms). Additionally, processing these firearms for latent prints prior to examining for IBIS or NIBIN is the obvious sequence of steps that must be taken, yet (at least in my opinion) the most important information comes about from connections garnered via IBIS and NIBIN. Therefore, processing these guns for potential latent print evidence just slows up the possibility of gathering critical information. I digress, so, anyway . . . The Issue: We are now seeing the beginning of another groundswell of questionable analysis - specifically processing weapons for the potential presence of biological residue that might yield a DNA profile. The idea is that this analysis would either yield a profile which could be compared to the suspect in question (which would obviously have to have a standard submitted), or the profile could be searched against a database. I'm aware that ATF has started a program doing this routinely, using a privately-contracted DNA lab. My Questions: (1) Does your forensic biology unit perform this type of analysis? (2) If no, then why not? (3) If only on occasion, then what is the benchmark that must be met so that DNA analysis is attemtped? And then please give me the data for your success rate (below). (3) If yes (at any request), what type of data has been developed regarding your success rate (e.g., 200 guns processed, profiles developed on 10 with subsequent successful prosecution)? Thanks, Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone - - 510.238.3386 FAX - - 510.238.6555 Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 17:49:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGMnVIZ028462 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:49:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:52:41 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <004a01c3c427$4f8f5cf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2003 22:49:23.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9C3B930:01C3C426] 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 First, as a charter member of the ABC Exam Committee, let me correct any misperception that the ABC program was established "because a group of people didn't trust 'organizations' to properly train their criminalists." Unless you are talking about mistrust by lawyers or the public, that is not at all the case. The ABC program was established because many professionals (managers and bench workers alike) saw a need for an independent, external, national certification program for individual criminalists. Such programs had long existed in other professions, indeed even in other forensic science fields, but not in Criminalistics. In recognition of this need, an early effort was led by Walter McCrone in the 1970s, but it failed to gain sufficient support to proceed beyond an exploratory program. Building on that effort, the CAC some years later established its own criminalistics certification program, which in turn inspired and contributed to the establishment of the national ABC program in 1990. The motivation for these certification programs had far less to do with "trusting organizations" than it did with providing the profession, the Justice System, and the public with an objective, impartial, independent review process from outside the laboratory organization; an external review process for individual competency that would be free from any real or imagined conflict of interest, insulated from any possible political influence, and so would be above reproach or suspicion. It was (and is) about providing tangible evidence of quality so that "trust" is irrelevant and unnecessary. This is the same reason that lab accreditation was established; the only difference being that certification examines the individual while accreditation examines the organization. A secondary goal for both accreditation and certification is to establish some uniform standards, and over time, to encourage higher standards that promote even greater quality. Legitimate independent certification programs also provide the individual scientist with an external credential that, unlike lab accreditation, is portable and not tied to a given employer - one they can take with them to any other employer, or into independent private practice. It is another credential that individual professionals can offer for examination by the public and the Justice System to show that they have met an external standard for professional occupational competency (rather than simply academic education), just as accreditation provides an external credential that lab organizations can offer. Regarding proficiency testing, there is nothing I have seen in ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive rulings or instructions to inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected to peer review prior to reporting. ASCLD-LAB requires the ANALYTICAL process to be the same as for casework, not the QC process. Therefore, if technicians screen or otherwise prepare evidence in casework for an analyst, they must participate to the same degree in the analyst's PT samples; but there is absolutely no explicit requirement to include peer review, although some labs may have interpreted the guidelines to imply it. Similarly, ABC PT guidelines do not prohibit the involvement of technicians acting under the direct supervision and direction of the analyst. My understanding had always been that they DID prohibit involvement of another analyst or supervisor, but John Lentini, who served as the Proficiency Review Committee Chairman for a significant number of years, recently posted that this is not so; that the individual's PT submitted for ABC certification may indeed include a peer or supervisory review. If that's true, I am disappointed. I can only say that that was NOT the intent of the group of regional association representatives who sat on the first ABC BOD and Exam Committee, and who developed the ABC Fellow certification guidelines. Our consensus was adamant that proficiency testing for certification purposes was an INDIVIDUAL responsibility and that the certificate holder or applicant absolutely MUST complete the test and report results without assistance or review from any peer or supervisor. The PT requirement isn't simply that the individual participate in testing, but that they do so successfully - which means they get the right answers all on their own, and if not, that they successfully complete remedial training so that they DO get all the right answers on their own. Certification is supposed to be a testament to the individual's personal capabilities, not the organization's abilities, so if the individual receives any correction from a peer or supervisor in coming to a reported conclusion, that defeats the purpose of the PT in the certification program. If peer involvement is allowed, the individual could conceivably get every PT wrong but have the error caught and corrected by others in the organization prior to reporting, and the ABC would never know that the individual's performance was consistently sub-par. That would make the PT worthless as an indicator of personal performance, in my opinion. Of course, it must be recognized that there is no way for any certification program to prevent unauthorized assistance in an individual's PT, if both the individual and the employer are willing to falsify documents asserting that the individual received no assistance. For that reason, I agree with Pete Barnett that site visits which include random review of the individual's cases (i.e., the inspector, not the analyst or the lab, chooses which cases are reviewed) would in some ways be a superior method of performance review, but it is difficult to imagine a certification program being able to afford the resources needed to do that kind of review. Conversely, while case reviews will reveal analytical and interpretive errors, they will not reveal instances of source errors, such as contamination, or sample substitution or mislabeling. The analytical data produced would still look fine and appear to support the conclusion. The fact that the data was produced from an erroneous sample would not be discovered because the "true" result in an actual case is unknown to anyone until it is revealed by the analysis. In this aspect, PTs are superior checks because the "true" result is known to the test provider prior to test administration, so if the analyst mixed up or contaminated the sample in analysis, his/her reported result would be recognizably wrong. Ideally, BOTH forms of performance testing/review would be best, as together they would account for all types of error, but the case review method unfortunately remains logistically unsupportable. Perhaps if it were government funded (as in Britain) it could be done, but I don't see how a volunteer peer organization could do it without drastic increases in administrative support and fees. In any event, under current written guidelines for both ABC and ASCLD-LAB, there is no reason why an analyst cannot do a single PT test to legitimately satisfy both organizations' requirements. In my opinion, the PT can and should be processed like any case sample; but the results of analysis should have to be reported to the test provider prior to being submitted to the lab's peer review process. I do agree that ASCLD-LAB needs to clarify their PT requirement to eliminate the confusion about whether or not PTs should include QC review by peers and/or supervisors, but even if they were to rule that the PT test should be subjected to the lab's full QC process (including review), that could still be done AFTER the analyst reports results to the PT provider, thereby satisfying both accreditation and certification requirements. I should also note that I, too, am no longer acting in any official capacity for the ABC and do not speak for the organization, only as an individual who was one of its founding members. 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] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:48 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: ASCLD-LAB corporate proficiency tests and their effect on ABC personal certification validity Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -0700 On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:09 PM, Tim Sliter wrote: > I would agree, with an exception. > > The ASLCD/LAB requirement for a single PT to be > submitted to the external testing agency for review > makes it pretty clear that the primary intent is lab > accreditation. It's the accredited lab's > responsibility then to internally certify its own > analysts. > Folks: All this discussion led me to a realization: the ASCLD-LAB policy essentially trashes the ABC purpose and requirement for annual proficiency tests to maintain an individual's certification in a particular area of forensic analysis/examination. If I'm not mistaken, ABC is a certification program for individuals, not organizations. If an individual takes a test that their organization reviews prior to submittal of a report for ASCLD-LAB requirements, then that same individual will have to take an additional, unreviewed test to satisfy ABC requirements. ABC is about individuals, not organizations, and certainly not about accreditation. ABC doesn't evaluate organizations as far back as I can remember. I also seem to remember, from the early days of ABC, that the certification body was developed because a group of people didn't trust "organizations" to properly train their criminalists. Current ASCLD-LAB requirements essentially prevent an individual from using their proficiency results in an accredited organization from being used to establish their personal qualifications to conduct examinations under ABC certification or fellowship. We are forced to either pass a test under conditions that satisfy ACLD-LAB or under conditions that satisfy ABC, or we take two mutually exclusive tests to maintain our status with both organizations. We can't have it both ways. How many supposedly personal/individual proficiency tests has ABC accepted for certification approval or maintenance that were in fact not individual but organizational/corporate? Does ABC know? How many of those corporate tests results has ABC accepted unknowingly? What does that fact do to the credibility of ABC certification? Those tests would seemingly leave ABC in the sad position of granting certifications to individuals that had the benefit of organizational second guessing (in-house cheating, if you will) and, in effect, makes their subsequent, personal, ABC certification(s) fictitious. I wish I'd had that kind of help when I was in college, wouldn't you have? Or, is it as Tim has stated above? Does ABC want labs to "internally CERTIFY" their own criminalists? That would seem to limit ABC's efficacy to the point that the organization could not survive. Maybe we're gradually getting to the heart of this discussion...? Just some thoughts, Mike Eyring [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 18:02:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGN2FOj029038 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:02:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] proficiency tests another opinion Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:05:30 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <004b01c3c429$1a377090$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2003 23:02:13.0247 (UTC) FILETIME=[A46738F0:01C3C428] 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 can see this point of view, and don't necessarily have a problem with it where reputable labs with conscientious management are concerned. However, I think it defeats the purpose of an external proficiency test at its most basic level - which I believe is to test the individual without any outside help, review, coaching, or possibility of covert "correction" by superiors (i.e., cover-up by management of errors made by the individual). If PTs go through peer review PRIOR to being reported to the external PT provider, this would allow a disreputable lab management to indefinitely conceal the repeated failures of "problem" individuals while still keeping them on casework. No one outside the lab would ever be aware of the failures unless the lab management chose to disclose the failures, because the "official" results (after correction) reported to the PT provider would always be correct. Conversely, if the analyst is required to report PT results to the PT provider BEFORE submitting them to the lab's internal QA/QC review process, then the true performance of the analyst becomes a matter of record that the lab cannot control. The lab could still then do a peer review of the PT results to test its internal review process before the PT provider publishes the "correct" answers, without compromising the test of the individual's abilities. If the PT is intended to test the system rather than the individual, then it can and should work exactly as Larry states, but I don't think that's the purpose ASCLD-LAB originally had in mind. If it were, they would have specifically required that the PT go through the peer review process involving the same peer and supervisory reviews that are used in casework, just as they specifically require that any technicians who participate in case processing for the tested analyst also participate in the PT of the analyst. However, while the current guidelines specify the participation of any technicians under the direction and supervision of the tested analyst, they do NOT mention peer or supervisory reviews (unless this is a recent clarification I have not seen in the ASCLD-LAB newsletter). That leads me to believe the PTs were intended by ASCLD-LAB to be tests of the individual analyst, not of the lab's QC system, but I can't be certain. This is why we need clarification from the ASCLD-LAB Board on this point. If the ASCLD-LAB PT requirement is in fact ruled to be a test of the QC system, then we will still have to deal with what would then be the conflicting requirements of individual certification programs. PT requirements for personal certification (at least all I recall seeing) uniformly require that the analyst report his/her own results to the PT provider without assistance from any peers or supervisors, because the goal there is specifically to test the abilities of the individual alone. For that reason, I feel it would be more efficient and effective to NOT include peer or supervisory review in PTs, at least not before reporting results to the external test provider. The same PTs could then serve the purposes of both lab accreditation and individual certification. Otherwise, to serve both purposes each analyst would have to do two PTs - one with peer review for accreditation purposes, and one without for certification purposes. That just seems unnecessarily redundant and wasteful to me. 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 LARRY Pederson Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:34 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] proficiency tests another opinion I responded to another, similar discussion recently on this topic. I think my opinion differs from others expressed so far. ASCLD/LAB is set up to accredit laboratories, not individuals. Discussions here have what, I think, is the misconception that ASCLD/LAB must hold individuals accountable for proficiency test performance. I see a proficiency test serving two purposes: 1. the lab director/quality manager's need to know of an individual's technical ability and 2. theASCLD/LAB's need to know if a laboratory's quality system is sound in reporting accurate results in the name of the lab. The lab manager/quality manager has to have an individual (or technician/scientist) take a proficiency test alone. The report of the result and the data goes to the quality manager and the section supervisor/peer reviewer for review. The director/quality manager is responsible for identifying errors in an individual's performance. If all is well based on the peer review, the result is reported to the provider to meet ASCLD/LAB requirements. Here are two senarios. If peer review and other measures in the lab's quality system result in the individual's report being changed, AND the report to the test provider contained the correct result, THEN it is the lab director/quality manager's job to implement training or other corrective action for the individual. If peer review and other measures in the lab's quality system result in the individual's report being approved, AND the report to the test provider contained an incorrect result, THEN the laboratory's quality system failed. The director/quality manager must then carry out training or other corrective action for both the individual AND the peer reviewer because they both blew it in some way. The corrective action is reported to ASCLD/LAB's Proficiency Review Committee, and when the PRC approves of the corrective action completed, the laboratory is back in compliance with ASCLD/LAB requirements. There are other senarios, but these basically demonstrate how I see proficiency testing working in an accredited lab. Larry Pederson Greeley/Weld County Forensic Lab Greeley, CO [EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 18:14:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBGNE1r1029822 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:14:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:32 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] New Topic 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 hBGNE1r2029822 Tom, This is a very good question. We have had limited experience doing this type of analysis and have applied to a select number of cases, such as homicide and officer involved shootings. Cartridge cases have also been swabbed to determine who may have loaded the firearm in selected cases only. As far as the firearms cases were concerned, we swabbed the checkered grip panels and trigger area of the handguns were able to extract useful DNA profiles (all 13 loci). This is a powerful technique, thus requiring the police agencies to exhibit extreme care when seizing and packaging these weapons. As far as the cartridge casing issues, we have used in one high profile case concerning expended casings at a scene (no weapon recovered). This resulted in low copy number DNA being detected, and only partial profiles amplified. The suspect, however, could not be eliminated. We are still ruminating over the meaning of the results obtained, and most probably will consult with experts outside of this laboratory. Our case data is relatively small and most of the cases have not been adjudicated at this time. 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 >>> jta@rocketmail.com 12/16/2003 2:25:45 PM >>> Sorry to get off the intriguing and entertaining pro/con CSI thread, but I'd like to query the group on another issue that is actually real. Feel free to contact me off-list at any of the contact info listed below with your response. Background: Under various penal code sections in California, a felon possessing a weapon is liable to some substantial penal exposure if it can be proven they actually had it in their possession. Most DA offices demand latent print processing of the firearm to lend substance to other information (eyewitness, etc.) that might be utilized to prosecute cases of this type. The success rate for finding latent prints that can later be used for an actual identification is pretty low (less than 10% of the submitted firearms). Additionally, processing these firearms for latent prints prior to examining for IBIS or NIBIN is the obvious sequence of steps that must be taken, yet (at least in my opinion) the most important information comes about from connections garnered via IBIS and NIBIN. Therefore, processing these guns for potential latent print evidence just slows up the possibility of gathering critical information. I digress, so, anyway . . . The Issue: We are now seeing the beginning of another groundswell of questionable analysis - specifically processing weapons for the potential presence of biological residue that might yield a DNA profile. The idea is that this analysis would either yield a profile which could be compared to the suspect in question (which would obviously have to have a standard submitted), or the profile could be searched against a database. I'm aware that ATF has started a program doing this routinely, using a privately-contracted DNA lab. My Questions: (1) Does your forensic biology unit perform this type of analysis? (2) If no, then why not? (3) If only on occasion, then what is the benchmark that must be met so that DNA analysis is attemtped? And then please give me the data for your success rate (below). (3) If yes (at any request), what type of data has been developed regarding your success rate (e.g., 200 guns processed, profiles developed on 10 with subsequent successful prosecution)? Thanks, Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone - - 510.238.3386 FAX - - 510.238.6555 Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] 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 Dec 16 21:21:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBH2LkJT003228 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:21:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031217022129.96277.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:21:29 -0800 (PST) From: Cathy OReilly Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: 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 I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 21:54:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBH2sPvJ003966 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:54:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:54:16 -0900 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: <20031217022129.96277.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Cathy; I understand completely how CSI fires the minds of young students regarding science, and this is a wonderful by-product. I am also encouraged to hear that your students can distinguish between TV and reality. My experience is that this ability is denied a lot of people. However, bear in mind that it is not just the science that is bad in CSI - it is the forensic science. What seems and what is are very different. As an FYI, my court experience (being mostly 1st degree murder/ death penalty cases) is that jurors are not chosen for their intelligence; there is some truth to the cliche that juries are made up of people who can't get out of jury duty... the unemployed, the retired, and the poor. Add to that the fact that jurors are often eliminated based on their potential contribution to favorable outcome for a particular side. Anyone with a higher education, for instance, is likely to be eliminated from a jury because they may do too much thinking and not enough reacting to the emotional play that attorney's often seek to put on before them. Court in many instances degenerates to theatre, and in those instances, the CSI crap weighs in. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Cathy OReilly Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:21 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 22:13:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBH3DrUj004842 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:13:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:13:45 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on mail02/SVR/DPS/LAGOV(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 12/16/2003 09:13:52 PM 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 Cathy, "...the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world." Personally I agree with you. I would rather have a hiring pool of qualified applicants who are passionate about forensic Science, than a pool of qualified applicants who were "just looking for a job". On the flip side, I have run across students who really wanted to work in a crime lab, knew what it actually involved, and were told all through college that a degree in Anthropology would get them there. That's a shame. Go to www.AAFS.org and look at the Forensic Science Education Conferences scheduled for 2004. If you are able to apply I would highly suggest you do. These conferences are designed for the high school science teacher to be able to design a program wrapped around forensics. Good Luck. Adam Becnel Forensic Scientist III Louisiana State Police Crime Lab 376 E. Airport Road Baton Rouge, LA 70808 cbecnel@dps.state.la.us 225 925-6216 Cathy OReilly cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 12/16/2003 08:21 PM Please respond to forens I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 22:17:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBH3H0H2005254 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:17:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: [forens] Crime Scene Investigation: Dark Motives Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:16:50 -0900 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: <20031217022129.96277.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Ubisoft Announces CSI: Dark Motives by Greg Atkinson http://www.gigex.com/pc/article/?id=4966&source=00001 Crime Scene Investigation: Dark Motives features new cases, improved forensic tools and more immersive gameplay Ubisoft, one of the world's largest video game publishers, today announced that Crime Scene Investigation: Dark Motives will be available for the PC in March 2004. The game is based on the hit CBS television series with an exclusive license from CBS Consumer Products. CSI: Dark Motives gives players the opportunity to solve a series of crimes with members of the CSI team. Building off the success of Ubisoft's top-selling CSI: Crime Scene Investigation PC game, CSI: Dark Motives is a first-person adventure game that will test players' nerves and intellect as they examine crime scenes, question witnesses and analyze evidence utilizing the latest in forensic equipment. The new CSI PC game features a number of gameplay improvements including in-depth evidence examination, scalable difficulty and more interactive lab functionality. CSI: Dark Motives will once again feature the likenesses and voices of the entire CSI cast. "The popularity of the first CSI: Crime Scene Investigation game proves that the CSI license translates well to video games," said Tony Kee, vice president of marketing for Ubisoft Entertainment. "With CSI: Dark Motives, offering both CSI fans and dedicated gamers a unique gaming experience based on the same fundamentals that have made the CBS show a number one hit." CSI: Dark Motives features include: Brand-New Cases: Five new cases to solve that are longer and more in depth than in the original game. CSI Authenticity: Includes the likenesses and voice talents of the entire CSI cast, as well as the show's locations, music, writing, scientific validity and visual style. Detailed Forensic Equipment: Field evidence can be analyzed using a full set of forensic tools, such as fingerprint dusters, UV Lights, luminol, DNA sequencer and comparison microscope. Personalized Play: Customizable options allow players to easily adjust the gameplay to suit their desired level of difficulty. Bonus Commentary: Unlockable bonus content with pre-production sketches, "behind the scenes" footage and unusual trivia. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Cathy OReilly Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:21 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 16 23:45:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBH4j0ua007165 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:45:00 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:42:33 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPEBA6UVwoFZPpXQu6KV3mVBDXnvAAUxMMg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 We are all entitled to our own opinions - how boring it would be if we weren't! I'm one of those that really does NOT watch the show. I have watched it, I must admit, approximately 3 times and thought, "Good Lord - that's going off." I am not one of those who goes around discouraging other not to watch it though - it's not my place or my right. You have made a lot of points which I really should think about. Of course one doesn't always remember that these shows are on budgets so I suppose they get whomever they can afford to work at the expert adviser. The shows that I really do cringe at are the old police shows where everyone just trampled around, pushing the body wherever they felt like - to hell with contamination of the scene. I guess it's only since the introduction of DNA that you no longer see these things happen - well I presume you don't - I know I don't. Will anyone be around the Monrovia/Pasadena area during June/July? I'll be back for the annual pilgrimage to visit my sister in Monrovia and would love to meet up with some one from this listing. Last time I was lucky enough to have a meeting with Barry Fisher and it was wonderful. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Bruton Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 5:37 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Dear Lynn, Actually, there _are_ qualified technical staff that provide expertise to the creators of "CSI". One of them happens to be a good friend and colleague of mine, with a good few years forensic science and crime scene experience under his belt. Unfortunately, no matter how hard the technical advisors try and explain how something works, or what the characters _should_ be doing, or wearing, or what-have-you, the fact remains that they are _just_ advisors. Sadly, the money that comes from on-high to fund these shows will occasionally/sometimes/frequently throw out whatever was technically _advised_, since it doesn't fit with their story. No matter how strong the objection, if the studio wants to show their actors & actresses wearing something skimpy, without a face-mask or gloves, doing something that perhaps would definitely _not_ be done at a given scene, they pay the big bucks, and they want to see their stars' faces on the silver screen. The advisors are therefore overru! led. Initially, I had more faith, perhaps, in human nature in that the Average Joe would be able to differentiate between the TV show "CSI" and the real deal, in the same way that folks cannot possibly believe that shows like "Fast Lane" are anything like cops in the real world (it isn't, right?). After reading numerous posts on this list (I won't name names, but I truly respect these professionals), it seems to me that perhaps I was a wee bit naive. As someone posted, the show purports to be scientifically accurate. Since I get annoyed when I see real-life crime documentaries on Court TV that get it wrong (such as dusting for prints as if they're painting a wall, or collecting evidence such as cartridge cases in plastic bags - with metal tweezers), I guess I may have misjudged the potential for damage to the average juror - especially when this particular show is promoted on the grounds of the science being accurately portrayed. Anyway, just my two cents! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/15/03 09:21PM >>> It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 10:16:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBHFGCur017583 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:16:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031217151610.25720.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:16:10 -0800 (PST) From: Cathy OReilly Subject: Re: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: 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 Thanks Adam, I have actually been at a few conferences already. The FSEC was held in NY at PACE University two years ago and it was excellent and gave me great ideas and good resources. I also attended a 1 week workshop in Lake George NY three years ago. After looking at site again, I wonder if my school would ever pop for Hawaii in 2004 I know that the key to a reality based HS course is my talking to and listening to people who are actually out there doing it. Thanks for your help Cathy O'Reilly Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 12:04:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBHH46h9020090 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:04:06 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:03:13 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, coreilly2003@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13FE53FB1SO42050-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBHH45hm020085 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 Good morning, Cathy, I think you've really hit the nail on the head with this one. The fact is that it is sometimes (very?) difficult to be able to engage the minds of students in some often quite abstract theories of the sciences. _Anything_ that makes them _want_ to learn can only really be a good thing. Once that most difficult wall has been breached, they can then open up to the actual science, whilst keeping it anchored to some extent in the 'real world'. I would also like to think that most potential jurors - and young adults - can differentiate between television and real-life, though based on many comments on this list, it seems that perhaps I was being too optimistic. I'm still not completely swayed, however! Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was... Despite some folks disliking the show for its inaccuracies and for making us cringe when the characters do something untrue, the fact remains that it _does_ promote forensic science in a very positive light. And that can hardly be a bad thing. Just imagine if there was a TV show or movie that decided to show forensic science in a _bad_ light - by characterizing bad or junk science, or showing the science being used to allow the 'bad guys' to get away with it - or some scientists not caring about their work and 'dry-labbing', fabricating results and allowing innocents to be convicted without a care in the world. Now, that would be pure fiction, wouldn't it...? Warm regards to all, Geoff. >>> coreilly2003@yahoo.com 12/16/03 06:21PM >>> I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 14:38:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBHJcaRL024008 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:38:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACB9C@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditat ion requirements Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:38:17 -0700 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 Bob, You wrote: "Regarding proficiency testing, there is nothing I have seen in ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive rulings or instructions to inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected to peer review prior to reporting." See the ASCLD-LAB 2003 manual. It states under Proficiency Testing, "The laboratory should employ technical review, verification and administrative review policies as they are normally applied to casework." Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 19:00:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI00sos029555 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:00:54 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 00:00:50.0099 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF060030:01C3C4F9] content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [forens] New fingerprint print lift method Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:04:08 -0500 Message-ID: <002d01c3c4fa$7560c490$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New fingerprint print lift method Thread-Index: AcPE+nTR7Ux2QMFNRDOn+/Sk0vey/g== From: "Robert Parsons" To: , "FORENS-L POSTING (FORENS-L POSTING)" , 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 hBI00sot029555 Fingerprinting Scientists at the University of Technology, Sydney have developed a new spray that can lift fingerprints from rough surfaces. news | research 02 December 2003 This report in The Alchemist can be viewed here (registration required) http://www.chemweb.com/alchem/articles/1066207846997.html Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif --- [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 19:12:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI0CFx2000113 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:12:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:15:30 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003201c3c4fc$0bed4e50$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <200312041331.hB4DV0Zp001209@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 00:12:12.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[95906710:01C3C4FB] 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 Mike, I was philosophically opposed to the change from 100% review of PT data to doing only "spot checks," but I reluctantly had to admit that the task of annually inspecting every certificate holder's PT test had become extremely (and seemingly insurmountably) difficult in an all-volunteer organization. With many dozens of certified Fellows and Technical Specialists to check, and more added every year, the Proficiency Review Committee was simply overwhelmed. The work is done by a small group of dedicated people who already have full time jobs and who are volunteering their personal off-duty time to serve the ABC, and the task of 100% review simply became too large to support with volunteer workers. To keep up with the growth of the task, the ABC would have had to expand the committee to a considerably larger (and therefore more difficult to manage) size of its own, or turn the task over to paid workers with forensic expertise. It would be difficult to find enough qualified volunteers who could meet strict time schedules to support the former, and there is no budget to support the latter (the ABC would have to significantly increase its fees, which would discourage participation in the voluntary program). I believe in pursuing idealistic goals whenever feasible, but not all things desirable are feasible. Certification organizations, like any others, must operate in the real world and deal with the realities of their own resource constraints as best they can. The current spot check system is not ideal, but is the best compromise feasible at this time. 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 Mike & Donna Eyring Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:21 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) On Dec 3, 2003, at 1:02 PM, John Lentini wrote: > Mike: > I was the ABC Proficiency Administration > Committee chair for a very long time. (snip) > In the past, there was a 100% review of all PT, > but the process was too cumbersome. Now there is > a spot check. > > PT is only part of the requirement to achieve and > maintain fellow or technical specialist status. (snip) > PT ties all three components together. There is > no conflict between the ABC and ASCLD-LAB > requirements.Lab directors who allow PTs to be > used for both purposes are making appropriate use > of their resources. > Dear John: I was very saddened to receive your reply. It just begs the question. I can assure you that individuals that are unjustly jailed are only interested in one test. That's the one that a criminalist "blew" while working on their case. There was, and will be, no second chance and no review the next year or five years later. Just more jail time. These individuals might be a bit at odds with you about things being "cumbersome" or subject to the "appropriate use of their resources" . I thought ABC was the one group that was above all the administrative and corporate spin. Guess I was wrong. Freedom is priceless. Mike Eyring [EndPost by Mike & Donna Eyring ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 19:18:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI0IAqC000592 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:18:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:21:25 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003301c3c4fc$df762350$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 00:18:07.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[691878C0:01C3C4FC] 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 Certification and accreditation promote quality but don't guarantee it; and the absence of certification and accreditation does not preclude quality, it simply fails to provide external evidence of it. Uncertified individuals and unaccredited labs certainly can be able to produce results that are just as reliable and of just as high quality as those produced by certified individuals and accredited labs; the problem is that without some kind of external review process in place, outsiders have no indication what the level of quality actually being produced may be. Likewise, certified individuals and accredited labs are still capable of making mistakes; but at least with them, an outsider knows that they have demonstrated the ability to produce quality results by meeting the standards of an impartial external body. Certified or not, and working in an accredited lab or not, everyone should be doing external proficiencies and/or having external case reviews done. They are the only way to demonstrate quality in an unassailable fashion, one that removes the suspicion of bias and self-service that can be alleged with regard to doing internal testing alone. 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 Lakhkar, Bharat Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:16 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) It is interesting to note that NRC-II which was comprised of peers from all the fields that are relevant to forensic testing in DNA ( including those from Law ) concluded that the only way to ensure that the results in a particular case are correct is to leave a portion of the evidence at the earliest stage so that it can be retested. The commission even discouraged calculation of error rates as being not practical. The commission naturally recommends taking all kinds of precautions ( following QA/QC guidelines of TWGDAM, ASCLD/LAB accreditation etc ) to avoid errors, but relies on possible retesting of remaining evidence to ensure no possibility of error in cases of doubt. What surprises me is what about all those analysts ( a vast majority ) who are not ABC certified? How come no one seems to be concerned about them? Their proficiencies ( except external and that too if ASCLD/LAB accredited ) are not checked by anyone externally. If the lab is not accredited no one ( except CODIS participating labs) even has to take a proficiency. It is this huge proportion of analysts and labs that should be a concern to all the defendents and not the ABC certified analysts from ASCLD/LAB accredited labs. The above are my individual opinions. Bharat Lakhkar D-ABC -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) I have included a couple of recent comments to put the below in context: Proficiency testing does not, and cannot, assure that every result that comes from a lab is correct. It cannot, and does not, assure anyone that the results of immediate concern in any particular case are correct. It should provide some assurance to laboratory management the workers are doing reasonably good jobs. But Mike is correct that it is the results in a particular case that are of concern. The ONLY WAY to assure that is the case is by peer review, and the obligation of the forensic scientist is to facilitate that process. What does that mean? 1. Proper collection and preservation of evidence. That would include preservation of analytical samples for re-analysis. 2. Complete disclosure of methods, data, and conclusions and opinions. It should not be necessary to utilize extraordinary discovery or FOIA processes to get that information - and there should be no surprises in testimony. 3. A professional attitude that embraces the belief that the best way to get at the truth in a scientific inquiry is a process of independent peer review. Pete Barnett At 09:28 AM 12/4/03 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >I'm sorry you're sad, but by using your logic, >any forensic scientist who does not get a >proficiency test right should go and find another >line of work, >Extending your logic to proficiency tests gotten >wrong by a laboratory, the laboratory should just >shut down because obviously if the lab performed >badly on one test, it means they are unable to do >forensic work. and Mike Eyring previously wrote: > > I can assure you that individuals that are > > unjustly jailed are only > > interested in one test. That's the one that a > > criminalist "blew" while > > working on their case. There was, and will be, > > no second chance and no > > review the next year or five years later. Just > > more jail time. [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Lakhkar, Bharat" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 19:37:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI0bP3b001399 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:37:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:40:41 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003401c3c4ff$9053c720$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACB9C@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 00:37:22.0771 (UTC) FILETIME=[19F53230:01C3C4FF] 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 Alice, Thanks for the update. I was referring to the 2001 manual, my mistake. We only recently received our copy of the new 2003 manual and our Director is still reviewing it, so I haven't had an opportunity yet to review it myself. I wasn't aware of that change from the 2001 manual. It seems, then, that ASCLD-LAB has already clarified the issue, and I should have thought to check the new manual before speaking up about "current" requirements. "My bad" as the kids say. This means that accreditation and certification requirements for proficiency testing may indeed be at odds, depending on the certification body. For accreditation purposes, I understand the desire to have the PT used to test the entire quality system, and so including peer and supervisory review makes perfect sense for that purpose. However for certification, I still firmly believe it needs to be an individual test with no peer or supervisory review, or it fails to serve the certification purpose of testing the individual analyst's abilities without assistance, consultation, or correction from others. As I said before, a single PT can still serve both purposes if the results are submitted to the external provider without review, but are then reviewed prior to the publishing of manufacturer's information or test results by the test provider. This way there can be no question about labs "hiding" the PT failures of their analysts. If the analyst gets the right answer, the requirements of both certification and accreditation are satisfied. If the analyst gets the wrong answer on his/her own, but the lab's review process catches and corrects the error, then the PT would be reported as a failure to the certifying body, but as a success to the accrediting body (ASCLD-LAB). If the review process fails to catch the error, then it would be a failure for both certification and accreditation purposes. How does that sound? Anyone see any problems with it? 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 Ammen, Alice Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:38 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements Bob, You wrote: "Regarding proficiency testing, there is nothing I have seen in ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive rulings or instructions to inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected to peer review prior to reporting." See the ASCLD-LAB 2003 manual. It states under Proficiency Testing, "The laboratory should employ technical review, verification and administrative review policies as they are normally applied to casework." Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 19:53:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI0r9kT002090 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:53:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:53:06 -0900 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: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Cathy OReilly Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:21 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org -------- [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 21:20:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI2Kqfu003970 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:20:52 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <8f.3634af59.2d1268fc@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:20:44 EST Subject: Re: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditat ion require... To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 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 12/17/2003 2:46:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, aammen@state.mt.us writes: You wrote: "Regarding proficiency testing, there is nothing I have seen in ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive rulings or instructions to inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected to peer review prior to reporting." See the ASCLD-LAB 2003 manual. It states under Proficiency Testing, "The laboratory should employ technical review, verification and administrative review policies as they are normally applied to casework." Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division Dear Alice: Please note that the wording you wrote includes the word SHOULD.. this is not a word that 'requires' one to do anything. Respectfully, Mark. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 22:54:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI3sYMO006515 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031218035425.666.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:54:25 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditat ion require... To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <8f.3634af59.2d1268fc@aol.com> 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 If a guideline says you "shall" do something, and you don't do it, you need to justify why you didn't do it. If a giudeline says you "should" do something, and you don't do it, you still need to justify whyn you didn't do it. The semantic difference between "should" and "shall" is lost on most juries. And if you argue about it, you lose. --- Markblewis@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/17/2003 2:46:38 PM > Eastern Standard Time, > aammen@state.mt.us writes: > > You wrote: "Regarding proficiency testing, > there is nothing I have seen in > ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive > rulings or instructions to > inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected > to peer review prior to > reporting." > > See the ASCLD-LAB 2003 manual. It states under > Proficiency Testing, "The > laboratory should employ technical review, > verification and administrative > review policies as they are normally applied to > casework." > > Alice Ammen > Montana Forensic Science Division > Dear Alice: > Please note that the wording you wrote includes > the word SHOULD.. > this is not a word that 'requires' one to do > anything. > Respectfully, > Mark. > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 22:58:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI3w7MU006898 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:58:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031218035800.95147.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:58:00 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <003401c3c4ff$9053c720$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> 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 I have been known to disagree with Bob in the past, but I think he's on to something here. --- Robert Parsons wrote: > As I said before, a single PT can still serve > both purposes if the > results are submitted to the external provider > without review, but are > then reviewed prior to the publishing of > manufacturer's information or > test results by the test provider. This way > there can be no question > about labs "hiding" the PT failures of their > analysts. If the analyst > gets the right answer, the requirements of both > certification and > accreditation are satisfied. If the analyst > gets the wrong answer on > his/her own, but the lab's review process > catches and corrects the > error, then the PT would be reported as a > failure to the certifying > body, but as a success to the accrediting body > (ASCLD-LAB). If the > review process fails to catch the error, then > it would be a failure for > both certification and accreditation purposes. > > How does that sound? Anyone see any problems > with it? > ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 17 23:20:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBI4KVEK008090 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:20:31 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:19:53 -0800 Subject: Re: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Rob Keister To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <003401c3c4ff$9053c720$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-Id: <6E224FE8-3111-11D8-95F0-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob, What is the relevance to a particular case when it is known that the analyst has failed a proficiency test where the unreviewed results were submitted to the test provider, but the case at hand was tested by the analyst and subject to peer review for accuracy (that would have caught the proficiency test error)? Proficiency testing is most useful when it is conducted in the same manner that the actual cases are conducted. I think most often this disconnect occurs when labs do things like have everyone in the section work the proficiency test and then send in a consensus answer, or conduct extra tests on proficiency samples. They never get a prof test wrong, but what about their routine cases where only one analyst works the case? Do the proficiency tests like you do your casework. And the best way to assess the quality of a particular case is to have it re-examined by an independent examiner. Rob Keister Orange Co. Sheriff Dept. On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 04:40 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > Alice, > > Thanks for the update. I was referring to the 2001 manual, my mistake. > We only recently received our copy of the new 2003 manual and our > Director is still reviewing it, so I haven't had an opportunity yet to > review it myself. I wasn't aware of that change from the 2001 manual. > It seems, then, that ASCLD-LAB has already clarified the issue, and I > should have thought to check the new manual before speaking up about > "current" requirements. "My bad" as the kids say. > > This means that accreditation and certification requirements for > proficiency testing may indeed be at odds, depending on the > certification body. For accreditation purposes, I understand the > desire > to have the PT used to test the entire quality system, and so including > peer and supervisory review makes perfect sense for that purpose. > However for certification, I still firmly believe it needs to be an > individual test with no peer or supervisory review, or it fails to > serve > the certification purpose of testing the individual analyst's abilities > without assistance, consultation, or correction from others. > > As I said before, a single PT can still serve both purposes if the > results are submitted to the external provider without review, but are > then reviewed prior to the publishing of manufacturer's information or > test results by the test provider. This way there can be no question > about labs "hiding" the PT failures of their analysts. If the analyst > gets the right answer, the requirements of both certification and > accreditation are satisfied. If the analyst gets the wrong answer on > his/her own, but the lab's review process catches and corrects the > error, then the PT would be reported as a failure to the certifying > body, but as a success to the accrediting body (ASCLD-LAB). If the > review process fails to catch the error, then it would be a failure for > both certification and accreditation purposes. > > How does that sound? Anyone see any problems with it? > > 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 Ammen, Alice > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:38 PM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs > accreditation requirements > > Bob, > > You wrote: "Regarding proficiency testing, there is nothing I have seen > in > ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive rulings or instructions to > inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected to peer review prior to > reporting." > > See the ASCLD-LAB 2003 manual. It states under Proficiency Testing, > "The > laboratory should employ technical review, verification and > administrative > review policies as they are normally applied to casework." > > Alice Ammen > Montana Forensic Science Division > [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ "I'm gonna be a happy idiot and struggle for the legal tender." -- Jackson Browne [EndPost by Rob Keister ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 18 12:55:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBIHtdMq024609 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:55:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031218175537.975.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:55:37 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6E224FE8-3111-11D8-95F0-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> 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 List Members, Our quality manager has passed along to me a communication from ASCLD-LAB regarding the recent decision of the ASCLD-LAB board that a positive result using the ABAcard Hematrace test can not be reported out as a confirmatory result for human blood, because of cross-reactivity with domestic ferret blood. (Curiously, the communication that we received did not consider the cross-reactivity of the ABA-card test with blood of other higher primate species - only the ferret cross-reactivity. Nor did it consider the higher primate cross-reactivity of other antibody-based tests for human blood, or hybridization-based quantitation tests for human DNA, although the extension of the principle to these other tests are pretty self-evident.) I've been asked to find out how labs are handling this issue in their tests, reports and testimony. In particular, 1) Are statements regarding possible cross-reactivity of the test included in descriptions of results in reports? In testimony? If so, are these statements based upon literature citations only, upon internal validation studies only, or upon a combination of the two? 2) Are analysts permitted to report & testify to conclusions of human blood based on the ABA-card test, if there is there is sufficient investigative information that would indicate no known association of ferret or primate pets with the case? If so, what documentation is considered to be sufficient, and how is this reported? 3) Are labs utilizing any ferret-specific antibody tests as a follow-up to the ABA-card test, to eliminate the stain as being ferret blood. 4) If the ABA-card positive stain is subsequently DNA tested, and it gives a human DNA profile, will the DNA analyst then conclude that human blood was present? Any feedback would be welcome. Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 18 17:38:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBIMci4v002543 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:38:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:41:58 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003a01c3c5b8$252daab0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <008a01c3be0c$e265c030$0200a8c0@8sv5f01> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 22:38:38.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE3F58E0:01C3C5B7] 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 Bob, No one can ID a drug from the results of field test reagents. These tests are only meant as screening aids to indicate the possible presence of a controlled substance, and provide probable cause for arrest and formal charges. NONE of them (and no combination of them) is specific for a single drug; they ALL will also react to other things and so produce "false positives" if thought of as testing for that drug alone (in fact, they are not false positives, because the tests are not supposed to be specific for just one drug - they are known to react to chemical groups that exist in multiple drugs, and a positive test correctly indicates that those groups are present - it just doesn't indicate one specific drug or class of drug, it could be other things as well). Field test results are presumptive only (tentative, preliminary), not definitive. Other NIK kits are known to contain standard reagents like Cobalt Thiocyanate (for cocaine) or Marquis (for opiates, amphetamines, and many other drugs), and since the "false positives" for these are known, various possibilities can be identified based on results; but since NIK does not identify the reagents in these two particular kits (referring to them as "specially formulated") there is no way to predict what other things they might react to. Obvious possibilities would include a single drug that gives both of those two results, or a mixture of drugs that each gives one of those two results. Beyond that, it's impossible to say without knowing what the actual chemical content of the test kits is, and I doubt NIK would tell us ("trade secret"). Your best bet is to call the lab and see if you can talk them into making your case a priority (you'll need a very good reason). Otherwise, you'll just have to wait for results from the lab. 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 Bob Kegel Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:01 PM To: Forensic Science List Subject: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug My department has recently encountered what initially appears to be methamphetamine. It turns the Nik U (methamphetamine) reagent a bright purple. It gives a cranberry red result with the Nik Q (ephedrine) test. We've sent samples to the state crime lab, of course, but an answer may be weeks away. Can anyone ID the substance from this description? LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA [EndPost by "Bob Kegel" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 18 17:51:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBIMpS9C003102 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:51:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:46:11 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003b01c3c5b8$bbf9caf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <001F9931-2A72-11D8-8B4D-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 22:42:52.0005 (UTC) FILETIME=[45134150:01C3C5B8] 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 Mike, I agree with your stance on proficiency testing, but I have to disagree about expert testimony. The jury doesn't have to accept anything an expert witness says just because the judge "qualified" him/her as an expert. They are free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, depending on whether or not they believe what the witness is saying. In many jurisdictions, the judge does not "accept" or "qualify" expert witnesses, he merely presides over the presenting attorney's proffering of the witness and the opposing attorney's voir dire of the witness. In my state, judges are neither required to qualify an expert witness nor prohibited from doing so - it's at their discretion. They have to judge the reliability of techniques the expert relies on (based on Frye, not Daubert) to decide whether it is admissible, but they don't have to issue any kind of value judgment on the experts themselves. That's for the jury to weigh and decide for themselves. Standard jury instruction runs something like this: "The witness has been offered as an expert witness by (whomever)." [ or, "The Court recognizes this witness as an expert in (whatever)"] "An expert witness is like any other witness except that they are permitted to give their opinion based on their expertise gained through special training, education, or experience. An expert is only an expert to the extent that you, the jury, believe them to be expert. You may accept or disregard any part or all of the witness' testimony based on whether or not you believe it to be true." (or words to that effect). It's true the jury must judge our work in a specific case, but in doing so, learning about our past track record is certainly relevant and helpful. Our qualifications are primarily stated for the jury, not for the judge, to help them weigh the value and reliability of our testimony. Otherwise, we are just talking heads whose opinions have no more credibility than that of a layperson on the street. Our qualifications and credentials allow the jury to not just weigh our testimony alone, but also to weigh it against any opposing testimony by another expert. The jury desperately needs a way to compare experts in subjects alien to them; certification (to include proficiency testing) is one criterion they can use in that regard, along with degrees, experience, awards, etc. It alone among these (IMHO) offers objective information about an expert's actual hands-on performance on the job, and only then if PTs or other performance evaluations (ideally externally administered) are a regular part of maintaining the certification. 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] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:03 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] how do they judge? Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:04:25 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Dec 6, 2003, at 3:03 PM, Rob Keister wrote: > I don't think any of us have doubts about the work of non-certified > forensic scientists based only on non-certification (or lack of lab > accreditation). As forensic scientists we know those names listed > below from membership in professional organizations, authorship of > published articles, presentations at professional meetings, and > instructors of classes. But the typical juror doesn't know that. So > we tell them as part of witness qualification. But another way the > non-expert can judge the expert is to know that they have submitted > their qualifications to an independent review by an organization like > the ABC. One might disagree with the qualifications of a specific > organization like the ABC, ASCLD/LAB, or Crims-R-Us, but I think the > public is comfortable with the concept of using licensing, > certification, and accreditation to evaluate specialists that they > have to decide whether to trust. > > Rob Keister > Dear Rod: You're begging the question. No juror has any interest beyond the immediate case. They're not allowed to have one. Each criminalist stands alone during testimony on any given case and only their work on that case is open to evaluation. Yes, we state our qualifications, but they're for the judge, not the jury. I won't bore you with the judge's definition of "expert". When the judge accepts us as an expert we "are" and the jury has to accept that opinion, no questions. The fact that a criminalist may have done good work last week is beside the point. They have to account for the work on the specific case in question and that's what attorneys are paid to dig out. None of us are in a position to take the stand in a criminalist's place, not ABC or ASCLD-LAB or the even their own lab. This is why proficiency testing should be personal and individual, not corporate. Public "comfort" is not the issue. Valid analysis is. Mike Eyring [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 18 19:48:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJ0mXju005762 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:33 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <20031216222545.44232.qmail@web20503.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] New Topic Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:50:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 00:48:26.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFC776C0:01C3C5C9] 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 Tom: I take it this means that the backlog in DNA testing I've been reading about elsewhere for the past couple of years isn't a problem in Oakland? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: "Forensic Science Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:25 PM Subject: [forens] New Topic > Sorry to get off the intriguing and entertaining > pro/con CSI thread, but I'd like to query the group on > another issue that is actually real. Feel free to > contact me off-list at any of the contact info listed > below with your response. > > Background: > Under various penal code sections in California, a > felon possessing a weapon is liable to some > substantial penal exposure if it can be proven they > actually had it in their possession. Most DA offices > demand latent print processing of the firearm to lend > substance to other information (eyewitness, etc.) that > might be utilized to prosecute cases of this type. > The success rate for finding latent prints that can > later be used for an actual identification is pretty > low (less than 10% of the submitted firearms). > Additionally, processing these firearms for latent > prints prior to examining for IBIS or NIBIN is the > obvious sequence of steps that must be taken, yet (at > least in my opinion) the most important information > comes about from connections garnered via IBIS and > NIBIN. Therefore, processing these guns for potential > latent print evidence just slows up the possibility of > gathering critical information. I digress, so, anyway > . . . > > The Issue: > We are now seeing the beginning of another groundswell > of questionable analysis - specifically processing > weapons for the potential presence of biological > residue that might yield a DNA profile. The idea is > that this analysis would either yield a profile which > could be compared to the suspect in question (which > would obviously have to have a standard submitted), or > the profile could be searched against a database. I'm > aware that ATF has started a program doing this > routinely, using a privately-contracted DNA lab. > > My Questions: > (1) Does your forensic biology unit perform this type > of analysis? > (2) If no, then why not? > (3) If only on occasion, then what is the benchmark > that must be met so that DNA analysis is attemtped? > And then please give me the data for your success rate > (below). > (3) If yes (at any request), what type of data has > been developed regarding your success rate (e.g., 200 > guns processed, profiles developed on 10 with > subsequent successful prosecution)? > > Thanks, > Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor > Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory > 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 > Oakland, CA 94607 > > Phone - - 510.238.3386 > FAX - - 510.238.6555 > Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Dec 18 23:05:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJ45E8K009892 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:05:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: [forens] May I commend this paper to the group Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:06:24 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Budowle, B., Population studies on 17 STR loci routinely used in forensic cases. International Congress Series, 2003. 1239: p. 71-74. In it Bruce argues that small but non-zero values for Fst are appropriate. PDF available upon request. John Buckleton ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 11:45:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJGjXhA001911 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:45:33 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [208.143.23.141] X-Originating-Email: [das_smith@hotmail.com] X-Sender: das_smith@hotmail.com From: "David Smith" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] May I commend this paper to the group Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:23:08 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 12:23:09.0071 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCBB89F0:01C3C62A] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John, Please could you send me a pdf of this paper. Many thanks David Smith Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab, Dayton, Ohio >From: "Buckleton, John" >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >To: "'Forens-L'" >Subject: [forens] May I commend this paper to the group >Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:06:24 +1300 > >Budowle, B., Population studies on 17 STR loci routinely used in forensic >cases. International Congress Series, 2003. 1239: p. 71-74. > >In it Bruce argues that small but non-zero values for Fst are appropriate. >PDF available upon request. > >John Buckleton > > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or >privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be >read, >used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are >not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and >delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email >are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views >of >the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > >The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any >attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be >free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the >recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received >externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that >may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > >Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited >http://www.esr.cri.nz >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >[EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] _________________________________________________________________ It’s our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup [EndPost by "David Smith" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 11:54:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJGs5OQ002500 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:54:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE2F992.4FAE49FF@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:43:54 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Subject: [forens] From Anil - A few questions 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 Respected sir, A friend has asked me the following questions. Can you enlighten me on the correct answers please? Thanks. Q1. How long should a patient of splenic rupture take to be unconscious or die? Give me separate answers please each for (i) becoming unconscious (ii) dying. Q2. What is the maximum time beyond which he could not have survived with this damage? Minimum time? Q3. Can normal sized liver be injured by fist blows or kicks? Or it has to be enlarged before getting ruptured. If so can't intestines be injured by fist blows or kicks? Q 4. Could normal sized spleen rupture spontaneously? Q 5. Could only enlarged spleen rupture spontaneously? Q 6. Is non-traumatic rupture of spleen possible without enlargement? Q 7. Is it possible to differentiate non-traumatic rupture of spleen from the traumatic one? If yes, then what should be the basis? Q 8. If the ruptured spleen is bigger in size, more in weight and its cut surface is meaty in appearance. Will that be a rupture without trauma. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 14:21:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJJLuxs005823 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:21:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] May I commend this paper to the group Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:23:04 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 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 -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 1:23 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] May I commend this paper to the group John, Please could you send me a pdf of this paper. Many thanks David Smith Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab, Dayton, Ohio >From: "Buckleton, John" >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >To: "'Forens-L'" >Subject: [forens] May I commend this paper to the group >Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:06:24 +1300 > >Budowle, B., Population studies on 17 STR loci routinely used in forensic >cases. International Congress Series, 2003. 1239: p. 71-74. > >In it Bruce argues that small but non-zero values for Fst are appropriate. >PDF available upon request. > >John Buckleton > > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or >privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be >read, >used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are >not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and >delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email >are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views >of >the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > >The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any >attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be >free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the >recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received >externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that >may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > >Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited >http://www.esr.cri.nz >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >[EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] _________________________________________________________________ It's our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup [EndPost by "David Smith" ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/octet-stream --- [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 15:57:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJKvl3X008136 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:57:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Allen Miller To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:57:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob P., A comment from the GM of NIK Public Safety on your synopsis of field test kits: "This is without a doubt the best piece I've ever read concerning our product, how it is used, how to interpret the results... The best I can offer to Bob is that our Test U is essentially Simon's reagent. Sodium nitroprusside and sodium carbonate and acetaldehyde. It tests for secondary amines of which Methamphetamine and MDMA are the most commonly abused. Other secondary amines would test positive in U too. I'm not sure about the results in Q since it is not very specific at all. I wouldn't put much credence into that test. It is designed for use when Methamphetamine is suspected or when breaking down a meth lab since ephedrine is a precursor to meth production." Thank you for summing up our product line to the scientific community. Hopefully this information will fall into good hands as it travels this network. Allen Miller Technical Manager Armor Forensics Jacksonville, Fl. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Bob, No one can ID a drug from the results of field test reagents. These tests are only meant as screening aids to indicate the possible presence of a controlled substance, and provide probable cause for arrest and formal charges. NONE of them (and no combination of them) is specific for a single drug; they ALL will also react to other things and so produce "false positives" if thought of as testing for that drug alone (in fact, they are not false positives, because the tests are not supposed to be specific for just one drug - they are known to react to chemical groups that exist in multiple drugs, and a positive test correctly indicates that those groups are present - it just doesn't indicate one specific drug or class of drug, it could be other things as well). Field test results are presumptive only (tentative, preliminary), not definitive. Other NIK kits are known to contain standard reagents like Cobalt Thiocyanate (for cocaine) or Marquis (for opiates, amphetamines, and many other drugs), and since the "false positives" for these are known, various possibilities can be identified based on results; but since NIK does not identify the reagents in these two particular kits (referring to them as "specially formulated") there is no way to predict what other things they might react to. Obvious possibilities would include a single drug that gives both of those two results, or a mixture of drugs that each gives one of those two results. Beyond that, it's impossible to say without knowing what the actual chemical content of the test kits is, and I doubt NIK would tell us ("trade secret"). Your best bet is to call the lab and see if you can talk them into making your case a priority (you'll need a very good reason). Otherwise, you'll just have to wait for results from the lab. 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 Bob Kegel Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:01 PM To: Forensic Science List Subject: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug My department has recently encountered what initially appears to be methamphetamine. It turns the Nik U (methamphetamine) reagent a bright purple. It gives a cranberry red result with the Nik Q (ephedrine) test. We've sent samples to the state crime lab, of course, but an answer may be weeks away. Can anyone ID the substance from this description? LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA [EndPost by "Bob Kegel" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by Allen Miller ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 18:02:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJN2o47009875 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:02:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:06:07 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010701c3c684$af2f4800$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 23:02:46.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[37C00660:01C3C684] 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 Greg, No diatribe here, but would you consider some cogent thoughts? PTs are most assuredly NOT the "only way" of measuring a lab/analyst's competence, but they do offer a criterion not duplicated by any other method. If external, they can be completely impartial in both reality and appearance, above all partisan suspicions (important for court more than for science). They can have absolutely known correct answers (because the correct answer is determined prior to the test being given), unlike case review where the "correct" answer is a matter of peer opinion, not prior established fact. Case review has many of its own advantages (especially in eliminating "cheating" which is always possible in a PT); but unlike a PT, in case review the sample analyzed is of an unknown rather than a known, established nature. External PTs are simpler, easier and cheaper to conduct than external case review (case review on a routine, regular basis is really only practical in-house). Combined with other types of reviews and checks, PTs serve a useful function and complement the other types. They were never intended to stand alone. PTs cannot be "cut and dried" because casework isn't always cut and dried. Effective PTs should reflect both the breadth and depth of difficulty of casework, both routine and non-routine (by non-routine I mean simply unusual, not necessarily at cutting-edge or research-grade difficulty levels). Non-routine samples should allow a returned result of "inconclusive - beyond the lab/analyst's current capabilities" to be acceptable, provided the participant would issue the same result in a similar real case (but I admit I don't know how we could verify that). I do think knowing when you are in over your head and are not qualified to draw a conclusion, and being willing to candidly say so, is at least as important as being competent to do the vast majority of routine and non-routine work. Yes, if a PT demonstrates a significant problem in analysis, in that the correct answer cannot be reached or cannot be reached in an acceptably timely manner, and if it is an answer that you expect should be able to be reached, then you SHOULD suspend casework - because that's exactly what you would do if the same kind of failure happened in an actual case. That's the whole point of proficiency testing - to detect "quality" problems (ouch, I said the "Q" word - sorry). If a problem is discovered, it must be remediated before routine work continues. I think the basic cause of friction and consternation here is attitude. Analysts and managers must stop thinking of PTs and other accreditation/certification requirements as "detracting" from casework - they ARE casework, in that they support the quality (ouch, again) of casework. We don't think of ordering supplies, preparing reagents, maintaining and calibrating instruments, testifying in court, or continuing our educations as "detracting" from casework or as "time not well served," do we? (Ok, maybe some do, but that's both sad and dangerous). All those things are necessary parts of operating a forensic laboratory; without them, the casework can't be done, can't be done well, or would be done without value. They are all part of doing business, and doing it well and properly. We need to think of quality (ouch, last time) checks and requirements, including PTs and accreditation/certification standards, in exactly the same manner - as necessary parts of our jobs, routine parts of casework and lab operations, NOT as detractors from them. 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 Greg Laskowski Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; dkhey@ufl.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony David, No one in our jurisdiction has had an issue regarding proficiency tests in the courts. I believe that we pass them on a regular basis. The problem with the proficiency tests from the bench analyst position is that they feel that they take valuable time from case work particularly if the the test design is not straightforward. There are some instances where the design of the test or the integrity of the evidence due to packaging was suspect. Also, labs pay good money to participate in the tests, but the test providers do not supply sufficient control samples leaving it up to lab personnel to purchase test materials with their own funds. I feel that this is not what proficiency tests are designed to test. In some areas, the analyst must agonize over making a call that is inconclusive. This is time that is not well served particularly if there is a backlog of real cases. Proficiency tests must be cut and dried and easily reviewable. If the peer reviewer or technical re! viewer is having difficulty with a particular test, then was wait for input from the referee lab. Do you suspend casework at this point because the proficiency test has become so all important. In reviewing some of the response from others in this forum, one would think the world must stop because a proficiency test was not completed in terms of a very narrow view. I am sure this post will generated the usual diatribe that justice is not served without proficiency tests, and that this is a quality issue and it is the only way of measuring a laboratory's or analysts competence, etc., etc. Because of accreditation and certification, there is a fear among analysts of whether they should speak out. They grumble and continue to do their jobs feeling the issue has been already decided, which well be the case, but that might say something about why there are so few people applying for certification. There is the cost involved. Many analysts belong to a variety of professional organizations and that membership used and still should mean something. They have to pay dues to those organizations, and some had fairly stringent membership criteria. What is the sense in paying dues to another organization that essentially was supposed support what the organizations originally stood for? there are many, who feel that they are under the control ! of the laboratory's accrediting body. The initial accreditation was supposed to demonstrate the laboratory's competence and demonstration to the adherence of a philosophy. Now that accrediting body wants to swerve into a more universal, more stringent accreditation system. It simply means more paperwork and more time and resources taken away from the lab mission. Really, the only people concerned about these issues are those that promote these systems, and the lawyers, only when it fits their agenda. One can see it in the courtroom when the lab analyst comes in with the certified initial s behind their name to testify about the small part they played in analyzing a piece of evidence from a case, then the academic comes in with the advanced degree offered by opposing counsel and can opine ad infinitum. I am not questioning the legitimacy of certification or accreditation, but I think the honesty, the veracity of the everyday analyst is going to be questioned whether they are certified or not. That is the nature of the system. That person's results, when offered at trial should be questioned honestly and openly. Was good science applied to that test? Is there dat to support the conclusions? Is the result correct or interpretable. Can a peer review the test or duplicate the test? Isn't that more important than passing one proficiency test, which may or may not be properly conceived, prepared and distributed? Just some food for thought. 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 >>> dkhey@ufl.edu 12/8/2003 4:36:54 PM >>> List, Has anyone been thrown out of court due to a past proficiency test or know of a case in which this occurred? I am trying to get a handle on how much prominence this problem has on why proficiency testing is not popular with some individuals. Is this an forensic "urban legend"? And off the list, can someone please give me a crash course on the use/prominence of proficiency testing in your local labs if you had a few seconds? Is it about right that 2/3rds of labs run tests on their personnel? Thanks for letting me continue to pick your collective brains! Dave Khey ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] 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" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 18:09:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJN9CFx010288 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:09:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:12:32 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010801c3c685$9479dbf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 23:09:11.0669 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D0A9A50:01C3C685] 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 "Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the testimony." I'm afraid that's not terribly reassuring, given that judges are poorly equipped to evaluate expert testimony in the sciences, as they lack the scientific background themselves to separate legitimate science from "junk" science. They are sometimes as easily bamboozled as juries are. Hence, much "junk" testimony is allowed in, and some legitimate science is excluded. I think the biggest fallacy in the entire Frye/Daubert process is the assumption that the average judge has been provided with the tools he or she needs to be a competent "gatekeeper." Our judges do they best they can, but a law degree is poor preparation for evaluating scientific testimony no matter how talented the judge. A clever and ingratiating "scientist" (legitimate or faux) can pull the wool over many of their eyes very easily if unopposed by another scientist. Unless they order an evidentiary hearing that includes the testimony of other experts to opine on the expert testimony offered for trial (as in a full-blown Frye or Daubert hearing), judges are on their own in foreign territory. At least in an evidentiary hearing they can seek some germane professional guidance, hopefully from disinterested outside experts called by the court rather than by the adversaries; then compare the weight of professional opinion pro and con regarding the proposed testimony; and then go with the majority, hoping it is correct. Of course, once admissibility is decided, the game starts all over again with the jury, who are faced with the same task of evaluating testimony on subject matter they are largely if not wholly ignorant of (i.e., science). When both sides offer contradictory expert testimony from skilled witnesses (skilled in testifying, not necessarily in their area of supposed expertise), it all too frequently is reduced to a "he says, she says" situation, with both experts ultimately ignored because the jury doesn't know who to believe. Once again, this is an area where independent external credentialing (accreditation, certification, standardization, proficiency testing/performance evaluation, etc.) can be helpful to the lay juror and jurist alike in evaluating expert testimony credibility - not a panacea of course, but of assistance. I think this is the one basic flaw in an adversarial system utilizing juries drawn from the general public. The jurors are unlikely to all actually be "peers" of the defendant in any meaningful way ("peer" means a person who has equal standing with another, as in rank, class, or age, not simply in citizenry), and are not well prepared to evaluate technical testimony or the games lawyers play. Smoke easily gets in their eyes, keeping them from seeing clearly, because they don't have a pair of goggles (an appropriate education) to see through the smoke. I believe that judges and juries do a fine job in most cases, and I have the utmost respect for all of them, but I can't help thinking there should be a way to better prepare them for the jobs we ask them to do. Perhaps courts should have their own set of retained certified experts to counsel them regarding technical testimony, and perhaps "juror" should be a profession, with professional jurors receiving training in law, science, and whatever else is needed to separate the wheat from the chaff in the courtroom. I know, the latter is contrary to our tradition of "jury of your peers," but I again doubt that any given jury can really be "peers" of the person they judge, since they won't all have even remotely similar backgrounds to that of the defendant. How many of us are aware that the phrase "jury of peers" originally referred to a jury composed entirely of titled noblemen [AKA members of the British "peerage"], because when the jury system was first instituted in English law, only noblemen were entitled to it? It was literally intended to mean a jury composed of people (men, actually) from the same privileged background as the defendant (i.e., fellow aristocrats). Only later, when trial by jury was extended to common people as well, did it evolve to mean "a cross section of society," which is far from the definition of even the modern word "peer." I also know such changes to our system are extremely unlikely to ever happen (financial cost, practicality, resistance to philosophical change) - but I can pipe dream, can't I? [Brace yourselves for a possible torrent of outraged writers who shrilly proclaim that such a system would be a nightmare, for this or that reason, imagining all sorts of possible (if improbable) negative consequences, yada, yada, yada - but no such system has ever been tried that I know of, so how can we know it wouldn't work? Just because it's long been the way it is (and the way it is currently is arguably the best way that's ever been tried) doesn't mean there isn't a still better way not tried before. OK, I've got my body armor on, I'm ready - fire away!] 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 Greg Laskowski Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:45 PM To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Lynn, It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to that specific organization. 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 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll be studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Shaun, Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to what agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are "analysts" who easily slip through that process. Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] 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" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 18:10:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJNAia9010577 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:10:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Re: tobacco testing Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:14:03 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010901c3c685$cb205670$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <128.371df22a.2d0896c0@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 23:10:43.0357 (UTC) FILETIME=[53B114D0:01C3C685] 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, Since nicotine is an alkaloidal toxin, any spot test for alkaloids will react. For example, nicotine salicylate yields a positive cobalt thiocyanate test. In addition there are a variety of screening tests, including commercially manufactured home-use kits, for the detection of continine, the major metabolite of nicotine, in urine. Here's one: http://www.drugtestpurchases.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/44 Reportedly, Toxi-Lab A will also presumptively ID nicotine. 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 WMorris400@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:33 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Re: tobacco testing Does anyone know of a color test for nicotine/tobacco. Thank you. Wayne Morris [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 18:14:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBJNErOE011122 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:14:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:18:13 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010a01c3c686$6048b1c0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20031210194915.23183.qmail@web60210.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 23:14:53.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8DA3370:01C3C685] 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 Here's my standard advice to students wanting to enter this field: "You basically need a 4-year degree (bachelor of science) in a physical or natural science. Chemistry, biology, and forensic science, in that order of preference, are the degrees most desired by crime lab directors for prospective employees. For some specialties (e.g., toxicology) a graduate degree will be preferred but not required, and for others at least some graduate credit will be required (e.g., for a DNA supervisory position, you will need graduate credits in molecular biology and population genetics/statistics). Your studies should emphasize physical and natural science, not criminal justice, law enforcement, sociology or psychology (the latter have little to do with forensic science). Your programmed course of study should be crammed with science and math, then more science, and then still more science, with only a small amount of criminal justice, etc. It should include at least a full year each (lectures and labs) of inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and human biology, to begin with. For a well-rounded general science education, you should also take biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, statistics, analytical chemistry, basic physics, and of course college math (algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and at least an introduction to differential and integral calculus). This background will provide you with many options in forensic lab work. If you have specific interests then you could tailor your studies more specifically, but this will limit the specialties you will be qualified to enter as a trainee. Analytical chemistry is needed for drug analysis, fire debris analysis, trace evidence analysis, toxicology, and document examination; biochemistry for toxicology; molecular biology, genetics, and statistics for DNA analysis; and physics for ballistics and blood spatter (both deal with the behavior of objects in flight, which involves physics). Physics knowledge also has some utility in firearms examination (which is not the same thing as ballistics), but is not required. No specific science classes are mandated for firearms/toolmarks, latent prints, or handwriting examination, but increasingly labs are requiring a bachelor's degree for these specialties too, and science degrees are preferred. Basic statistics would be useful for any forensic science specialty, and a knowledge of light microscopy is essential for all. I have not addressed those forensic fields which are not usually found in crime labs, e.g., forensic odontology, pathology, psychology, psychiatry, entomology, anthropology, etc. These fields require degrees in the basic root science, plus additional training that allows the application of that science to forensic matters. Most of these require advanced graduate degrees, typically an MD or PhD. For example, to become a forensic odontologist, you would first become a Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) and then obtain additional training in forensic odontology; to become a forensic anthropologist, you'd get a PhD in physical anthropology and then get training in forensic anthropology; to become a forensic pathologist, you'd get an MD degree, then complete a residency in anatomical pathology, then another in forensic pathology (about 12-14 years' worth of study post-high school). For a quick overview of the forensic science profession, check out the American Academy of Forensic Science's career page here: http://www.aafs.org/?section_id=resources&page_id=choosing_a_career" I hope this is of help to you. 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 Keli Masten Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:49 PM To: List Subject: [forens] Education Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 19 23:08:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBK48JAe013671 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:08:19 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:06:15 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPGhdOh61/o+OlaQ7OQ+VxrR6yVJgAHHpRQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <010a01c3c686$6048b1c0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Your description sounds very much like the combination of courses which I am just completing. I had to attend a different Uni for forensics because the forensics module included in the criminology/CJA/forensics course didn't appear to cover enough for my liking. I was happy to just focus on CSI but was convinced by my lecturer, and others, to focus my thesis on a specific area of CSI. So I've decided on bloodstain pattern. Also I wanted to complete criminology and criminal justice (psychology is included in CJA, as well as management, research, ethics, interviewing and reporting, drug related crime, international policing which I am doing this first semester. I've completed corrections, criminal intelligence (the oxymoron course is what I call THAT one), crime and IT, police studies, criminology theory, contemporary criminology, sociology, various research methods, half of a DNA course and two internships. (I know I've left some out but can't thinkwhat they are!). I was going to do one in the coroner's court but don't really want to get into the court system so decided to do a thesis instead. The other internship,hopefully and if I am lucky enough, I will get to do with Los Angeles PD CSU in 2005. Some of the maths that are required in forensics, I can't even pronounce! And the physics etc, but overall I'd say the courses I am completing next year are similar to the ones you outlined. I may have forgotten some - oh, yes, we had to do criminal law for one semester. I've enjoyed every single one of these subjects (except for research - all that blasted chi-square and Pearson corelation crap nearly did me in! I am a student member of the AAFS and when all this studying is finished - yikes, what do I do then? I'll miss the nervous breakdowns, the time lines for assignments, racing all around Melbourne looking for books, new, used or from a library.) So I can bet right now that I sign up to continue with my Masters. It's strange, Bob, but I hadn't studied anything in years and years and enjoyed my weekends and camping trips etc., everyone around for Christmas and all that, but now, if I'm not studying something I'll hunt around and do summer intensives because I'm bored. I love writing assignments. It's about the only thing I'm good at!! So it seems that should I decide to work in your country, I will have at least studied all the same subjects. We have to do eight, what you refer to as specialties, but we call electives though I don't mind. Some of our courses are available online through the University but I prefer face to face studies myself. I still try to include at least one elective online course each semester. This semester they have included a new topic (well new to the RMIT requirements!) and it's International Terrorism. When I had to do criminal intelligence and strategic intelligence, I chose to write on military intelligence (another oxymoron).. Thanks for all that info onyour courses. It's been very informative. Merry Christmas and a safe 2004 to all concerned with this listing. I'm having the usual five weeks off over Christmas/New Year.Most people in Australia have their annual holidays at Christmas as we are allowed four weeks per year with pay and I usually visit my sister in Los Angeles but I'm not doing that until June or July this year. Take care all Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Saturday, 20 December 2003 10:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Here's my standard advice to students wanting to enter this field: "You basically need a 4-year degree (bachelor of science) in a physical or natural science. Chemistry, biology, and forensic science, in that order of preference, are the degrees most desired by crime lab directors for prospective employees. For some specialties (e.g., toxicology) a graduate degree will be preferred but not required, and for others at least some graduate credit will be required (e.g., for a DNA supervisory position, you will need graduate credits in molecular biology and population genetics/statistics). Your studies should emphasize physical and natural science, not criminal justice, law enforcement, sociology or psychology (the latter have little to do with forensic science). Your programmed course of study should be crammed with science and math, then more science, and then still more science, with only a small amount of criminal justice, etc. It should include at least a full year each (lectures and labs) of inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and human biology, to begin with. For a well-rounded general science education, you should also take biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, statistics, analytical chemistry, basic physics, and of course college math (algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and at least an introduction to differential and integral calculus). This background will provide you with many options in forensic lab work. If you have specific interests then you could tailor your studies more specifically, but this will limit the specialties you will be qualified to enter as a trainee. Analytical chemistry is needed for drug analysis, fire debris analysis, trace evidence analysis, toxicology, and document examination; biochemistry for toxicology; molecular biology, genetics, and statistics for DNA analysis; and physics for ballistics and blood spatter (both deal with the behavior of objects in flight, which involves physics). Physics knowledge also has some utility in firearms examination (which is not the same thing as ballistics), but is not required. No specific science classes are mandated for firearms/toolmarks, latent prints, or handwriting examination, but increasingly labs are requiring a bachelor's degree for these specialties too, and science degrees are preferred. Basic statistics would be useful for any forensic science specialty, and a knowledge of light microscopy is essential for all. I have not addressed those forensic fields which are not usually found in crime labs, e.g., forensic odontology, pathology, psychology, psychiatry, entomology, anthropology, etc. These fields require degrees in the basic root science, plus additional training that allows the application of that science to forensic matters. Most of these require advanced graduate degrees, typically an MD or PhD. For example, to become a forensic odontologist, you would first become a Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) and then obtain additional training in forensic odontology; to become a forensic anthropologist, you'd get a PhD in physical anthropology and then get training in forensic anthropology; to become a forensic pathologist, you'd get an MD degree, then complete a residency in anatomical pathology, then another in forensic pathology (about 12-14 years' worth of study post-high school). For a quick overview of the forensic science profession, check out the American Academy of Forensic Science's career page here: http://www.aafs.org/?section_id=resources&page_id=choosing_a_career" I hope this is of help to you. 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 Keli Masten Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:49 PM To: List Subject: [forens] Education Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Keli Masten ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 01:54:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBK6sSGd015423 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:54:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006101c3c6c6$16735fb0$6400a8c0@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <010801c3c685$9479dbf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:54:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 "Perhaps courts should have their own set of retained certified experts to counsel them regarding technical testimony, and perhaps "juror" should be a profession, with professional jurors receiving training in law, science, and whatever else is needed to separate the wheat from the chaff in the courtroom." Pipe dreams, indeed! But I like it. Perhaps a more viable option would be to require the scientific basics coupled with Evidence in law school curricula. I stress REQUIRE because I am sure not too many of these folks will be rushing to take these courses. But, yes... there should be some source on the law side that can make the gatekeeper function of the courts a bit easier. Perhaps that is why Frye still reigns in many courts... judging evidentiary pertinence/admissibility by assessing acceptance in the field is not such an overburdening task. Time for some continuing ed? Have a good weekend, all Dave Khey David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > "Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the > testimony." > > I'm afraid that's not terribly reassuring, given that judges are poorly > equipped to evaluate expert testimony in the sciences, as they lack the > scientific background themselves to separate legitimate science from > "junk" science. They are sometimes as easily bamboozled as juries are. > Hence, much "junk" testimony is allowed in, and some legitimate science > is excluded. I think the biggest fallacy in the entire Frye/Daubert > process is the assumption that the average judge has been provided with > the tools he or she needs to be a competent "gatekeeper." Our judges do > they best they can, but a law degree is poor preparation for evaluating > scientific testimony no matter how talented the judge. A clever and > ingratiating "scientist" (legitimate or faux) can pull the wool over > many of their eyes very easily if unopposed by another scientist. > Unless they order an evidentiary hearing that includes the testimony of > other experts to opine on the expert testimony offered for trial (as in > a full-blown Frye or Daubert hearing), judges are on their own in > foreign territory. At least in an evidentiary hearing they can seek > some germane professional guidance, hopefully from disinterested outside > experts called by the court rather than by the adversaries; then compare > the weight of professional opinion pro and con regarding the proposed > testimony; and then go with the majority, hoping it is correct. > > Of course, once admissibility is decided, the game starts all over again > with the jury, who are faced with the same task of evaluating testimony > on subject matter they are largely if not wholly ignorant of (i.e., > science). When both sides offer contradictory expert testimony from > skilled witnesses (skilled in testifying, not necessarily in their area > of supposed expertise), it all too frequently is reduced to a "he says, > she says" situation, with both experts ultimately ignored because the > jury doesn't know who to believe. Once again, this is an area where > independent external credentialing (accreditation, certification, > standardization, proficiency testing/performance evaluation, etc.) can > be helpful to the lay juror and jurist alike in evaluating expert > testimony credibility - not a panacea of course, but of assistance. I > think this is the one basic flaw in an adversarial system utilizing > juries drawn from the general public. The jurors are unlikely to all > actually be "peers" of the defendant in any meaningful way ("peer" means > a person who has equal standing with another, as in rank, class, or age, > not simply in citizenry), and are not well prepared to evaluate > technical testimony or the games lawyers play. Smoke easily gets in > their eyes, keeping them from seeing clearly, because they don't have a > pair of goggles (an appropriate education) to see through the smoke. > > I believe that judges and juries do a fine job in most cases, and I have > the utmost respect for all of them, but I can't help thinking there > should be a way to better prepare them for the jobs we ask them to do. > Perhaps courts should have their own set of retained certified experts > to counsel them regarding technical testimony, and perhaps "juror" > should be a profession, with professional jurors receiving training in > law, science, and whatever else is needed to separate the wheat from the > chaff in the courtroom. > > I know, the latter is contrary to our tradition of "jury of your peers," > but I again doubt that any given jury can really be "peers" of the > person they judge, since they won't all have even remotely similar > backgrounds to that of the defendant. How many of us are aware that the > phrase "jury of peers" originally referred to a jury composed entirely > of titled noblemen [AKA members of the British "peerage"], because when > the jury system was first instituted in English law, only noblemen were > entitled to it? It was literally intended to mean a jury composed of > people (men, actually) from the same privileged background as the > defendant (i.e., fellow aristocrats). Only later, when trial by jury > was extended to common people as well, did it evolve to mean "a cross > section of society," which is far from the definition of even the modern > word "peer." > > I also know such changes to our system are extremely unlikely to ever > happen (financial cost, practicality, resistance to philosophical > change) - but I can pipe dream, can't I? > > [Brace yourselves for a possible torrent of outraged writers who shrilly > proclaim that such a system would be a nightmare, for this or that > reason, imagining all sorts of possible (if improbable) negative > consequences, yada, yada, yada - but no such system has ever been tried > that I know of, so how can we know it wouldn't work? Just because it's > long been the way it is (and the way it is currently is arguably the > best way that's ever been tried) doesn't mean there isn't a still better > way not tried before. OK, I've got my body armor on, I'm ready - fire > away!] > > 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 Greg Laskowski > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:45 PM > To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > > Lynn, > > It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb > McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and > were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we > were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to > offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, > I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and > crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those > individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your > jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the > scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. > While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, > there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to > that specific organization. > > 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 > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> > Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll > be > studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. > > Regards > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > > Shaun, > > Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to > what > agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing > bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. > Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are > "analysts" > who easily slip through that process. > > Jeff > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > 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" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 04:07:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBK97Z9n016947 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:07:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:05:50 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] A tip of the hat X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031220110233.01b4e6d0@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hello to old colleagues and hopefully some new ones. I have just rejoined the forens list, and look forward to learning and participating here. Now I will go sit and watch for awhile before I start putting my foot in my mouth. :*)> Happy Holidays to all, from where it all happened about 2K years ago. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 08:04:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBKD4Zr5018681 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:04:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2D2CD87071F9FD4194390846164EB54F03A8EE@exch004.westchestergov.com> From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditat ion requirements Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:04:28 -0500 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 think this should be easily possible. The point that has not been brought out in this discussion is the fact that ASCLD/LAB does not require that every case undergo a peer review. In fact ASCLD/LAB feels that 100% technical review is not desirable, lest this might result in shifting the responsibility from an analyst to a peer/technical reviewer. Therefore, a perfectly acceptable policy in an ASCLD/LAB accredited Lab policy can be " to technically review ---% of the cases, but not proficiencies ". An administrative review however cannot be waived ( but it doesn't towards accuracy of results anyway ). The above are my views as an individual and not as a representative of any organization. Bharat Lakhkar D-ABC -----Original Message----- From: John Lentini [mailto:johnlentini@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:58 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements I have been known to disagree with Bob in the past, but I think he's on to something here. --- Robert Parsons wrote: > As I said before, a single PT can still serve > both purposes if the > results are submitted to the external provider > without review, but are > then reviewed prior to the publishing of > manufacturer's information or > test results by the test provider. This way > there can be no question > about labs "hiding" the PT failures of their > analysts. If the analyst > gets the right answer, the requirements of both > certification and > accreditation are satisfied. If the analyst > gets the wrong answer on > his/her own, but the lab's review process > catches and corrects the > error, then the PT would be reported as a > failure to the certifying > body, but as a success to the accrediting body > (ASCLD-LAB). If the > review process fails to catch the error, then > it would be a failure for > both certification and accreditation purposes. > > How does that sound? Anyone see any problems > with it? > ===== 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 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Lakhkar, Bharat" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 14:21:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBKJLiNO021870 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:21:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE49F06.BC3D360F@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:42:06 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Subject: [forens] Bone ashes - How long can they be preserved 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 Sir, A friend has asked me the following question. Would you please be kind enough to provide me with an answer. Thanks. ************ Hi Anil, A question for the expert. A friend of mine has lost his mother yesterday and wants to keep her ashes / ?? bone remnants in an urn as a memory. He wants to know if it is hygenic and what can be done to preserve these. Cd u let me know asap? Thanks. Dr. Sanjay Chugh Senior Consultant Neuropsychiatrist ************ Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 22:40:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBL3eseL025808 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:40:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <019e01c3c774$69965720$985f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031220110233.01b4e6d0@mail.netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: [forens] A tip of the hat Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:42:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Welcome back. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Azriel Gorski" Hello to old colleagues and hopefully some new ones. I have just rejoined the forens list, and look forward to learning and participating here. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 23:12:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBL4Cg42026441 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:12:42 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] A tip of the hat Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:11:53 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPHdIbo2QSAMsbySKWjp6gSX5sUJgAAwiTQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <019e01c3c774$69965720$985f12d0@dwhause> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Welcome Azriel. Or I should say welcome BACK! I love to hear about new members so I can. What a wonderful place to live at this time of the year, I've never been to Jerusalem but I imagine it would be a fascinating place. I'm in Australia and if I can help you with anything or if I can ask you for help with anything, that would be wonderful.! Shalom and happy Hanukkah! Take care and greeting from Australia! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Hause Sent: Sunday, 21 December 2003 2:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] A tip of the hat Welcome back. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Azriel Gorski" Hello to old colleagues and hopefully some new ones. I have just rejoined the forens list, and look forward to learning and participating here. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 20 23:16:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBL4GmqF026794 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:16:48 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] A tip of the hat Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:15:07 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPG2NZ5wGCTQTkRQhS0VPSbe8h+BQAn+BGQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031220110233.01b4e6d0@mail.netvision.net.il> Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Seems I forgot to finish the first sentence in my last email and I wouldn't have a clue what I was on about. Blasted phones! If you want to write, please write via my private email as it isn't really a good ideal to write via the listing. My email address is lynncoceani@connexus.net.au Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Azriel Gorski Sent: Saturday, 20 December 2003 8:06 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] A tip of the hat Hello to old colleagues and hopefully some new ones. I have just rejoined the forens list, and look forward to learning and participating here. Now I will go sit and watch for awhile before I start putting my foot in my mouth. :*)> Happy Holidays to all, from where it all happened about 2K years ago. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 03:39:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBM8d0em008567 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:39:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:39:30 -0000 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 V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <006101c3c6c6$16735fb0$6400a8c0@davelaptop> 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 FWIW; The island of Guernsey, not strictly part of the United Kingdom, has a somewhat different system of law, much more influenced by Norman law than the rest of the UK now has. They have a panel of "professional" jurors, known as Jurats, elected by the parishes. There are relatively few of them, less than 20 from memory. They tend to be the great and the good of the Island, to listen very carefully to the evidence and ask awkward questions of expert witnesses and to have a high conviction rate. Being elected a Jurat is a singular honour. The function is real and not at all ceremonial. Robert Forrest -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: 20 December 2003 06:54 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis "Perhaps courts should have their own set of retained certified experts to counsel them regarding technical testimony, and perhaps "juror" should be a profession, with professional jurors receiving training in law, science, and whatever else is needed to separate the wheat from the chaff in the courtroom." Pipe dreams, indeed! But I like it. Perhaps a more viable option would be to require the scientific basics coupled with Evidence in law school curricula. I stress REQUIRE because I am sure not too many of these folks will be rushing to take these courses. But, yes... there should be some source on the law side that can make the gatekeeper function of the courts a bit easier. Perhaps that is why Frye still reigns in many courts... judging evidentiary pertinence/admissibility by assessing acceptance in the field is not such an overburdening task. Time for some continuing ed? Have a good weekend, all Dave Khey David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:12 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > "Again, the court will decide who an expert is and will oversee the > testimony." > > I'm afraid that's not terribly reassuring, given that judges are poorly > equipped to evaluate expert testimony in the sciences, as they lack the > scientific background themselves to separate legitimate science from > "junk" science. They are sometimes as easily bamboozled as juries are. > Hence, much "junk" testimony is allowed in, and some legitimate science > is excluded. I think the biggest fallacy in the entire Frye/Daubert > process is the assumption that the average judge has been provided with > the tools he or she needs to be a competent "gatekeeper." Our judges do > they best they can, but a law degree is poor preparation for evaluating > scientific testimony no matter how talented the judge. A clever and > ingratiating "scientist" (legitimate or faux) can pull the wool over > many of their eyes very easily if unopposed by another scientist. > Unless they order an evidentiary hearing that includes the testimony of > other experts to opine on the expert testimony offered for trial (as in > a full-blown Frye or Daubert hearing), judges are on their own in > foreign territory. At least in an evidentiary hearing they can seek > some germane professional guidance, hopefully from disinterested outside > experts called by the court rather than by the adversaries; then compare > the weight of professional opinion pro and con regarding the proposed > testimony; and then go with the majority, hoping it is correct. > > Of course, once admissibility is decided, the game starts all over again > with the jury, who are faced with the same task of evaluating testimony > on subject matter they are largely if not wholly ignorant of (i.e., > science). When both sides offer contradictory expert testimony from > skilled witnesses (skilled in testifying, not necessarily in their area > of supposed expertise), it all too frequently is reduced to a "he says, > she says" situation, with both experts ultimately ignored because the > jury doesn't know who to believe. Once again, this is an area where > independent external credentialing (accreditation, certification, > standardization, proficiency testing/performance evaluation, etc.) can > be helpful to the lay juror and jurist alike in evaluating expert > testimony credibility - not a panacea of course, but of assistance. I > think this is the one basic flaw in an adversarial system utilizing > juries drawn from the general public. The jurors are unlikely to all > actually be "peers" of the defendant in any meaningful way ("peer" means > a person who has equal standing with another, as in rank, class, or age, > not simply in citizenry), and are not well prepared to evaluate > technical testimony or the games lawyers play. Smoke easily gets in > their eyes, keeping them from seeing clearly, because they don't have a > pair of goggles (an appropriate education) to see through the smoke. > > I believe that judges and juries do a fine job in most cases, and I have > the utmost respect for all of them, but I can't help thinking there > should be a way to better prepare them for the jobs we ask them to do. > Perhaps courts should have their own set of retained certified experts > to counsel them regarding technical testimony, and perhaps "juror" > should be a profession, with professional jurors receiving training in > law, science, and whatever else is needed to separate the wheat from the > chaff in the courtroom. > > I know, the latter is contrary to our tradition of "jury of your peers," > but I again doubt that any given jury can really be "peers" of the > person they judge, since they won't all have even remotely similar > backgrounds to that of the defendant. How many of us are aware that the > phrase "jury of peers" originally referred to a jury composed entirely > of titled noblemen [AKA members of the British "peerage"], because when > the jury system was first instituted in English law, only noblemen were > entitled to it? It was literally intended to mean a jury composed of > people (men, actually) from the same privileged background as the > defendant (i.e., fellow aristocrats). Only later, when trial by jury > was extended to common people as well, did it evolve to mean "a cross > section of society," which is far from the definition of even the modern > word "peer." > > I also know such changes to our system are extremely unlikely to ever > happen (financial cost, practicality, resistance to philosophical > change) - but I can pipe dream, can't I? > > [Brace yourselves for a possible torrent of outraged writers who shrilly > proclaim that such a system would be a nightmare, for this or that > reason, imagining all sorts of possible (if improbable) negative > consequences, yada, yada, yada - but no such system has ever been tried > that I know of, so how can we know it wouldn't work? Just because it's > long been the way it is (and the way it is currently is arguably the > best way that's ever been tried) doesn't mean there isn't a still better > way not tried before. OK, I've got my body armor on, I'm ready - fire > away!] > > 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 Greg Laskowski > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:45 PM > To: lynncoceani@connexus.net.au; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > > Lynn, > > It is a good question. Historically, those of us who took Herb > McDonell's one week course then went back to our own laboratories and > were supposed to do our own experimenting. He gave us the basics and we > were to do the rest. Eventually, other individuals or groups began to > offer basic classes and advanced classes, but that was about it. Today, > I see individuals offer in classes, most are retired law enforcement and > crime lab workers. Some are good, some not so good. There are those > individuals that make good presentations, but then show up in your > jurisdiction having done a minimum amount of work, not even visiting the > scene and offer their service to what ever counsel will hire them. > While the IAI does offer Bloodstain Patter Recognition certification, > there are many in law enforcement and forensics that don't belong to > that specific organization. > > 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 > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/9/2003 1:12:23 PM >>> > Good question, Jeff. I'm still waiting to hear the answer as well. I'll > be > studying bloodstain pattern analysis for the whole of next year. > > Regards > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Gunis77@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:55 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Qualifications for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis > > Shaun, > > Actually, the question was meant to be nebulous. I am curious as to > what > agencies perceive to be a bloodstain pattern analyst or someone doing > bloodstain pattern interpretation and what qualifies them to be such. > Forget the court ramifications, as you and I both know there are > "analysts" > who easily slip through that process. > > Jeff > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 5/12/2003 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > 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" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 11:00:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMG0p1S012272 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:00:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CEC@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:00:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBMG0oCp012267 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 Interestingly, I was asked by my supervisor to ask the same question! 1) Are statements regarding possible cross-reactivity of the test included in descriptions of results in reports? In testimony? If so, are these statements based upon literature citations only, upon internal validation studies only, or upon a combination of the two? The cross-reactivity is listed out in our protocol and lists all of the animals which we found the HemaTrace to cross react with, which included some higher primates, ferret, and the other members of the weasel genus that we tested. Our protocol reads "The HemaTrace validation study examined the sensitivity of the test to a variety of animals. Our data demonstrates that HemaTrace cross reacts with members of the genus Mustela, including Long-tailed weasel, Domestic Ferret, American mink and Steppe polecat. Considering the rare occurrence of encountering these bloods at a crime scene, HemaTraceä is considered a reliable confirmatory test for human blood in forensic samples." We do not report this cross-reactivity, but it can come out in testimony. We use our own internal validation as a reference. 2) Are analysts permitted to report & testify to conclusions of human blood based on the ABA-card test, if there is there is sufficient investigative information that would indicate no known association of ferret or primate pets with the case? If so, what documentation is considered to be sufficient, and how is this reported? Yes 3) Are labs utilizing any ferret-specific antibody tests as a follow-up to the ABA-card test, to eliminate the stain as being ferret blood. No. 4) If the ABA-card positive stain is subsequently DNA tested, and it gives a human DNA profile, will the DNA analyst then conclude that human blood was present? Yes, if the analyst is the one who did the Hematrace. We have two sections doing the test. Depending on the sample, it will go to one or the other. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 11:43:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMGhPGT013292 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:43:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CEE@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] New Topic Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:42:48 -0500 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 (1) Does your forensic biology unit perform this type of analysis? In our laboratory the Forensic Chemistry Section and the Latent Print Section will swab 'handled' items for the presence of potential DNA evidence. As far as guns go, I think the LP section generally does the swabbing as they are processing for prints. They will swab the the most logical areas for potential handling. They will also swab areas where there are latent impressions that are not suitable for further comparisons. The laboratory prioritizes crimes based on type and severity of the crime. Currently we do not turn away casework as long as it is a part of a criminal investigation. However, the burglary of Mom-n-Pop Grocery probably isn't going to get done all that quickly because of backlog and time constraints. The DNA backlog reduction grant has helped to move those cases which could potentially produce DNA profiles further to the top of the pile, especially in LP which has its own substantial backlog. (3) If yes (at any request), what type of data has been developed regarding your success rate (e.g., 200 guns processed, profiles developed on 10 with subsequent successful prosecution)? An informal poll of the DNA section says that they get very poor results from firearms. They have had good success on other weapons and burglary tools with successful results ("beautiful profiles") approximately 30-40% of the time. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 16:11:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMLBZQP017947 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:11:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031222211128.39528.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:11:28 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: [forens] A DNA statistics question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CEE@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> 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 We are working a case in which the bodies of two infants were found approximately 1 year apart, in the same rural area. On body was found in a pond; the other was found some distance from the pond. The investigating police department has submitted the standard of a woman who they suspect is the biological mother of both infants. There is no standard from any alleged father, although the police suspect that the same man is the father of both children. Comparison of the alleged mother to each infant fails to exclude her as the biological mother, and we are therefore concluding that she is a possible biological mother of each of the children individually, and both children together. The question is, what is the most appropriate statistic to report for this match. If there was a single child, we would report a random match probability based upon the set of genotypes that would not be excluded as being the biological mother. However, since there are two children, a LR approach seems more appropriate, where: Hp=the alleged mother is the mother of the two children. Hd=an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #1 and an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #2 (so no assumption of a sibling relationship for the infants, and no assumption of a common mother for the two infants). At each locus, the numerator of the LR would be based on segregation probabilities similar to a standard parentage calculation (except with only one parent). The denominator at each locus would be the product of the random match probabilities for the two children (i.e., the probability that a randomly selected woman would not be excluded as being the biological mother of both children). Is this how other labs would handle this problem? If you have encountered a similar type of case, and have approached it in the same way or a different way, I would be interested in hearing from you. Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 16:54:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMLsTSH019060 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:54:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE7680A.1040500@syr.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:54:18 -0500 From: "William M. 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] A DNA statistics question References: <20031222211128.39528.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031222211128.39528.qmail@web14708.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 Your method is on the right track. You could also run an LR about the two infants being full or half siblings versus their being unrelated. This would provide greater probative value about your hypotheses. You could also do each infant singly and use standard parentage LR's for each. Here it would be the suspect's likelihood divided by random female as mother. Since the two infants could be independent events- this is more conservative than your method but makes fewer assumptions that could be challenged. [EndPost by "William M. Shields" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 17:44:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMMiKXb020436 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:44:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:47:42 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <002b01c3c8dd$9bdc0080$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 22:44:19.0427 (UTC) FILETIME=[22D5CB30:01C3C8DD] 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 Lynn, If your interest is in Forensic Science, you are really wasting your time with the criminal justice and criminology classes, as they have no applicability to a forensic scientist's work in the laboratory, or even to the crime scene technician's work in the field. Unless you plan on becoming a police officer, criminal lawyer, criminal psychologist or profiler, these classes are really of no use to you and will not further your career goals. Crime scene technicians and forensic scientists deal with the collection and analysis of evidence (respectively), not with the investigation of crimes and apprehension of suspects (those are jobs for the police). Your interest in blood spatter indicates you might be more interested in a scene technician's job, rather than a lab scientist's job, but in either event science classes would serve you better. The only CJ classes worthwhile for your aims are ones directly related to crime scene processing. Criminology classes are of no use at all (they are suited to detectives, profilers, and forensic psychologists, not lab scientists or scene technicians). See my other reply to your first posting for some guidance on the education needed to enter this field. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Justin and Keli, like I said to someone else a day or so ago, I guess it depends on which country you are in. I'm in Australia. I started out just doing a certificate in criminology, crim justice and forensics then thought, blast this is too easy, so I went on to the Bachelors course - I still wonder what on earth I was thinking when I enrolled in that!! I've finished forensics but not all the scientific bits so I'm taking 2 months of this year and all of next year to focus on bloodstain pattern analysis. We have to do placements (or internships) here, one goes for 362 hours (why 362 hours I'll never know! But that's what I'm using to do my bloodstain project instead of a placement.) I can't afford to work for five days a week at the coroner's court for nothing when I have a secretarial service to run as well. And I don't particularly want to do anything in the "court room" situation as my interests lie more in forensics. With any luck I will make it to LosAngeles in 2005 for an internship in CSU - if I don't then I'll study something else! I graduate at the end of next year (she says hopefully!) Criminology and CJA are interesting and I am glad that I have done those courses but I hate the management part of the course - it's boring! I still have to do Terrorism, Ethics (of some sort), Corrections and International Policing. It's a great course and I'm more than happy with my results. I personally didn't think I had it in me to get this far! I do hope you get to where you want. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Justin McCarty Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 17:45:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMMjHDH020589 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:48:39 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <002c01c3c8dd$be1ec100$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 22:45:16.0896 (UTC) FILETIME=[4516DE00:01C3C8DD] 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 Pure speculation here - would treatment in a microwave oven have any efficacy in destroying DNA, or at least preventing DNA amplification? What about combining autoclaving with microwave treatment? 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 Terry Spear Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Several years ago we did some fairly simple experiments to see what was required to destroy DNA so that it could not be amplified. At the time, we used the ABI reagents kits that targeted the HLA DQ alpha and/or "Polymarker" loci. One of the "treatments" that we look at was a standard autoclave cycle which we were using on our polypropylene microfuge tubes. What we found was that: (1) placing (separately) 10ul and 40 ul of saliva in microfuge tubes [duplicate samples] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle and (2) placing (separately) 4ng and 40 ng of extracted DNA in microfuge tubes [samples also run in duplicate] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle resulted in samples that could not be amplified. HOWEVER, putting 1 or 10 ul of amplified product into a microfuge tube and autoclaving these samples for the appropriate loci did not prevent this type of template from being successfully amplified. Although this did not come as a b! ig surprise, we found that it was extremely difficult to destroy amplified DNA. About the only thing we found to work on relatively small amounts of amplified DNA was a 20% bleach solution. Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 12/14/03 02:07PM >>> Re Comments by Robert Parsons. The idea of autoclaving solutions/tubes was introduced into molecular biology perhaps 40 years ago to inactivate DNAases supposedly in the buffers used for DNA extraction. Generally, this is not necessary but it is still a common practice. For some obscure reason the idea has come about that autoclaving destroys DNA so that it cannot be amplified. I have never seen published data supporting the hypothesis that autoclaving destroys all DNA. Has anyone seen this data published or it is one of the many "myths" which arise over the years? Incidentally, low level nuclear DNA testing has led to the concept of DNA "falling from the ceiling" (not literally). This concept has come from the relatively high frequency of reagent (extraction) blanks showing alleles in low level DNA testing. This, and other factors, complicates the statistics of such testing. If one was to attempt single cell analysis, presumably this will become even more of a problem. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 17:46:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMMkeUV021008 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] contaminated currency Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:50:02 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <002d01c3c8dd$ef77f690$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 22:46:39.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[766E3ED0:01C3C8DD] 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 See also: "The distribution of controlled drugs on banknotes via counting machines. Carter JF, Sleeman R, Parry J. Forensic Sci Int. 2003 Mar 27;132(2):106-12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=12711189&dopt=Abstract "Drug contamination of US paper currency." Jenkins AJ. Forensic Sci Int. 2001 Oct 1;121(3):189-93. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=11566423&dopt=Abstract "Cocaine contamination of United States paper currency." Oyler J, Darwin WD, Cone EJ. J Anal Toxicol. 1996 Jul-Aug;20(4):213-6. Erratum in: J Anal Toxicol 1998 Jul-Aug;22(4):15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=8835657&dopt=Abstract "Detection of Cocaine on Various Denominations of United States Currency," Negrusz, A., Perry, J.l., Moore, C.M J. of Forensic Science, 43, 1998 43 626. http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/jforensicsci/PAGES/2809.htm?L+m ystore+bazi9416 "Cocaine money," NewScientist (UK), October 4, 1997, p. 2 "Drugs on money." Sleeman R, Burton F, Carter J, Roberts D, Hulmston P. Anal Chem. 2000 Jun 1;72(11):397A-403A "Rapid screening of banknotes for the presence of controlled substances by thermal desorption atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation tandem mass spectrometry" Richard Sleeman, Fletcher A. Burton, James F. Carter and David J. Roberts Analyst, 1999, 124, 103-108 http://www.rsc.org/ej/AN/1999/K9808573.PDF Other pertinent sites: http://www.anl.gov/OPA/local/news97/an970407.html http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp 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 Robert Forrest Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:55 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] contaminated currency Application of tandem mass spectrometry to the detection of drugs on cash D.J. Roberts and J.F. Carter Environmental and Analytical Section, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Cantock's Close, Bristol, BS8 1TS,UK R. Sleeman and I.F.A. Burton Mass Spec Analytical Ltd, Building 20F, Golf Course Lane, PO Box 77, Filton, Bristol, BS99 7AR,UK Spectroscopy Europe 8/5 (1996) I'll sen the .pdf to Claire off list. Robert Forrest -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Donaghey, Claire Sent: 16 December 2003 15:10 To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] contaminated currency Could anyone refer me to published studies regarding drug contaminated currency? Thank you, Claire Donaghey DuPage County Crime Lab Wheaton, IL [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 17:48:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMMmUnS021498 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:48:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:51:50 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003301c3c8de$300143b0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 22:48:27.0943 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6F65370:01C3C8DD] 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 CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:22 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 10:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? This is exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its repeated false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like any other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic science -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet its promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is within this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show does far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with plausible-sounding misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab ! for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 18:01:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMN1Cem022354 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:01:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:04:32 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <003401c3c8df$f5c4e650$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 23:01:09.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CB62580:01C3C8DF] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBMN1BCp022349 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'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Greg. I and many others don't find these concerns at all humorous. We are seeing the "CSI effect" on a frequent basis, in the mistaken ideas of police officers, attorneys, students, and ordinary members of the public that we talk to in our professional and social lives - the same public members from whose ranks our juries are drawn. We who have spoken up on this forum are not alone in our misgivings. So many others have become concerned about the "CSI effect" that the upcoming 5th Annual National Conference on Science and the Law is dedicating half a day it: http://www.nijpcs.org/SL/SL2004/finalized_agenda1.pdf (See page 4, schedule for Tuesday, 8:00-11:30 AM) We don't need "Blockbuster police" because unlike the "CSI" shows, the movies at Blockbuster are advertised as fictional stories not "true to life forensics"; they haven't been the subject of hundreds of media articles repeating the lie that they are realistic portrayals of forensic science at work. Ditto for Sherlock Holmes, the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, et al. - none of them make a claim to realism, but "CSI" does. You underestimate the gullibility of the general public in assuming it has no impact. After all, how are they to know any better when they keep hearing and reading that "CSI" accurately portrays "real" forensic science - unless someone tells them "it ain't necessarily so?" When prospective jurors can't separate fact from fiction (because the show's promoters continually tell them that the show's fiction is factual), it's NOT just their problem; it's everyone's problem because it impacts the justice system in a negative fashion. Laypeople have a hard time remembering that it's "just a TV drama" (or ever realizing that in the first place) because they are continually told that the show is "based on real cases, and real forensic science." That may be technically true, but it's like saying that Star Trek's technology is based on extrapolations (however extreme) of real scientific theories and current technologies (which it true), but then also claiming that Star Trek is therefore a realistic depiction of space travel as it exists today (which of course is not true). The difference is that Star Trek makes no such claims to realism, while "CSI" does. People know Star Trek is science fiction, but many don't realize that CSI is a kind of science fiction also, set in the present day instead of the future. While our profession has admittedly gotten a boost in prestige and a few isolated places like SCRI may have benefited financially (I do give the show credit for doing both), the public was probably better off without the so-called "education" provided by this show and its progeny. In this case, no information would have been better for them than the misinformation they have been getting, IMHO. As for not watching the show on a regular basis, I watched it enough to be repeatedly infuriated by its fallacies, so why should I continue to abuse my blood pressure by regularly watching more of the same? How many times should I have forced myself to endure the blood-boiling aggravation of watching this piece of total fiction in reality's clothing, before concluding I'd seen enough? I do still catch the occasional episode now and then, enough to confirm to me that things haven't gotten any better. Laugh off the problem of its misleading impact on the public if you wish, but that impact is real and it's growing. Fortunately, some of the news media have been paying attention to those of us who have complained about the false pretense of realism in the programs, and there are now a growing number of exposés in the press and on the Internet telling the truth about "CSI's" factual shortcomings. Perhaps this will mitigate the damage being done, if enough people read those exposés. We can but hope. 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 Greg Laskowski Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 2:59 PM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well said Geoff! In case no one else is aware, the show CSI said up a $700,000 endowment with the Southern California Research Institute in Los Angeles California specifically for the continued education and training of criminalists in addition to new students interested in the field of criminalistics. While the show may not be completely accurate and will never suit some of us that work in the field, it is none the less the most watched television series, and general paints the forensic scientist in a positive light. The writers, researchers, and producers do strive for authenticity. They take actual cases and frame a story or twist around them, then simply ask their team of consultants if something is possible, whether a particular lab has capabilities or not is irrelevant. They want to deal in the realm of the possible. Directors have the final show as to what is depicted and how it is to be depicted, though they will consult with their on scene consultant. Again, it is a television drama. If some of us can't separate fact from fiction, then it is their problem. I and many of my colleagues actually enjoy the show despite it inaccuracies and hyperbole. Those of us who work crime scenes can find some familiarity with what we encounter, and on occasion our spouses, children and families get an inkling of what we are doing, and why we can't discuss our casework with them. As far as jury pool poisoning, I find argument laughable. The show has been broadcast for four years now, and I have testified in a number of cases. The only thing that I have noticed in the courtroom is that jurors tend to be more attentive when we are on the stand. And to those who complain about the show, then say they don't watch it, and want to discourage any one from watching it, much less demand that it be removed from the airways seem to know more about each and every episode than those who are fans of the show. I think this says something about their credibility, and I would look at their posts with a jaundiced eye. Because, how can you continually criticize the show unless you view it? I'm sure those posters would like to ban Sherlock Holmes, the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, and the rest of the mystery books from book stores and libraries as well. Maybe, they'll become the Blockbuster police, screen every DVD or video tape for accuracy and appropriateness, just so that potential jurors mind's are not poisoned. Nuff said! 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/16/2003 10:37:26 AM >>> Dear Lynn, Actually, there _are_ qualified technical staff that provide expertise to the creators of "CSI". One of them happens to be a good friend and colleague of mine, with a good few years forensic science and crime scene experience under his belt. Unfortunately, no matter how hard the technical advisors try and explain how something works, or what the characters _should_ be doing, or wearing, or what-have-you, the fact remains that they are _just_ advisors. Sadly, the money that comes from on-high to fund these shows will occasionally/sometimes/frequently throw out whatever was technically _advised_, since it doesn't fit with their story. No matter how strong the objection, if the studio wants to show their actors & actresses wearing something skimpy, without a face-mask or gloves, doing something that perhaps would definitely _not_ be done at a given scene, they pay the big bucks, and they want to see their stars' faces on the silver screen. The advisors are therefore overruled. Initially, I had more faith, perhaps, in human nature in that the Average Joe would be able to differentiate between the TV show "CSI" and the real deal, in the same way that folks cannot possibly believe that shows like "Fast Lane" are anything like cops in the real world (it isn't, right?). After reading numerous posts on this list (I won't name names, but I truly respect these professionals), it seems to me that perhaps I was a wee bit naive. As someone posted, the show purports to be scientifically accurate. Since I get annoyed when I see real-life crime documentaries on Court TV that get it wrong (such as dusting for prints as if they're painting a wall, or collecting evidence such as cartridge cases in plastic bags - with metal tweezers), I guess I may have misjudged the potential for damage to the average juror - especially when this particular show is promoted on the grounds of the science being accurately portrayed. Anyway, just my two cents! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/15/03 09:21PM >>> It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 18:13:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMNDwqm023064 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:13:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:13:56 -0900 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: <003301c3c8de$300143b0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 18:31:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBMNVG2p023712 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:31:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:34:38 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <004001c3c8e4$2a1d2e40$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <20031217022129.96277.qmail@web14609.mail.yahoo.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 23:31:15.0021 (UTC) FILETIME=[B10F57D0:01C3C8E3] 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 Cathy, I congratulate you on any tool you effectively use to peak your students' interests in science - more power to you - but I think you underestimate the problem by considering only the awareness level of your own students. You, in fact, may be unaware of the number, breadth, and depth of inaccuracies on the show because you are not a forensic science professional, or perhaps you underestimate the degree of inaccuracy in the mistakes you do notice, for the same reason. The very premise of the show is fallacious - that police officers are forensic scientists (or vice versa), that they collect and analyze evidence and then make the arrests, when in fact those things (collection, analysis, law enforcement) are three different functions by three entirely different professions. It teaches a fundamental fallacy that forensic scientists seek the arrest, prosecution and conviction of criminals. That goal would compromise the objectivity and impartiality that is essential to forensic science work. Forensic scientists must remain impartial at all times, and should have no goal but to discover what the evidence can tell them. It is up to others (police and prosecutors) to use that information to arrest and prosecute criminals. We must stay aloof from all that. We work with the police or for the defense, but we are not part of the police/prosecution "team" or the defense "team" - we have to stay completely neutral to guard our scientific objectivity. More dangerously, CSI teaches that a forensic scientist can be a "jack of all trades," knowing everything and able to do any kind of analysis, when in reality forensic scientists must be narrowly defined specialists because each specialty is today far too complex for anyone to achieve mastery of more than a very few areas. This fallacy plays into the hands of charlatans masquerading as experts who testify outside their own fields of true expertise (if any) and who make many mistakes and/or outright misrepresentations along the way. The field is plagued by such bogus "experts." A "jack of all trades" is a master of none, and a very dangerous person in this profession. The show consistently oversimplifies the science, making everything seem far easier, quicker, and more certain than it is in reality, creating false and immensely unrealistic expectations in the minds of viewers about what forensic science can achieve, and how it achieves what it does. It continues to show procedures that are DEAD WRONG; which would destroy, contaminate, or otherwise compromise the evidence. It both glamorizes and yet trivializes the profession, giving students unrealistic expectations about the amount and kind of preparation needed to enter the profession, and the amount of money they will make doing it (sorry kids, hummers and designer clothing aren't likely on our public-servant salaries, and if you think former strippers or anyone else with a criminal or morally questionable past is likely to be hired by a forensic lab, you're in a fantasy world - our employees are expected to have squeaky-clean backgrounds. For example, a single use of marijuana as a teen will block employment in some labs, and will at least be a significant competitive demerit in most others). Most students inquiring on this list were led to believe they could start in the profession with a high school diploma, a vocational certificate, or a 2-year or 4-year non-science degree like criminal justice, not realizing they will need to master a basic science like chemistry or biology and get a BS degree (or more) in it. "What? I thought all I needed was a few criminal justice classes. I hate science and math!" is a reply I've gotten more than once after setting them straight. Many students have found out they wasted two, three, or four years pursuing a criminal justice, criminology, or other social science degree, sometimes not until after they graduate, start looking for a job in a crime lab, and are repeatedly rejected. McGyver didn't claim to accurately portray a complex profession with technical accuracy, CSI does make that claim. That's the difference. If your students know the show is far from realistic, it's probably because you've told them so (and if you haven't, you should start). Ask some students NOT in the college prep program, ones who haven't taken high school biology, and see if they are as well informed as your students are. You may be surprised at what you find. Keep in mind that the average juror has no college degree and little knowledge of basic science, and that their only knowledge of forensic science comes from CSI and shows like it. Prior to CSI, few jurors had even heard of forensic science, much less knew anything about it. Now they think they know something about it, but much of what they "know" is wrong, which is far worse than knowing nothing. I agree the show has generated an explosion of interest in the profession, and that some of that interest is spilling over into interest in science in general (typically, though, only in classes with creative instructors like you who use the show's popularity to that end); but that benefit is greatly overshadowed by the misinformation provided to that vast majority of the public who still do NOT have any interest in science. They too watch and enjoy the show, but they don't have the advantage of a teacher like you to correct their misimpressions. This is the problem with the show, and the danger that its misleading claims of realism present. 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 Cathy OReilly Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:21 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 19:55:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBN0tN2h025607 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:55:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:53:58 +1100 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: Re: [forens] A DNA statistics question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3FE77603.CC5A5B31@vifm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en References: <20031222211128.39528.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.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 Since the Hp is saying only one woman was the mother of the two children, I would have thought a reasonable Hd should use an directly opposing scenario. That is, the Hd could be the probability of the evidence given that a random woman definitely was the mother of the two children - not the probability of the evidence, given two random women definitely were the mothers of the two children. The LR would be lower with the former hypothesis. There are of course other scenarios which would give diferent LRs. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology Tim Sliter wrote: > We are working a case in which the bodies of two > infants were found approximately 1 year apart, in the > same rural area. On body was found in a pond; the > other was found some distance from the pond. > > The investigating police department has submitted the > standard of a woman who they suspect is the biological > mother of both infants. There is no standard from any > alleged father, although the police suspect that the > same man is the father of both children. > > Comparison of the alleged mother to each infant fails > to exclude her as the biological mother, and we are > therefore concluding that she is a possible biological > mother of each of the children individually, and both > children together. > > The question is, what is the most appropriate > statistic to report for this match. > > If there was a single child, we would report a random > match probability based upon the set of genotypes that > would not be excluded as being the biological mother. > > However, since there are two children, a LR approach > seems more appropriate, where: > > Hp=the alleged mother is the mother of the two > children. > > Hd=an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #1 and > an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #2 (so no > assumption of a sibling relationship for the infants, > and no assumption of a common mother for the two > infants). > > At each locus, the numerator of the LR would be based > on segregation probabilities similar to a standard > parentage calculation (except with only one parent). > > The denominator at each locus would be the product of > the random match probabilities for the two children > (i.e., the probability that a randomly selected woman > would not be excluded as being the biological mother > of both children). > > Is this how other labs would handle this problem? If > you have encountered a similar type of case, and have > approached it in the same way or a different way, I > would be interested in hearing from you. > > Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. > Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences > Dallas, Texas > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 20:33:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBN1XtS3026475 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:33:55 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:31:44 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <002b01c3c8dd$9bdc0080$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Thread-Index: AcPI3RHk+lDacNqOQyyCD3VnG9eR6QAFd5Bw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Bob, I know what you are saying but the course is for a BA in Criminology, CJA and Forensics so I thought I might as well do the lot! Believe me I know what you're saying and thanks for taking the time out to point this out. It wasn't until I had started criminology and CJA that I decided to alter my course to forensics (typical woman I suppose!) As I think I pointed out, I may be lucky enough to have been accepted to do an internship with the LA PD CSU in 2005. I met Barry Fisher in June and we will see what happens. I hope I am lucky enough to make it as I will have finished with blood spatter (hopefully) by then. Any other suggestions you have as to relevant courses for a technician's job would be gladly received. I only have about three topics to do to complete criminology and CJA and will graduate at the end of next year. I do sessional lecturing on these topics as it is but it's not where my interest lies - it definitely lies in the forensics field. I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing your other email to me but I've been so busy I haven't even had time to read them and won't have until after Christmas Day. Thankfully we have four weeks holiday over Christmas - most people do over here in Oz. If you can advise any reading material on blood spatter or anything relevant, I would appreciate. Jerry Chisum has been a great help in this regard as well. Have a great Christmas and safe 2004. Hee, hee - I rang my sister in Los Angeles this morning to find out how she went through the earthquake, all she could say was "Earthquake? What earthquake?" And she doesn't live THAT far from the main epicentre. Jerry, you live up that way, how did you go? I was thinking of you. And anyone else who is in the general area. We get about one earthquake in about 20 years! And it's nowhere near the intensity of the ones in the US - though I think we have the cyclone market well and truly cornered! (Hurricane to you!) Thanks for your help, Bob. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 23 December 2003 9:48 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Lynn, If your interest is in Forensic Science, you are really wasting your time with the criminal justice and criminology classes, as they have no applicability to a forensic scientist's work in the laboratory, or even to the crime scene technician's work in the field. Unless you plan on becoming a police officer, criminal lawyer, criminal psychologist or profiler, these classes are really of no use to you and will not further your career goals. Crime scene technicians and forensic scientists deal with the collection and analysis of evidence (respectively), not with the investigation of crimes and apprehension of suspects (those are jobs for the police). Your interest in blood spatter indicates you might be more interested in a scene technician's job, rather than a lab scientist's job, but in either event science classes would serve you better. The only CJ classes worthwhile for your aims are ones directly related to crime scene processing. Criminology classes are of no use at all (they are suited to detectives, profilers, and forensic psychologists, not lab scientists or scene technicians). See my other reply to your first posting for some guidance on the education needed to enter this field. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Justin and Keli, like I said to someone else a day or so ago, I guess it depends on which country you are in. I'm in Australia. I started out just doing a certificate in criminology, crim justice and forensics then thought, blast this is too easy, so I went on to the Bachelors course - I still wonder what on earth I was thinking when I enrolled in that!! I've finished forensics but not all the scientific bits so I'm taking 2 months of this year and all of next year to focus on bloodstain pattern analysis. We have to do placements (or internships) here, one goes for 362 hours (why 362 hours I'll never know! But that's what I'm using to do my bloodstain project instead of a placement.) I can't afford to work for five days a week at the coroner's court for nothing when I have a secretarial service to run as well. And I don't particularly want to do anything in the "court room" situation as my interests lie more in forensics. With any luck I will make it to LosAngeles in 2005 for an internship in CSU - if I don't then I'll study something else! I graduate at the end of next year (she says hopefully!) Criminology and CJA are interesting and I am glad that I have done those courses but I hate the management part of the course - it's boring! I still have to do Terrorism, Ethics (of some sort), Corrections and International Policing. It's a great course and I'm more than happy with my results. I personally didn't think I had it in me to get this far! I do hope you get to where you want. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Justin McCarty Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.554 / Virus Database: 346 - Release Date: 20/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.554 / Virus Database: 346 - Release Date: 20/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 22 20:58:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBN1ww3k027142 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:58:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031222170953.01bf1e38@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:59:21 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] A DNA statistics question Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <20031222211128.39528.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7CEE@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> 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 01:11 PM 12/22/2003 -0800, Tim Sliter wrote: > the bodies of two infants were found approximately 1 year apart > >Comparison of the alleged mother to each infant fails to exclude her as >the biological mother > >what is the most appropriate statistic to report for this match. >However, since there are two children, a LR approach seems more >appropriate, where: with you so far >Hp=the alleged mother is the mother of the two children. >Hd=an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #1 and >an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #2 (so no >assumption of a sibling relationship for the infants, >and no assumption of a common mother for the two >infants). No. To make a convincing argument for your preferred explanation, Hp, of the DNA evidence, it is necessary to show that it is a much better explanation than ANY contrary explanation. Alternatives worth considering are that she is the mother of one child but not the other, or that the children are full siblings but of some other, unknown, parents. Hd is a strawman, a hand-picked weak opponent. Of course Hp is hugely better, but that isn't much of an argument that Hp is best. >If there was a single child, we would report a random match probability >based upon the set of genotypes that would not be excluded as being the >biological mother. Parenthetically, why would you not simply compute a likelihood ratio (the maternity index) in this case as well? The "probability of exclusion" is not only mathematically less appropriate, it is a dangerous policy. For one day there will be a case with a mutation, and in that case an honest explanation on the exclusion report would say "99% of women would be excluded as the mother of this child, and by the way the assumptions on which that 99% number is computed count this woman among the 99%." In other words, it would have to admit that it gives no useful information. Charles Brenner, PhD [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 00:20:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBN5KGTu000582 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:20:16 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Education Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:19:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 04:17:55.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD320120:01C3C90B] 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 Would that be the same Jerry Chisum that is associated with the Academy of Behavioral Profiling? Who also wrote a fairly caustic analysis of Gregg McCrary's excellent crime reconstruction in the Sam Sheppard Case? Or is it some other Chisum? I read Chisum's review of the case. I'm told he used to be quite an objective and even handed fellow, but you'd never know it from the content of the article. Also I'm interested in how you can spend an entire year studying blood spatter analysis. It takes less than 40 hours to get basic certification and another 40 for advanced. But an entire year? Seems like overkill to me. Does Bond routinely accept students in graduate school that are not even in their last year of undergraduate work, as your post seems to indicate? Thanks in advance. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:31 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Education > Hi Bob, I know what you are saying but the course is for a BA in > Criminology, CJA and Forensics so I thought I might as well do the lot! > Believe me I know what you're saying and thanks for taking the time out to > point this out. It wasn't until I had started criminology and CJA that I > decided to alter my course to forensics (typical woman I suppose!) As I > think I pointed out, I may be lucky enough to have been accepted to do an > internship with the LA PD CSU in 2005. I met Barry Fisher in June and we > will see what happens. I hope I am lucky enough to make it as I will have > finished with blood spatter (hopefully) by then. Any other suggestions you > have as to relevant courses for a technician's job would be gladly received. > I only have about three topics to do to complete criminology and CJA and > will graduate at the end of next year. I do sessional lecturing on these > topics as it is but it's not where my interest lies - it definitely lies in > the forensics field. > > I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing your other email to me but I've been so > busy I haven't even had time to read them and won't have until after > Christmas Day. Thankfully we have four weeks holiday over Christmas - most > people do over here in Oz. If you can advise any reading material on blood > spatter or anything relevant, I would appreciate. Jerry Chisum has been a > great help in this regard as well. > > Have a great Christmas and safe 2004. Hee, hee - I rang my sister in Los > Angeles this morning to find out how she went through the earthquake, all > she could say was "Earthquake? What earthquake?" And she doesn't live THAT > far from the main epicentre. > > Jerry, you live up that way, how did you go? I was thinking of you. And > anyone else who is in the general area. We get about one earthquake in > about 20 years! And it's nowhere near the intensity of the ones in the US - > though I think we have the cyclone market well and truly cornered! > (Hurricane to you!) > > Thanks for your help, Bob. > > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Robert Parsons > Sent: Tuesday, 23 December 2003 9:48 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Education > > Lynn, > > If your interest is in Forensic Science, you are really wasting your time > with the criminal justice and criminology classes, as they have no > applicability to a forensic scientist's work in the laboratory, or even to > the crime scene technician's work in the field. Unless you plan on becoming > a police officer, criminal lawyer, criminal psychologist or profiler, these > classes are really of no use to you and will not further your career goals. > Crime scene technicians and forensic scientists deal with the collection and > analysis of evidence (respectively), not with the investigation of crimes > and apprehension of suspects (those are jobs for the police). Your interest > in blood spatter indicates you might be more interested in a scene > technician's job, rather than a lab scientist's job, but in either event > science classes would serve you better. The only CJ classes worthwhile for > your aims are ones directly related to crime scene processing. Criminology > classes are of no use at all (they are suited to detectives, profilers, and > forensic psychologists, not lab scientists or scene technicians). See my > other reply to your first posting for some guidance on the education needed > to enter this field. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 00:39:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBN5dUa7001191 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:39:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] A DNA statistics question Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:40:43 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Tim, this is fairly straightforeward. Do you want me to do a few demonstration loci. If so would you send the genotypes. John Buckleton New Zealand -----Original Message----- From: Tim Sliter [mailto:tjs75208@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:11 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] A DNA statistics question We are working a case in which the bodies of two infants were found approximately 1 year apart, in the same rural area. On body was found in a pond; the other was found some distance from the pond. The investigating police department has submitted the standard of a woman who they suspect is the biological mother of both infants. There is no standard from any alleged father, although the police suspect that the same man is the father of both children. Comparison of the alleged mother to each infant fails to exclude her as the biological mother, and we are therefore concluding that she is a possible biological mother of each of the children individually, and both children together. The question is, what is the most appropriate statistic to report for this match. If there was a single child, we would report a random match probability based upon the set of genotypes that would not be excluded as being the biological mother. However, since there are two children, a LR approach seems more appropriate, where: Hp=the alleged mother is the mother of the two children. Hd=an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #1 and an unrelated woman is the mother of infant #2 (so no assumption of a sibling relationship for the infants, and no assumption of a common mother for the two infants). At each locus, the numerator of the LR would be based on segregation probabilities similar to a standard parentage calculation (except with only one parent). The denominator at each locus would be the product of the random match probabilities for the two children (i.e., the probability that a randomly selected woman would not be excluded as being the biological mother of both children). Is this how other labs would handle this problem? If you have encountered a similar type of case, and have approached it in the same way or a different way, I would be interested in hearing from you. Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 07:59:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNCx6cr005749 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:59:06 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1ef.161ae019.2d199610@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:58:56 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 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 12/22/2003 5:51:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > Subj:RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Date:12/22/2003 5:51:00 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:rparsons@ircc.edu > Reply-to:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a > full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I > understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a > case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall > reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this > interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations > in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't > always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins > about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take > frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save > time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they > take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the > many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. > I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the > shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total > fantasy. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > Bob So many years ago now I found my employer at the FBI lab responding in the same way to my concerns that there was little if any foundation to a lot of what we were being required to say in our reports. If one were to step back from this and ask, without passion, without personal attacks, without anger, what is happening here, it might be instructive. For the television/Hollywood folks the answer is clear. It is about money. Is the answer clear for the FBI crime lab or any crime lab where scientists are pushed to satisfy agendas other than that of science? I remember so clearly during the many courses that I was involved with at the FBI which were attended by personnel from local and state crime labs that we discussed this very issue...quietly. We never came to any other conclusion other than that so many criminalists outside the FBI were very concerned about the situation. So again, the question still begs an answer. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D, Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 09:11:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNEBd5B007032 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:11:39 -0500 (EST) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: EColquhoun@monroecounty.gov Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:12:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on MCNOTES4/Monroe(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 12/23/2003 09:12:34 AM, Serialize complete at 12/23/2003 09:12:34 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 Well said, Bob. Thank you. Ellyn Colquhoun Monroe County Crime Lab Rochester, NY --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EColquhoun@monroecounty.gov] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 09:40:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNEejCD007726 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:40:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:39:19 -0800 From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBNEeiCp007721 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 Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? Chris Breyer >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:51PM >>> The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:22 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 10:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? This is exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its repeated false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like any other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic science -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet its promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is within this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show does far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with plausible-sounding misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab ! for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 11:47:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNGlDnk010293 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:47:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031223164711.16059.qmail@web14704.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:47:11 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: RE: [forens] A DNA statistics question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: "Buckleton, John" In-Reply-To: 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 "Buckleton, John" wrote:Tim, this is fairly straightforeward. Do you want me to do a few demonstration loci. If so would you send the genotypes. John, Thanks for the assistance. Here are a few locus genotypes: D3S1358: Alleged Mother=15,16; Child #1=14,15; Child #2=14,16 D21S11: Alleged Mother=30,30; Child #1=30,30; Child #2=30,30 D13S317: Alleged Mother=9,10; Child #1=10,10; Child #2=9,12 TPOX: Alleged Mother=8,12; Child #1=8,9; Child #2=8,12 Tim Sliter Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 11:52:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNGqOR8010714 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:52:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004d01c3c975$1cc78420$6400a8c0@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:52:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Mr Breyer, I think you are still missing the point. I actually think the majority of characters (even Martha Stewart!) are misrepresented in media and in television. The reason why forensic science is so flagrant to the profession is that it makes the lives of the professionals more difficult in that it raises the expectation bar to a point of fiction....most importantly, it can mess with victims/victim's families/defendants lives due to the unreasonalbe expectations in courtrooms. I still don't like Martha Stewart. Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? > > Chris Breyer > > >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:51PM >>> > The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a > full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I > understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a > case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall > reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this > interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations > in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't > always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins > about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take > frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save > time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they > take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the > many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. > I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the > shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total > fantasy. > > 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 Lynn Coceani > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:22 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who > think > once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on > the > TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to > qualify > in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I > get > told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." > Now > the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on > the > subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE > CSI on > television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the > sidewalk! > > I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors > working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy > reincarnated? > So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just > tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out > to > dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled > about > the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? > > Regards > > Lynn > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Robert Parsons > Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 10:17 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > This is exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its > repeated > false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like > any > other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly > fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very > realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better > than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic > science > -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet > its > promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is > within > this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show > does > far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with > plausible-sounding > misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury > pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. > > 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 Brent Turvey > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Geoff et al; > > This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. > Those > of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists > who > do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. > This > because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This > is > even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do > so > on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. > > This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than > once > I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state > criminalists or > forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond > crime > scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic > scientist. > They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) > interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science > is > and where it must be practiced. > > As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from > police > criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by > emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. > > And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of > prowess. > Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes > of > a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the > majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a > fresh > crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete > information > is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing > counsel > may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's > episode > of CSI. > > And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. > > Just my thoughts, > > Brent > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM > To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > > Geoff, > > I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the > answers. > > I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides > when > and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your > agency > or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an > invited > guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a > criminalist to > arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun > shootings. > Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood > spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the > next > day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate > with > the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust > for > prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the > criminalist > taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of > "official" > crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned > over > to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back > to > your lab ! > for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a > real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. > > I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units > that > you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's > representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep > abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to > questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit > attend > Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a > regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of > protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as > well. > > On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through > your > union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, > holidays > approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things > to > consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. > > 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 > > >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> > > Dear List Members, > > In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the > 'should > we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I > have > been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. > > There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any > information regarding the policy followed at your agency. > > Many thanks in advance, > Geoff. > > P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were > kind > enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They > were all extremely helpful. > > >>>> > 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) > to all homicide related crime scenes? > a) NO b) YES If not, > > 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? > a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer > c) Other > We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a > criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. > > Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist > trained in such matters. > Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A > criminalist > trained in such matters. > > 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? > If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, > Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. > > 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, > autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. > >>>> > > Geoff Bruton > Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & > Toolmarks > Section > (805) 477-7266 > > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > [EndPost by "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 12:52:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNHqQTJ012432 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:52:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE87251.1DDB7F9C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:20:25 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology 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, In the latest issue of "Journal of Legal Medicine" there is a paper by Cyril H. Wecht and Steven A.Koehler entitled "Case Studies in Forensic Epidemiology". I have not gone through this paper, as this journal is not subscribed by our library. I am quite intrigued though by the term "Forensic Epidemiology". Can somebody tell me what it exactly means. Will it be possible for someone in the list to send me a pdf file of this paper, or may be a jpg scan. I would very much want to read the original paper. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 12:56:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNHuHwO012801 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:56:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE881BF.E936399C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:26:15 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology 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, In the latest issue of "Journal of Legal Medicine" there is a paper by Cyril H. Wecht and Steven A.Koehler entitled "Case Studies in Forensic Epidemiology". I have not gone through this papX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 not subscribed by our library. I am quite intrigued though by the term "Forensic Epidemiology". Can somebody tell me what it exactly means. Will it be possible for someone in the list to send me a pdf file of this paper, or may be a jpg scan. I would very much want to read the original paper. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 13:13:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNIDaKI013671 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:13:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031223181334.27581.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:13:34 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: [forens] A DNA statistics question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: Charles Brenner In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20031222170953.01bf1e38@pop.earthlink.net> 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 Charles Brenner wrote:To make a convincing argument for your preferred explanation, Hp, of the DNA evidence, it is necessary to show that it is a much better explanation than ANY contrary explanation. Alternatives worth considering are that she is the mother of one child but not the other, or that the children are full siblings but of some other, unknown, parents. Hd is a strawman, a hand-picked weak opponent. Of course Hp is hugely better, but that isn't much of an argument that Hp is best. Charles, Thanks for the comments. I wouldn't say that we have a preferred explanation. I would agree that the Hp that we are considering is the investigating agency's preferred explanation, which is one reason that we are using it. The other reason is an empirical reason: the data fail to exclude the alleged mother as being the biological mother of both children - so doing a separate statistical analysis for each child individually doesn't seem to be a complete analysis. In considering alternatives to Hp, we have discussed the alternative that the alleged mother is the mother of one of the children, but not the other. But we don't see this as being a reasonable alternative given the case circumstances, since it agrees with the police that she is responsible for one of the children. From the information that we have it isn't clear why the defense would agree to this, since there is no obvious legal benefit to the alleged mother. We've also discussed the alternative that the children are full or half siblings, and children of another unrelated woman. We've also discussed alternatives that include the mother being a relative of the alleged mother. We certainly aren't opposed to including LRs for those alternatives, and would be interested in hearing from anyone who would include these calculations. Tim Sliter Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 13:56:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNIurf1014765 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:56:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:56:04 -0800 From: "Terry Spear" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. 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 Bob - Since microwaves have been used to perform DNA extractions, I would guess that they may not be very effective at getting rid of all traces of DNA. It is my perception that DNA contamination from "new" tubes or swabs is relatively rare and as long as it's not amplified DNA, autoclaving should be sufficient for preparing supplies for nuclear DNA typing. [This assumes that amplified DNA is confined to rooms that are set up to only produce, type and store amplified DNA. Most DNA labs are designed to do exactly this.] Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:48PM >>> Pure speculation here - would treatment in a microwave oven have any efficacy in destroying DNA, or at least preventing DNA amplification? What about combining autoclaving with microwave treatment? 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 Terry Spear Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Several years ago we did some fairly simple experiments to see what was required to destroy DNA so that it could not be amplified. At the time, we used the ABI reagents kits that targeted the HLA DQ alpha and/or "Polymarker" loci. One of the "treatments" that we look at was a standard autoclave cycle which we were using on our polypropylene microfuge tubes. What we found was that: (1) placing (separately) 10ul and 40 ul of saliva in microfuge tubes [duplicate samples] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle and (2) placing (separately) 4ng and 40 ng of extracted DNA in microfuge tubes [samples also run in duplicate] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle resulted in samples that could not be amplified. HOWEVER, putting 1 or 10 ul of amplified product into a microfuge tube and autoclaving these samples for the appropriate loci did not prevent this type of template from being successfully amplified. Although this did not come as a b! ig surprise, we found that it was extremely difficult to destroy amplified DNA. About the only thing we found to work on relatively small amounts of amplified DNA was a 20% bleach solution. Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 12/14/03 02:07PM >>> Re Comments by Robert Parsons. The idea of autoclaving solutions/tubes was introduced into molecular biology perhaps 40 years ago to inactivate DNAases supposedly in the buffers used for DNA extraction. Generally, this is not necessary but it is still a common practice. For some obscure reason the idea has come about that autoclaving destroys DNA so that it cannot be amplified. I have never seen published data supporting the hypothesis that autoclaving destroys all DNA. Has anyone seen this data published or it is one of the many "myths" which arise over the years? Incidentally, low level nuclear DNA testing has led to the concept of DNA "falling from the ceiling" (not literally). This concept has come from the relatively high frequency of reagent (extraction) blanks showing alleles in low level DNA testing. This, and other factors, complicates the statistics of such testing. If one was to attempt single cell analysis, presumably this will become even more of a problem. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] 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 "Terry Spear" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 15:03:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNK3AwU016281 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:03:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <053b01c3c982$2d6597b0$10fd0b43@paulwise> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: <3FE881BF.E936399C@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:25:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 am not sure about the origination of the phrase but it is what we in the law enforcement & public health sectors are referring to when we discuss the type of investigation we will have to do jointly in reasponse to a bioterrorism event. In fact, there is even a neat little handbook that has been developed by the several entities which can be downloaded. http://hld.sbccom.army.mil/downloads/mirp/ceih.pdf We have an aggressive outreach campaign underway attempting to bring together the public health, law enforcement, fire/EMS & emergency management sectors together in joint training sessions where we go through what each sector would be doing in the response and then give the attendees the chance to go through several tabletop scenarios discussing what they would do in their communities in their responses. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Professor Anil Aggrawal" To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology > Dear List, > In the latest issue of "Journal of Legal Medicine" there is a paper by > Cyril H. Wecht and Steven A.Koehler entitled "Case Studies in Forensic > Epidemiology". I have not gone through this papX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 > not subscribed by our library. > I am quite intrigued though by the term "Forensic Epidemiology". Can > somebody tell me what it exactly means. Will it be possible for someone > in the list to send me a pdf file of this paper, or may be a jpg scan. I > would very much want to read the original paper. Thanks for your time. > Sincerely > Professor Anil Aggrawal > Professor of Forensic Medicine > Maulana Azad Medical College > S-299 Greater Kailash-1 > New Delhi-110048 > INDIA > Phone: 26465460, 26413101 > Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com > Page me via ICQ #19727771 > Websites: > > 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals > http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html > 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology > http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html > 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia > http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html > 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page > http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html > 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page > http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 > 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews > http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html > 7. Forensic Careers > http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html > > *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I > tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being > called when the top doctors have failed!* > `\|||/ > (@@) > ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ > _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| > ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ > _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ > [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 15:58:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNKwoam017564 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:58:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031223205847.80673.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: 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 Bob, I would agree with the previous comments, that neither microwave irradiation or autoclaving would be expected to eliminate or make un-amplifiable low level contaminating DNA. We routinely use UV-crosslinkers to treat both microcentrifuge tubes and DNA extraction solutions prior to use, and it works very well, although it's somewhat time consuming. We started doing this when we were validating mitochondrial DNA sequencing, because we were detecting sporadic low-level DNA contamination that could not be traced to lab personnel. We carried it over to STR testing (where it is overkill) so that we could standardize our material/solution QC procedures. There are some problems using UV-radiation for this purpose, and it wouldn't be expected to work on swabs very well, particularly if they are packaged in some way. But other ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma-rays would be expected to work quite well. Tim Sliter Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:48PM >>> Pure speculation here - would treatment in a microwave oven have any efficacy in destroying DNA, or at least preventing DNA amplification? What about combining autoclaving with microwave treatment? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 16:24:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNLOJDx018411 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:24:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031223120257.01c14b88@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:24:43 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] A DNA statistics question In-Reply-To: <20031223181334.27581.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20031222170953.01bf1e38@pop.earthlink.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 At 10:13 AM 12/23/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Charles Brenner wrote: >To make a convincing argument for your preferred explanation, Hp, of >the DNA evidence, it is necessary to show that it is a much better >explanation than ANY contrary explanation. Alternatives worth considering >are that she is the mother of one child but not the other, or that the >children are full siblings but of some other, unknown, parents. Hd is a >strawman, a hand-picked weak opponent. Of course Hp is hugely better, but >that isn't much of an argument that Hp is best. > >Charles, > >Thanks for the comments. > >I wouldn't say that we have a preferred explanation. I would agree that >the Hp that we are considering is the investigating agency's preferred >explanation, which is one reason that we are using it. The other reason >is an empirical reason: the data fail to exclude the alleged mother as >being the biological mother of both children - so doing a separate >statistical analysis for each child individually doesn't seem to be a >complete analysis. "Preferred" may not be the best choice of word. The only point I wanted to make was a simple logical principle: If the evidence overwhelmingly favors explanation A over explanation B, that disproves B but does not at all prove A. >In considering alternatives to Hp, we have discussed the alternative that >the alleged mother is the mother of one of the children, but not the >other. But we don't see this as being a reasonable alternative given the >case circumstances, since it agrees with the police that she is >responsible for one of the children. From the information that we have it >isn't clear why the defense would agree to this, since there is no obvious >legal benefit to the alleged mother. I see. The woman is accused, so even showing one of the dead children is hers would be damning. An appropriate paradigm might be to put all possible explanations into two categories: Category P -- explanations that the prosecution feels are good enough for conviction, perhaps including her maternity of one or both children with or without the same father. Category D -- explanations that the defense likes. Undoubtedly the DNA shows that D are all wrong. To spell out that case, you have to show that the BEST explanation in D is vastly inferior to some conveniently chosen explanation in category P. From P, I would probably choose whatever the DNA supports most strongly, such as both children are from this mother and the same father, although it might be helpful also to compute assuming different fathers. >We've also discussed the alternative that the children are full or half >siblings, and children of another unrelated woman. We've also discussed >alternatives that include the mother being a relative of the alleged >mother. We certainly aren't opposed to including LRs for those >alternatives, and would be interested in hearing from anyone who would >include these calculations. From D, the obvious candidate is that the children are full siblings of one another and unrelated to the accused woman. There could be complications though. Maybe the defense can suggest with a straight face that the children are cousins or nieces of the woman and that her relative killed them, not her. Or even, maybe the defense has the possibility to explain away one dead child of the woman, and to try to claim that the other child is unrelated. As much as you don't wish to take the point of view that you are an agent of the prosecution, I don't think it is possible to issue a blanket "here's a complete analysis" report without consulting with the prosecution -- and perhaps the defense -- as to what is interesting, worthwhile, or of concern. Charles _________________ Charles Brenner, PhD forensic mathematics 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 Tue Dec 23 16:29:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNLTraZ018877 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:29:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:33:13 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000901c3c99c$5eb00160$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 21:29:49.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[E50AA5E0:01C3C99B] 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 Unfortunately, much of the pool of applicants we are seeing are UNqualified and don't realize it. CSI is a major contributor to their misunderstanding, in my opinion. We recently filled a drug analysis position advertised nation-wide for three months. Out of the dozens of applicants for the position (all of them enthusiastic), only three were well enough qualified to be invited for an interview. That says a lot. 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 CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) Cathy, "...the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world." Personally I agree with you. I would rather have a hiring pool of qualified applicants who are passionate about forensic Science, than a pool of qualified applicants who were "just looking for a job". On the flip side, I have run across students who really wanted to work in a crime lab, knew what it actually involved, and were told all through college that a degree in Anthropology would get them there. That's a shame. Go to www.AAFS.org and look at the Forensic Science Education Conferences scheduled for 2004. If you are able to apply I would highly suggest you do. These conferences are designed for the high school science teacher to be able to design a program wrapped around forensics. Good Luck. Adam Becnel Forensic Scientist III Louisiana State Police Crime Lab 376 E. Airport Road Baton Rouge, LA 70808 cbecnel@dps.state.la.us 225 925-6216 Cathy OReilly cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 12/16/2003 08:21 PM Please respond to forens I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 16:30:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNLUpvR019136 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:30:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:34:13 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000a01c3c99c$82aa35e0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 21:30:49.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[0904DA60:01C3C99C] 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 Lynn, For shows as popular as CSI, the networks pull out all the stops and money is no object. This show has a HUGE budget, and it reportedly pays its one full-time advisor handsomely for her services, far more than she made as a working criminalist and far more than other working criminalists make (this according to a former colleague of hers in a private communication to me). I don't know what the other "on-call" consultants are paid, but I suspect it isn't peanuts. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:43 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? We are all entitled to our own opinions - how boring it would be if we weren't! I'm one of those that really does NOT watch the show. I have watched it, I must admit, approximately 3 times and thought, "Good Lord - that's going off." I am not one of those who goes around discouraging other not to watch it though - it's not my place or my right. You have made a lot of points which I really should think about. Of course one doesn't always remember that these shows are on budgets so I suppose they get whomever they can afford to work at the expert adviser. The shows that I really do cringe at are the old police shows where everyone just trampled around, pushing the body wherever they felt like - to hell with contamination of the scene. I guess it's only since the introduction of DNA that you no longer see these things happen - well I presume you don't - I know I don't. Will anyone be around the Monrovia/Pasadena area during June/July? I'll be back for the annual pilgrimage to visit my sister in Monrovia and would love to meet up with some one from this listing. Last time I was lucky enough to have a meeting with Barry Fisher and it was wonderful. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Bruton Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 5:37 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Dear Lynn, Actually, there _are_ qualified technical staff that provide expertise to the creators of "CSI". One of them happens to be a good friend and colleague of mine, with a good few years forensic science and crime scene experience under his belt. Unfortunately, no matter how hard the technical advisors try and explain how something works, or what the characters _should_ be doing, or wearing, or what-have-you, the fact remains that they are _just_ advisors. Sadly, the money that comes from on-high to fund these shows will occasionally/sometimes/frequently throw out whatever was technically _advised_, since it doesn't fit with their story. No matter how strong the objection, if the studio wants to show their actors & actresses wearing something skimpy, without a face-mask or gloves, doing something that perhaps would definitely _not_ be done at a given scene, they pay the big bucks, and they want to see their stars' faces on the silver screen. The advisors are therefore overruled. Initially, I had more faith, perhaps, in human nature in that the Average Joe would be able to differentiate between the TV show "CSI" and the real deal, in the same way that folks cannot possibly believe that shows like "Fast Lane" are anything like cops in the real world (it isn't, right?). After reading numerous posts on this list (I won't name names, but I truly respect these professionals), it seems to me that perhaps I was a wee bit naive. As someone posted, the show purports to be scientifically accurate. Since I get annoyed when I see real-life crime documentaries on Court TV that get it wrong (such as dusting for prints as if they're painting a wall, or collecting evidence such as cartridge cases in plastic bags - with metal tweezers), I guess I may have misjudged the potential for damage to the average juror - especially when this particular show is promoted on the grounds of the science being accurately portrayed. Anyway, just my two cents! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 12/15/03 09:21PM >>> It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 16:36:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNLaGdD019841 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:36:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:39:38 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000b01c3c99d$44232bf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 21:36:14.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA7B8680:01C3C99C] 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 > Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their >mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily >asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was..." Actually, my impression is just the opposite: that they are seeking to confirm their assumption that it IS "just like that." I have this impression because every time I answer that question (which is often) by saying "No, the TV show is very unrealistic," they respond "You're kidding, really? I thought it was true!" or words to that effect. We're not just pulling the idea that the show regularly misleads people out of thin air, you know; it's not an assumption on our parts. We have that idea because laypeople demonstrate it to us on an almost daily basis, through their questions and comments regarding the show and our profession. Never underestimate the gullibility of the science-ignorant. The average person, even in the developed world, has only a high school education, and has received little exposure to science (much less forensic science) in school or has paid little attention to it. They are relatively easily misled regarding science, because they don't have the background to recognize scientific misinformation when exposed to it. Witness the general public's overreaction to bogus health scares (e.g., Alar, cyclamates, irradiated food, aspartame, etc.), and groundless faith in "health" items that have been unproven, proven worthless, or even proven dangerous (many folk remedies and ethnic "traditional medicines," most megadose vitamin therapies, most herbal supplements and tinctures, homeopathy, etc.). They believe in things that have no basis in fact and disbelieve things that are established fact, because they don't have the science education to know any better. As I said over a year ago in a previous discussion on this topic: "For evidence of the gullibility of people at large, one need look no further than the continuing popular belief in television psychics, astrologers and tarot readers, mediums who claim to talk to dead people, and supermarket tabloids that present all sorts of outlandish fairy tales as factual. Then there's the surging popularity of so-called "natural" remedies, many of which are the modern equivalents of "snake oil" and "patent medicine." While science is learning that many folk remedies have demonstrable beneficial uses, the majority are worthless and some are actively harmful. These "remedies" are emptying the pocketbooks and impairing the health of people at an alarmingly accelerating rate, yet no amount of scientific evidence will change a "true believer's" mind. There are even WWF fans who are convinced that professional wrestling is a real competition instead of well-choreographed acting, and people who to this day don't believe man has ever visited the moon or that evolution is an established fact. Some of these people inevitably sit on juries, so while we shouldn't underestimate a jury's ability to discern fact from fiction, let's not overestimate it either. Intelligence, extensive education, and "common sense" don't necessarily all go hand in hand (and none of them is a prerequisite to jury duty). All three are needed to weigh scientific issues, but you can have one or even two of them and still lack the third." 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 Geoff Bruton Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:03 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; coreilly2003@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Good morning, Cathy, I think you've really hit the nail on the head with this one. The fact is that it is sometimes (very?) difficult to be able to engage the minds of students in some often quite abstract theories of the sciences. _Anything_ that makes them _want_ to learn can only really be a good thing. Once that most difficult wall has been breached, they can then open up to the actual science, whilst keeping it anchored to some extent in the 'real world'. I would also like to think that most potential jurors - and young adults - can differentiate between television and real-life, though based on many comments on this list, it seems that perhaps I was being too optimistic. I'm still not completely swayed, however! Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was... Despite some folks disliking the show for its inaccuracies and for making us cringe when the characters do something untrue, the fact remains that it _does_ promote forensic science in a very positive light. And that can hardly be a bad thing. Just imagine if there was a TV show or movie that decided to show forensic science in a _bad_ light - by characterizing bad or junk science, or showing the science being used to allow the 'bad guys' to get away with it - or some scientists not caring about their work and 'dry-labbing', fabricating results and allowing innocents to be convicted without a care in the world. Now, that would be pure fiction, wouldn't it...? Warm regards to all, Geoff. >>> coreilly2003@yahoo.com 12/16/03 06:21PM >>> I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 17:05:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNM5XUF020998 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:05:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:04:32 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBNM5XCp020993 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 >>> "Robert Parsons" 12/23 4:39 PM >>> > Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their >mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily >asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was..." Actually, my impression is just the opposite: that they are seeking to confirm their assumption that it IS "just like that." I have this impression because every time I answer that question (which is often) by saying "No, the TV show is very unrealistic," they respond "You're kidding, really? I thought it was true!" or words to that effect. We're not just pulling the idea that the show regularly misleads people out of thin air, you know; it's not an assumption on our parts. We have that idea because laypeople demonstrate it to us on an almost daily basis, through their questions and comments regarding the show and our profession. Never underestimate the gullibility of the science-ignorant. The average person, even in the developed world, has only a high school education, and has received little exposure to science (much less forensic science) in school or has paid little attention to it. They are relatively easily misled regarding science, because they don't have the background to recognize scientific misinformation when exposed to it. Witness the general public's overreaction to bogus health scares (e.g., Alar, cyclamates, irradiated food, aspartame, etc.), and groundless faith in "health" items that have been unproven, proven worthless, or even proven dangerous (many folk remedies and ethnic "traditional medicines," most megadose vitamin therapies, most herbal supplements and tinctures, homeopathy, etc.). They believe in things that have no basis in fact and disbelieve things that are established fact, because they don't have the science education to know any better. As I said over a year ago in a previous discussion on this topic: "For evidence of the gullibility of people at large, one need look no further than the continuing popular belief in television psychics, astrologers and tarot readers, mediums who claim to talk to dead people, and supermarket tabloids that present all sorts of outlandish fairy tales as factual. Then there's the surging popularity of so-called "natural" remedies, many of which are the modern equivalents of "snake oil" and "patent medicine." While science is learning that many folk remedies have demonstrable beneficial uses, the majority are worthless and some are actively harmful. These "remedies" are emptying the pocketbooks and impairing the health of people at an alarmingly accelerating rate, yet no amount of scientific evidence will change a "true believer's" mind. There are even WWF fans who are convinced that professional wrestling is a real competition instead of well-choreographed acting, and people who to this day don't believe man has ever visited the moon or that evolution is an established fact. Some of these people inevitably sit on juries, so while we shouldn't underestimate a jury's ability to discern fact from fiction, let's not overestimate it either. Intelligence, extensive education, and "common sense" don't necessarily all go hand in hand (and none of them is a prerequisite to jury duty). All three are needed to weigh scientific issues, but you can have one or even two of them and still lack the third." 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 Geoff Bruton Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:03 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; coreilly2003@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Good morning, Cathy, I think you've really hit the nail on the head with this one. The fact is that it is sometimes (very?) difficult to be able to engage the minds of students in some often quite abstract theories of the sciences. _Anything_ that makes them _want_ to learn can only really be a good thing. Once that most difficult wall has been breached, they can then open up to the actual science, whilst keeping it anchored to some extent in the 'real world'. I would also like to think that most potential jurors - and young adults - can differentiate between television and real-life, though based on many comments on this list, it seems that perhaps I was being too optimistic. I'm still not completely swayed, however! Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was... Despite some folks disliking the show for its inaccuracies and for making us cringe when the characters do something untrue, the fact remains that it _does_ promote forensic science in a very positive light. And that can hardly be a bad thing. Just imagine if there was a TV show or movie that decided to show forensic science in a _bad_ light - by characterizing bad or junk science, or showing the science being used to allow the 'bad guys' to get away with it - or some scientists not caring about their work and 'dry-labbing', fabricating results and allowing innocents to be convicted without a care in the world. Now, that would be pure fiction, wouldn't it...? Warm regards to all, Geoff. >>> coreilly2003@yahoo.com 12/16/03 06:21PM >>> I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 17:12:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBNMCZvn021490 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:12:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:11:08 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBNMCYCp021485 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 How many of us have been subpoenaed to court to testify about non-probative evidence, only to be told by the prosecutor "we're only putting you on the stand because juries have come to expect forensic science...they watch CSI"? >>> "Bradley Brown" 12/23 5:04 PM >>> >>> "Robert Parsons" 12/23 4:39 PM >>> > Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their >mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily >asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was..." Actually, my impression is just the opposite: that they are seeking to confirm their assumption that it IS "just like that." I have this impression because every time I answer that question (which is often) by saying "No, the TV show is very unrealistic," they respond "You're kidding, really? I thought it was true!" or words to that effect. We're not just pulling the idea that the show regularly misleads people out of thin air, you know; it's not an assumption on our parts. We have that idea because laypeople demonstrate it to us on an almost daily basis, through their questions and comments regarding the show and our profession. Never underestimate the gullibility of the science-ignorant. The average person, even in the developed world, has only a high school education, and has received little exposure to science (much less forensic science) in school or has paid little attention to it. They are relatively easily misled regarding science, because they don't have the background to recognize scientific misinformation when exposed to it. Witness the general public's overreaction to bogus health scares (e.g., Alar, cyclamates, irradiated food, aspartame, etc.), and groundless faith in "health" items that have been unproven, proven worthless, or even proven dangerous (many folk remedies and ethnic "traditional medicines," most megadose vitamin therapies, most herbal supplements and tinctures, homeopathy, etc.). They believe in things that have no basis in fact and disbelieve things that are established fact, because they don't have the science education to know any better. As I said over a year ago in a previous discussion on this topic: "For evidence of the gullibility of people at large, one need look no further than the continuing popular belief in television psychics, astrologers and tarot readers, mediums who claim to talk to dead people, and supermarket tabloids that present all sorts of outlandish fairy tales as factual. Then there's the surging popularity of so-called "natural" remedies, many of which are the modern equivalents of "snake oil" and "patent medicine." While science is learning that many folk remedies have demonstrable beneficial uses, the majority are worthless and some are actively harmful. These "remedies" are emptying the pocketbooks and impairing the health of people at an alarmingly accelerating rate, yet no amount of scientific evidence will change a "true believer's" mind. There are even WWF fans who are convinced that professional wrestling is a real competition instead of well-choreographed acting, and people who to this day don't believe man has ever visited the moon or that evolution is an established fact. Some of these people inevitably sit on juries, so while we shouldn't underestimate a jury's ability to discern fact from fiction, let's not overestimate it either. Intelligence, extensive education, and "common sense" don't necessarily all go hand in hand (and none of them is a prerequisite to jury duty). All three are needed to weigh scientific issues, but you can have one or even two of them and still lack the third." 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 Geoff Bruton Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:03 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; coreilly2003@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Good morning, Cathy, I think you've really hit the nail on the head with this one. The fact is that it is sometimes (very?) difficult to be able to engage the minds of students in some often quite abstract theories of the sciences. _Anything_ that makes them _want_ to learn can only really be a good thing. Once that most difficult wall has been breached, they can then open up to the actual science, whilst keeping it anchored to some extent in the 'real world'. I would also like to think that most potential jurors - and young adults - can differentiate between television and real-life, though based on many comments on this list, it seems that perhaps I was being too optimistic. I'm still not completely swayed, however! Often when people find out that I work in a crime lab, the very first question out of their mouths is, "Is it just like that TV show, 'CSI'?" I don't think they would be necessarily asking that question if they were already convinced in their own minds that it was... Despite some folks disliking the show for its inaccuracies and for making us cringe when the characters do something untrue, the fact remains that it _does_ promote forensic science in a very positive light. And that can hardly be a bad thing. Just imagine if there was a TV show or movie that decided to show forensic science in a _bad_ light - by characterizing bad or junk science, or showing the science being used to allow the 'bad guys' to get away with it - or some scientists not caring about their work and 'dry-labbing', fabricating results and allowing innocents to be convicted without a care in the world. Now, that would be pure fiction, wouldn't it...? Warm regards to all, Geoff. >>> coreilly2003@yahoo.com 12/16/03 06:21PM >>> I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................nve education, and "common sense Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 19:42:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBO0g349023927 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:42:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <053b01c3c982$2d6597b0$10fd0b43@paulwise> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: <3FE881BF.E936399C@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:25:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 am not sure about the origination of the phrase but it is what we in the law enforcement & public health sectors are referring to when we discuss the type of investigation we will have to do jointly in reasponse to a bioterrorism event. In fact, there is even a neat little handbook that has been developed by the several entities which can be downloaded. http://hld.sbccom.army.mil/downloads/mirp/ceih.pdf We have an aggressive outreach campaign underway attempting to bring together the public health, law enforcement, fire/EMS & emergency management sectors together in joint training sessions where we go through what each sector would be doing in the response and then give the attendees the chance to go through several tabletop scenarios discussing what they would do in their communities in their responses. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Professor Anil Aggrawal" To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology > Dear List, > In the latest issue of "Journal of Legal Medicine" there is a paper by > Cyril H. Wecht and Steven A.Koehler entitled "Case Studies in Forensic > Epidemiology". I have not gone through this papX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 > not subscribed by our library. > I am quite intrigued though by the term "Forensic Epidemiology". Can > somebody tell me what it exactly means. Will it be possible for someone > in the list to send me a pdf file of this paper, or may be a jpg scan. I > would very much want to read the original paper. Thanks for your time. > Sincerely > Professor Anil Aggrawal > Professor of Forensic Medicine > Maulana Azad Medical College > S-299 Greater Kailash-1 > New Delhi-110048 > INDIA > Phone: 26465460, 26413101 > Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com > Page me via ICQ #19727771 > Websites: > > 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals > http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html > 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology > http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html > 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia > http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html > 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page > http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html > 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page > http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 > 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews > http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html > 7. Forensic Careers > http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html > > *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I > tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being > called when the top doctors have failed!* > `\|||/ > (@@) > ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ > _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| > ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ > _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ > [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 23 22:14:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBO3EShH026471 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:14:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:14:25 -0900 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: <004d01c3c975$1cc78420$6400a8c0@davelaptop> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal 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 David; Even that is not the whole problem, though it is part of it. I see a couple of other issues: 1. There are forensic scientists who, because of the favorable way police scientists are portrayed on CSI, do not think a level of inaccuracy is at all a big deal. 2. The show is premised on the notion that there is such a thing as a "crime scene investigator" that is a combination cop and criminalist. While "crime scene investigator" is a job title adopted by some police agencies to describe sworn or civilian members of their crime scene unit, these members are actually "crime scene technicians" and not forensic scientists. There job is to recognize, document, collect, and transport evidence. The failure of the show to make these important distinctions has confused every potential student of forensic science that has contacted me since the show began in mid 2000. 3. I'm not certain if the person consulting on the show was actually a forensic scientist; Liz Devine appears to be a former crime scene technician, in terms of how she describes what she did while in law enforcement. She is referred to in the press, inconsistently, as a former "crime scene technician"; a former "forensic scientist", and a former "criminalist". And in one article she states that she was a criminalists, defining herself as "a scientist who uses scientific training in the different disciplines of science to analyze evidence and prepare for court". Now, this is not an insult because some of the smartest and most innovative people out there can be technicians bent on finding new and creative ways to realize the evidence. But there is a difference between a forensic scientist and a crime scene technician. Especially in court, which is where the rubber meets the road in this work. I would be interested to know this, at any rate. Mainly because so much of the show is LE oriented and inaccurate. 4. The detailed flashback scenes in CSI suggest to viewers that forensic science is capable of reconstruction with that level of accuracy, certainty, and detail. And that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow deficient. Again, a picture DAs and police criminalists are not unhappy to have painted. So there are lots of problems on lots of levels that are influencing the minds not only of judges, juries, police, and forensic scientists, but of students as well. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mr Breyer, I think you are still missing the point. I actually think the majority of characters (even Martha Stewart!) are misrepresented in media and in television. The reason why forensic science is so flagrant to the profession is that it makes the lives of the professionals more difficult in that it raises the expectation bar to a point of fiction....most importantly, it can mess with victims/victim's families/defendants lives due to the unreasonalbe expectations in courtrooms. I still don't like Martha Stewart. Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? > > Chris Breyer > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 00:26:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBO5QRbS028710 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:26:27 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:28:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2003 05:26:20.0702 (UTC) FILETIME=[76A603E0:01C3C9DE] 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 Brent: You are right, it's unfortunate that all these unethical scumbag district attorneys and police criminalists are capitalizing on the unfounded beliefs of the public based on misinformation provided by media sources. I'm confident that the historical balance in our adversarial system of justice will be restored when defense attorneys and 'forensic scientists' who consult with them expose this sham for what it is. Shaun > 4. The detailed flashback scenes in CSI suggest to viewers that forensic > science is capable of reconstruction with that level of accuracy, certainty, > and detail. And that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow deficient. > Again, a picture DAs and police criminalists are not unhappy to have > painted. > > So there are lots of problems on lots of levels that are influencing the > minds not only of judges, juries, police, and forensic scientists, but of > students as well. > > Brent > > > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 07:26:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBOCQee7003796 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:26:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Forrest" To: Cc: "Forensic Newsgroup \(main\)" Subject: [forens] A Yuletide wish:- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:26:20 -0000 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 V6.00.2800.1165 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 So there is now a putative BSE case in the USA. My wish is that the inevitable changes in the international market in blood products derived from human blood donations in the USA will be informed by rational and science based risk assessment and a consideration for the needs of patients and investigators rather than point scoring international and domestic politics driven by bias, prejudice and hysteria in the tabloid press. And I also wish Santa Claus was real..... Have a good one Robert Forrest A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, CChem, FRSC Professor of Forensic Toxicology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 10:15:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBOFFsKW007978 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:15:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:14:52 -0800 From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Subject: RE: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBOFFrCp007973 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 Practically speaking, does that mean that prior to "CSI" you would have had a higher number of actually qualified applicants to choose from? I think not. Certainly, you would have had less dross to go through to find them. Perhaps some of that dross will apply itself to academics and become qualified? Chris Breyer >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/23/03 01:33PM >>> Unfortunately, much of the pool of applicants we are seeing are UNqualified and don't realize it. CSI is a major contributor to their misunderstanding, in my opinion. We recently filled a drug analysis position advertised nation-wide for three months. Out of the dozens of applicants for the position (all of them enthusiastic), only three were well enough qualified to be invited for an interview. That says a lot. 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 CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) Cathy, "...the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world." Personally I agree with you. I would rather have a hiring pool of qualified applicants who are passionate about forensic Science, than a pool of qualified applicants who were "just looking for a job". On the flip side, I have run across students who really wanted to work in a crime lab, knew what it actually involved, and were told all through college that a degree in Anthropology would get them there. That's a shame. Go to www.AAFS.org and look at the Forensic Science Education Conferences scheduled for 2004. If you are able to apply I would highly suggest you do. These conferences are designed for the high school science teacher to be able to design a program wrapped around forensics. Good Luck. Adam Becnel Forensic Scientist III Louisiana State Police Crime Lab 376 E. Airport Road Baton Rouge, LA 70808 cbecnel@dps.state.la.us 225 925-6216 Cathy OReilly cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 12/16/2003 08:21 PM Please respond to forens I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 12:14:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBOHEcmC010406 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:14:38 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:13:41 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13F716EC1W426459-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBOHEbCp010401 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 Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. You asked what Liz's background is. She worked at Los Angles Co. Sheriff's Lab as a Criminalist. When I worked there she was doing Serology. However, the Criminalists were on rotating standby for call out to do crime scene investigation. There were fingerprint/photographers that went to scenes, a graphic artist to do scene sketches and then any large scene (homicide or the like) would have a Criminalist called out to do the crime scene examination; location of evidence, measurements, collection and analysis of the scene. If it was a shooting someone from the firearms section was also called out. The overtime pay was quite good. If you look at Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf you will see that Liz was a member of the Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation. Liz was quite good at both the lab and scene work. I worked on quite a few cases with her over the six plus years I was with LASD. I'd certainly put Liz's knowledge up against your from the comments I've seen from you on the list. She understands the limits of what can and can not be done at scenes and in the lab with years of experience at both. Additionally her uncle was a Forensic Pathologist, which is I believe what lead her to the field in the first place. I know they have several other people they contact and at least one other full time consultant that is well qualified (the Miami show I think for him). Liz tries I know to get the writers to contact working analysts to find out how things really work, she had them call me once on one subject she didn't know the details on. They do try to get the background on a give test to build their story around. But then like all Hollywood types they go on to tell the story the way they think it will be the most entertaining. Which usually makes it wrong in at least some of the details. And no, I don't much like the show having had enough after watching the first couple of episodes I quit and haven't watched since. I found the base story so poorly conceived that I just didn't like it. Evidentially a lot of people do find it entertaining however, so I'm sure the writers and producers will keep doing it the way they are no mater what we or Liz tells them. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/23/03 07:14PM >>> David; Even that is not the whole problem, though it is part of it. I see a couple of other issues: 1. There are forensic scientists who, because of the favorable way police scientists are portrayed on CSI, do not think a level of inaccuracy is at all a big deal. 2. The show is premised on the notion that there is such a thing as a "crime scene investigator" that is a combination cop and criminalist. While "crime scene investigator" is a job title adopted by some police agencies to describe sworn or civilian members of their crime scene unit, these members are actually "crime scene technicians" and not forensic scientists. There job is to recognize, document, collect, and transport evidence. The failure of the show to make these important distinctions has confused every potential student of forensic science that has contacted me since the show began in mid 2000. 3. I'm not certain if the person consulting on the show was actually a forensic scientist; Liz Devine appears to be a former crime scene technician, in terms of how she describes what she did while in law enforcement. She is referred to in the press, inconsistently, as a former "crime scene technician"; a former "forensic scientist", and a former "criminalist". And in one article she states that she was a criminalists, defining herself as "a scientist who uses scientific training in the different disciplines of science to analyze evidence and prepare for court". Now, this is not an insult because some of the smartest and most innovative people out there can be technicians bent on finding new and creative ways to realize the evidence. But there is a difference between a forensic scientist and a crime scene technician. Especially in court, which is where the rubber meets the road in this work. I would be interested to know this, at any rate. Mainly because so much of the show is LE oriented and inaccurate. 4. The detailed flashback scenes in CSI suggest to viewers that forensic science is capable of reconstruction with that level of accuracy, certainty, and detail. And that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow deficient. Again, a picture DAs and police criminalists are not unhappy to have painted. So there are lots of problems on lots of levels that are influencing the minds not only of judges, juries, police, and forensic scientists, but of students as well. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mr Breyer, I think you are still missing the point. I actually think the majority of characters (even Martha Stewart!) are misrepresented in media and in television. The reason why forensic science is so flagrant to the profession is that it makes the lives of the professionals more difficult in that it raises the expectation bar to a point of fiction....most importantly, it can mess with victims/victim's families/defendants lives due to the unreasonalbe expectations in courtrooms. I still don't like Martha Stewart. Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? > > Chris Breyer > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 12:14:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBOHEgTt010425 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:14:42 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:13:41 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13F716ED1W426461-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBOHEfCp010420 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 Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. You asked what Liz's background is. She worked at Los Angles Co. Sheriff's Lab as a Criminalist. When I worked there she was doing Serology. However, the Criminalists were on rotating standby for call out to do crime scene investigation. There were fingerprint/photographers that went to scenes, a graphic artist to do scene sketches and then any large scene (homicide or the like) would have a Criminalist called out to do the crime scene examination; location of evidence, measurements, collection and analysis of the scene. If it was a shooting someone from the firearms section was also called out. The overtime pay was quite good. If you look at Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf you will see that Liz was a member of the Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation. Liz was quite good at both the lab and scene work. I worked on quite a few cases with her over the six plus years I was with LASD. I'd certainly put Liz's knowledge up against your from the comments I've seen from you on the list. She understands the limits of what can and can not be done at scenes and in the lab with years of experience at both. Additionally her uncle was a Forensic Pathologist, which is I believe what lead her to the field in the first place. I know they have several other people they contact and at least one other full time consultant that is well qualified (the Miami show I think for him). Liz tries I know to get the writers to contact working analysts to find out how things really work, she had them call me once on one subject she didn't know the details on. They do try to get the background on a give test to build their story around. But then like all Hollywood types they go on to tell the story the way they think it will be the most entertaining. Which usually makes it wrong in at least some of the details. And no, I don't much like the show having had enough after watching the first couple of episodes I quit and haven't watched since. I found the base story so poorly conceived that I just didn't like it. Evidentially a lot of people do find it entertaining however, so I'm sure the writers and producers will keep doing it the way they are no mater what we or Liz tells them. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/23/03 07:14PM >>> David; Even that is not the whole problem, though it is part of it. I see a couple of other issues: 1. There are forensic scientists who, because of the favorable way police scientists are portrayed on CSI, do not think a level of inaccuracy is at all a big deal. 2. The show is premised on the notion that there is such a thing as a "crime scene investigator" that is a combination cop and criminalist. While "crime scene investigator" is a job title adopted by some police agencies to describe sworn or civilian members of their crime scene unit, these members are actually "crime scene technicians" and not forensic scientists. There job is to recognize, document, collect, and transport evidence. The failure of the show to make these important distinctions has confused every potential student of forensic science that has contacted me since the show began in mid 2000. 3. I'm not certain if the person consulting on the show was actually a forensic scientist; Liz Devine appears to be a former crime scene technician, in terms of how she describes what she did while in law enforcement. She is referred to in the press, inconsistently, as a former "crime scene technician"; a former "forensic scientist", and a former "criminalist". And in one article she states that she was a criminalists, defining herself as "a scientist who uses scientific training in the different disciplines of science to analyze evidence and prepare for court". Now, this is not an insult because some of the smartest and most innovative people out there can be technicians bent on finding new and creative ways to realize the evidence. But there is a difference between a forensic scientist and a crime scene technician. Especially in court, which is where the rubber meets the road in this work. I would be interested to know this, at any rate. Mainly because so much of the show is LE oriented and inaccurate. 4. The detailed flashback scenes in CSI suggest to viewers that forensic science is capable of reconstruction with that level of accuracy, certainty, and detail. And that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow deficient. Again, a picture DAs and police criminalists are not unhappy to have painted. So there are lots of problems on lots of levels that are influencing the minds not only of judges, juries, police, and forensic scientists, but of students as well. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mr Breyer, I think you are still missing the point. I actually think the majority of characters (even Martha Stewart!) are misrepresented in media and in television. The reason why forensic science is so flagrant to the profession is that it makes the lives of the professionals more difficult in that it raises the expectation bar to a point of fiction....most importantly, it can mess with victims/victim's families/defendants lives due to the unreasonalbe expectations in courtrooms. I still don't like Martha Stewart. Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? > > Chris Breyer > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 12:58:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBOHwPCS011964 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:58:25 -0500 (EST) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: EColquhoun@monroecounty.gov Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:59:12 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on MCNOTES4/Monroe(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 12/24/2003 12:59:20 PM, Serialize complete at 12/24/2003 12:59:20 PM 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, at least a couple of times. One ADA was quoted in a local newspaper story about the crime lab that she now has to explain the absence of fingerprints or DNA because juries have now come to 'expect' it. Ellyn Colquhoun Monroe County Crime Lab Rochester, NY --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EColquhoun@monroecounty.gov] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 16:37:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBOLbUUv016030 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:37:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "James Roberts" Cc: "Forens@Statgen.Ncsu.Edu" Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:37:24 -0900 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 V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: 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 James; Thanks for writing back. I believe I asked a question about Ms. Devine in hopes of having someone explain it to me. I did not accuse anyone of being unqualified - I merely asked a question and suggested that duties appeared to be mixed up. I am further not lacking knowledge about the different systems around the country, especially not California which I am thoroughly familiar with. I've even done some work and testifying in Ventura and had occasion to see that police/ lab system in action. If you have read my posts, then you know that my position has always been that every system does it differently; I was unclear about how her system had done it because the duties she described are often assigned to scene techs and not criminalists. So I thank you for that clarification. As for your challenge regarding my qualifications... I have no idea where any of that is coming from but it is telling. My qualifications are not even at issue. Though, I am not a criminalist (a lab worker), and have never claimed to be, so I hope Ms. Devine is better qualified in that regard if she was working as one. If not, then that would be a problem. Morepver, I am pleased to hear that Ms. Devine is so knowledgeable and experienced. Sadly none of this is translating to the show that has her name on it. And sadly, the producers of her show are touting her involvement as a sign of the show's integrity. This is and remains the problem, in my view. You apparently agree with that much. Thanks for clarifying your position. Brent -----Original Message----- From: James Roberts [mailto:James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:14 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. You asked what Liz's background is. She worked at Los Angles Co. Sheriff's Lab as a Criminalist. When I worked there she was doing Serology. However, the Criminalists were on rotating standby for call out to do crime scene investigation. There were fingerprint/photographers that went to scenes, a graphic artist to do scene sketches and then any large scene (homicide or the like) would have a Criminalist called out to do the crime scene examination; location of evidence, measurements, collection and analysis of the scene. If it was a shooting someone from the firearms section was also called out. The overtime pay was quite good. If you look at Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law Enforcement http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf you will see that Liz was a member of the Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation. Liz was quite good at both the lab and scene work. I worked on quite a few cases with her over the six plus years I was with LASD. I'd certainly put Liz's knowledge up against your from the comments I've seen from you on the list. She understands the limits of what can and can not be done at scenes and in the lab with years of experience at both. Additionally her uncle was a Forensic Pathologist, which is I believe what lead her to the field in the first place. I know they have several other people they contact and at least one other full time consultant that is well qualified (the Miami show I think for him). Liz tries I know to get the writers to contact working analysts to find out how things really work, she had them call me once on one subject she didn't know the details on. They do try to get the background on a give test to build their story around. But then like all Hollywood types they go on to tell the story the way they think it will be the most entertaining. Which usually makes it wrong in at least some of the details. And no, I don't much like the show having had enough after watching the first couple of episodes I quit and haven't watched since. I found the base story so poorly conceived that I just didn't like it. Evidentially a lot of people do find it entertaining however, so I'm sure the writers and producers will keep doing it the way they are no mater what we or Liz tells them. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/23/03 07:14PM >>> David; Even that is not the whole problem, though it is part of it. I see a couple of other issues: 1. There are forensic scientists who, because of the favorable way police scientists are portrayed on CSI, do not think a level of inaccuracy is at all a big deal. 2. The show is premised on the notion that there is such a thing as a "crime scene investigator" that is a combination cop and criminalist. While "crime scene investigator" is a job title adopted by some police agencies to describe sworn or civilian members of their crime scene unit, these members are actually "crime scene technicians" and not forensic scientists. There job is to recognize, document, collect, and transport evidence. The failure of the show to make these important distinctions has confused every potential student of forensic science that has contacted me since the show began in mid 2000. 3. I'm not certain if the person consulting on the show was actually a forensic scientist; Liz Devine appears to be a former crime scene technician, in terms of how she describes what she did while in law enforcement. She is referred to in the press, inconsistently, as a former "crime scene technician"; a former "forensic scientist", and a former "criminalist". And in one article she states that she was a criminalists, defining herself as "a scientist who uses scientific training in the different disciplines of science to analyze evidence and prepare for court". Now, this is not an insult because some of the smartest and most innovative people out there can be technicians bent on finding new and creative ways to realize the evidence. But there is a difference between a forensic scientist and a crime scene technician. Especially in court, which is where the rubber meets the road in this work. I would be interested to know this, at any rate. Mainly because so much of the show is LE oriented and inaccurate. 4. The detailed flashback scenes in CSI suggest to viewers that forensic science is capable of reconstruction with that level of accuracy, certainty, and detail. And that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow deficient. Again, a picture DAs and police criminalists are not unhappy to have painted. So there are lots of problems on lots of levels that are influencing the minds not only of judges, juries, police, and forensic scientists, but of students as well. Brent I still don't like Martha Stewart. Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? > > Chris Breyer > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 18:58:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBONwbsr018156 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:58:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "James Roberts" Cc: "Forens@Statgen.Ncsu.Edu" Subject: [forens] Ventura Co. Crime Lab Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:58:32 -0900 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Jim; Just a quick question: I recall last year that your lab got something like $5,000,000.00 dollars for new equipment, a better building and more training. If I recall right, you guys were going for ASCLD certification, but they require 1,000 square feet of work space per scientist to prevent contamination of samples and you guys had something like 1/4 of that. In the stuff I read, ther was mention of a huge backlog, crowded conditions (even in your section, the firearms section if I'm not mistaken) and low employee morale. Just wondering how you think things are going now? Did the money go to the right places? I know you got accredited by ASCLD so things must be way better than they were. Brent -----Original Message----- From: James Roberts [mailto:James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:14 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 21:59:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBP2xkgj020196 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:59:46 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:01:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Dec 2003 02:59:39.0318 (UTC) FILETIME=[23072560:01C3CA93] 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 James: Perhaps the point Brent is trying to make is that he's never been exposed to that kind of environment, having never worked in a laboratory or processed a crime scene (according to his sworn testimony)? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roberts" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > Brent, > > Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 23:05:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBP45gDD021273 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:05:42 -0500 (EST) From: Gismort@aol.com Message-ID: <104.3c5f776d.2d1bbc09@aol.com> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:05:29 EST Subject: [forens] definition To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 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 Could anyone tell me what "dermatoglyphic analysis" means. This term was used in response to a request for any fingerprint testing. Is this different from dusting? Any information would be appreciated. Thank you --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gismort@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 24 23:32:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBP4WjjZ021978 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:32:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <07a301c3caa0$33476180$f95f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] A Yuletide wish:- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:29:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 seems to be a recurrent weather problem with fog over the Potomac, most recently settling over the Department of Agriculture: Sec'y Venneman has "confirmed" a case of BSE in Washington (state) but is sending it to Great Britain for "confirmation." Next, we are assured that the meat from this 'downer' cow is not hazardous but 'we' don't know where it went and seem to be searching for it frantically. I share the wish for "rational and science based risk assessment" from Sodom on the Potomac but fear it may be one with the wish for Santa Claus. I also share Prof. Forrest's seasonal good wishes to old and new friends and correspondents (and hope to see some in Dallas.) Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Forrest" So there is now a putative BSE case in the USA. My wish is that the inevitable changes in the international market in blood products derived from human blood donations in the USA will be informed by rational and science based risk assessment and a consideration for the needs of patients and investigators rather than point scoring international and domestic politics driven by bias, prejudice and hysteria in the tabloid press. And I also wish Santa Claus was real..... Have a good one Robert Forrest A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, CChem, FRSC Professor of Forensic Toxicology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 08:41:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBQDfhKt016229 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 08:41:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00c301c3cbb7$388b1ac0$166f2ac8@quesca> From: "Quesada-Scatena" To: References: <3FE2F992.4FAE49FF@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [forens] From Anil - A few questions Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:55:26 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Prof Aggrawal. Tryng to answer your questions regarding rupture of spleen 1) It is impossible to anticipate how long would take for a patien with a rupture spleen to become uncouncious or die, as it is related to the amount of blood the patient is loosing or has lost, as unconciousness and death would be related to the hipovolemic shock, and it could have great difference in ths cases. At one end we have seen patiens with a small lesion that have survived with conservative treatmet without loosing conciousness and at the other end patients with complete tear of the spleen close to the pedicle dying on arrival to the hospital. 2)Same answer as prevous question. 3)Fist blows or kicks are not the most common causes of rupture spleen, but they are a possibility. An enlarged spleen is easier to rupture. Intestines are difficult to injure by abdominal trauma but may sustain tears of its mesenterial root. 4)Never heard of a normal spleen that rupture spontaneously. 5)I do not know the answer. 6)I do not think so. 7)Macroscopically I think it would be imposible. 8)Microscopic examination may give you the answer. Dr. Adolfo Scatena Medico Forense 2ª Circunsc Judicial Gral Roca, Rio Negro ARGENTINA [EndPost by "Quesada-Scatena" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 11:33:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBQGX6ab018964 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:33:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:32:54 -0500 From: Gunis77@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re:[forens] Education MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4BEC772D.18049613.0017CE10@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 64.7.25.5 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 List, Mr. Wheeler's reaction to the amount of time devoted to bloodstain pattern analysis is exactly what I have feared as the pervading notion that bloodstain pattern analysis can be learned in a matter of 3 or so 40 hour courses. In my opinion, bloodstain pattern analysis should be at a MINIMUM a 3 year training program. As a latent print examiner as well, I can remember starting out and thinking, "All I need to do is see the ridges and the points and that's all there is to it." My naive thoughts were quickly humbled after the first year of my latent training. While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not. I am sure many other latent examiners can corroborate this notion as it truly dificult to explain it to a lay person in an email. I draw the same parallel to bloodstain pattern analysis, which is much more difficult in both theory and application than latent print examinations. Bloodstain pattern analysis is more than simply identifying patterns. But even in that limited scope, it takes more than 180 hours of training to master that skill. Indeed there is much research still needed in bloodstain pattern analysis. I encourage and applaud the efforts and enthusiasm of anyone who wishes to study, research, develop and report on any topic within bloodstain pattern analysis for any length of time. I would argue that one year's time is a great start and certainly not overkill. Thanks! Jeff Gurvis [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 12:24:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBQHO3es020151 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:24:03 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:23:33 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ventura Co. Crime Lab MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13F2B1131W465966-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBQHO2Cp020146 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 Our lab like many, if not most, in California have taken advantage of the Grant moneys made available from state and federal programs and funding from our own county over the last three years or so to upgrade our facilities and complete ASCLD certification. There was a big push from the state level to require ASCLD Cert. if you wanted to participate in any state funded programs. In doing that the state funded grant programs applied to by most county and city labs around the state for upgrades in facilities, equipment and training. The funds primarily being used to get or keep ASCLD Accreditation. LA County and LA City are building a very large lab facility on the state funds they are receiving from these programs, Sacramento Co. added state of the art lab equipment into a trace evidence facility and so on around the state. I don't think the conditions were ever as bleak as you paint them here. Things are better than they were. We still have some additional training and remodel work that will make things still better. I'd say ours is a similar set of circumstances to many labs around California and the nation. All working labs go through backlog fluctuations, manpower shortages, training budget highs and lows, space shortages (you seldom have enough), etc.. We were quite short of space, as it was about a 15 or 20 year old facility that had been outgrown. Modern facilities take quite a bit more room than their 20 year old counterparts and lab staffs constantly grow with the amount of work. We moved some office space and support facilities, to adjoining areas, opening up their old area for remodeling to lab space. Those sections that these new spaces were designed for have moved into the remodeled area. We will now remodel the older areas to upgrade them to be better than they were. Modern systems require more manpower, not less, and case loads grow with population increases. For example, NIBIN did not exist prior to 1992, with the advent of Drugfire it took up a footprint of about 4 or 5 feet of counter space or a table, IBIS on the other hand takes about the footprint of an 8'X10' room. Additional man power is required for them as well and they need still more space to do paperwork and initial evidence work-ups. We have added and trained a NIBIN Technician. There is a great shortage of fully trained Firearm and Toolmark Examiners, due to both retirements and increased workloads. We have one person in training (nearly done) and will probably train (or send out to training) another examiner in the future. This is why you see the ATFE National Firearm and Toolmark Academy program and now the state CCI Firearms Examiner programs brought into being. Florida and Illinois have been training quite a few people over the past several years. AFIS and CODIS have similar affects on labs. We have a smaller backlog than LA had when I left there (which is worse now I think) but a larger one than we like. We had a good lab and staff and now it is better than it was. I suspect the same can be said by many of the labs around the state due to the Grant funding of the last few years. With the state budget being what it is now, the grant funds from the state are at an end for the next few years. Hopefully the federal grant programs will continue to be available to those labs that apply and qualify. There is always a need for ongoing in service training and equipment replacement and upgrade. Lab staff and facilities will always continue to grow as more sophisticated work and more crime will drive that. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/24/03 03:58PM >>> Jim; Just a quick question: I recall last year that your lab got something like $5,000,000.00 dollars for new equipment, a better building and more training. If I recall right, you guys were going for ASCLD certification, but they require 1,000 square feet of work space per scientist to prevent contamination of samples and you guys had something like 1/4 of that. In the stuff I read, ther was mention of a huge backlog, crowded conditions (even in your section, the firearms section if I'm not mistaken) and low employee morale. Just wondering how you think things are going now? Did the money go to the right places? I know you got accredited by ASCLD so things must be way better than they were. Brent -----Original Message----- From: James Roberts [mailto:James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:14 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 14:36:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBQJaDWr022361 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:36:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Ventura Co. Crime Lab Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:36:08 -0900 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 V6.00.2800.1165 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 Jim; Happy holidays. Thanks for the insight. It's always good to know how tax dollars are being spent. Just as a matter or clarification, I have not painted a bleak picture, a picture was painted by those who were interviewed by the press regarding your lab that you are regarding in hindsight as bleak. I dug up the article I remembered reading because I wanted to be sure that I had remembered right. I'm happy to post it if you think that would help, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 8:24 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ventura Co. Crime Lab Our lab like many, if not most, in California have taken advantage of the Grant moneys made available from state and federal programs and funding from our own county over the last three years or so to upgrade our facilities and complete ASCLD certification. There was a big push from the state level to require ASCLD Cert. if you wanted to participate in any state funded programs. In doing that the state funded grant programs applied to by most county and city labs around the state for upgrades in facilities, equipment and training. The funds primarily being used to get or keep ASCLD Accreditation. LA County and LA City are building a very large lab facility on the state funds they are receiving from these programs, Sacramento Co. added state of the art lab equipment into a trace evidence facility and so on around the state. I don't think the conditions were ever as bleak as you paint them here. Things are better than they were. We still have some additional training and remodel work that will make things still better. I'd say ours is a similar set of circumstances to many labs around California and the nation. All working labs go through backlog fluctuations, manpower shortages, training budget highs and lows, space shortages (you seldom have enough), etc.. We were quite short of space, as it was about a 15 or 20 year old facility that had been outgrown. Modern facilities take quite a bit more room than their 20 year old counterparts and lab staffs constantly grow with the amount of work. We moved some office space and support facilities, to adjoining areas, opening up their old area for remodeling to lab space. Those sections that these new spaces were designed for have moved into the remodeled area. We will now remodel the older areas to upgrade them to be better than they were. Modern systems require more manpower, not less, and case loads grow with population increases. For example, NIBIN did not exist prior to 1992, with the advent of Drugfire it took up a footprint of about 4 or 5 feet of counter space or a table, IBIS on the other hand takes about the footprint of an 8'X10' room. Additional man power is required for them as well and they need still more space to do paperwork and initial evidence work-ups. We have added and trained a NIBIN Technician. There is a great shortage of fully trained Firearm and Toolmark Examiners, due to both retirements and increased workloads. We have one person in training (nearly done) and will probably train (or send out to training) another examiner in the future. This is why you see the ATFE National Firearm and Toolmark Academy program and now the state CCI Firearms Examiner programs brought into being. Florida and Illinois have been training quite a few people over the past several years. AFIS and CODIS! have similar affects on labs. We have a smaller backlog than LA had when I left there (which is worse now I think) but a larger one than we like. We had a good lab and staff and now it is better than it was. I suspect the same can be said by many of the labs around the state due to the Grant funding of the last few years. With the state budget being what it is now, the grant funds from the state are at an end for the next few years. Hopefully the federal grant programs will continue to be available to those labs that apply and qualify. There is always a need for ongoing in service training and equipment replacement and upgrade. Lab staff and facilities will always continue to grow as more sophisticated work and more crime will drive that. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/24/03 03:58PM >>> Jim; Just a quick question: I recall last year that your lab got something like $5,000,000.00 dollars for new equipment, a better building and more training. If I recall right, you guys were going for ASCLD certification, but they require 1,000 square feet of work space per scientist to prevent contamination of samples and you guys had something like 1/4 of that. In the stuff I read, ther was mention of a huge backlog, crowded conditions (even in your section, the firearms section if I'm not mistaken) and low employee morale. Just wondering how you think things are going now? Did the money go to the right places? I know you got accredited by ASCLD so things must be way better than they were. Brent -----Original Message----- From: James Roberts [mailto:James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:14 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 18:10:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBQNA8ZG025815 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Ventura Co. Crime Lab Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:10:03 -0900 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Jim; Just as an FYI - the article I have quotes Renee Artman, the crime lab manager, as stating of the Ventura County Sheriff's Crime Lab under her direction: "The crowded conditions have caused a backlog of evidence--particularly in the narcotics, DNA and firearms sections--slowed work and hurt employees' morale." The article is by Jenifer Raglund, "Ventura County County Crime Lab to Expand Forensics: Officials OK a $5.2 million project that should help facility win national accreditation," Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, March 6, 2002 That would be just about two years ago. Hope this helps, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 8:24 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Ventura Co. Crime Lab Our lab like many, if not most, in California have taken advantage of the Grant moneys made available from state and federal programs and funding from our own county over the last three years or so to upgrade our facilities and complete ASCLD certification. There was a big push from the state level to require ASCLD Cert. if you wanted to participate in any state funded programs. In doing that the state funded grant programs applied to by most county and city labs around the state for upgrades in facilities, equipment and training. The funds primarily being used to get or keep ASCLD Accreditation. LA County and LA City are building a very large lab facility on the state funds they are receiving from these programs, Sacramento Co. added state of the art lab equipment into a trace evidence facility and so on around the state. I don't think the conditions were ever as bleak as you paint them here. Things are better than they were. We still have some additional training and remodel work that will make things still better. I'd say ours is a similar set of circumstances to many labs around California and the nation. All working labs go through backlog fluctuations, manpower shortages, training budget highs and lows, space shortages (you seldom have enough), etc.. We were quite short of space, as it was about a 15 or 20 year old facility that had been outgrown. Modern facilities take quite a bit more room than their 20 year old counterparts and lab staffs constantly grow with the amount of work. We moved some office space and support facilities, to adjoining areas, opening up their old area for remodeling to lab space. Those sections that these new spaces were designed for have moved into the remodeled area. We will now remodel the older areas to upgrade them to be better than they were. Modern systems require more manpower, not less, and case loads grow with population increases. For example, NIBIN did not exist prior to 1992, with the advent of Drugfire it took up a footprint of about 4 or 5 feet of counter space or a table, IBIS on the other hand takes about the footprint of an 8'X10' room. Additional man power is required for them as well and they need still more space to do paperwork and initial evidence work-ups. We have added and trained a NIBIN Technician. There is a great shortage of fully trained Firearm and Toolmark Examiners, due to both retirements and increased workloads. We have one person in training (nearly done) and will probably train (or send out to training) another examiner in the future. This is why you see the ATFE National Firearm and Toolmark Academy program and now the state CCI Firearms Examiner programs brought into being. Florida and Illinois have been training quite a few people over the past several years. AFIS and CODIS! have similar affects on labs. We have a smaller backlog than LA had when I left there (which is worse now I think) but a larger one than we like. We had a good lab and staff and now it is better than it was. I suspect the same can be said by many of the labs around the state due to the Grant funding of the last few years. With the state budget being what it is now, the grant funds from the state are at an end for the next few years. Hopefully the federal grant programs will continue to be available to those labs that apply and qualify. There is always a need for ongoing in service training and equipment replacement and upgrade. Lab staff and facilities will always continue to grow as more sophisticated work and more crime will drive that. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/24/03 03:58PM >>> Jim; Just a quick question: I recall last year that your lab got something like $5,000,000.00 dollars for new equipment, a better building and more training. If I recall right, you guys were going for ASCLD certification, but they require 1,000 square feet of work space per scientist to prevent contamination of samples and you guys had something like 1/4 of that. In the stuff I read, ther was mention of a huge backlog, crowded conditions (even in your section, the firearms section if I'm not mistaken) and low employee morale. Just wondering how you think things are going now? Did the money go to the right places? I know you got accredited by ASCLD so things must be way better than they were. Brent -----Original Message----- From: James Roberts [mailto:James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:14 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Brent, Your lack of knowledge of how different systems around the country handle crime scene analysis is what is leading to your confusion about Liz's old job status. There are quit a few Labs around the country that have the scene done by criminalists and a great many more that have complex scenes handled by criminalists. Even systems with highly trained Crime Scene Technicians often have a Forensic Scientist or Criminalist come out to handle complex scene analysis. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 19:30:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBR0Un5m027705 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:30:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:34:13 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <025501c3cc11$2699f480$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <6E224FE8-3111-11D8-95F0-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 00:30:46.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB69B340:01C3CC10] 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 Rob, The relevance is that the PT which is submitted without the Lab's internal review provides an externally documented indication of the individual analyst's actual proficiency in that kind of an exam (which is the whole point of personal certification), one that cannot be hidden by the laboratory and so which insulates the lab against any such suspicion. This benefits the analyst, the lab, and the public, by removing any possible cloud of suspicion and instilling public confidence in the results being produced by both analyst and laboratory. There can be no laboratory "cover-up" of poor performance by an analyst because the lab cannot control the content of results it does not see until after the fact. As most of us realize, it is not enough to avoid actual impropriety, we must avoid any appearance of impropriety if we are to keep the public confidence. If the PT process allows the possibility of a "cover-up" of mistakes, people will naturally assume such "cover-ups" are, or at least could be, happening. This is why all PTs (whether used for accreditation, certification, or simply in-house QC) should be public documents open to review by anyone. Florida lawmakers refer to this kind of open-to-public-scrutiny process as "government in the sunshine." However, I must also point out that private examiners who offer opinions in public proceedings (e.g., trials) should also be subject to open public scrutiny of their proficiency testing. Getting back to why individual PT results are relevant even when the lab's QC system works: If an analyst is repeatedly failing the same kind of proficiency test over time, then it doesn't matter if the lab's QC system always catches his/her errors, they've still got a problem - an analyst whose abilities are demonstrably lacking, and whose lack of functional competency is not being remedied by the whatever actions (if any) the lab has taken in response. Secondly, you have to consider the dual purpose of proficiency testing - to not only test the lab's quality system but also to test the individual's abilities, serving both the goals of lab accreditation and individual certification. An analyst should not retain his/her personal certification with repeated, unremediated proficiency failures, because certification attests to the individual's abilities, not to the laboratory's. Whether or not the lab's QC system catches the analyst's errors is irrelevant to certification, because in either case the analyst remains deficient and fails to meet the requirements of certification. Again, the purpose of certification is to attest to individual competency, not lab competency. That's always an important distinction, but especially so when an analyst changes employers or ventures into independent private practice. They leave accreditation behind them with their former employer, but can take their individual certification with them. Lab accreditation and analyst personal certification are complementary programs; neither can substitute for the other, so both are needed. To be most effective then, proficiency testing must serve both programs. To serve lab accreditation, proficiency testing can be done either with or without peer or supervisory review prior to submission of results to the PT provider; but to serve personal certification, it MUST be done without peer or supervisory review prior to reporting results to the PT provider. 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 Rob Keister Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:20 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs accreditation requirements Bob, What is the relevance to a particular case when it is known that the analyst has failed a proficiency test where the unreviewed results were submitted to the test provider, but the case at hand was tested by the analyst and subject to peer review for accuracy (that would have caught the proficiency test error)? Proficiency testing is most useful when it is conducted in the same manner that the actual cases are conducted. I think most often this disconnect occurs when labs do things like have everyone in the section work the proficiency test and then send in a consensus answer, or conduct extra tests on proficiency samples. They never get a prof test wrong, but what about their routine cases where only one analyst works the case? Do the proficiency tests like you do your casework. And the best way to assess the quality of a particular case is to have it re-examined by an independent examiner. Rob Keister Orange Co. Sheriff Dept. On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 04:40 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > Alice, > > Thanks for the update. I was referring to the 2001 manual, my > mistake. We only recently received our copy of the new 2003 manual and > our Director is still reviewing it, so I haven't had an opportunity > yet to review it myself. I wasn't aware of that change from the 2001 > manual. It seems, then, that ASCLD-LAB has already clarified the > issue, and I should have thought to check the new manual before speaking up about > "current" requirements. "My bad" as the kids say. > > This means that accreditation and certification requirements for > proficiency testing may indeed be at odds, depending on the > certification body. For accreditation purposes, I understand the > desire > to have the PT used to test the entire quality system, and so including > peer and supervisory review makes perfect sense for that purpose. > However for certification, I still firmly believe it needs to be an > individual test with no peer or supervisory review, or it fails to > serve > the certification purpose of testing the individual analyst's abilities > without assistance, consultation, or correction from others. > > As I said before, a single PT can still serve both purposes if the > results are submitted to the external provider without review, but are > then reviewed prior to the publishing of manufacturer's information or > test results by the test provider. This way there can be no question > about labs "hiding" the PT failures of their analysts. If the analyst > gets the right answer, the requirements of both certification and > accreditation are satisfied. If the analyst gets the wrong answer on > his/her own, but the lab's review process catches and corrects the > error, then the PT would be reported as a failure to the certifying > body, but as a success to the accrediting body (ASCLD-LAB). If the > review process fails to catch the error, then it would be a failure > for both certification and accreditation purposes. > > How does that sound? Anyone see any problems with it? > > 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 Ammen, Alice > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:38 PM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] RE: proficiency testing, certification vs > accreditation requirements > > Bob, > > You wrote: "Regarding proficiency testing, there is nothing I have > seen in ASCLD-LAB guidelines, or in its interpretive rulings or > instructions to inspectors, that requires PTs to be subjected to peer > review prior to reporting." > > See the ASCLD-LAB 2003 manual. It states under Proficiency Testing, > "The laboratory should employ technical review, verification and > administrative > review policies as they are normally applied to casework." > > Alice Ammen > Montana Forensic Science Division > [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ "I'm gonna be a happy idiot and struggle for the legal tender." -- Jackson Browne [EndPost by Rob Keister ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 19:32:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBR0WcSC027991 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:32:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Bone ashes - How long can they be preserved Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:36:04 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <025b01c3cc11$68ca3ae0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <3FE49F06.BC3D360F@hotmail.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 00:32:37.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED9A20B0:01C3CC10] 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 My condolences to your friend. To answer his question: Ashes are effectively sterile, especially if encapsulated while still warm. To preserve them, all you need do is keep them dry. Permanently sealing the urn will take care of this. 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 Professor Anil Aggrawal Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 2:12 PM To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Subject: [forens] Bone ashes - How long can they be preserved Dear Sir, A friend has asked me the following question. Would you please be kind enough to provide me with an answer. Thanks. ************ Hi Anil, A question for the expert. A friend of mine has lost his mother yesterday and wants to keep her ashes / ?? bone remnants in an urn as a memory. He wants to know if it is hygenic and what can be done to preserve these. Cd u let me know asap? Thanks. Dr. Sanjay Chugh Senior Consultant Neuropsychiatrist ************ Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 20:00:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBR10Nio029104 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:03:48 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <025c01c3cc15$492225a0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 01:00:22.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[CDED2970:01C3CC14] 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'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 20:11:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBR1Bjrg029682 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:11:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:15:11 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <026001c3cc16$dfcee190$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <3FE87251.1DDB7F9C@hotmail.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 01:11:44.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[649B6C00:01C3CC16] 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 Dr. Aggrawal, The full text of this article can be purchased from the publisher's web site here: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=3n2 5ulytqj4v7a768x2m&referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,7;journal,1,16;browsepu blicationsresults,570,975; We should keep in mind that unless the Journal has voluntarily relinquished standard copyright restrictions, anyone (other than the author) who sends a copy of the paper to someone else without either obtaining the permission of the publisher or paying a royalty to the Copyright Clearance Center would be in technical violation of both US and international copyright law. 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 Professor Anil Aggrawal Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:50 AM To: Forensic Newsgroup (main) Subject: [forens] Forensic Epidemiology Dear List, In the latest issue of "Journal of Legal Medicine" there is a paper by Cyril H. Wecht and Steven A.Koehler entitled "Case Studies in Forensic Epidemiology". I have not gone through this paper, as this journal is not subscribed by our library. I am quite intrigued though by the term "Forensic Epidemiology". Can somebody tell me what it exactly means. Will it be possible for someone in the list to send me a pdf file of this paper, or may be a jpg scan. I would very much want to read the original paper. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Dec 26 20:47:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBR1lmL1000531 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:47:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:47:40 -0900 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 V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <025c01c3cc15$492225a0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> 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 Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 03:29:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBR8TPVJ005211 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:29:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:26:31 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Ancient DNA conference X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031227102013.01bb9f70@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hopefully the below posting will be of interest to the list. Azriel Gorski The DNA7 conference is being held in Brisbane Australia from the 10th to the 17th of July 2004. Session topics will include population genetics, evolution, disease, forensics, nanobes, preservation, residues, animal and botanical biomoleculaes and emerging technologies. Abstracts for papers and poster will be accepted as of the 6th of October 2003. If you would like more information about the conference please visit the conference website at http://www.ansoc.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=15259 or e-mail the committee on enquiries@dna7.org. Regards DNA7 organizing committee ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 06:15:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBRBFwRq007723 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:58 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <4BEC772D.18049613.0017CE10@aol.com> Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:17:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 11:15:52.0126 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9D49DE0:01C3CC6A] 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 Jeff: I couldn't help but note one particular comment (though there are others) that I think deserves some attention. "While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not." For more than twenty-seven years I've been a pilot. Most of the pilots I've flown with didn't have graduate degrees in physics. In fact, some of the better pilots I've flown with in that twenty-seven years (and 2100 hours of flight time) had degrees in pretty generic stuff, things like physical education, business administration (all that non-scientific stuff). As strange as it might seem, Jeff, I've never once felt ill at ease with their ability to 'apply' the laws of physics by operating complex equipment (including high performance fighter aircraft). If it helps in some way, I'm licensed to teach the applied science of physics (flight instruction as it's more commonly called). I'd point out that most of the pilots flying for airlines don't have graduate degrees in physics, but I wouldn't want to spoil your fun. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 10:32 AM Subject: Re:[forens] Education > List, > > Mr. Wheeler's reaction to the amount of time devoted to bloodstain pattern analysis is exactly what I have feared as the pervading notion that bloodstain pattern analysis can be learned in a matter of 3 or so 40 hour courses. In my opinion, bloodstain pattern analysis should be at a MINIMUM a 3 year training program. As a latent print examiner as well, I can remember starting out and thinking, "All I need to do is see the ridges and the points and that's all there is to it." My naive thoughts were quickly humbled after the first year of my latent training. While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not. I am sure many other latent examiners can corroborate this notion as it truly dificult to explain it to a lay person in an email. > > I draw the same parallel to bloodstain pattern analysis, which is much more difficult in both theory and application than latent print examinations. Bloodstain pattern analysis is more than simply identifying patterns. But even in that limited scope, it takes more than 180 hours of training to master that skill. > > Indeed there is much research still needed in bloodstain pattern analysis. I encourage and applaud the efforts and enthusiasm of anyone who wishes to study, research, develop and report on any topic within bloodstain pattern analysis for any length of time. I would argue that one year's time is a great start and certainly not overkill. > > Thanks! > > Jeff Gurvis > [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 06:18:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBRBIH8s008059 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:18:17 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <4BEC772D.18049613.0017CE10@aol.com> Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:20:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 11:18:12.0143 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D4983F0:01C3CC6B] 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 Jeff: I forgot one thing. If three years is barely enough for blood spatter analysis, I can't help but wonder what you'd think about a purported forensic scientist criticizing the work of others with barely two years of education in a real science, or would that fall beyond the pale? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 10:32 AM Subject: Re:[forens] Education > List, > > Mr. Wheeler's reaction to the amount of time devoted to bloodstain pattern analysis is exactly what I have feared as the pervading notion that bloodstain pattern analysis can be learned in a matter of 3 or so 40 hour courses. In my opinion, bloodstain pattern analysis should be at a MINIMUM a 3 year training program. As a latent print examiner as well, I can remember starting out and thinking, "All I need to do is see the ridges and the points and that's all there is to it." My naive thoughts were quickly humbled after the first year of my latent training. While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not. I am sure many other latent examiners can corroborate this notion as it truly dificult to explain it to a lay person in an email. > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 10:22:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBRFMN1u011337 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:22:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20031227152202.70265.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:22:02 -0800 (PST) From: Cathy OReilly Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: 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 Mr Wheeler, I have been reading this list for about two years now and have listened to many educated discussions and disagreements. In all that time, I have come across only two people who are condescending and rude. Those people are yourself and Mr Turvy (interesting that you are also at each others throats quite often). I just could not let another year go by with out making this observation. In future, I will just be more diligent in deleting your e-mails when I see them. Cathy O'Reilly Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 12:18:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBRHIY4c013659 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:18:34 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <20031227152202.70265.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:20:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 17:18:28.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[71BE3B10:01C3CC9D] 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 Ms. O'Reilly: It seems to me that either you and I are reading different lists or you aren't getting all the messages that post here. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cathy OReilly" To: Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education > Mr Wheeler, > I have been reading this list for about two years now and have listened to many educated discussions and disagreements. In all that time, I have come across only two people who are condescending and rude. Those people are yourself and Mr Turvy (interesting that you are also at each others throats quite often). > I just could not let another year go by with out making this observation. In future, I will just be more diligent in deleting your e-mails when I see them. > Cathy O'Reilly > > > > > Cathy O'Reilly > Biology,Chemistry,Forensics > Mamaroneck High School > Mamaroneck New York 10538 > o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 15:00:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBRK0gqY016518 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:00:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FEDE3E2.C48CB17F@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:26:18 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rparsons@ircc.edu CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] international copyright law 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 ***Your Original Message*** Dr. Aggrawal, The full text of this article can be purchased from the publisher's web site here: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=3n2 5ulytqj4v7a768x2m&referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,7;journal,1,16;browsepu blicationsresults,570,975; We should keep in mind that unless the Journal has voluntarily relinquished standard copyright restrictions, anyone (other than the author) who sends a copy of the paper to someone else without either obtaining the permission of the publisher or paying a royalty to the Copyright Clearance Center would be in technical violation of both US and international copyright law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL ***End of your Original Message*** Thanks for this piece of info. Does this rule apply to material meant for pure academic exchange between professionals? Please let me know. Thanks for this info anyway. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 17:09:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBRM9keS018141 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:09:46 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:09:38 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 Mr. Wheeler, I will answer both of your comments in a single email. For your first point... May I ask how many hours of instruction, flight time, and training it requires for one to become a pilot? I defer to you on this since it is not in my field of expertise. Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, I can assure you is. And your second comment.. It is dangerous to assume that all forensic disciplines are the same. They each have their own unique training requirements and guidelines. I also believe that you are lumping the definitions of training and education in the context of your response to my opinion on bloodstain pattern analysis. Be mindful of personal attacks on this list Mr. Wheeler. You can never be too sure who is reading this. And one final note...... I really do believe you have some valuable opinions and do contribute much to this list. I can arrange an open forum discussion on many of the issues that you raise here in a General Session of the next AAFS meeting in Febuary. I am sure many of us on this list would be delighted to hear your insights on training and education (and the differences between them) in person. Care to try me out? Jeff Gurvis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Dec 27 19:12:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBS0CfY8019731 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:12:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031227155237.024d9df8@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:05:05 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] Education 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 On the issue of training for blood spatter analysis: Assuming for the moment that someone really needs three years of training to do blood spatter analysis, who is to pay for this training? Is the value of such analysis, and the demand for such, worth the cost of such training? And, where does one get such training? Certainly, training implies some form of instruction by an instructor. I am not aware of any three year training programs offered by any organization. On the other hand perhaps this three years consists, in all or in part, of some type of mentoring or on-the-job training under the supervision of more experienced examiners? Is this the same as "three years of training?" When does this process end - magically at the end of three years, or is there some type of graduation requirement and ceremony to demonstrate and recognize competence? At the end of this three year training program, what is the blood spatter analyst expected to be able to do? Is the blood spatter analyst competent to attend a crime scene and by the person in charge of the crime scene processing? Is the blood spatter analyst capable of performing various field or laboratory tests to prove that suspected blood spatter is, in fact blood? Human blood? What about identifying other materials - after all, blood is not the only thing that can spatter? Is the analyst trained in the performance or interpretation or even understanding of genetic profiling of biological evidence? What is the job responsibility of this person after three years of "training." 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 Dec 28 08:17:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBSDHIIB027328 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:17:18 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Education Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 07:19:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2003 13:17:12.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[E76B3960:01C3CD44] 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 Jeff: > > May I ask how many hours of instruction, flight time, and training it > requires for one to become a pilot? I defer to you on this since it is not in my > field of expertise. Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, I can assure you is. It depends on a few things, such as what type of rating is sought, what type of school (part 141) the training is being offered by. It can be as little as 30 hours for a recreational pilot to more than 1200 for an Air Transport Pilot. Most folks average around 50 hours before they are ready to take the flight check for a private pilot certificate. > > And your second comment.. > > It is dangerous to assume that all forensic disciplines are the same. This begs the question as to why you drew on your experience and training in latent prints in your earlier post? If you believe that the disciplines are different (and I concur) then assigning some gross figure of three years seems rather extreme. Peter's question remains unanswered, what institution is it that spends that length of time training somebody to do one task? Would I be correct in assuming that you spent three years studying blood spatter and another three studying latent prints? If not, how much time was spent? It would seem to me that the cost of such training would eventually reach such poor return that few crime labs would bother underwriting it. >They each have their own unique training requirements and guidelines. Indeed, but how then do you explain your comparison of your training in latent prints to blood spatter analysis (see your earlier post)? It seems to me that making a comparative analysis of the two as you did is....well....a bit at odds with what you have to say now. Bear in mind that I don't disagree with your current position, only that I find it somewhat at odds with your earlier posting. > I also believe that you are lumping the definitions of training and education in the > context of your response to my opinion on bloodstain pattern analysis. Be mindful > of personal attacks on this list Mr. Wheeler. You can never be too sure who is > reading this. I'd like to think that you would express the same opinions publically that you would privately, Jeff. Perhaps that's naive of me, but I think that would be the honest thing to do. It was your opinion that 'three years training' was a good starting point for blood spatter analysis. I've yet to see even one institution that spends that much time on the subject. Apparently Peter Barnett has also reached a similar conclusion. Given that no institution spends the amount of time that you feel is necessary on the subject, how is it that you obtained what you feel was the requisite level of training and by what means? Note that this is by no means a personal attack on you. It only calls into question how you apply the standards you adhere to on a professional level. > > And one final note...... > > I really do believe you have some valuable opinions and do contribute much to > this list. I appreciate your kind words, but mostly I just ask questions and from time to time make observations. They may not make folks happy, but I think they hold up pretty well. > I can arrange an open forum discussion on many of the issues that > you raise here in a General Session of the next AAFS meeting in Febuary. I > am sure many of us on this list would be delighted to hear your insights on > training and education (and the differences between them) in person. Care to try > me out? I'm willing to oblige so long as the rules applied to the forum are fair. > > > Jeff Gurvis > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Dec 28 18:46:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBSNk7f4003659 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:46:07 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: <84.1f7cf482.2d20c536@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:45:58 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 Pete, Shaun, and the list at large, To start with, let me just qualify my comments regarding a 3 year training program. As Pete suggests, and I wholeheartedly agree, there should not be a "magic number" that one must be training for before one can say that he/she is a bloodstain pattern analyst. I should have said that a training program that lasts 3 years would be appropriate. Granted, some people just grasp things faster and experience more so that the program could be completed in a shorter time frame but certainly not in a few 40 hour courses. I should also note that there is no suggested training program in existence. I will address this further below. Pete, I am referring to a comprehensive training program that includes classroom instruction, literature review, practical exercises and experimentation, apprenticeship-type experience, competency testing, a period of 100% technical review of casework...yada yada yada. This should not be surprising in that many other disciplines have similar training regimens. Can you imagine someone doing casework in latent print examinations after just 120 hours of classroom instruction? Labs all across the country put people through 2-3 year long training programs in latent print examination. Questioned documents and firearms examiners are also put through lengthy programs. So why not bloodstain pattern analysis which is every bit as complex as other disciplines? I do recognize, however, that most labs do not need a full time bloodstain pattern analyst. Expecting them to pay for this training is not reasonable. Given the volume of cases on the other hand, I would make the argument that every state system should have one as well as the metropolitan area laboratories. I am definitely stretching for the ideal. But isn't that what we should shoot for? Many of the questions that both you, Shaun, and I have discussed are unanswered by the discipline as a whole. This is what prompted my idea for the creation of SWGSTAIN which is the scientific working group on bloodstain pattern analysis. We are addressing fundamental questions regarding training and education, quality assurance, admissibility, ethics, research, and terminology to name a few. Even defining the discipline, which alludes to your question about what does a bloodstain pattern analyst do and what are his/her responsibilities, is an issue we are tackling. I do not mean to imply that bloodstain pattern analysis is the "grandest" of all disciplines and is more involved than any other. But there is more to it than you might think and when properly applied can be a very useful tool in forensic community. By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, the correct term is bloodstain pattern analysis rather than blood spatter. Just one of the things we have straightened out recently. Blood spatter only refers to certain types of patterns and does not include transfers, wipes and swipes hence the switch to the more professional and all encompassing term. Thanks! Jeff Gurvis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Dec 28 19:57:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBT0vp0C005147 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:57:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031228162558.0247e8e8@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:57:41 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] Education In-Reply-To: <84.1f7cf482.2d20c536@aol.com> References: <84.1f7cf482.2d20c536@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 >This is what prompted my idea for the >creation of SWGSTAIN which is the scientific working group on bloodstain >pattern analysis. SWGSTAIN? All this business needs is another SWG. Before long this Balkanization of forensic science will mean that it will be impossible for any organization to have a staff can that meet every SWG's requirements for proficiency testing, training, etc., etc. Are we going to have SWGSWIPE, SWGTRANSFER, SWGWIPE, and do we have to repeat all of these for every type of thing that might be stains, swipes, wipes, or transfers. If we expect to have forensic science make any kind of a significant impact on the criminal justice system we need to be realistic. Driving to work, or a crime scene, is probably the most demanding task that most forensic scientists have to do - and there is virtually no training requirement and, at best, a rudimentary proficiency testing requirement. Who would go to college, get a job in a forensic laboratory, then be told they have to go through a three year period of training before they can do even one type of case work? That's not a job - it's a sentence. If these kinds of training requirements become widely accepted we should give the jobs to inmates - at least we can be sure that after the training program they will stick around for a while. It seems to me the answer to this dilemma (of the need for training) is to support education. That is different than training, although the recent trend to turn the profession of education into the business of training has largely eradicated the distinction between education and training. But forensic science is a perfect example of why education is important - it gives people the background and tools necessary to understand the questions, devise the means for answering the questions, and implementing the process which leads to the answer (that's also called an "experiment"). Education should allow forensic scientists to understand that the examination of a bloodstain, a fingerprint, or a fired bullet involves essentially similar concepts which, once understood, can be applied after some instruction in the use of the magnifying glass, comparison microscopic, protractor, or CE analyzer. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Sun Dec 28 20:27:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBT1RlAe005871 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:27:47 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: <47.377accf4.2d20dd07@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:27:35 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 Pete, I agree with you that the training burden for most disciplines lies in the lap of the laboratories and I think that much of this could be transferred on to the students and academic education. I am all for that. I cannot see however, your opposition to the SWGs. It builds nationwide concensus and gives laboratories and analysts guidance. I found your demeaning comments about SWGSTAIN a bit out of character for you as I have long respected your views in the past. There is not a SWG for each pattern as you sarcastically imply. The SWGs and especially SWGSTAIN are not meant to be a select group of people deciding the fate of their respective disciplines. SWGSTAIN is set up so that EVERYONE in the discipline can partake in developing guidelines (not requirements as you mistakenly claim) for the practice of the science. Could you let me know which discipline your roots are in? Perhaps a more correct analogy is required to explain myself. Thanks! Jeff --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Dec 28 23:31:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBT4V68Y008259 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:31:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031228201754.024e9f20@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:32 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] Education In-Reply-To: <47.377accf4.2d20dd07@aol.com> References: <47.377accf4.2d20dd07@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 05:27 PM 12/28/2003, you wrote: >There is not a SWG for each pattern as you sarcastically imply. The SWGs >and especially SWGSTAIN are not meant to be a select group of people deciding >the fate of their respective disciplines. SWGSTAIN is set up so that >EVERYONE in the discipline can partake in developing guidelines (not >requirements as >you mistakenly claim) for the practice of the science. I have yet to see a SWG that "is set up so that EVERYONE in the discipline can partake in developing guidelines." It used to be the case that SWG guidelines were available publicly while they were in the development process. That is no longer true. It used to be the case that, on occasion, SWG members reported to their regional associations on the activities of the SWGs. That is no longer (for the most part) true. It should be the case that the work product of the SWGs had some reasonable scientific justifications. That is not generally true. It used to be the case that the SWGs claimed that they would establish procedures (e.g., round robin testing) to establish what worked and what doesn't. I have seen very, little, if any, of that. It has always been the case that the SWGs have prescribed unrealistic training and practice requirements that can not generally be met, causing laboratories to not do examinations that they had done in the past. That activity continues. It may be the case that the SWGs have resulted in overall improvement in the practice of forensic science. If that is the case, good. But I am not convinced. >Could you let me know which discipline your roots are in? My roots are publicly available and included with nearly every post that I send. I wish that were true of everyone. 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 Dec 29 11:40:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTGexE2018198 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:40:59 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:40:21 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13EE87771W4115540-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBTGewCp018193 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 Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the others on the show probably moniter the list. Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the paper, more often than not. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 13:38:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTIcGpo020630 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:38:16 -0500 (EST) From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:38:09 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6803 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 Pete, I can tell you from firsthand experience that SWGFAST (fingerprint) publishes drafts for comment all the time. I haven't checked any of the other SWGs. SWGSTAIN's bylaws explicitly say that all documents must be put out for comment AND every single comment must be addressed. In addition, both the IABPA (International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts) and IAI are updated as to the activities of the group. Would it be possible if you could provide an example of a laboratory discontinuing analysis due to an "over-zealous" training regimen? I think the SWG's can be a positive vehicle for the good of forensic science just as long as they realize that they and their respective disciplines do not exist in a vacuum. Thanks! Jeff Gurvis SWGSTAIN member IAI Bloodstain Pattern Subcomittee Co-Chair IAI Bloodstain Pattern Certification Board member IABPA member FBI Instructor Just thought I would throw that in :) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 14:09:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTJ9TRl021605 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:09:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:09:18 -0900 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 V6.00.2600.0000 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 Jim; My apologies. In rereading her original message she mentions your defense of her at the outset so it was my understanding that you guys had exchanged emails. Perhaps she or someone from the show moniters the list. Regardless, I wouldn't have had a problem if you had sent her a copy. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying. At any rate, I'm with you on JAG. However, JAG does not have a retired JAG officer wring and producing the show and claiming in the press that JAG is essentially an accurate portrayal. In one interview Ms. Devine claimed rather boldly: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/4745872.htm [quote] ''We don't make anything up,'' she insisted. What about the stab-wound-and-caulk scene? She paused, then blurted: 'I lost that battle in the writers' room. I pounded the table and said: 'You can't do that.' They went around me.'' [endquote] Here is a transcribed CNN interview with her on the subject: [quote] CNN: Grade "CSI" on its potrayal of criminalists. Devine: I'd give them an A for effort, but probably a B plus. They really want to make it real, but there are certain things in television, because you have to move the story along -- you have to kind a cheat. For instance, how long it takes to do a particuliar examination: We make them happen very fast on the show and that's probably not realistic. ... CNN: Is there anything with which you disagree? You've suggested that the show's criminalists shouldn't interview suspects. Devine: We don't do that. The detectives do that. They're specially trained. We are not trained in that. I have asked suspects questions, but they relate directly to evidence I was collecting. But in some shows, (police) are always barking at the criminalist, "Tell that guy to get that done in the lab." We're always the grunts and the lab boys. So this ("C.S.I.") is our turn to be the stars, and I'm fine with that." [endquote] She further claims in other interviews that: [quote] ...cheating is actually quite minimal and discussed long in advance... [she] has taught the cast how to walk through a crime scene (gingerly). The actors also know how to handle the tools of the trade. "It's a huge learning curve," says Devine, "but they know all the basics now." [endquote] Ms. Devine gives the grade as B+. I would give more like a D+ for just basic forensic science. I would be curious to hear the grade practicing criminalists would give Devine's CSI criminalists. Especially since they all know the basics now. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 7:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the others on the show probably moniter the list. Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the paper, more often than not. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 15:11:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTKBG0L023141 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:11:16 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:09:01 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcPOKm2lyNw9tgbUTIGcAc+1dfS2iQAHHvag Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Jim, I'm the same way about medical shows, having worked in medicine previously for 30 years. Everyone is so serious! I don't expect everyone to roll around the floor in hysterics during a TV medical show, but they could lighten up a little! It's not always as bad as it's made out to be. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 3:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the others on the show probably moniter the list. Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the paper, more often than not. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 16:19:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTLJRJU025021 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:19:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003801c3ce51$6abe11e0$6400a8c0@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:19:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 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 Lynn, I understand your point of view, but you have to consider the impact this may be having on our society. Since there are no extant research on this... the position such as Bob Parson versus that of your own cannot really be assessed. From what I have observed so far in my studies, I have a strong notion that all this fictional forensic science has quite an impact on the American public. It may not be benign as you think. And as opposed to the medical, legal, etc shows out there, this one can be undermining the US judicial system. To what extent...to what significance, I cannot say just yet. Now, if perhaps folks such as CSI would put a disclaimer that what the see is fictional and may not reflect real life scenarios...would this make any impact on viewers? Or can you compare the avid fictional forensic science show viewer to those who view the "real life" forensic science shows...is there a marked difference on some factor? We cannot determine any of these without study...and these are the answers I am seeking to find. Now, in your 30 years of medical experience, have you had anyone come up to you and ask you is such and such that I saw on TV how you saved lives in real life? Like, "I saw Dr. Joe Schmo on ER perform this procedure which saved this guy's life!! Do you do that?" Now, with forensic science, not everyday do people run into a professional who can debunk what we see on TV...and in fact, there is this certain fascination... perhaps the same lure which led many of us to pursue these careers... with forensic science like no other profession at this current time. People meet doctors in everyday life... people meet lawyers in everyday life... but, oh boy, when they meet someone in this profession how many faces light up. I am sure if we were to hold a career day at a middle school, a high school, or even at the university level, the forensic science booth would be ransacked, perhaps the most popular at this fair. Now, having that said, what is the impact of having all this popularity while not having the ability to be portrayed accurately in the minds of the public. We know what doctors do, we know what lawyers do... but do we, the public, actually know what the forensic sciences does? I could go on! I am trying to put my finger on this, but it may be more complicated than we all think. To all a happy new year, and may it bring good times!! Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Hi Jim, I'm the same way about medical shows, having worked in medicine > previously for 30 years. Everyone is so serious! I don't expect everyone > to roll around the floor in hysterics during a TV medical show, but they > could lighten up a little! It's not always as bad as it's made out to be. > > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of James Roberts > Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 3:40 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't > even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked > what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the > others on the show probably moniter the list. > > Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every > profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a > retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was > surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of > what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. > Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even > most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I > just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe > what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, > based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, > come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the > paper, more often than not. > Jim > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> > Bob; > > I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to > forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe > that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something > they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well > within his rights to alert his good friend. > > Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of > essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her > statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure > you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." > > She did sign her email: > > "Elizabeth Devine > Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, > CSI:Miami" > > This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her > credit for. > > Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring > innaccuracies, was as follows: > > "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics > that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other > shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think > the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus > make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate > science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and > CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and > watcheable. > > Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific > technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the > facts. > > The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so > irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." > > Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay > to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. > > I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as > qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She > should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off > on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I > don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this > manner: > > "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that > your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There > are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." > > And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's > even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a > community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is > trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of > touch as these views suggest some of us have become. > > Brent > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > > I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm > working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch > hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than > the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other > interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her > suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, > simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The > fact that she is now a "story editor" > implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. > The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I > suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. > It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that > feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. > Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having > vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if > it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." > > Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in > Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the > story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely > accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene > collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or > she couldn't say that with a straight face. > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html > > Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I > think is illuminating: > > "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of > television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. > The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just > maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional > perception of cops goes." > > Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems > with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does > the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? > Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then > she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her > bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal > nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show > with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate > - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more > skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical > inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, > but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by > returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. > I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a > seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the > contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. > > 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 Brent Turvey > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Bob; > > I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: > > An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years > with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene > investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. > > In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the > one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. > Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words > that she writes. > > This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not > being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime > scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about > the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion > that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no > distinction is made here between fact and fiction. > > "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > > The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a > full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I > understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a > case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading > an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does > often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, > unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I > recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses > the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science > in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't > seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She > maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science > is at least based on reality. > I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows > little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 17:55:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTMtJ1H027312 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:55:19 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:53:41 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <003801c3ce51$6abe11e0$6400a8c0@davelaptop> Thread-Index: AcPOUTmRYr4Z0ePbSUGOjR78cgjbIAACl4Sg Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBTMtFCp027305 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dave, I get your point. Since I changed from medicine to the field of forensics, I don't get as many questions regarding medicine because I just don't tell people what I do any more. And yes, I have had people ask me do they do so and so in real life in medicine. I can only answer them if am positive of the answer and as I was working in neurosurgery for quite a while, my focus is more in that field. I can say that in the hospitals in which I have worked - and I stress, the hospitals IN WHICH I HAVE WORKED (so this isn't covering every one of them in case people start getting ready to attack me) I haven't worked in an ER which is as chaotic as the one shown on shows like Trauma. Now before everyone gets their hackles up, WE DON'T HAVE NEAR THE POPULATION THAT THE US DOES so that probably accounts for part of the reason. We don’t have anywhere near the amount of injury by firearms either - not that I know of anyway. I always like the disclaimers they put at the end of these shows - they go past so fast you couldn't read them anyway! I totally agree with you also that people are fascinated if they even have an inkling that one is studying forensics and I refuse to discuss my studies or whatever else I do even with people I barely know - and many people don't believe you anyway. Not my close friends, they know what I'm doing and studying. Personally I feel that people are becoming fed up with medical and legal shows (I know I am) so forensics is a whole new focus for them and it gets right down to the nitty-gritty which has always fascinated people. I have had friends visit my house, look through my bookcase, and say, "Oh my God, Lynn how can you look at this?" and yet, you wait until they can't see you and they're thumbing through the books as fast as they can go. Overall I totally agree with you, Dave. Meeting doctors doesn't impress me, or lawyers because there are so many of them, but forensic scientists - well, you don't meet them every day do you? I just have a crappy way of explaining myself! Regards for 2004 Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:05:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTN57db027822 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:05:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:05:06 -0900 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: <003801c3ce51$6abe11e0$6400a8c0@davelaptop> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal 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 David; First let me say that I am all for the idea of a disclaimer at the end of each show of CSI. At least then we could point to this from the stand and keep the playing field level. In fact I suggested this very thing to CSI's Elizabeth Devine yesterday. Not sure what the result will be but one can hope. Second, you've hit on the issue precisely. The utter ignorance of the general public and those in Hollywood regarding the forensic sciences is staggering. Very few people know what the forensic sciences are and how and when they are applied (or by whom). This leaves the public at the mercy of ignorant exchanges between pontificators in various venues who've never been educated or trained in forensic science, let alone been allowed to present findings before a jury under penalty of pejury. For those who need primer, I recommend Dr. John Thornton (Thornton, John I., "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," for David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, & Joseph Sanders, Editors (1997) Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.): "What then, of the forensic scientist? The single feature that distinguishes forensic scientists from any other scientist is the certain expectation that they will appear in court and testify to their findings and offer an opinion as to the significance of those findings. The forensic scientist will testify not only to what things are, but to what things mean. Forensic science is science exercised on behalf of the law in the just resolution of conflict." Brent Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 12:19 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Lynn, I understand your point of view, but you have to consider the impact this may be having on our society. Since there are no extant research on this... the position such as Bob Parson versus that of your own cannot really be assessed. From what I have observed so far in my studies, I have a strong notion that all this fictional forensic science has quite an impact on the American public. It may not be benign as you think. And as opposed to the medical, legal, etc shows out there, this one can be undermining the US judicial system. To what extent...to what significance, I cannot say just yet. Now, if perhaps folks such as CSI would put a disclaimer that what the see is fictional and may not reflect real life scenarios...would this make any impact on viewers? Or can you compare the avid fictional forensic science show viewer to those who view the "real life" forensic science shows...is there a marked difference on some factor? We cannot determine any of these without study...and these are the answers I am seeking to find. Now, in your 30 years of medical experience, have you had anyone come up to you and ask you is such and such that I saw on TV how you saved lives in real life? Like, "I saw Dr. Joe Schmo on ER perform this procedure which saved this guy's life!! Do you do that?" Now, with forensic science, not everyday do people run into a professional who can debunk what we see on TV...and in fact, there is this certain fascination... perhaps the same lure which led many of us to pursue these careers... with forensic science like no other profession at this current time. People meet doctors in everyday life... people meet lawyers in everyday life... but, oh boy, when they meet someone in this profession how many faces light up. I am sure if we were to hold a career day at a middle school, a high school, or even at the university level, the forensic science booth would be ransacked, perhaps the most popular at this fair. Now, having that said, what is the impact of having all this popularity while not having the ability to be portrayed accurately in the minds of the public. We know what doctors do, we know what lawyers do... but do we, the public, actually know what the forensic sciences does? I could go on! I am trying to put my finger on this, but it may be more complicated than we all think. To all a happy new year, and may it bring good times!! Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:45:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNjKIY028811 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:45:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:48:48 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027401c3ce66$4dcafac0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:45:19.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[D10880C0:01C3CE65] 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 Makes sense to me. Until your previous post, I had understood that sterilization via autoclaving eliminated the risk of spurious DNA contaminating case samples, and apparently this is correct for unamplified DNA. Your post about the tenacity of amplified DNA made me wonder about a way to destroy it. I guess, then, that where amplified DNA is concerned previously autoclaved single-use disposable supplies is the best approach. Would you agree? 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 Terry Spear Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:56 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Bob - Since microwaves have been used to perform DNA extractions, I would guess that they may not be very effective at getting rid of all traces of DNA. It is my perception that DNA contamination from "new" tubes or swabs is relatively rare and as long as it's not amplified DNA, autoclaving should be sufficient for preparing supplies for nuclear DNA typing. [This assumes that amplified DNA is confined to rooms that are set up to only produce, type and store amplified DNA. Most DNA labs are designed to do exactly this.] Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:48PM >>> Pure speculation here - would treatment in a microwave oven have any efficacy in destroying DNA, or at least preventing DNA amplification? What about combining autoclaving with microwave treatment? 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 Terry Spear Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Several years ago we did some fairly simple experiments to see what was required to destroy DNA so that it could not be amplified. At the time, we used the ABI reagents kits that targeted the HLA DQ alpha and/or "Polymarker" loci. One of the "treatments" that we look at was a standard autoclave cycle which we were using on our polypropylene microfuge tubes. What we found was that: (1) placing (separately) 10ul and 40 ul of saliva in microfuge tubes [duplicate samples] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle and (2) placing (separately) 4ng and 40 ng of extracted DNA in microfuge tubes [samples also run in duplicate] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle resulted in samples that could not be amplified. HOWEVER, putting 1 or 10 ul of amplified product into a microfuge tube and autoclaving these samples for the appropriate loci did not prevent this type of template from being successfully amplified. Although this did not come as a b! ig surprise, we found that it was extremely difficult to destroy amplified DNA. About the only thing we found to work on relatively small amounts of amplified DNA was a 20% bleach solution. Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 12/14/03 02:07PM >>> Re Comments by Robert Parsons. The idea of autoclaving solutions/tubes was introduced into molecular biology perhaps 40 years ago to inactivate DNAases supposedly in the buffers used for DNA extraction. Generally, this is not necessary but it is still a common practice. For some obscure reason the idea has come about that autoclaving destroys DNA so that it cannot be amplified. I have never seen published data supporting the hypothesis that autoclaving destroys all DNA. Has anyone seen this data published or it is one of the many "myths" which arise over the years? Incidentally, low level nuclear DNA testing has led to the concept of DNA "falling from the ceiling" (not literally). This concept has come from the relatively high frequency of reagent (extraction) blanks showing alleles in low level DNA testing. This, and other factors, complicates the statistics of such testing. If one was to attempt single cell analysis, presumably this will become even more of a problem. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:46:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNk52v028963 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:46:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:49:33 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027501c3ce66$69018840$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20031223205847.80673.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:46:04.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC3F0E40:01C3CE65] 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 Tim, Interesting, thanks. I wonder if any vendors have thought of offering supplies specifically intended for use in DNA amplification applications which would be treated via high-level ionizing radiation as a DNA decontamination ("sterilant") strategy. X-ray and gamma-ray treatment is far beyond the resources of most crime labs. 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 Tim Sliter Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:59 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Bob, I would agree with the previous comments, that neither microwave irradiation or autoclaving would be expected to eliminate or make un-amplifiable low level contaminating DNA. We routinely use UV-crosslinkers to treat both microcentrifuge tubes and DNA extraction solutions prior to use, and it works very well, although it's somewhat time consuming. We started doing this when we were validating mitochondrial DNA sequencing, because we were detecting sporadic low-level DNA contamination that could not be traced to lab personnel. We carried it over to STR testing (where it is overkill) so that we could standardize our material/solution QC procedures. There are some problems using UV-radiation for this purpose, and it wouldn't be expected to work on swabs very well, particularly if they are packaged in some way. But other ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma-rays would be expected to work quite well. Tim Sliter Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:48PM >>> Pure speculation here - would treatment in a microwave oven have any efficacy in destroying DNA, or at least preventing DNA amplification? What about combining autoclaving with microwave treatment? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:47:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNl8ef029341 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:47:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:50:37 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027601c3ce66$8ea1cba0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:47:07.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[11DF2A90:01C3CE66] 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 Not at all - you can see the same in any detective show. The thing that raises my ire is that CSI falsely promotes itself as technically accurate. None of the other detective, medical, legal, etc., shows do that. 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 CHRISTOPHER BREYER Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:39 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Is anyone really surprised that forensic scientists on TV are as misrepresented dramatically as are doctors, lawyers, detectives, judges and plumbers? Chris Breyer >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:51PM >>> The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:22 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? It's frightening isnt it? I get emails from 13 and 14 year olds who think once they finish Year 11, they can go straight out and be a CSI "like on the TV"! And heaven forbid if you point out the years of study, just to qualify in forensics and then more study to specialise in a specific area. I get told, "What do you know and if you don't like the work don't do it." Now the fact that I've never said that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the subject. I swear that the next person who says, "Ooooh, you must LOVE CSI on television" will be picking their teeth up from the cracks in the sidewalk! I thought these shows were supposed to have authentic qualified advisors working on the set - makes you wonder who it is - Ted Bundy reincarnated? So nowadays when I'm asked what I'm doing or studying or whatever I just tell them, I don't work! I'm on the dole. I've come to detest going out to dinner with friends who also bring friends and then getting drilled about the whole subject through dinner. Am I a crotchety old broad or what? Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 10:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? This is exactly why I detest the "CSI" television program, and its repeated false claims of authenticity. I would have no complaint if it were like any other cop show, which most sensible viewers realize are highly fictionalized; but this show continues to promote itself as being very realistic and true-to-life when it is far, far from it. It is no better than any other cop show when it comes to its portrayal of forensic science -- more detailed and technical, certainly, but no more realistic. Yet its promoters continue to present it as something it is not, and it is within this misinformation that the danger lies. I truly believe this show does far more harm than good by MISeducating the public with plausible-sounding misinformation, and has a very real potential to poison prospective jury pools in cases hinging on forensic scientific analytical results. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff et al; This is an important discussion and I'm glad to see it on the table. Those of us who do forensic work know that criminalists (forensic scientists who do bench lab work) do not typically respond to crime scenes, if at all. This because their often specialized duties do not typically require it. This is even discussed breifly in Saferstain's work. However, TV criminalists do so on a regular basis, and this creates a false perception/ expectation. This is not really a problem until it intrudes on court-work. More than once I've been on the stand with a DA explaining to me that state criminalists or forensic scientists (in California) regularly or even always respond crime scenes and that this is a defining feature of being a forensic scientist. They get this idea from TV and others (some professionals, some not) interested in promotiong a false view of what precisely forensic science is and where it must be practiced. As I write this, I'm imagining that I will get a few responses from police criminalists who wish to preserve their percieved crime scene prowess by emphasizing the nature and quality of their visits to crime scenes. And that is what this issue is about in court: the perception of prowess. Admit that you don't regularly respond and you may lose some in the eyes of a jury that has been fed an expectation by TV and film. Explain that the majority of reconstruction work can and does take place away from a fresh crime scene (only after other testing is done and more complete information is available, and the crime scene has been released) and opposing counsel may seek to impeach you to the jury with his notes from last week's episode of CSI. And it may just work because juries believe what they see on TV. Just my thoughts, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:35 AM To: Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Geoff, I will answer the question s submitted below by highlighting the answers. I would be remiss in pointing out that the officer in charge decides when and if a criminalist will be called. If you are responding for your agency or another, keep in mind it is their scene. You essentially are an invited guest. Most of the time, detectives don't want to wait for a criminalist to arrive, especially with drive-by shooting cases or smoking gun shootings. Most of the time, when we are called to a scene, it generally is a blood spatter or multiple shooting incident. Sometimes we get call ed the next day, when the case has no immediate leads. It is important coordinate with the on scene investigator, the technical personnel who photograph, dust for prints and bag and tag. Sometimes there are arguments over the criminalist taking their own photographs. some agencies want only one set of "official" crime scene photographs. Also, will the evidence you seize be turned over to that agency for booking into their property or will you take it back to your lab ! for analysis? Evidence chain of custody and final disposition can be a real problem for laboratory especially when they are a secondary agency. I would like to suggest that you meet regularly with the homicide units that you will serve. In Kern County, I meet weekly as the Laboratory's representative with the detectives of the major homicide units. We keep abreast on current cases, and methodologies, and they can get answers to questions or critiques on their cases. Having someone from your unit attend Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team meetings on a regular basis is helpful in that the SART nurses are made aware of protocols. You can offer training and an exchange of information as well. On call pay can be a real issue and may have to be negotiated through your union, and don't forget scheduling, which can be difficult when, holidays approach, or if there is extended sick leave. Just a few of the things to consider. You can call me if you need more specifics. 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 >>> Geoff.Bruton@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 12/1/2003 9:34:11 AM >>> Dear List Members, In light of recent discussions at our laboratory with regards to the 'should we/shouldn't we' question of sending criminalists to crime scenes, I have been asked by my manager to submit this brief questionnaire to the List. There are only four questions, and I would be most grateful for any information regarding the policy followed at your agency. Many thanks in advance, Geoff. P.S.: May I also take this opportunity to thank those of you who were kind enough to respond to my question concerning crime scene handbooks. They were all extremely helpful. >>>> 1. Does your agency send Criminalists (Scientists with BS degree) to all homicide related crime scenes? a) NO b) YES If not, 2. Who do you send to the crimes scenes? a) Field Evidence Technicians b) Police Officer c) Other We are a District Attorney's Laboratory. Agencies must request a criminailist. Some agencies rely on us more than others. Who does your bullet trajectory analysis? A criminalist trained in such matters. Who does your blood spatter interpretation? A criminalist trained in such matters. 3. Do the Criminalists respond to other types of crime scenes? If yes, Serial Rape, Explosions, Vehicle examinations, Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Officer Involved Shootings. 4. What other types of scenes do they respond to? Homicide scenes, autopsies, vehicles, and explosions. >>>> Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:50:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNocSL000267 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:50:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalistsat Crime Scenes?) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:54:06 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027701c3ce67$0b5d67d0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:50:37.0099 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E9A9FB0:01C3CE66] 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 Higher absolute number? Perhaps not. Far higher percentage? Certainly, as you granted. One can only hope that, after being informed how totally unprepared and unqualified they were, they would then seek to become qualified scientists - but I fear that is unlikely for the majority. Many of these applicants were police officers and students with a stated lack of interest in (and/or lack of aptitude for) obtaining science degrees. Others were recent criminal justice or other social science graduates. They all were dismayed and disappointed to find that their misconceptions, fed by CSI and its ilk, were far from reality. They were also discouraged, because they had no desire (much less any intent) to go back to school and become scientists. That was my point. 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 CHRISTOPHER BREYER Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:15 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalistsat Crime Scenes?) Practically speaking, does that mean that prior to "CSI" you would have had a higher number of actually qualified applicants to choose from? I think not. Certainly, you would have had less dross to go through to find them. Perhaps some of that dross will apply itself to academics and become qualified? Chris Breyer >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/23/03 01:33PM >>> Unfortunately, much of the pool of applicants we are seeing are UNqualified and don't realize it. CSI is a major contributor to their misunderstanding, in my opinion. We recently filled a drug analysis position advertised nation-wide for three months. Out of the dozens of applicants for the position (all of them enthusiastic), only three were well enough qualified to be invited for an interview. That says a lot. 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 CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: 2004 FSEC Conferences - Was (RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes?) Cathy, "...the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world." Personally I agree with you. I would rather have a hiring pool of qualified applicants who are passionate about forensic Science, than a pool of qualified applicants who were "just looking for a job". On the flip side, I have run across students who really wanted to work in a crime lab, knew what it actually involved, and were told all through college that a degree in Anthropology would get them there. That's a shame. Go to www.AAFS.org and look at the Forensic Science Education Conferences scheduled for 2004. If you are able to apply I would highly suggest you do. These conferences are designed for the high school science teacher to be able to design a program wrapped around forensics. Good Luck. Adam Becnel Forensic Scientist III Louisiana State Police Crime Lab 376 E. Airport Road Baton Rouge, LA 70808 cbecnel@dps.state.la.us 225 925-6216 Sent by: Cathy OReilly To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I have been listening for awhile to this thread about CSI. I am a high school science teacher with a BS in Biochemistry and a MS in Biology. I know a bit about science and it seems that the vast majority in the show is accurate. The lab is certainly better equipped than the vast majority in the county, the lab time is incredibly fast, sometimes the characters have incredibly stupid lines, the ladies overdress, and it is usually a bit much on the drama! Having said all that, the show gets my classes excited so I can teach them the science and let them know the education they will need to become a forensic scientist in the real world. It seems that you are getting overly sensitive, I didn't hate McGyver for leaving out the nitty gritty, I just was happy he planted the seed in their heads and then I did my job. I really am not trying to insult anyone or say you don't have a point. It's just that from an educators point of view, anything that gets an interest in learning more science is good for me. I can assure you that not one of my 84 forensic students doesn't know CSI is a television show. If jurors can't make the distinction, WOW, they probably wouldn't be great jurors anyway................ Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:51:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNpvVN000545 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:51:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] definition Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:55:26 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027801c3ce67$3b0543e0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <104.3c5f776d.2d1bbc09@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:51:57.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE427BC0:01C3CE66] 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 term "dermatoglyphics" is derived from the Greek words meaning "skin" and "carving." "Dermatoglyphics" is the scientific study of papillary friction ridge patterns. It encompasses fingerprint comparison, but goes beyond legal and identification considerations to include the study of anthropology, medicine, primatology, embryology, developmental biology, and genetics, with regard to the significance of ridge patterns within each of these disciplines. Unfortunately, the terminology has also been co-opted by devotees of palmistry and other "new age" hocus pocus mysticism in an attempt to lend an aura of scientific legitimacy to ridiculous superstitious beliefs and practices. If you type the word "dermatoglyphics" into a web search engine, you'll find many legitimate web sites referencing the topic (but beware of the mystical silly sites, of which there are also a large number). 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 Gismort@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 11:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] definition Could anyone tell me what "dermatoglyphic analysis" means. This term was used in response to a request for any fingerprint testing. Is this different from dusting? Any information would be appreciated. Thank you --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gismort@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:53:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNroqg001066 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:53:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:57:18 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027901c3ce67$7dbdf420$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:53:48.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[00FADDE0:01C3CE67] 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 Lynn, If your goal was to become a criminalist/forensic scientist, I would have severe reservations about your course of study because while it does seem to cover some of the sciences it "wastes" considerable time on largely irrelevant non-science coursework (CJ and criminology) that is more suitable for a police detective than for a forensic scientist, relegating the science coursework to what seems to be no more than a minor status within the larger major. Aspiring forensic scientists are expected to major in science and obtain a BS, rather than a BA with a science "component" or "emphasis." Now that I realize your aim is to become a crime scene technician I am less concerned, although I still say the majority of CJ and criminology classes you are taking have little or nothing to do with the job of a crime scene technician. These classes won't be of any use to you on the job, and won't help you get a job as a civilian scene technician. However, since the majority of agencies still use police officers as scene technicians, those classes may be useful in helping you become a police officer, and later obtain assignment to the crime scene unit. Given the science content you previously described, you are in what seems to be a superior program compared to the education usually possessed by crime scene personnel. Take advantage of that and concentrate on getting as much science instruction under your belt as possible (if you have electives, take more science rather than more CJ). Then when you graduate, you will have a far better science background than 90% of the other crime scene technicians who will become your peers, and this will definitely be an advantage to you in your future work. Best of 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:32 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Hi Bob, I know what you are saying but the course is for a BA in Criminology, CJA and Forensics so I thought I might as well do the lot! Believe me I know what you're saying and thanks for taking the time out to point this out. It wasn't until I had started criminology and CJA that I decided to alter my course to forensics (typical woman I suppose!) As I think I pointed out, I may be lucky enough to have been accepted to do an internship with the LA PD CSU in 2005. I met Barry Fisher in June and we will see what happens. I hope I am lucky enough to make it as I will have finished with blood spatter (hopefully) by then. Any other suggestions you have as to relevant courses for a technician's job would be gladly received. I only have about three topics to do to complete criminology and CJA and will graduate at the end of next year. I do sessional lecturing on these topics as it is but it's not where my interest lies - it definitely lies in the forensics field. I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing your other email to me but I've been so busy I haven't even had time to read them and won't have until after Christmas Day. Thankfully we have four weeks holiday over Christmas - most people do over here in Oz. If you can advise any reading material on blood spatter or anything relevant, I would appreciate. Jerry Chisum has been a great help in this regard as well. Have a great Christmas and safe 2004. Hee, hee - I rang my sister in Los Angeles this morning to find out how she went through the earthquake, all she could say was "Earthquake? What earthquake?" And she doesn't live THAT far from the main epicentre. Jerry, you live up that way, how did you go? I was thinking of you. And anyone else who is in the general area. We get about one earthquake in about 20 years! And it's nowhere near the intensity of the ones in the US - though I think we have the cyclone market well and truly cornered! (Hurricane to you!) Thanks for your help, Bob. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 23 December 2003 9:48 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Lynn, If your interest is in Forensic Science, you are really wasting your time with the criminal justice and criminology classes, as they have no applicability to a forensic scientist's work in the laboratory, or even to the crime scene technician's work in the field. Unless you plan on becoming a police officer, criminal lawyer, criminal psychologist or profiler, these classes are really of no use to you and will not further your career goals. Crime scene technicians and forensic scientists deal with the collection and analysis of evidence (respectively), not with the investigation of crimes and apprehension of suspects (those are jobs for the police). Your interest in blood spatter indicates you might be more interested in a scene technician's job, rather than a lab scientist's job, but in either event science classes would serve you better. The only CJ classes worthwhile for your aims are ones directly related to crime scene processing. Criminology classes are of no use at all (they are suited to detectives, profilers, and forensic psychologists, not lab scientists or scene technicians). See my other reply to your first posting for some guidance on the education needed to enter this field. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Justin and Keli, like I said to someone else a day or so ago, I guess it depends on which country you are in. I'm in Australia. I started out just doing a certificate in criminology, crim justice and forensics then thought, blast this is too easy, so I went on to the Bachelors course - I still wonder what on earth I was thinking when I enrolled in that!! I've finished forensics but not all the scientific bits so I'm taking 2 months of this year and all of next year to focus on bloodstain pattern analysis. We have to do placements (or internships) here, one goes for 362 hours (why 362 hours I'll never know! But that's what I'm using to do my bloodstain project instead of a placement.) I can't afford to work for five days a week at the coroner's court for nothing when I have a secretarial service to run as well. And I don't particularly want to do anything in the "court room" situation as my interests lie more in forensics. With any luck I will make it to LosAngeles in 2005 for an internship in CSU - if I don't then I'll study something else! I graduate at the end of next year (she says hopefully!) Criminology and CJA are interesting and I am glad that I have done those courses but I hate the management part of the course - it's boring! I still have to do Terrorism, Ethics (of some sort), Corrections and International Policing. It's a great course and I'm more than happy with my results. I personally didn't think I had it in me to get this far! I do hope you get to where you want. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Justin McCarty Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 18:57:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBTNvltU001604 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:57:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:01:14 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <027a01c3ce68$0a649370$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 23:57:44.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DA0B9E0:01C3CE67] 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 Well, there you have it, straight from NIK - the positive results from the two tests indicate you have a secondary amine, nothing more than that. This means it MIGHT be methamphetamine or MDMA, but then again, it might not. It might also be another phenethylamine, or a completely unrelated drug, or not a drug at all, since any secondary amine will yield a positive test result. As I said, field test kits are only screening tools; they are not proof of a controlled substance. A positive result only indicates the possibility of a controlled substance, not a confirmation. To find out for sure whether or not you have a controlled substance, an officer simply has to wait for the lab report. 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 Allen Miller Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:58 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Bob P., A comment from the GM of NIK Public Safety on your synopsis of field test kits: "This is without a doubt the best piece I've ever read concerning our product, how it is used, how to interpret the results... The best I can offer to Bob is that our Test U is essentially Simon's reagent. Sodium nitroprusside and sodium carbonate and acetaldehyde. It tests for secondary amines of which Methamphetamine and MDMA are the most commonly abused. Other secondary amines would test positive in U too. I'm not sure about the results in Q since it is not very specific at all. I wouldn't put much credence into that test. It is designed for use when Methamphetamine is suspected or when breaking down a meth lab since ephedrine is a precursor to meth production." Thank you for summing up our product line to the scientific community. Hopefully this information will fall into good hands as it travels this network. Allen Miller Technical Manager Armor Forensics Jacksonville, Fl. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug Bob, No one can ID a drug from the results of field test reagents. These tests are only meant as screening aids to indicate the possible presence of a controlled substance, and provide probable cause for arrest and formal charges. NONE of them (and no combination of them) is specific for a single drug; they ALL will also react to other things and so produce "false positives" if thought of as testing for that drug alone (in fact, they are not false positives, because the tests are not supposed to be specific for just one drug - they are known to react to chemical groups that exist in multiple drugs, and a positive test correctly indicates that those groups are present - it just doesn't indicate one specific drug or class of drug, it could be other things as well). Field test results are presumptive only (tentative, preliminary), not definitive. Other NIK kits are known to contain standard reagents like Cobalt Thiocyanate (for cocaine) or Marquis (for opiates, amphetamines, and many other drugs), and since the "false positives" for these are known, various possibilities can be identified based on results; but since NIK does not identify the reagents in these two particular kits (referring to them as "specially formulated") there is no way to predict what other things they might react to. Obvious possibilities would include a single drug that gives both of those two results, or a mixture of drugs that each gives one of those two results. Beyond that, it's impossible to say without knowing what the actual chemical content of the test kits is, and I doubt NIK would tell us ("trade secret"). Your best bet is to call the lab and see if you can talk them into making your case a priority (you'll need a very good reason). Otherwise, you'll just have to wait for results from the lab. 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 Bob Kegel Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:01 PM To: Forensic Science List Subject: [forens] Unidentified Street Drug My department has recently encountered what initially appears to be methamphetamine. It turns the Nik U (methamphetamine) reagent a bright purple. It gives a cranberry red result with the Nik Q (ephedrine) test. We've sent samples to the state crime lab, of course, but an answer may be weeks away. Can anyone ID the substance from this description? LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA [EndPost by "Bob Kegel" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by Allen Miller ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 20:11:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBU1BR9L003460 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:11:27 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:09:36 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <027901c3ce67$7dbdf420$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Thread-Index: AcPOaFx7+ttZf7Y0SlO/2sp5YXJPRAABdk9A Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBU1BMCp003455 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Can't argue with you there, Bob. I did forensics at a different University NOT at the one where I'm completing criminology/CJA. As I said, I thought these were interesting subjects until I "got a whiff" of forensics so I attended another University to do forensics. And they cover all aspect of forensics, ie document handling, tyremarks, (or tire marks to you!) but for some reason don't concentrate on blood stain pattern analysis. So I've found my own course. When I first decided to return to Uni, I thought "Hmm, criminology/ CJA sounds like my type of thing" but all that crim theory and statutes of law, criminal law, police studies, management etc nearly drove me crazy but I was determined not to pull out just because it wasn't what I thought it would be. I just applied at another Uni to do forensics. We now have forensics included on the Ba for Criminology/CJA and FORENSICS at my original Uni. It’s not the best course in the world so I have sought others who are more than willing to devote their time to teaching me what I need. No names will be mentioned but my teacher is very well known in the field of blood stain pattern analysis and is going out of his/her way to help me. I wish I could say that about Australian so-called experts, they don't even offer to help. Can you imagine what I thought then! Sociology, management, research methods and variious boring topics wasn't what I had in mind but I stuck through them and have averaged a high distinction so far. But it's not for me but I'll finish it. With any luck, I may be accepted into the LA PD CSU as an intern in 2005 - I can only hope and after visiting there earlier in the year whilst in LA, I would be absolutely flabbergasted to be accepted. I hadn't realised that criminology/CJA were more "court related" courses - and I definitely am not your court going person - I'd be up on contempt so many times it wouldn't be funny! If I hear one more word about being able to learn all about blood stain in 40 hours, I'll scream. I think it's a personal thing and if I want to take 12 months or 3 years, it's my concern and not the concern of one particular person on this listing (not you, Bob). I believe in doing things properly and not CLAIMING to be an expert! Regards to you, Bob and various others Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 10:57 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Lynn, If your goal was to become a criminalist/forensic scientist, I would have severe reservations about your course of study because while it does seem to cover some of the sciences it "wastes" considerable time on largely irrelevant non-science coursework (CJ and criminology) that is more suitable for a police detective than for a forensic scientist, relegating the science coursework to what seems to be no more than a minor status within the larger major. Aspiring forensic scientists are expected to major in science and obtain a BS, rather than a BA with a science "component" or "emphasis." Now that I realize your aim is to become a crime scene technician I am less concerned, although I still say the majority of CJ and criminology classes you are taking have little or nothing to do with the job of a crime scene technician. These classes won't be of any use to you on the job, and won't help you get a job as a civilian scene technician. However, since the majority of agencies still use police officers as scene technicians, those classes may be useful in helping you become a police officer, and later obtain assignment to the crime scene unit. Given the science content you previously described, you are in what seems to be a superior program compared to the education usually possessed by crime scene personnel. Take advantage of that and concentrate on getting as much science instruction under your belt as possible (if you have electives, take more science rather than more CJ). Then when you graduate, you will have a far better science background than 90% of the other crime scene technicians who will become your peers, and this will definitely be an advantage to you in your future work. Best of 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:32 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Hi Bob, I know what you are saying but the course is for a BA in Criminology, CJA and Forensics so I thought I might as well do the lot! Believe me I know what you're saying and thanks for taking the time out to point this out. It wasn't until I had started criminology and CJA that I decided to alter my course to forensics (typical woman I suppose!) As I think I pointed out, I may be lucky enough to have been accepted to do an internship with the LA PD CSU in 2005. I met Barry Fisher in June and we will see what happens. I hope I am lucky enough to make it as I will have finished with blood spatter (hopefully) by then. Any other suggestions you have as to relevant courses for a technician's job would be gladly received. I only have about three topics to do to complete criminology and CJA and will graduate at the end of next year. I do sessional lecturing on these topics as it is but it's not where my interest lies - it definitely lies in the forensics field. I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing your other email to me but I've been so busy I haven't even had time to read them and won't have until after Christmas Day. Thankfully we have four weeks holiday over Christmas - most people do over here in Oz. If you can advise any reading material on blood spatter or anything relevant, I would appreciate. Jerry Chisum has been a great help in this regard as well. Have a great Christmas and safe 2004. Hee, hee - I rang my sister in Los Angeles this morning to find out how she went through the earthquake, all she could say was "Earthquake? What earthquake?" And she doesn't live THAT far from the main epicentre. Jerry, you live up that way, how did you go? I was thinking of you. And anyone else who is in the general area. We get about one earthquake in about 20 years! And it's nowhere near the intensity of the ones in the US - though I think we have the cyclone market well and truly cornered! (Hurricane to you!) Thanks for your help, Bob. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 23 December 2003 9:48 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Lynn, If your interest is in Forensic Science, you are really wasting your time with the criminal justice and criminology classes, as they have no applicability to a forensic scientist's work in the laboratory, or even to the crime scene technician's work in the field. Unless you plan on becoming a police officer, criminal lawyer, criminal psychologist or profiler, these classes are really of no use to you and will not further your career goals. Crime scene technicians and forensic scientists deal with the collection and analysis of evidence (respectively), not with the investigation of crimes and apprehension of suspects (those are jobs for the police). Your interest in blood spatter indicates you might be more interested in a scene technician's job, rather than a lab scientist's job, but in either event science classes would serve you better. The only CJ classes worthwhile for your aims are ones directly related to crime scene processing. Criminology classes are of no use at all (they are suited to detectives, profilers, and forensic psychologists, not lab scientists or scene technicians). See my other reply to your first posting for some guidance on the education needed to enter this field. 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 Lynn Coceani Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Justin and Keli, like I said to someone else a day or so ago, I guess it depends on which country you are in. I'm in Australia. I started out just doing a certificate in criminology, crim justice and forensics then thought, blast this is too easy, so I went on to the Bachelors course - I still wonder what on earth I was thinking when I enrolled in that!! I've finished forensics but not all the scientific bits so I'm taking 2 months of this year and all of next year to focus on bloodstain pattern analysis. We have to do placements (or internships) here, one goes for 362 hours (why 362 hours I'll never know! But that's what I'm using to do my bloodstain project instead of a placement.) I can't afford to work for five days a week at the coroner's court for nothing when I have a secretarial service to run as well. And I don't particularly want to do anything in the "court room" situation as my interests lie more in forensics. With any luck I will make it to LosAngeles in 2005 for an internship in CSU - if I don't then I'll study something else! I graduate at the end of next year (she says hopefully!) Criminology and CJA are interesting and I am glad that I have done those courses but I hate the management part of the course - it's boring! I still have to do Terrorism, Ethics (of some sort), Corrections and International Policing. It's a great course and I'm more than happy with my results. I personally didn't think I had it in me to get this far! I do hope you get to where you want. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Justin McCarty Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Mon Dec 29 20:46:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBU1k5sj004537 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:46:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [forens] Lyn Coceani To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Carol MacDonald/FSST/TAS" Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:45:39 +1100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SMTPMTA/Servers/TAS(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 30/12/2003 12:45:42 PM 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 I was just wondering if you're not 'a court going' type of person what are you doing in Forensic Science ??. No one has claimed that you are an expert after 40 hrs of blood stain pattern training, simply that it gives you a basis on which to build experience with your 'on the job' training. If you contacted Australian laboratories you may be surprised at what you would learn. We DO have our own experts here. NIFS also run a blood stain pattern interpretation course here in Australia occasionally. Cheers ******************************************* Carol MacDonald Forensic Science Service Tasmania 20 St Johns Avenue, New Town Phone: 6278 5675 Fax: 6278 5693 email: carol.macdonald@fsst.tas.gov.au ******************************************* [EndPost by "Carol MacDonald/FSST/TAS" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 30 10:14:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBUFEsNO014458 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:14:54 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: Subject: [forens] BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike & Donna Eyring ] (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:29:11 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To all, I've been out of town for a couple of weeks. I'm forwarding a bunch of bounced messages. More will follow. Remember to reply to the list. Chris > From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] proficiency tests another opinion Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:31:14 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Robert Parsons X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 16, 2003, at 4:05 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > (snip) > , if the analyst is required to report PT results to > the PT provider BEFORE submitting them to the lab's internal QA/QC > review process, then the true performance of the analyst becomes a > matter of record that the lab cannot control. The lab could still then > do a peer review of the PT results to test its internal review process > before the PT provider publishes the "correct" answers, without > compromising the test of the individual's abilities. > > (snip) Dear Bob: Pardon my editing, but thanks for stating your case so well and presenting a logical solution to everyones' concerns. Sincerely, Mike Eyring --------- From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] ABC Proficiency testing (was forwarded message) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:09:03 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 17, 2003, at 5:15 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > Mike, > I was philosophically opposed to the change from 100% review of PT data > to doing only "spot checks," but I reluctantly had to admit that the > task of annually inspecting every certificate holder's PT test had > become extremely (and seemingly insurmountably) difficult in an > all-volunteer organization. (snip) > To keep up with the growth of the task, the ABC > would have had to expand the committee to a considerably larger (and > therefore more difficult to manage) size of its own, or turn the task > over to paid workers with forensic expertise. (snip) > Certification organizations, like any others, > must operate in the real world and deal with the realities of their own > resource constraints as best they can. The current spot check system > is > not ideal, but is the best compromise feasible at this time. Bob: I'd suggest that, if ABC is going claim authority to be the gate watcher for quality criminalists, it will necessarily have to divest itself of the volunteer approach it has used to initiate it's programs, and move from the entrepreneurial, to the paid employee organization it must become. If ABC intends to manage the certifications of hundreds of criminalists in a growing list of specialties, it will cost time and money. It will necessarily depose current volunteers from their positions of control. Certificate applicants and holders will have to bear the expense and current controllers will have to be willing to step aside and let the organization mature with new names in the limelight. I gather that you've personally done that. "Compromise" is not an operable word in the world of denying individuals their freedom. We either do our jobs right or we get out of this business. ABC will either change or ultimately be charged with responsibility for its certificant's errors, due to cutting corners on its claimed authority for oversight. That, unfortunately, will taint all its certifications. Not a pretty thought. ABC's original business plan may have been fine for a "startup" with a group of self-sacrificing workers (you and they all deserve credit for your efforts), but it's not adequate for ABC's current claim(s) to authority. Any claim to "authority" includes a "responsibility" to accept "accountability". It all comes at a price and ABC needs to accept that fact. The old model no longer works. That was sadly obvious in the PRC several years ago. Best wishes and Happy Holidays! Mike Eyring ----------- From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:49:58 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:46 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > Mike, > > I agree with your stance on proficiency testing, but I have to disagree > about expert testimony. The jury doesn't have to accept anything an > expert witness says just because the judge "qualified" him/her as an > expert. (snip) Dear Bob: I agree, but I was responding to someone else's post. You I'm sure know, but most scientists don't understand (or at least accept) that, juries as a group, don't believe what we say. Tomorrow, they will hear from another "accepted expert" that the evidence proves exactly the opposite of what yesterday's "accepted expert" swore to. If you were a juror, where would that leave you? Thanks, Mike Eyring ------- From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:48:06 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 19, 2003, at 4:06 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > (snip) > I think the basic cause of friction and consternation here is attitude. > Analysts and managers must stop thinking of PTs and other > accreditation/certification requirements as "detracting" from casework > - > they ARE casework, in that they support the quality (ouch, again) of > casework. We don't think of ordering supplies, preparing reagents, > maintaining and calibrating instruments, testifying in court, or > continuing our educations as "detracting" from casework or as "time not > well served," do we? (Ok, maybe some do, but that's both sad and > dangerous). All those things are necessary parts of operating a > forensic laboratory; without them, the casework can't be done, can't be > done well, or would be done without value. They are all part of doing > business, and doing it well and properly. We need to think of quality > (ouch, last time) checks and requirements, including PTs and > accreditation/certification standards, in exactly the same manner - as > necessary parts of our jobs, routine parts of casework and lab > operations, NOT as detractors from them. (snip) Dear Bob: Thanks again for your insight and ability to put all these issues in reasonable perspective. I hope you and yours' have a Merry Christmas! Mike Eyring ------ From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] Education Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:34:10 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 28, 2003, at 5:57 PM, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >> This is what prompted my idea for the >> creation of SWGSTAIN which is the scientific working group on >> bloodstain >> pattern analysis. > > SWGSTAIN? All this business needs is another SWG. Before long this > Balkanization of forensic science will mean that it will be impossible > for any organization to have a staff can that meet every SWG's > requirements for proficiency testing, training, etc., etc. Are we > going to have SWGSWIPE, SWGTRANSFER, SWGWIPE, and do we have to repeat > all of these for every type of thing that might be stains, swipes, > wipes, or transfers. > (big snip) > Hay Pete!!!: Why are you complaining? You're one of the guy that's been telling us, for all these many years, that we all needed to be "certified" in all our areas of work!!! How can you claim to "certify" someone's performance without comprehensive operational standards for the work that they do??? What's their work to be measured against? A list of archaic references in an ABC reading list doesn't cut it!!! Me figers yall's jist begin'n to lay in the bunk ya spread... (all puns intended). Very sincerely, Mike Eyring [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Tue Dec 30 10:17:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBUFHVPx014783 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:17:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <47765956-3ADB-11D8-A96A-0003930DFAA4@worldnet.att.net> From: "Susan Baird" Subject: [forens] more forwarded messages (Modified by basten) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:13:22 -0500 To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBUFHUCp014770 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu RE: bloodstain pattern analysis.. List Members,   This is another request from an amateur,  I have a state police lab worksheet indicating blood on clothing; may I contact someone off list for an opinion?  Also, does this worksheet mean an analysis was done?  None was mentioned in discovery.   Thank you.   Susan.Baird@att.net ------------ From: "Banning, Steven" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBOFakCp008902 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" What is a qualified applicant for CSI? There are agencies that have sworn officers with no science background processing crime scenes. There are agencies that require a candidate to have a science degree and then train them in processing scenes and latent prints full time. Others require a science degree, train them in a specialty area (i.e. drugs, lp, firearms, etc.) full time and they process scenes part time. Are any of these teams better? I have seem them all work and they are equally capable, in my opinion. Is it better to get someone with no experience and train them the way you want? Or is it better to bring in someone with prior experience at another agency? What is a qualified applicant for a drug analyst? A science degree? A forensic science degree? Is someone right out of college qualified? What about someone, with a science degree, who has spent years doing analysis in the pharmaceutical field? ------------------- From: "Dr. Anthony Falsetti" To: References: <3FE49F06.BC3D360F@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Bone ashes - How long can they be preserved Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:46:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Scanned-By: NERDC Open Systems Group (http://open-systems.ufl.edu/services/virus-scan/) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would imagine that the remains would be hygenic as exposure to 16-1800 degrees for 2 to 3 hours would likely kill any pathogen. As far as preservation, I doubt anything would need be done as all that it is left is the inorganic matrix of bone. The ashes will remain longer than the son. ----------------------- From: Hans de Moel To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:08:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned for virii by watson.holmes.nl Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Dear list, Jeff, exactly my point, understanding the physics behind the patterns is only part of the training... As many of you undoubtedly know the blood spatter patterns are merely an accumulated 2D-projection (sometimes 3D-projection) of a (time dependant) 4D-event (x,y,z and time). With all kinds of interpretation and integration errors. It will take an ordinary human at least several months to grasp the forensic significance of these errors. I forget which museum in New York it was (I saw too many during that vacation...) where they had a display that showed misinterpretation of 2D-projection so well. First the viewer was to look through a blackened tube and the projection showed six connecting equilateral triangles identical in size but different in colour in a circle (there was no depth perception). When stepping aside and viewing the display perpendicular to the tube, one could see the six different coloured and shaped items making up the triangles which differed from a skewed placed triangle (not equilateral or even isosceles, but placed in such a way that in the viewing direction all sides seemed to have the same length) to an ellips to a cube partly obscured by the other objects. This optical illusion is one that every forensic scientist should see before even considering to write a report and state the interpretation of his findings. I think most of us confronted with just the 2D-projection of these six triangles would make the layman's mistake of thinking that they would recognize these patterns and would only mention their difference in colour and not the difference in shape that underlies the projection that the triangles really are... and that's what forensics is all about, knowing whether you see all the (significant) dimensions involved. And that dear Shaun and others, you cannot learn in 40 hours of basic training. In 40 hours you will recognize the form of the projection (if it looks like triangle, it might be a triangle, but it might be something quite different that leads to that projection. I don't think you can learn all possible projections that will lead to that triangle in 40 hours. I hope we can agree on this... Regards, Hans [EndPost by "Susan Baird" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 30 13:47:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBUIlfuQ020728 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:47:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF1C641.CE14A55A@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:08:57 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: [forens] Sexual asphyxiophilia (Koczwarism) 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 Sir, Zaviacic M. Sexual asphyxiophilia (Koczwarism) in women and the biological phenomenon of female ejaculation. Med Hypotheses 1994;42:318-22. In the above paper, Sexual asphyxiophilia has been referred to as Koczwarism. I am quite intrigued, as I have never heard this term. Can someone tell me why is this so called? Was he the person who first described this condition? Please let me know. thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 30 15:35:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBUKZPYe023905 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:35:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Sexual asphyxiophilia (Koczwarism) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:35:23 -0900 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: <3FF1C641.CE14A55A@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Prof; You don't hear this term too much, and frankly the only person I've seen use it with a straight face is Park Dietz. And students writing papers who cite Dietz. This is not surprising because Dietz coined the term based on his own research and reckoning, unsuccessfully I would argue. In my own work examining autoerotic cases, I have found the term unhelpful. It is spelled KOTZWARRAISM in the text in which the term is first mentioned, provided below. Ref: Dietz, P. "Recurrent Discovery of Autoerotic Asphyxia," in Hazelwood, Roy, & Burgess, Ann, & Dietz, Park (1983) Autoerotic Fatalities, Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath & Co. P. 13: "For those individuals whose behavior corresponds to those descriptions [autoerotic aspyhxia] in either of the preceeding postulates I propose the labels of hypoxyphilia[1] and Kotzwarraism[2]. p. 43: "[2] Eponymic names of patholological conditions typicall derive from the names of discoverers, literary and mythological characters, or patients (Jablonski 1969, p. iii). Kotzwarra was an eighteenth-century musician who died in an erotic asphyxial episode." Hope this helps. Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Professor Anil Aggrawal Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:39 AM To: Forensic Newsgroup (main) Subject: [forens] Sexual asphyxiophilia (Koczwarism) Dear Sir, Zaviacic M. Sexual asphyxiophilia (Koczwarism) in women and the biological phenomenon of female ejaculation. Med Hypotheses 1994;42:318-22. In the above paper, Sexual asphyxiophilia has been referred to as Koczwarism. I am quite intrigued, as I have never heard this term. Can someone tell me why is this so called? Was he the person who first described this condition? Please let me know. thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 30 18:37:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBUNbF2Q027472 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:37:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:40:41 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <011b01c3cf2e$56247160$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2003 23:37:11.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[D88D6950:01C3CF2D] 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 Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 8:48 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. 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 Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Dec 30 21:31:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBV2V9s4029846 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:31:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:31:00 -0900 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 V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <011b01c3cf2e$56247160$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> 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 Bob; Her position is truly split. She wants to claim accuracy for the show, admits that such a claim is not possible, but keeps going forward with it. We share the same concern ultimately - that she puts herself in front of the show as a criminalist, that her stamp of approval as a criminalist can be bought, and that she perceives no duty to the forensic science community that she misrepresents. This whole thing is yet another bizarre example of how the forensic science community responds to blatantly unethical conduct. Forensic whistleblowers of like Dr. Fred Whitehurst formerly of the FBI crime lab, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson formerly of the Harris County MEs Lab, and Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell of AFIP (to name a very few), are openly assailed by the public agencies they've deservedly outed and then treated with suspicion by the forensic community when they defend themselves for refusing to allow bad science in their name. >From the comments of some on this list, you'd think Elizabeth Devine should be considered for the Paul Kirk award because the supposed good that has come from CSI. I find this evidence that we are still heading in the wrong direction as a profession. We need a better compass than Elizabeth Devine. FYI: For those who don't know, Dr. Paul L. Kirk, one of the true fathers of modern day forensic science, was black-listed by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences because some of the more influential members did not like having to go up against him in high-profile court cases. The seeds of that division were evident to me even when I was studying at UNH in the mid 90s. Now the highest award in the criminalistics section is named for him. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 08:51:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVDptXA008534 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:51:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:50:40 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id hBVDpskg008529 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 My favorite episode, (and one which, ahem, most accurately depicts my job duties), is the one in which the male criminalist goes to the hospital and swabs the prostitute's breasts. >>> "Brent Turvey" 12/30 9:31 PM >>> Bob; Her position is truly split. She wants to claim accuracy for the show, admits that such a claim is not possible, but keeps going forward with it. We share the same concern ultimately - that she puts herself in front of the show as a criminalist, that her stamp of approval as a criminalist can be bought, and that she perceives no duty to the forensic science community that she misrepresents. This whole thing is yet another bizarre example of how the forensic science community responds to blatantly unethical conduct. Forensic whistleblowers of like Dr. Fred Whitehurst formerly of the FBI crime lab, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson formerly of the Harris County MEs Lab, and Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell of AFIP (to name a very few), are openly assailed by the public agencies they've deservedly outed and then treated with suspicion by the forensic community when they defend themselves for refusing to allow bad science in their name. >From the comments of some on this list, you'd think Elizabeth Devine should be considered for the Paul Kirk award because the supposed good that has come from CSI. I find this evidence that we are still heading in the wrong direction as a profession. We need a better compass than Elizabeth Devine. FYI: For those who don't know, Dr. Paul L. Kirk, one of the true fathers of modern day forensic science, was black-listed by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences because some of the more influential members did not like having to go up against him in high-profile court cases. The seeds of that division were evident to me even when I was studying at UNH in the mid 90s. Now the highest award in the criminalistics section is named for him. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 11:00:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVG0DIg012587 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:00:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:59:45 -0800 From: "Terry Spear" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. 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 It's been my experience that the autoclaving process does not effectively destroy amplified DNA. The only thing I've found that prevents amplified DNA from being a successful template for PCR is sufficient exposure to 20% bleach (freshly made). Since it may be difficult to remove all traces of bleach, this is typically not the way you would want to treat sample tubes or swabs that could contain evidence DNA. This really means that to control contamination from amplified DNA, the laboratories that perform PCR-based typing must contain it within the amplification labs where it cannot contaminate surfaces that might come into contact with DNA from evidence samples. >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/29/03 03:48PM >>> Makes sense to me. Until your previous post, I had understood that sterilization via autoclaving eliminated the risk of spurious DNA contaminating case samples, and apparently this is correct for unamplified DNA. Your post about the tenacity of amplified DNA made me wonder about a way to destroy it. I guess, then, that where amplified DNA is concerned previously autoclaved single-use disposable supplies is the best approach. Would you agree? 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 Terry Spear Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:56 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Bob - Since microwaves have been used to perform DNA extractions, I would guess that they may not be very effective at getting rid of all traces of DNA. It is my perception that DNA contamination from "new" tubes or swabs is relatively rare and as long as it's not amplified DNA, autoclaving should be sufficient for preparing supplies for nuclear DNA typing. [This assumes that amplified DNA is confined to rooms that are set up to only produce, type and store amplified DNA. Most DNA labs are designed to do exactly this.] Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 12/22/03 02:48PM >>> Pure speculation here - would treatment in a microwave oven have any efficacy in destroying DNA, or at least preventing DNA amplification? What about combining autoclaving with microwave treatment? 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 Terry Spear Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Human DNA on swabs. Several years ago we did some fairly simple experiments to see what was required to destroy DNA so that it could not be amplified. At the time, we used the ABI reagents kits that targeted the HLA DQ alpha and/or "Polymarker" loci. One of the "treatments" that we look at was a standard autoclave cycle which we were using on our polypropylene microfuge tubes. What we found was that: (1) placing (separately) 10ul and 40 ul of saliva in microfuge tubes [duplicate samples] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle and (2) placing (separately) 4ng and 40 ng of extracted DNA in microfuge tubes [samples also run in duplicate] and putting these tubes through a standard autoclave cycle resulted in samples that could not be amplified. HOWEVER, putting 1 or 10 ul of amplified product into a microfuge tube and autoclaving these samples for the appropriate loci did not prevent this type of template from being successfully amplified. Although this did not come as a b! ig surprise, we found that it was extremely difficult to destroy amplified DNA. About the only thing we found to work on relatively small amounts of amplified DNA was a 20% bleach solution. Terry Spear CA DOJ - California Criminalistics Institute Phone: (916) 227-3575 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 12/14/03 02:07PM >>> Re Comments by Robert Parsons. The idea of autoclaving solutions/tubes was introduced into molecular biology perhaps 40 years ago to inactivate DNAases supposedly in the buffers used for DNA extraction. Generally, this is not necessary but it is still a common practice. For some obscure reason the idea has come about that autoclaving destroys DNA so that it cannot be amplified. I have never seen published data supporting the hypothesis that autoclaving destroys all DNA. Has anyone seen this data published or it is one of the many "myths" which arise over the years? Incidentally, low level nuclear DNA testing has led to the concept of DNA "falling from the ceiling" (not literally). This concept has come from the relatively high frequency of reagent (extraction) blanks showing alleles in low level DNA testing. This, and other factors, complicates the statistics of such testing. If one was to attempt single cell analysis, presumably this will become even more of a problem. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] 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 "Terry Spear" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 13:05:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVI5xEg015154 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:05:59 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Education Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:56:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2003 17:54:02.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[1349A1A0:01C3CFC7] 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 Jeff: Since we are on the subject of training I thought I would post two links that I think might be of interest to you. Note both the diversity of subject matter in the courses but also the duration, paying close attention to the one week long course in crime scene reconstruction. http://simpson.walraven.org/may23.html I invite your comments, Jeff, is a week long enough for crime scene recontruction? How about a year for serology? One of the things I found really intriguing about the crime scene reconstruction was that one of the instructors had made comments as to the Sam Sheppard case (see link below). http://www.law-forensic.com/bloodstain_2.htm "Gregg McCrary may be a good investigator, but he should not try to interpret bloodstains or smears. His short courses at the FBI did not go into enough depth to develop his expertise." A week in Eureka is long enough to teach crime scene reconstruction to a criminalist, but a 'short course' taught to a supervisory agent at the FBI in Quantico isn't enough to analyze bloodstains or smears? They must really pack a lot of training into a week out there in California, eh? While I'm confident that Ms. Montgomery was qualified and well trained in all of the areas in which she claims expertise, I am equally confident that Gregg McCrary is also qualified and well trained. But Jeff, you tell me, why is a week in California better than a short course in Quantico, other than the weather and scenery? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Education > Pete, > > I [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 14:40:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVJeDQQ017158 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:40:00 -0500 From: Gunis77@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <689A7BD6.00186808.0017CE10@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 64.7.25.5 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 Shaun, I will happily repsond to your post. Please give me a call at 847-772-0835. Yes, thats right, I am putting my phone number on this list. I hope that you will kindly respond so that we may have a constructive dialogue on the topic without having any misunderstandings or misconceptions. I also want to spare the rest of the list. I will only respond directly to you off list and by phone. Thanks! Jeff [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 17:02:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVM2kRo019769 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:02:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Cc: Subject: [forens] RE: international copyright law Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:06:14 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00ca01c3cfea$4ed0f5c0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3FEDE3E2.C48CB17F@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2003 22:02:43.0904 (UTC) FILETIME=[D11AF400:01C3CFE9] 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 Dr. Agrawal, You asked if the copyright rule applied to material meant for pure academic exchange between professionals. It depends on the rights granted or restricted by the copyright holder for any given journal, but in general, yes it does apply. I know, of course, that scientists often "borrow" and "lend" copies of published papers to each other, but if the papers are not their own works and are not official reprints then this is actually illegal under international copyright law in most cases. Most journals have a statement specifically reserving their rights to the production of reprints, and most developed countries have signed international treaties binding them and their citizens to honor those rights. I have some references handy because I about a year ago I had to prove to a group of students that they couldn't legally copy anything they wanted to in any volume they wanted to from the library just because they were students, and also that their habit of trading unauthorized copies of music, taped TV programs, and anime (Japanese animation) movies they made for each other was illegal, even though they were not making a financial profit from it and charged each other only the cost of their blank media. They thought so long as no profit was involved, or if the product wasn't available in the US as a licensed product, that what they were doing was legal. They were wrong of course, but they wouldn't believe they were breaking the law until I showed them what the law actually says (contrasted to what they heard on the internet). Examples of copyright restriction notices: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Science and Justice, the journal of both the Forensic Science Society (UK) and the California Association of Criminalists (USA), states: "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publishers." Journals published by CRC Press, Inc., (e.g., Critical Reviews in Toxicology) state: "This journal, or any parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written consent from the publisher." The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology states: "No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, nor transmitted, nor translated into machine language without the written permission of the publisher." Analytica Chimica Acta (Elsevier Publishers) states: "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.... Consent is given [in the USA] for copying articles made for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific clients... on the condition that the copier pays through the [Copyright Clearance] Center the per copy fee for copies beyond that permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law.... If no [fee] code appears [at the bottom of the paper]... broad permission to copy has not been granted and permission to copy must be obtained directly from the author(s)." Journals published by Academic Press, Inc., state: "No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. ...copies of [an] article may be made for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific clients.... on the condition, however, that the copier pay the stated per copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center... for copies beyond that permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law." Journals published by the American Chemical Society (e.g., Analytical Chemistry) state: "An individual may make a single reprographic copy of an article in this publication for personal use. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law is allowed, provided that the appropriate per copy fee is paid through the Copyright Clearance Center..." The Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine states: "Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 [UK], this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission of the publishers... or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency... Note to users in the USA. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted.... provided that the appropriate fees... are paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center." Forensic Science International states: "Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted... for libraries or other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)... provided that the base fee... per page is paid directly to CCC..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ End examples Note that even when copying is permitted, it is permitted only for internal or personal use, and that usually registration with the licensing authority is required and/or a fee must be paid. Most other journals have similar policies, although not all require a fee to be paid if the copy is purely for personal or internal use. Some only require a fee to be paid if the copy is sent elsewhere. There are exceptions to the general rule against copying without prior permission. For example, the Journal of Forensic Science (USA) states: 'Unless stated otherwise, noncommercial _photocopying_ of editorial material published in this periodical is permitted by ASTM International. Permission to reprint, republish, or otherwise reproduce in any form other than photocopying must be obtained from ASTM International." (It is not clear, however, whether the permission from ASTM to freely photocopy "editorial material" includes the papers published in the JFS, or just the editorial pages.) Unless authors explicitly relinquish their rights to their papers, they are normally exempt from copyright reproduction restrictions and so they can make and send out copies of their published works; but some publishers do require that authors surrender their rights to reprint as part of the publisher's copyright of the journal as a whole, and allow them to distribute only a limited number of authorized reprints provided by the publisher (50 copies is typical). There is also an exception under the "fair use" doctrine, which in summary states that limited copies can be made for certain specified purposes (generally for purposes of education or commentary), so long as such unauthorized reproduction does not damage the financial or other interests of the author or publisher. "Fair use" usually applies to excerpts from copyrighted works, not to entire articles or papers, and only to copies made for in-house use from originals already in the possession of the person making the copy. It does not usually apply to making copies sent to someone else outside the copier's own institution. Legal copying of an entire work (or sending that copy to someone else) usually requires payment of a royalty fee, but again there are exceptions that vary from nation to nation. US law, for example, includes "scholarship" and "research" as allowable "fair use" purposes, but other countries may not allow this exception. International treaties do allow each country to set the rules for these restrictions within their own borders, but require all signatory countries to honor all foreign copyrights and copyright restrictions. Here is what US law and international law say regarding this issue: -------begin excerpts ------- International law: Title: BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1886 Source: Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Multilaterals Project Dates: COMPLETED AT PARIS ON MAY 4, 1896, REVISED AT BERLIN ON NOVEMBER 13, 1908, COMPLETED AT BERNE ON MARCH 20, 1914, AND REVISED AT ROME ON JUNE 2, 1928, AT BRUSSELS ON JUNE 26, 1948, AT STOCKHOLM ON JULY 14, 1967, AND AT PARIS ON JULY 24, 1971; and amended on October 2, 1979. Article 9 (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. (3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention. Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. Title: UNIVERSAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTION AS REVISED AT PARIS ON 24 JULY 1971 Source: Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Multilaterals Project U.N.T.S. No. 13444, vol. 943, pp. 178-325 Article I. Each Contracting State undertakes to provide for the adequate and effective protection of the rights of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including writings, musical, dramatic and cinematographic works, and paintings, engravings and sculpture. Article II. 1. Published works of nationals of any Contracting State and works first published in that State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to works of its nationals first published in its own territory, as well as the protection specially granted by this Convention. 2. Unpublished works of nationals of each Contracting State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to unpublished works of its own nationals, as well as the protection specially granted by this Convention. 3. For the purpose of this Convention any Contracting State may, by domestic legislation, assimilate to its own nationals any person domiciled in that State. United States of America law: Title 17, U.S. Code Sec. 104. Subject matter of copyright: National origin (a) Unpublished Works. - The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author. (b) Published Works. - The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if - (1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a foreign nation that is a party to a copyright treaty to which the United States is also a party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or (2) the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a party to the Universal Copyright Convention; or (3) the work is first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States; or (4) the work is a Berne Convention work; or (5) the work comes within the scope of a Presidential proclamation. Whenever the President finds that a particular foreign nation extends, to works by authors who are nationals or domiciliaries of the United States or to works that are first published in the United States, copyright protection on substantially the same basis as that on which the foreign nation extends protection to works of its own nationals and domiciliaries and works first published in that nation, the President may by proclamation extend protection under this title to works of which one or more of the authors is, on the date of first publication, a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of that nation, or which was first published in that nation. The President may revise, suspend, or revoke any such proclamation or impose any conditions or limitations on protection under a proclamation. (c) Effect of Berne Convention. - No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Sec. 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits (a) In General. - Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either - (1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c). (b) Actual Damages and Profits. - The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. (c) Statutory Damages. - (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $100,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. Sec. 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either - (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. [Other signatories to the international copyright treaties are bound by those treaties to make similar provisions in their national copyright laws] -----end of excerpts----- I hope this provides some useful guidance. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Professor Anil Aggrawal [mailto:dr_anil@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:56 PM To: rparsons@ircc.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: international copyright law Thanks for this piece of info. Does this rule apply to material meant for pure academic exchange between professionals? Please let me know. Thanks for this info anyway. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA ***Your Original Message*** Dr. Aggrawal, The full text of this article can be purchased from the publisher's web site here: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=3n2 5ulytqj4v7a768x2m&referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,7;journal,1,16;browsepu blicationsresults,570,975; We should keep in mind that unless the Journal has voluntarily relinquished standard copyright restrictions, anyone (other than the author) who sends a copy of the paper to someone else without either obtaining the permission of the publisher or paying a royalty to the Copyright Clearance Center would be in technical violation of both US and international copyright law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL ***End of your Original Message*** [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 17:12:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVMCOZS020398 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:12:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: Re:[forens] Education Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:15:51 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00cb01c3cfeb$a6a1ed80$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2003 22:12:20.0747 (UTC) FILETIME=[28EE35B0:01C3CFEB] 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 Shaun, I'm afraid you've strayed WAY off base here. You don't have to understand physics at all (much less fluid dynamics or vector analysis) to learn to fly an airplane, just as you don't have to know the physics of road friction or how an internal combustion engine works in order to learn how to drive a car and keep it on the road. I'm sure you learned something about drag and lift in relation to aerodynamics, but that's a world away from what is needed to properly do spatter analysis or the other kinds of bloodstain pattern analysis. I roomed with a flight major when I was in college, and while he was a bright guy and became an expert pilot, let me assure you that I saw his text books, and the math and "physics" he learned did not begin to compare with those I had to learn as a biology major. The science majors didn't call the 2-year pilot program students "prop heads" because they didn't like or respect them, but rather because their course of study was a piece of cake compared to real science studies. A pilot depends on the laws of physics, but he doesn't "apply" them (much less have a masterful knowledge of them) - the aeronautical scientists and engineers who design the planes the pilot flies do that. Yes, I'm aware that some crime scene technicians with high school educations learn how to interpret blood spatter, but they are basing their judgments on generalizations learned through experience, not on an understanding of the underlying science involved. It's like cops who learn to operate a breathalyzer to determine breath alcohol level, and how to use average figures and rule-of-thumb charts to give gross (and inaccurate) estimates of "typical" alcohol consumption and elimination. They don't know how to make those estimates accurate and specific to an individual by applying all the factors of toxicological significance, or how to construct and use the advanced equations involved in doing that, much less understand the derivation of those practices and equations, and the underlying science of it all. It takes a trained alcohol toxicologist to do that, and you don't become one in few 40-hour courses. Likewise, the actual science involved in understanding the construction of the equations used in bloodstain pattern analysis, properly applying them in complex situations, and in making alterations to those equations when necessary, involves some advanced knowledge of physics, fluid dynamics, and math - you can't even begin to learn that in a few short courses. Yes, you can gain a basic (and very simplistic) understanding of blood spatter analysis in a short course, but to become a true expert in it takes years of training and on-the-job experience as an apprentice to a true expert, including an academic education in the science involved. One of the greatest problems in crime scene processing and other law enforcement functions that touch on forensic science is this: non-scientist police officers who think they know a lot more than they do, and who therefore have an overblown confidence in the accuracy of what they do and the reliability of their opinions about what they do - all because they lack the forensic science education to know better. The truly expert ones know the limits of their own knowledge, and when they have reached those limits and need the services of a real forensic scientist. 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 shaun wheeler Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 6:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education Jeff: I couldn't help but note one particular comment (though there are others) that I think deserves some attention. "While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not." For more than twenty-seven years I've been a pilot. Most of the pilots I've flown with didn't have graduate degrees in physics. In fact, some of the better pilots I've flown with in that twenty-seven years (and 2100 hours of flight time) had degrees in pretty generic stuff, things like physical education, business administration (all that non-scientific stuff). As strange as it might seem, Jeff, I've never once felt ill at ease with their ability to 'apply' the laws of physics by operating complex equipment (including high performance fighter aircraft). If it helps in some way, I'm licensed to teach the applied science of physics (flight instruction as it's more commonly called). I'd point out that most of the pilots flying for airlines don't have graduate degrees in physics, but I wouldn't want to spoil your fun. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 10:32 AM Subject: Re:[forens] Education > List, > > Mr. Wheeler's reaction to the amount of time devoted to bloodstain pattern analysis is exactly what I have feared as the pervading notion that bloodstain pattern analysis can be learned in a matter of 3 or so 40 hour courses. In my opinion, bloodstain pattern analysis should be at a MINIMUM a 3 year training program. As a latent print examiner as well, I can remember starting out and thinking, "All I need to do is see the ridges and the points and that's all there is to it." My naive thoughts were quickly humbled after the first year of my latent training. While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not. I am sure many other latent examiners can corroborate this notion as it truly dificult to explain it to a lay person in an email. > > I draw the same parallel to bloodstain pattern analysis, which is much more difficult in both theory and application than latent print examinations. Bloodstain pattern analysis is more than simply identifying patterns. But even in that limited scope, it takes more than 180 hours of training to master that skill. > > Indeed there is much research still needed in bloodstain pattern analysis. I encourage and applaud the efforts and enthusiasm of anyone who wishes to study, research, develop and report on any topic within bloodstain pattern analysis for any length of time. I would argue that one year's time is a great start and certainly not overkill. > > Thanks! > > Jeff Gurvis > [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 17:21:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVMLWOr020991 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:21:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <95713.1072909274549.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp11> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:21:14 -0500 (EST) From: Theodore Mozer To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] [No Subject] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CC Mailer IV 3.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Our system's Drug unit would like to share information and data about the two forms of Trytamines we are receiving as evidence. Please forward any information or requests for information to: Mark Maxwell 609-561-2060 lppmaxwm@gw.njsp.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 17:33:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hBVMXoqk021963 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:33:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:33:34 -0500 From: Gunis77@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2D1D4EE1.4D8C25B7.0017CE10@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 64.7.25.5 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 Here, Here! Thanks Bob. Jeff Gurvis [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 19:57:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i010vQbU026756 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:57:26 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: Re:[forens] Education Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:55:00 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <00cb01c3cfeb$a6a1ed80$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Thread-Index: AcPP6rAVcOLU1LFDSxyXadA+uEbZpQAFr7Mw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" 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 Way to go, Bob! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Thursday, 1 January 2004 9:16 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Re:[forens] Education Shaun, I'm afraid you've strayed WAY off base here. You don't have to understand physics at all (much less fluid dynamics or vector analysis) to learn to fly an airplane, just as you don't have to know the physics of road friction or how an internal combustion engine works in order to learn how to drive a car and keep it on the road. I'm sure you learned something about drag and lift in relation to aerodynamics, but that's a world away from what is needed to properly do spatter analysis or the other kinds of bloodstain pattern analysis. I roomed with a flight major when I was in college, and while he was a bright guy and became an expert pilot, let me assure you that I saw his text books, and the math and "physics" he learned did not begin to compare with those I had to learn as a biology major. The science majors didn't call the 2-year pilot program students "prop heads" because they didn't like or respect them, but rather because their course of study was a piece of cake compared to real science studies. A pilot depends on the laws of physics, but he doesn't "apply" them (much less have a masterful knowledge of them) - the aeronautical scientists and engineers who design the planes the pilot flies do that. Yes, I'm aware that some crime scene technicians with high school educations learn how to interpret blood spatter, but they are basing their judgments on generalizations learned through experience, not on an understanding of the underlying science involved. It's like cops who learn to operate a breathalyzer to determine breath alcohol level, and how to use average figures and rule-of-thumb charts to give gross (and inaccurate) estimates of "typical" alcohol consumption and elimination. They don't know how to make those estimates accurate and specific to an individual by applying all the factors of toxicological significance, or how to construct and use the advanced equations involved in doing that, much less understand the derivation of those practices and equations, and the underlying science of it all. It takes a trained alcohol toxicologist to do that, and you don't become one in few 40-hour courses. Likewise, the actual science involved in understanding the construction of the equations used in bloodstain pattern analysis, properly applying them in complex situations, and in making alterations to those equations when necessary, involves some advanced knowledge of physics, fluid dynamics, and math - you can't even begin to learn that in a few short courses. Yes, you can gain a basic (and very simplistic) understanding of blood spatter analysis in a short course, but to become a true expert in it takes years of training and on-the-job experience as an apprentice to a true expert, including an academic education in the science involved. One of the greatest problems in crime scene processing and other law enforcement functions that touch on forensic science is this: non-scientist police officers who think they know a lot more than they do, and who therefore have an overblown confidence in the accuracy of what they do and the reliability of their opinions about what they do - all because they lack the forensic science education to know better. The truly expert ones know the limits of their own knowledge, and when they have reached those limits and need the services of a real forensic scientist. 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 shaun wheeler Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 6:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education Jeff: I couldn't help but note one particular comment (though there are others) that I think deserves some attention. "While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not." For more than twenty-seven years I've been a pilot. Most of the pilots I've flown with didn't have graduate degrees in physics. In fact, some of the better pilots I've flown with in that twenty-seven years (and 2100 hours of flight time) had degrees in pretty generic stuff, things like physical education, business administration (all that non-scientific stuff). As strange as it might seem, Jeff, I've never once felt ill at ease with their ability to 'apply' the laws of physics by operating complex equipment (including high performance fighter aircraft). If it helps in some way, I'm licensed to teach the applied science of physics (flight instruction as it's more commonly called). I'd point out that most of the pilots flying for airlines don't have graduate degrees in physics, but I wouldn't want to spoil your fun. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 10:32 AM Subject: Re:[forens] Education > List, > > Mr. Wheeler's reaction to the amount of time devoted to bloodstain pattern analysis is exactly what I have feared as the pervading notion that bloodstain pattern analysis can be learned in a matter of 3 or so 40 hour courses. In my opinion, bloodstain pattern analysis should be at a MINIMUM a 3 year training program. As a latent print examiner as well, I can remember starting out and thinking, "All I need to do is see the ridges and the points and that's all there is to it." My naive thoughts were quickly humbled after the first year of my latent training. While the underlying theory may be simple, the application is not. I am sure many other latent examiners can corroborate this notion as it truly dificult to explain it to a lay person in an email. > > I draw the same parallel to bloodstain pattern analysis, which is much more difficult in both theory and application than latent print examinations. Bloodstain pattern analysis is more than simply identifying patterns. But even in that limited scope, it takes more than 180 hours of training to master that skill. > > Indeed there is much research still needed in bloodstain pattern analysis. I encourage and applaud the efforts and enthusiasm of anyone who wishes to study, research, develop and report on any topic within bloodstain pattern analysis for any length of time. I would argue that one year's time is a great start and certainly not overkill. > > Thanks! > > Jeff Gurvis > [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 20:34:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i011YQUh028093 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:34:26 -0500 (EST) From: Gismort@aol.com Message-ID: <8a.7fe721.2d24d319@aol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:34:17 EST Subject: Re: [forens] RE: international copyright law To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 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 Wouldn't the "fair use doctrine" apply in this situation? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gismort@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Dec 31 22:42:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i013gMbU000313 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:42:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031231155623.024ec968@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:36:23 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] Education 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 It seems to me that all of this debate about what constitutes adequate training is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or - perhaps more relevantly - arguing about how much marijuana is sufficient to support a charge of having marijuana for sale. The work of a scientist is not judged by the nature of his or her training and education, the accreditation status of the laboratory where the scientist works, or the type of professional certification the scientist has, or even whether or not the scientist followed some established protocol is doing the work. If that was the case, we'd still be living on a flat earth that the rest of the universe revolves around, and believe we were created in one day by some supreme being. A scientist's work is judged by other scientists using techniques that science has evolved to make those judgements. Replication, peer review, hypothesis testing, "does it make sense", and a number of other tools and techniques are available to scientists to judge the work of other scientists. The paper on the walls of their laboratory, or the initials after their names, are pretty much irrelevant to the process of evaluation of the scientist's work. The issue of what constitutes adequate training is primarily a matter of economics. We are willing to pay doctors a lot of money for their time, so they can invest a lot of time in their education. Surely, 95% of what a doctor does should not require 12 years of training and education (and in many places of the world does not). In the three years to train a blood spatter expert, one could train a pretty good school teacher. As a taxpayer, I think a school teacher is a lot better investment than a blood spatter expert. How much is a blood spatter expert worth? How many people have paid for their own training for three years, then been able to earn a living doing what they have been trained to do? Not any, I suspect. Let's be realistic. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ]