From daemon Fri Feb  1 17:44:48 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g11Mimv01696
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:44:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g11Mil901691
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:44:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 22:44:46 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHYMXS2>; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:44:16 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CDFB@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: FW: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:44:12 -0500 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CDFB@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C1AB71.F80FE550"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 38240

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1AB71.F80FE550
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Bharat Lakhkar and I have been discussing this issue privately, and I
thought the conversation interesting enough that others might want to
participate.  With his permission, I'm copying it to the list for further
discussion.  In response to my own on-list musings regarding Mary Raidy's
inquiry about "source attribution," Bharat wrote:
 
Isn't the expertise involved in deciding the probability level at which it
becomes " almost impossible " or  " single source attribution " something in
which most of the DNA analysts are not qualified on stand. Is that their
field of expertise or that of a statistician or an acturian. What I do not
understand is why can we not leave it at the probability figure and let the
jury figure it out instead of making non-scientific statements. We can
always use different analogies or examples to make the jury understand the
smallness of the probability of a random match. But let's not use vague
statements like " single source attribution " which have no scientific or
statistical meaning.
 
Once we accept the idea that " single source attribution " ( even if that is
accompanied by explanation), somebody ( e.g. NRC or DAB ) will have to come
up with a figure below which this term can be used. Otherwise it will be
just like some of our other branches in Forensic where everyone is free to
decide on the criteria for concluding "matches". Why do we have to go down
this road again so that even the field of DNA conclusions may be ruled
unscientific.
 
Lakhkar, Bharat  F-ABC
Q.A. Manager
Westchester County Forensic Laboratory
-------------------------
 
To which I replied:
 
I don't know.  Do you have to be a statistician to understand the
significance of DNA statistics, or is it something a professional forensic
biologist can be expected to master well enough to voice an informed
opinion?  Is a statistician who is not a geneticist (and so who does not
understand DNA frequencies) any better qualified to interpret them than the
biologist?  If not, then how can they be interpreted by anyone, including
lay jurors?  Can it only be done by someone with degrees in both genetics
and statistics, and who also has training in forensic DNA analysis?  That
would be a pretty small number of people.
 
I guess the reason this topic came up on the list is because allegedly, the
FBI is making "single source attribution" statements routinely in DNA cases.
Some people think it's justified, and some don't.  I tend to agree with you.
Rather than make such absolute statements, I think most DNA analysts report
the frequency estimates and then try to explain what that means in terms of
the rarity of the profile.  The only problem is that it's often difficult
for the jury to understand this properly, no matter how well you explain it.
Some scientific topics just can't be easily simplified to the layperson's
level of understanding.  If forensic biologists aren't qualified to decide
when a probability assessment amounts to a near-certainly because they're
not statisticians, how even less qualified are jurors to determine the
significance of those statistics?  If forensic scientists who deal with
these things every day aren't capable of drawing a valid conclusion from the
statistics, how in the world can jury members with no professional
understanding be expected to do it?  Those who support making value
statements instead of offering numerical statistics feel that expert
witnesses have a responsibility to interpret the relevance of those
statistics for the jury, so as to make the numbers meaningful and useful to
them.  I can appreciate that point of view as well.  If the jury doesn't
understand the significance of our testimony, then we're wasting our time on
the stand and not making a useful contribution to the trial.  In fact, we
may just be muddying the waters and making the jury's job even harder.
 
Perhaps the FBI's reasoning parallels the above, and also is an attempt to
avoid OJ Simpson-like statistician battles that confuse and turn off jurors.
Maybe they feel that reporting statistics isn't meaningful to the jury and
simply invites endless debates about statistical technicalities that cloud
the whole issue to the point where the jury stops listening and makes their
decision based on other evidence (as with OJ).  The proponents of that
stance argue that it's more helpful if the professional analyst draws his
own conclusions as an expert about the strength of the association and
reports that conclusion to the court instead of the raw statistics.  That's
what I meant by "it's just his professional opinion as an expert in the
field."  Other experts can disagree and give their views, and the jury
decides who to believe.  The problem I see with this is that it may not be
any less confusing or any more helpful to the jury than the statistics are.
If they can't decide whose "expert opinion" to trust, they're going to once
again simply ignore the DNA evidence entirely.  I guess it all depends on
the skills of the expert witnesses in conveying their understanding to the
jury, but you've got to admit it's a formidable task with such a technical
subject, especially given the average juror's ignorance of even basic
science and statistics.
 
Perhaps the best approach is a synthesis of the two - report the statistics,
explain what they mean as well as you can, then give your expert conclusion
regarding those statistics.  That's the accepted practice in many other
fields involving expert conclusions, why not for forensic DNA?  For example,
let's assume we knew the population frequency of a particular DNA profile
among the entire world's population (I know we don't have that data, but I'm
not a DNA analyst and I don't know the true numbers for specific geographic
regions, so let's just assume this for the sake of discussion).  Suppose a
Forensic Biologist then testified, regarding a an attack by a Caucasian
assailant:
 
"The DNA profile common to both the blood stain from the crime scene and to
the defendant in this case occurs with a frequency of 1 in 6.35 billion
among the Caucasian population.  There are only 6.27 billion people on the
planet, and more than half of them are non-Caucasian, so this is a very
powerful association.  It doesn't mean there are not other Caucasian persons
on the planet with this same profile, and in fact there certainly could be,
but while it's impossible to say exactly how many there could actually be,
it's certain that they would be extremely few in number, if any at all.  In
my professional opinion, the extreme rarity of this profile, combined with
the limited number of people other than the defendant who could have had
access to the scene, amounts to a near certainty of association with the
defendant.  In my personal opinion as an expert, the blood stain came from
him and no one else.  There is a very slim possibility of another source,
but in my opinion that possibility is not a credible one.  I believe it is
extremely unlikely to have come from anyone else.  Therefore, in my opinion,
this is almost certainly the defendant's blood."
 
Assuming the statistical data were accurate, and that there were no issue of
a brother or other close relative as a possible suspect, would you take
issue with that hypothetical expert's testimony?  Why or why not?  Is there
some fault in the logic of his conclusion, or does it make good sense?  If
another expert disagreed with the conclusion drawn by the first expert,
would that necessarily make the conclusion invalid or improper, or would it
simply be a matter of a difference of opinion between experts?  What do you
think?
-----------------------
 
To which Bharat replied:
 
Regarding "uniqueness", or "sole sorce attribution" I did not spell out all
the objections I have in my previous message because I was not sure about
how they will be received by the DNA community. Since the comments received
from your end are quite positive ( even if I do not agree with some parts of
it) let me put forward some specific points: 

1. In the NRCii report the specific comments in this regard ( p. 57 )are:
 
"...Should this person be regarded as unique? If not, how  high shuld the
probability be for the profile to be regarded as unique? This is for society
or the courts, not the present committee, to decide......"
 
The interesting thing was that in one presentation of FBI that I attended at
NEAFS in the past, I felt that it was being claimed that NRC has approved or
endorsed or recommended the concept of uniqueness. To me it does not sound
like either.If you see the exact wording it seems like NRC did not feel that
it was not for them to decide but the courts ( "jury"? ), or society. An
organization like NRC ( which had luminaries from every conceivable area)
did not feel competent to handle this issue. And then we see these attempts
by some agencies to come up with "policies" to decide on uniqueness so that
any DNA analyst can comment on this issue based on his experience ( this
cannot be a lot since STR's have become prevalent only in the last 3/4
years. 
 
2. What NRCII referred to was a way of dealing with the issue of uniqueness
in case it was to be adopted. To my understanding  all that their
recmmendation did was to use the concept of confidence level ( instead of "
probability" ) to be able to predict that the profile will be unique in a
given population. Do we really feel that the jury will find it easier to
uderstand the concept of confinence level than probability? Do average DNA
analysts understand this concept in its statistical sense?
 
In what way is a statemement " At 99%(/ 95%) confidence level nobody other
than the suspect can have this profile in a population as large as USA "
superior to " The probability of finding the suspect's profile in a randomly
chosen unrelated individual is 1 in 1 billion "?
 
I think the concept of confidence level is more difficult to comprehend; and
my worry is that very soon we will be tempted not to emphasize the "
confidence level" part of the conclusion since it's difficult for the jury
to understand. I am worried that this is a slippery slope.
 
Bob, if you deem fit you may also forward this to the list
 
Bharat Lakhkar
Quality Assurance Manager
Westchester County Forensic Laboratory
--------------------------------
 
My response:
 
I agree that the concept of confidence levels might be equally as or perhaps
even more difficult for the layman to grasp than the "1 in a billion"
statistic, but the problem I think is that juries could easily misconstrue
the meaning of both.  Jurors might mistakenly think that the statement "the
odds of finding the profile in an unrelated individual is 1 in a billion"
means that the odds are a billion to 1 against the blood having come from
anyone other than the defendant.  My understanding (being neither a DNA
analyst nor a statistician) is that such an impression, while seemingly
logical to the layperson, is very wrong.  Similarly, the "certainty to a 99%
confidence level" statement to the layperson probably will be understood as
meaning that the odds against the defendant being the wrong person are only
100 to 1 (i.e., there is one chance out of 100 that we have the wrong guy).
That would also be an error in understanding, an even greater one.
 
This is why I begin to wonder if none of these statements serve the jury and
court particularly well, because the statistical and population genetics
concepts are just too complicated for the average person who has not been
schooled in them to fully grasp and properly interpret.  If there is no good
way to make sure judges and  juries won't misunderstand the true
significance of the probability assessment, then I have to ask - would it
not be better to have the expert witness sum up the meaning by simply
presenting his professional opinion / expert conclusion regarding that
assessment?  E.g., "I am 95% (or 99%) certain that the defendant produced
this blood stain," or more even more simply, "It is my conclusion, to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the defendant produced this
blood stain."  Then the expert could explain why he/she has come to that
conclusion, with all the mind-numbing statistical explanations necessary or
desired - all of which would fly right over most if not all of the
listeners' heads - but at least the triers of fact would have heard and
understood the bottom line, i.e. the expert's own professional assessment of
the probabilities involved, and in plain English.  Do forensic biologists
draw such conclusions in their own minds based on the results they get,
whether they speak them on the stand or not?  Of course they do.  Are they
valid?  I may not know enough about those probability assessments to
properly judge, but I tend to think they are.  Their opinions of those
assessments (even if arguably not as good as a statistician's) are certainly
better informed and more reliable than the layperson's would be.  So why
shouldn't they offer those expert opinions to the laity during testimony, to
assist them in evaluating the weight of the evidence presented?  
 
Expert guidance in interpretation of the scientific evidence is a forensic
scientist's most important contribution to a trial.  A paraprofessional
technician can competently do the analysis and produce the statistics by
following an analytical recipe, but it takes an expert forensic scientist to
properly interpret the significance of those highly technical results for
the judge and jury.  Isn't that why we're on the stand, not just to
regurgitate facts and figures, but to provide a professional scientific
interpretation of those facts and figures; or in other words, to provide
expert opinion testimony?  
 
My thanks to Bharat for his engaging conversation, and for his consent to
bring our dialog to the list.  I find this a fascinating discussion, one
that I hope will continue with input from additional list members.  What do
the rest of you think?  Have a great weekend, everyone!
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1AB71.F80FE550
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_000_01C1AB71.F80FE550--

From daemon Sat Feb  2 04:39:27 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g129dRY09791
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 04:39:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtpmail.cix.co.uk (smtpmail.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.151])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g129dP909786
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 04:39:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from email3.fss.org.uk (fss.compulink.co.uk [194.153.11.118])
	by smtpmail.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g129d0I17252
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:39:00 GMT
X-Envelope-From: jsb02@fss.org.uk
Received: from email1.fss.org.uk (unverified) by email3.fss.org.uk
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id <T58d2a1359bac112e6206e@email3.fss.org.uk>;
 Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:41:42 +0000
Received: by EMAIL1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <W51FH84K>; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:38:16 -0000
Message-ID: <A18C03E91B3ED411BD5100508BCF87FB03339FC7@EMAIL1>
From: "Buckleton, Dr John" <jsb02@fss.org.uk>
To: "'Robert Parsons'" <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>,
   "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)"
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Cc: "Champod, Dr C" <cch03@fss.org.uk>, "Evett, Dr I W" <iwe@fss.org.uk>,
   "'curran@stats.waikato.ac.nz'" <curran@stats.waikato.ac.nz>,
   "'LAForeman@compuserve.com'" <LAForeman@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:38:14 -0000 
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
Content-Length: 14721

I would like to record my strong agreement with the comments in this mail.  
 
John Buckleton

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: 01 February 2002 22:44
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy


Bharat Lakhkar and I have been discussing this issue privately, and I
thought the conversation interesting enough that others might want to
participate.  With his permission, I'm copying it to the list for further
discussion.  In response to my own on-list musings regarding Mary Raidy's
inquiry about "source attribution," Bharat wrote:
 
Isn't the expertise involved in deciding the probability level at which it
becomes " almost impossible " or  " single source attribution " something in
which most of the DNA analysts are not qualified on stand. Is that their
field of expertise or that of a statistician or an acturian. What I do not
understand is why can we not leave it at the probability figure and let the
jury figure it out instead of making non-scientific statements. We can
always use different analogies or examples to make the jury understand the
smallness of the probability of a random match. But let's not use vague
statements like " single source attribution " which have no scientific or
statistical meaning.
 
Once we accept the idea that " single source attribution " ( even if that is
accompanied by explanation), somebody ( e.g. NRC or DAB ) will have to come
up with a figure below which this term can be used. Otherwise it will be
just like some of our other branches in Forensic where everyone is free to
decide on the criteria for concluding "matches". Why do we have to go down
this road again so that even the field of DNA conclusions may be ruled
unscientific.
 
Lakhkar, Bharat  F-ABC
Q.A. Manager
Westchester County Forensic Laboratory
-------------------------
 
To which I replied:
 

I don't know.  Do you have to be a statistician to understand the
significance of DNA statistics, or is it something a professional forensic
biologist can be expected to master well enough to voice an informed
opinion?  Is a statistician who is not a geneticist (and so who does not
understand DNA frequencies) any better qualified to interpret them than the
biologist?  If not, then how can they be interpreted by anyone, including
lay jurors?  Can it only be done by someone with degrees in both genetics
and statistics, and who also has training in forensic DNA analysis?  That
would be a pretty small number of people.
 
I guess the reason this topic came up on the list is because allegedly, the
FBI is making "single source attribution" statements routinely in DNA cases.
Some people think it's justified, and some don't.  I tend to agree with you.
Rather than make such absolute statements, I think most DNA analysts report
the frequency estimates and then try to explain what that means in terms of
the rarity of the profile.  The only problem is that it's often difficult
for the jury to understand this properly, no matter how well you explain it.
Some scientific topics just can't be easily simplified to the layperson's
level of understanding.  If forensic biologists aren't qualified to decide
when a probability assessment amounts to a near-certainly because they're
not statisticians, how even less qualified are jurors to determine the
significance of those statistics?  If forensic scientists who deal with
these things every day aren't capable of drawing a valid conclusion from the
statistics, how in the world can jury members with no professional
understanding be expected to do it?  Those who support making value
statements instead of offering numerical statistics feel that expert
witnesses have a responsibility to interpret the relevance of those
statistics for the jury, so as to make the numbers meaningful and useful to
them.  I can appreciate that point of view as well.  If the jury doesn't
understand the significance of our testimony, then we're wasting our time on
the stand and not making a useful contribution to the trial.  In fact, we
may just be muddying the waters and making the jury's job even harder.
 
Perhaps the FBI's reasoning parallels the above, and also is an attempt to
avoid OJ Simpson-like statistician battles that confuse and turn off jurors.
Maybe they feel that reporting statistics isn't meaningful to the jury and
simply invites endless debates about statistical technicalities that cloud
the whole issue to the point where the jury stops listening and makes their
decision based on other evidence (as with OJ).  The proponents of that
stance argue that it's more helpful if the professional analyst draws his
own conclusions as an expert about the strength of the association and
reports that conclusion to the court instead of the raw statistics.  That's
what I meant by "it's just his professional opinion as an expert in the
field."  Other experts can disagree and give their views, and the jury
decides who to believe.  The problem I see with this is that it may not be
any less confusing or any more helpful to the jury than the statistics are.
If they can't decide whose "expert opinion" to trust, they're going to once
again simply ignore the DNA evidence entirely.  I guess it all depends on
the skills of the expert witnesses in conveying their understanding to the
jury, but you've got to admit it's a formidable task with such a technical
subject, especially given the average juror's ignorance of even basic
science and statistics.
 
Perhaps the best approach is a synthesis of the two - report the statistics,
explain what they mean as well as you can, then give your expert conclusion
regarding those statistics.  That's the accepted practice in many other
fields involving expert conclusions, why not for forensic DNA?  For example,
let's assume we knew the population frequency of a particular DNA profile
among the entire world's population (I know we don't have that data, but I'm
not a DNA analyst and I don't know the true numbers for specific geographic
regions, so let's just assume this for the sake of discussion).  Suppose a
Forensic Biologist then testified, regarding a an attack by a Caucasian
assailant:
 
"The DNA profile common to both the blood stain from the crime scene and to
the defendant in this case occurs with a frequency of 1 in 6.35 billion
among the Caucasian population.  There are only 6.27 billion people on the
planet, and more than half of them are non-Caucasian, so this is a very
powerful association.  It doesn't mean there are not other Caucasian persons
on the planet with this same profile, and in fact there certainly could be,
but while it's impossible to say exactly how many there could actually be,
it's certain that they would be extremely few in number, if any at all.  In
my professional opinion, the extreme rarity of this profile, combined with
the limited number of people other than the defendant who could have had
access to the scene, amounts to a near certainty of association with the
defendant.  In my personal opinion as an expert, the blood stain came from
him and no one else.  There is a very slim possibility of another source,
but in my opinion that possibility is not a credible one.  I believe it is
extremely unlikely to have come from anyone else.  Therefore, in my opinion,
this is almost certainly the defendant's blood."
 
Assuming the statistical data were accurate, and that there were no issue of
a brother or other close relative as a possible suspect, would you take
issue with that hypothetical expert's testimony?  Why or why not?  Is there
some fault in the logic of his conclusion, or does it make good sense?  If
another expert disagreed with the conclusion drawn by the first expert,
would that necessarily make the conclusion invalid or improper, or would it
simply be a matter of a difference of opinion between experts?  What do you
think?
-----------------------
 
To which Bharat replied:
 

Regarding "uniqueness", or "sole sorce attribution" I did not spell out all
the objections I have in my previous message because I was not sure about
how they will be received by the DNA community. Since the comments received
from your end are quite positive ( even if I do not agree with some parts of
it) let me put forward some specific points: 

1. In the NRCii report the specific comments in this regard ( p. 57 )are:
 
"...Should this person be regarded as unique? If not, how  high shuld the
probability be for the profile to be regarded as unique? This is for society
or the courts, not the present committee, to decide......"
 
The interesting thing was that in one presentation of FBI that I attended at
NEAFS in the past, I felt that it was being claimed that NRC has approved or
endorsed or recommended the concept of uniqueness. To me it does not sound
like either.If you see the exact wording it seems like NRC did not feel that
it was not for them to decide but the courts ( "jury"? ), or society. An
organization like NRC ( which had luminaries from every conceivable area)
did not feel competent to handle this issue. And then we see these attempts
by some agencies to come up with "policies" to decide on uniqueness so that
any DNA analyst can comment on this issue based on his experience ( this
cannot be a lot since STR's have become prevalent only in the last 3/4
years. 
 
2. What NRCII referred to was a way of dealing with the issue of uniqueness
in case it was to be adopted. To my understanding  all that their
recmmendation did was to use the concept of confidence level ( instead of "
probability" ) to be able to predict that the profile will be unique in a
given population. Do we really feel that the jury will find it easier to
uderstand the concept of confinence level than probability? Do average DNA
analysts understand this concept in its statistical sense?
 
In what way is a statemement " At 99%(/ 95%) confidence level nobody other
than the suspect can have this profile in a population as large as USA "
superior to " The probability of finding the suspect's profile in a randomly
chosen unrelated individual is 1 in 1 billion "?
 
I think the concept of confidence level is more difficult to comprehend; and
my worry is that very soon we will be tempted not to emphasize the "
confidence level" part of the conclusion since it's difficult for the jury
to understand. I am worried that this is a slippery slope.
 
Bob, if you deem fit you may also forward this to the list
 
Bharat Lakhkar
Quality Assurance Manager
Westchester County Forensic Laboratory
--------------------------------
 
My response:
 

I agree that the concept of confidence levels might be equally as or perhaps
even more difficult for the layman to grasp than the "1 in a billion"
statistic, but the problem I think is that juries could easily misconstrue
the meaning of both.  Jurors might mistakenly think that the statement "the
odds of finding the profile in an unrelated individual is 1 in a billion"
means that the odds are a billion to 1 against the blood having come from
anyone other than the defendant.  My understanding (being neither a DNA
analyst nor a statistician) is that such an impression, while seemingly
logical to the layperson, is very wrong.  Similarly, the "certainty to a 99%
confidence level" statement to the layperson probably will be understood as
meaning that the odds against the defendant being the wrong person are only
100 to 1 (i.e., there is one chance out of 100 that we have the wrong guy).
That would also be an error in understanding, an even greater one.
 
This is why I begin to wonder if none of these statements serve the jury and
court particularly well, because the statistical and population genetics
concepts are just too complicated for the average person who has not been
schooled in them to fully grasp and properly interpret.  If there is no good
way to make sure judges and  juries won't misunderstand the true
significance of the probability assessment, then I have to ask - would it
not be better to have the expert witness sum up the meaning by simply
presenting his professional opinion / expert conclusion regarding that
assessment?  E.g., "I am 95% (or 99%) certain that the defendant produced
this blood stain," or more even more simply, "It is my conclusion, to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the defendant produced this
blood stain."  Then the expert could explain why he/she has come to that
conclusion, with all the mind-numbing statistical explanations necessary or
desired - all of which would fly right over most if not all of the
listeners' heads - but at least the triers of fact would have heard and
understood the bottom line, i.e. the expert's own professional assessment of
the probabilities involved, and in plain English.  Do forensic biologists
draw such conclusions in their own minds based on the results they get,
whether they speak them on the stand or not?  Of course they do.  Are they
valid?  I may not know enough about those probability assessments to
properly judge, but I tend to think they are.  Their opinions of those
assessments (even if arguably not as good as a statistician's) are certainly
better informed and more reliable than the layperson's would be.  So why
shouldn't they offer those expert opinions to the laity during testimony, to
assist them in evaluating the weight of the evidence presented?  
 
Expert guidance in interpretation of the scientific evidence is a forensic
scientist's most important contribution to a trial.  A paraprofessional
technician can competently do the analysis and produce the statistics by
following an analytical recipe, but it takes an expert forensic scientist to
properly interpret the significance of those highly technical results for
the judge and jury.  Isn't that why we're on the stand, not just to
regurgitate facts and figures, but to provide a professional scientific
interpretation of those facts and figures; or in other words, to provide
expert opinion testimony?  
 
My thanks to Bharat for his engaging conversation, and for his consent to
bring our dialog to the list.  I find this a fascinating discussion, one
that I hope will continue with input from additional list members.  What do
the rest of you think?  Have a great weekend, everyone!
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 



This E-mail and any files transmitted are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you receive this E-mail in error, please notify ITSecurity@fss.org.uk and delete it from your system.
This E-mail has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.


From daemon Mon Feb  4 07:44:52 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g14Ciqe12198
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:44:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scn4.scn.org (scn4.scn.org [209.63.95.149])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14Cio912193
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scn.org (bi492@scn [209.63.95.146])
	by scn4.scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA21035
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 04:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bi492@localhost)
	by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA03559;
	Mon, 4 Feb 2002 04:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 04:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200202041236.EAA03559@scn.org>
From: bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Renewing contacts
Reply-To: bi492@scn.org
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 336

Dear listmembers,

I have been off the list for quite some time and am now renewing contacts.
One of the poeple I have lost touch with is Susan Pullar, who used to be
in Tampa.  Does anyone know how to reach her?

Chesterene Cwiklik

--
Cwiklik & Associates
2400 6th Avenue South #257
Seattle, WA  98134
(206)623-3637	FAX (206)623-4384

From daemon Mon Feb  4 09:28:28 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g14ESSd13792
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:28:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g14ESRH13787
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:28:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 09:28:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202040927520.13598-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2599

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hans de Moel <h.de.moel@nfi.minjus.nl>
To: "'PRGormley@aol.com'" <PRGormley@aol.com>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Out of the mouths of babes ...
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:06:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Paul,

Peter Barnett gave you a rather elaborate story. I think this is a
scientifically correct way of explaining the differences in fingerprints.
But in my opinion not to a not-yet-ten-year old girl.
Maybe the simple "chaos theory" anecdote of the frightened butterfly in
Japan causing the thunderstorm in the States gives her a better grasp of how
very little differences in starting conditions can give really big results.
Another way to show her how "random" fingerprints are is by letting a drop
of water find its way along a glass plate (a window for instance); repeat
this ten times with the same amount of water on the same spot on the glass
plate and with minor changes like the tilting angle of the plate or
cleaning/drying the window in between...
There will be significantly different patterns, while the starting
conditions (like DNA coding) are identical (same amount of water on same
spot on the glass plate.
So for every finger there will be a "unique" pattern. Even in one person
there will be slight differences between left and right thumbs, index
fingers, etc... So why should identical twins or conjoined twins be any
different?

Maybe this is not the most scientifically correct way, but I think it will
get the message across.

Hans


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: PRGormley@aol.com [mailto:PRGormley@aol.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 31 januari 2002 2:37
Aan: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Onderwerp: Out of the mouths of babes ...


I was chatting with my daughter this evening and she brought up the question

of whether cloned people if/when that happens would have identical
fingerprints. I told her that the theories advanced by the communities that
I
had heard held that even the clones would not have identical prints, this
progressed to a discussion of non-identical prints in "identical" twins.

Then she punched me with another question ... how about conjoined (so called

"Siamese) twins, if you have twins attached in such a manner that there are
four hands (two complete and otherwise appropriate sets), anyone care to
weigh in on this speculative question from my not-yet-ten-year-old daughter?

Thanks in advance to anyone caring to answer this one for my daughter.

Paul Gormley
North Shore Community College


From daemon Mon Feb  4 20:09:23 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1519NC27328
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:09:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (rwcrmhc54.attbi.com [216.148.227.87])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1519M927323
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:09:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rwcrwbc55 ([204.127.198.44]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020205010922.XESW7443.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@rwcrwbc55>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 01:09:22 +0000
Received: from [64.91.172.142] by rwcrwbc55;
	Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:09:21 +0000
From: jcrippin@attbi.com
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Changes, changes, changes
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:09:21 +0000
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Nov 29 2001)
Message-Id: <20020205010922.XESW7443.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@rwcrwbc55>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 424

You may or may not have heard that I have resigned from 
the Colorado Bureau of Investigation as of last Friday, 
Feb. 1st.  I have formed a training company called: 
Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Company 
(WFLETC).  I can be reach at (719) 544-1011 or by pager 
at (719) 546-8841.  I will be at the Academy in Atlanta 
next week.  Lets have a beer and I will tell you all 
about it.       James (Jamie) Crippin

From daemon Tue Feb  5 09:33:21 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g15EXL606800
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:33:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g15EXB906795
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:33:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 14:33:11 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHYM0TW>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:16:07 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE0A@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'Buckleton, Dr John'" <jsb02@fss.org.uk>,
   "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)"
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:16:06 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE4F.A66B3DE0"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 40561

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE4F.A66B3DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Given that I discussed some divergent viewpoints, which ones were you
agreeing with?
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Buckleton, Dr John [mailto:jsb02@fss.org.uk]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 04:38
To: 'Robert Parsons'; FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Cc: Champod, Dr C; Evett, Dr I W; 'curran@stats.waikato.ac.nz';
'LAForeman@compuserve.com'
Subject: RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy


I would like to record my strong agreement with the comments in this mail.  
 
John Buckleton

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: 01 February 2002 22:44
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy


Bharat Lakhkar and I have been discussing this issue privately, and I
thought the conversation interesting enough that others might want to
participate.  With his permission, I'm copying it to the list for further
discussion.  In response to my own on-list musings regarding Mary Raidy's
inquiry about "source attribution," Bharat wrote:
 
Isn't the expertise involved in deciding the probability level at which it
becomes " almost impossible " or  " single source attribution " something in
which most of the DNA analysts are not qualified on stand. Is that their
field of expertise or that of a statistician or an acturian. What I do not
understand is why can we not leave it at the probability figure and let the
jury figure it out instead of making non-scientific statements. We can
always use different analogies or examples to make the jury understand the
smallness of the probability of a random match. But let's not use vague
statements like " single source attribution " which have no scientific or
statistical meaning.
 
Once we accept the idea that " single source attribution " ( even if that is
accompanied by explanation), somebody ( e.g. NRC or DAB ) will have to come
up with a figure below which this term can be used. Otherwise it will be
just like some of our other branches in Forensic where everyone is free to
decide on the criteria for concluding "matches". Why do we have to go down
this road again so that even the field of DNA conclusions may be ruled
unscientific.
 
Lakhkar, Bharat  F-ABC
Q.A. Manager
Westchester County Forensic Laboratory
-------------------------
 
To which I replied:
 

I don't know.  Do you have to be a statistician to understand the
significance of DNA statistics, or is it something a professional forensic
biologist can be expected to master well enough to voice an informed
opinion?  Is a statistician who is not a geneticist (and so who does not
understand DNA frequencies) any better qualified to interpret them than the
biologist?  If not, then how can they be interpreted by anyone, including
lay jurors?  Can it only be done by someone with degrees in both genetics
and statistics, and who also has training in forensic DNA analysis?  That
would be a pretty small number of people.
 
I guess the reason this topic came up on the list is because allegedly, the
FBI is making "single source attribution" statements routinely in DNA cases.
Some people think it's justified, and some don't.  I tend to agree with you.
Rather than make such absolute statements, I think most DNA analysts report
the frequency estimates and then try to explain what that means in terms of
the rarity of the profile.  The only problem is that it's often difficult
for the jury to understand this properly, no matter how well you explain it.
Some scientific topics just can't be easily simplified to the layperson's
level of understanding.  If forensic biologists aren't qualified to decide
when a probability assessment amounts to a near-certainly because they're
not statisticians, how even less qualified are jurors to determine the
significance of those statistics?  If forensic scientists who deal with
these things every day aren't capable of drawing a valid conclusion from the
statistics, how in the world can jury members with no professional
understanding be expected to do it?  Those who support making value
statements instead of offering numerical statistics feel that expert
witnesses have a responsibility to interpret the relevance of those
statistics for the jury, so as to make the numbers meaningful and useful to
them.  I can appreciate that point of view as well.  If the jury doesn't
understand the significance of our testimony, then we're wasting our time on
the stand and not making a useful contribution to the trial.  In fact, we
may just be muddying the waters and making the jury's job even harder.
 
Perhaps the FBI's reasoning parallels the above, and also is an attempt to
avoid OJ Simpson-like statistician battles that confuse and turn off jurors.
Maybe they feel that reporting statistics isn't meaningful to the jury and
simply invites endless debates about statistical technicalities that cloud
the whole issue to the point where the jury stops listening and makes their
decision based on other evidence (as with OJ).  The proponents of that
stance argue that it's more helpful if the professional analyst draws his
own conclusions as an expert about the strength of the association and
reports that conclusion to the court instead of the raw statistics.  That's
what I meant by "it's just his professional opinion as an expert in the
field."  Other experts can disagree and give their views, and the jury
decides who to believe.  The problem I see with this is that it may not be
any less confusing or any more helpful to the jury than the statistics are.
If they can't decide whose "expert opinion" to trust, they're going to once
again simply ignore the DNA evidence entirely.  I guess it all depends on
the skills of the expert witnesses in conveying their understanding to the
jury, but you've got to admit it's a formidable task with such a technical
subject, especially given the average juror's ignorance of even basic
science and statistics.
 
Perhaps the best approach is a synthesis of the two - report the statistics,
explain what they mean as well as you can, then give your expert conclusion
regarding those statistics.  That's the accepted practice in many other
fields involving expert conclusions, why not for forensic DNA?  For example,
let's assume we knew the population frequency of a particular DNA profile
among the entire world's population (I know we don't have that data, but I'm
not a DNA analyst and I don't know the true numbers for specific geographic
regions, so let's just assume this for the sake of discussion).  Suppose a
Forensic Biologist then testified, regarding a an attack by a Caucasian
assailant:
 
"The DNA profile common to both the blood stain from the crime scene and to
the defendant in this case occurs with a frequency of 1 in 6.35 billion
among the Caucasian population.  There are only 6.27 billion people on the
planet, and more than half of them are non-Caucasian, so this is a very
powerful association.  It doesn't mean there are not other Caucasian persons
on the planet with this same profile, and in fact there certainly could be,
but while it's impossible to say exactly how many there could actually be,
it's certain that they would be extremely few in number, if any at all.  In
my professional opinion, the extreme rarity of this profile, combined with
the limited number of people other than the defendant who could have had
access to the scene, amounts to a near certainty of association with the
defendant.  In my personal opinion as an expert, the blood stain came from
him and no one else.  There is a very slim possibility of another source,
but in my opinion that possibility is not a credible one.  I believe it is
extremely unlikely to have come from anyone else.  Therefore, in my opinion,
this is almost certainly the defendant's blood."
 
Assuming the statistical data were accurate, and that there were no issue of
a brother or other close relative as a possible suspect, would you take
issue with that hypothetical expert's testimony?  Why or why not?  Is there
some fault in the logic of his conclusion, or does it make good sense?  If
another expert disagreed with the conclusion drawn by the first expert,
would that necessarily make the conclusion invalid or improper, or would it
simply be a matter of a difference of opinion between experts?  What do you
think?
-----------------------
 
To which Bharat replied:
 

Regarding "uniqueness", or "sole sorce attribution" I did not spell out all
the objections I have in my previous message because I was not sure about
how they will be received by the DNA community. Since the comments received
from your end are quite positive ( even if I do not agree with some parts of
it) let me put forward some specific points: 

1. In the NRCii report the specific comments in this regard ( p. 57 )are:
 
"...Should this person be regarded as unique? If not, how  high shuld the
probability be for the profile to be regarded as unique? This is for society
or the courts, not the present committee, to decide......"
 
The interesting thing was that in one presentation of FBI that I attended at
NEAFS in the past, I felt that it was being claimed that NRC has approved or
endorsed or recommended the concept of uniqueness. To me it does not sound
like either.If you see the exact wording it seems like NRC did not feel that
it was not for them to decide but the courts ( "jury"? ), or society. An
organization like NRC ( which had luminaries from every conceivable area)
did not feel competent to handle this issue. And then we see these attempts
by some agencies to come up with "policies" to decide on uniqueness so that
any DNA analyst can comment on this issue based on his experience ( this
cannot be a lot since STR's have become prevalent only in the last 3/4
years. 
 
2. What NRCII referred to was a way of dealing with the issue of uniqueness
in case it was to be adopted. To my understanding  all that their
recmmendation did was to use the concept of confidence level ( instead of "
probability" ) to be able to predict that the profile will be unique in a
given population. Do we really feel that the jury will find it easier to
uderstand the concept of confinence level than probability? Do average DNA
analysts understand this concept in its statistical sense?
 
In what way is a statemement " At 99%(/ 95%) confidence level nobody other
than the suspect can have this profile in a population as large as USA "
superior to " The probability of finding the suspect's profile in a randomly
chosen unrelated individual is 1 in 1 billion "?
 
I think the concept of confidence level is more difficult to comprehend; and
my worry is that very soon we will be tempted not to emphasize the "
confidence level" part of the conclusion since it's difficult for the jury
to understand. I am worried that this is a slippery slope.
 
Bob, if you deem fit you may also forward this to the list
 
Bharat Lakhkar
Quality Assurance Manager
Westchester County Forensic Laboratory
--------------------------------
 
My response:
 

I agree that the concept of confidence levels might be equally as or perhaps
even more difficult for the layman to grasp than the "1 in a billion"
statistic, but the problem I think is that juries could easily misconstrue
the meaning of both.  Jurors might mistakenly think that the statement "the
odds of finding the profile in an unrelated individual is 1 in a billion"
means that the odds are a billion to 1 against the blood having come from
anyone other than the defendant.  My understanding (being neither a DNA
analyst nor a statistician) is that such an impression, while seemingly
logical to the layperson, is very wrong.  Similarly, the "certainty to a 99%
confidence level" statement to the layperson probably will be understood as
meaning that the odds against the defendant being the wrong person are only
100 to 1 (i.e., there is one chance out of 100 that we have the wrong guy).
That would also be an error in understanding, an even greater one.
 
This is why I begin to wonder if none of these statements serve the jury and
court particularly well, because the statistical and population genetics
concepts are just too complicated for the average person who has not been
schooled in them to fully grasp and properly interpret.  If there is no good
way to make sure judges and  juries won't misunderstand the true
significance of the probability assessment, then I have to ask - would it
not be better to have the expert witness sum up the meaning by simply
presenting his professional opinion / expert conclusion regarding that
assessment?  E.g., "I am 95% (or 99%) certain that the defendant produced
this blood stain," or more even more simply, "It is my conclusion, to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the defendant produced this
blood stain."  Then the expert could explain why he/she has come to that
conclusion, with all the mind-numbing statistical explanations necessary or
desired - all of which would fly right over most if not all of the
listeners' heads - but at least the triers of fact would have heard and
understood the bottom line, i.e. the expert's own professional assessment of
the probabilities involved, and in plain English.  Do forensic biologists
draw such conclusions in their own minds based on the results they get,
whether they speak them on the stand or not?  Of course they do.  Are they
valid?  I may not know enough about those probability assessments to
properly judge, but I tend to think they are.  Their opinions of those
assessments (even if arguably not as good as a statistician's) are certainly
better informed and more reliable than the layperson's would be.  So why
shouldn't they offer those expert opinions to the laity during testimony, to
assist them in evaluating the weight of the evidence presented?  
 
Expert guidance in interpretation of the scientific evidence is a forensic
scientist's most important contribution to a trial.  A paraprofessional
technician can competently do the analysis and produce the statistics by
following an analytical recipe, but it takes an expert forensic scientist to
properly interpret the significance of those highly technical results for
the judge and jury.  Isn't that why we're on the stand, not just to
regurgitate facts and figures, but to provide a professional scientific
interpretation of those facts and figures; or in other words, to provide
expert opinion testimony?  
 
My thanks to Bharat for his engaging conversation, and for his consent to
bring our dialog to the list.  I find this a fascinating discussion, one
that I hope will continue with input from additional list members.  What do
the rest of you think?  Have a great weekend, everyone!
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 

This E-mail and any files transmitted are private and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you receive this E-mail in error, please notify
ITSecurity@fss.org.uk and delete it from your system.
This E-mail has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE4F.A66B3DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=380345815-04022002>Given that I 
discussed some divergent viewpoints, which ones were you agreeing 
with?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Buckleton, Dr John 
[mailto:jsb02@fss.org.uk]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, February 02, 2002 
04:38<BR><B>To:</B> 'Robert Parsons'; FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)<BR><B>Cc:</B> 
Champod, Dr C; Evett, Dr I W; 'curran@stats.waikato.ac.nz'; 
'LAForeman@compuserve.com'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Source attribution - reply to 
Mary Raidy<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=359173509-02022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I 
would like to record my strong agreement with the comments in this mail.&nbsp; 
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=359173509-02022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=359173509-02022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>John 
Buckleton</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert Parsons 
  [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> 01 February 2002 
  22:44<BR><B>To:</B> FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)<BR><B>Subject:</B> FW: Source 
  attribution - reply to Mary Raidy<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=560150522-01022002>Bharat Lakhkar and 
  I have been discussing this issue privately, and I thought the conversation 
  interesting enough that others might want to participate.&nbsp; With his 
  permission, I'm copying it to the list for further discussion.&nbsp; In 
  response to my own on-list musings regarding Mary Raidy's inquiry about 
  "source attribution," Bharat wrote:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial 
  color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002>Isn't the expertise 
  involved in deciding the probability level at which it becomes " almost 
  impossible " or&nbsp; " single source attribution " something in which most of 
  the DNA analysts are not qualified on stand. Is that their field of expertise 
  or that of a statistician or an acturian. What I do not understand is why can 
  we not leave it at the probability figure and let the jury figure it out 
  instead of making non-scientific statements. We can always use different 
  analogies or examples to make the jury understand the smallness of the 
  probability of a random match. But let's not use vague statements like " 
  single source attribution " which have no scientific or statistical 
  meaning.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002>Once 
  we accept the idea that " single source attribution " ( even if that is 
  accompanied by explanation), somebody ( e.g. NRC or DAB ) will have to come up 
  with a figure below which this term can be used. Otherwise it will be just 
  like some of our other branches in Forensic where everyone is free to decide 
  on the criteria for concluding "matches". Why do we have to go down this road 
  again so that even the field of DNA conclusions may be ruled 
  unscientific.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Lakhkar, Bharat&nbsp; 
  F-ABC</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002>Q.A. 
  Manager</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002>Westchester County Forensic 
  Laboratory</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>-------------------------</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>To which I replied:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't 
  know.&nbsp; Do you have to be a statistician to understand the significance of 
  DNA statistics, or is it something a professional forensic biologist can be 
  expected to master&nbsp;well enough to voice an informed opinion?&nbsp; Is a 
  statistician who is not a geneticist (and so who does not understand DNA 
  frequencies) any better qualified to interpret them than the biologist?&nbsp; 
  If not, then how can they be interpreted by anyone, including lay 
  jurors?&nbsp; Can it only be done by someone with degrees in both genetics and 
  statistics, and who also has training in forensic DNA analysis?&nbsp; That 
  would be a pretty small number of people.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial size=2>I guess the reason 
  this topic came up on the list is because allegedly, the FBI is making "single 
  source attribution" statements routinely in DNA cases.&nbsp; Some people think 
  it's justified, and some don't.&nbsp; I tend to agree with 
  you.&nbsp;&nbsp;<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>Rather than make such absolute 
  statements, I think most DNA analysts&nbsp;r</SPAN>eport the frequency 
  estimates and then try to explain what that means in terms of the rarity of 
  the profile.&nbsp; The only problem is that it's often difficult for the jury 
  to understand this properly, no matter how well you explain it.&nbsp; Some 
  scientific topics just can't be easily simplified to the layperson's level of 
  understanding.&nbsp; If forensic biologists aren't qualified to decide when a 
  probability assessment amounts to a near-certainly because they're not 
  statisticians, how even less qualified are jurors to determine the 
  significance of those statistics?&nbsp; If forensic scientists who deal with 
  these things every day aren't capable of drawing a valid conclusion from the 
  statistics, how in the world can jury members with no professional 
  understanding be expected to do it?&nbsp; Those who support making value 
  statements instead of offering numerical statistics feel that expert witnesses 
  have a responsibility to interpret the relevance of those statistics for the 
  jury, so as to make the numbers meaningful and useful to them.&nbsp; I can 
  appreciate that point of view as well.&nbsp; If the jury doesn't understand 
  the significance of our testimony, then we're wasting our time on the stand 
  and not making a useful contribution to the trial.&nbsp; In fact, we may just 
  be muddying the waters and making the jury's job even 
  harder.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>Perhaps</SPAN>&nbsp;the FBI's reasoning parallels the 
  above, and also is an attempt to avoid OJ Simpson-like statistician battles 
  that confuse and turn off jurors.&nbsp;&nbsp;<SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>Maybe </SPAN>they feel that reporting statistics 
  isn't meaningful to the jury and simply invites endless debates about 
  statistical technicalities that cloud the whole issue to the point where the 
  jury stops listening and makes their decision based on other evidence (as with 
  OJ).&nbsp; The proponents of that stance argue that it's more helpful if the 
  professional analyst draws his own conclusions as an expert about the strength 
  of the association and reports that conclusion to the court instead of the raw 
  statistics.&nbsp; That's what I meant by "it's just his professional opinion 
  as an expert in the field."&nbsp; Other experts can disagree and give their 
  views, and the jury decides who to believe.&nbsp; The problem I see with this 
  is that it may not be any less confusing or any more helpful to the jury than 
  the statistics are.&nbsp; If they can't decide whose "expert opinion" to 
  trust, they're going to once again simply ignore the DNA evidence 
  entirely.&nbsp; I guess it all depends on the&nbsp;skills of the expert 
  witnesses in conveying their understanding to the jury, but you've got to 
  admit it's a formidable task with such a technical subject, especially given 
  the average juror's ignorance of even basic science and 
  statistics.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial size=2>Perhaps the best 
  approach is a synthesis of the two - report the statistics, explain what they 
  mean as well as you can, then give your expert conclusion regarding those 
  statistics.&nbsp; That's the accepted practice in many other fields involving 
  expert conclusions, why not for forensic DNA?&nbsp; For example,&nbsp;let's 
  assume we knew the population frequency of a particular DNA profile among the 
  entire world's population (I know we don't have that&nbsp;data, but I'm not a 
  DNA analyst and I don't know the true numbers for specific geographic regions, 
  so let's just assume this for the sake of discussion).&nbsp; Suppose a 
  Forensic Biologist then testified<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>, regarding a 
  an attack by a Caucasian assailant</SPAN>:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial size=2>"The DNA profile 
  common to both the blood stain from the crime scene and to the defendant in 
  this case occurs with a frequency of 1 in 6.35 billion among the Caucasian 
  population.&nbsp; There are only&nbsp;6.27 billion people on the planet, and 
  more than half of them are non-Caucasian, so this is a very powerful 
  association.&nbsp; It doesn't mean there are not other Caucasian persons on 
  the planet with this same profile, and in fact there certainly could be, but 
  while it's impossible to say&nbsp;<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>exactly 
  </SPAN>how&nbsp;many there could actually be, it's certain that they would be 
  extremely few in number, if any at all.&nbsp; In my professional opinion, the 
  extreme rarity of this profile, combined with the limited number of people 
  other than the defendant who could have had access to the scene, amounts to a 
  near certain<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>t</SPAN>y of association with the 
  defendant.&nbsp; In my personal opinion as an expert, the blood stain came 
  from him and no one else.&nbsp; There is a very slim possibility of another 
  source, but in my opinion that possibility is not a credible one.&nbsp; I 
  believe it is extremely unlikely to have come from anyone else.&nbsp; 
  Therefore, in my opinion, this is almost certainly the defendant's 
  blood."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690162320-31012002><FONT face=Arial size=2>Assuming the 
  statistical data were accurate, and that there were no issue of a brother or 
  other close relative as a possible suspect, would you take issue with that 
  hypothetical expert's testimony?&nbsp; Why or why not?&nbsp; Is there some 
  fault in the logic of his conclusion, or does it make good sense?&nbsp; If 
  another expert disagreed with the conclusion drawn by the first expert, would 
  that necessarily make the conclusion invalid or improper, or would it simply 
  be a matter of a difference of opinion between experts?&nbsp; What do you 
  think?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>-----------------------</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>To which Bharat replied:</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=587552419-31012002><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>
  <DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002>Regarding "uniqueness", or "sole sorce attribution" 
  </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT 
  color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>I did not spell 
  out all the objections I have in my previous message because I was not sure 
  about how they will be received by the DNA community. Since <FONT face=Tahoma 
  color=#000000><STRONG>the comments received from your end are quite positive ( 
  even if I do not agree with some parts of it) let me put forward some specific 
  points</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><STRONG>:</STRONG> <BR></FONT><FONT 
  color=#0000ff></FONT><SPAN class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>1. In the NRCii 
  report the specific comments in this regard ( p. 57 )are:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>"...Should this 
  person be regarded as unique? If not, how&nbsp; high shuld the probability be 
  for the profile to be regarded as unique? This is for society or the courts, 
  not the present committee, to decide......"</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>The interesting 
  thing was that in one presentation of FBI that I attended at NEAFS in the 
  past, I felt that it was being claimed that NRC has approved or endorsed or 
  recommended the concept of uniqueness. To me it does not sound like either.If 
  you see the exact wording it seems like NRC did not feel that it was not for 
  them to decide but the courts ( "jury"? ), or society. An organization like 
  NRC ( which had luminaries from every conceivable area) did not feel competent 
  to handle this issue. And then we see these attempts by some agencies to come 
  up with "policies" to decide on uniqueness so that any DNA analyst can comment 
  on this issue based on his experience ( this cannot be a lot since STR's have 
  become prevalent only in the last 3/4 years. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>2. What NRCII 
  referred to was a way of dealing with the issue of uniqueness in case it was 
  to be adopted. To my understanding&nbsp; all that their recmmendation did was 
  to use the concept of confidence level ( instead of " probability" ) to be 
  able to predict that the profile will be unique in a given population. Do we 
  really feel that the jury will find it easier to uderstand the concept of 
  confinence level than probability? Do average DNA analysts understand this 
  concept in its statistical sense?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>In what way is 
  a statemement " At 99%(/ 95%) confidence level nobody other than the suspect 
  can have this profile in a population as large as USA "&nbsp; superior to " 
  The probability of finding the suspect's profile in a randomly chosen 
  unrelated individual is 1 in 1 billion "?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>I think the 
  concept of confidence level is more difficult to comprehend; and my worry is 
  that very soon we will be tempted not to emphasize the " confidence level" 
  part of the conclusion since it's difficult for the jury to understand. I am 
  worried that this is a slippery slope.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>Bob, if you 
  deem fit you may also forward this to the list</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN 
  class=690310316-01022002></SPAN></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>Bharat 
  Lakhkar</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>Quality 
  Assurance Manager</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=690310316-01022002>Westchester 
  County Forensic Laboratory</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690310316-01022002><SPAN class=560150522-01022002><FONT 
  size=2>--------------------------------</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690310316-01022002><SPAN class=560150522-01022002><FONT 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690310316-01022002><SPAN class=560150522-01022002><FONT 
  size=2>My response:</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690310316-01022002><SPAN class=560150522-01022002><FONT 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=690310316-01022002><SPAN class=560150522-01022002>
  <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=770155620-01022002>I agree that the concept of 
  confidence levels might be equally&nbsp;<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>as 
  </SPAN>or perhaps&nbsp;<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>even </SPAN>more 
  difficult for the layman to grasp&nbsp;<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>than 
  </SPAN>the "1 in a billion" statistic, but the problem I think is that juries 
  could easily misconstrue the meaning of both.&nbsp; Jurors might mistakenly 
  think that the statement "the odds of finding the profile in an unrelated 
  individual is 1 in a billion" means that the odds are a billion to 1 
  against&nbsp;the blood having come from anyone other&nbsp;<SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>than </SPAN>the defendant.&nbsp; My understanding 
  (being neither a DNA analyst nor a statistician) is that such an impression, 
  while&nbsp;seemingly logical<SPAN class=560150522-01022002> to the 
  layperson</SPAN>, is very wrong.</SPAN>&nbsp;<SPAN class=770155620-01022002> 
  Similarly, the "certainty to a 99% confidence level" statement to the 
  layperson probably will be understood as meaning that the odds against the 
  defendant being the wrong person are only 100 to 1 (i.e., there is one chance 
  out of 100 that we have the wrong guy).&nbsp; That would also&nbsp;be an error 
  in understanding, an&nbsp;even greater one.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=770155620-01022002><FONT size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=770155620-01022002>This is why I begin to wonder 
  if none of these statements serve the jury and court particularly well, 
  because the statistical and population genetics concepts are just too 
  complicated for the average person who has not been schooled in them to fully 
  grasp and properly interpret.&nbsp; If there is no good way to make sure 
  judges and &nbsp;juries won't misunderstand the true significance of the 
  probability assessment, then I have to ask - would it not be better to have 
  the expert witness sum up the meaning by simply presenting his professional 
  opinion /<SPAN class=560150522-01022002> </SPAN>expert conclusion regarding 
  that assessment?&nbsp; E.g., "I am 95% (or 99%) certain that the defendant 
  produced this blood stain," or more even more simply, "It is my conclusion, to 
  a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the defendant produced this 
  blood stain<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>.</SPAN>"&nbsp; Then the expert 
  could explain why he/she has come to that conclusion, with all the 
  mind-numbing statistical explanations necessary or desired -&nbsp;all of which 
  would fly right over most if not all of the listeners' heads<SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002> -</SPAN> but at least the triers of fact would have 
  heard and understood the bottom line, i.e. the expert's own professional 
  assessment of the probabilities involved, and&nbsp;in plain English.&nbsp; 
  </SPAN><SPAN class=770155620-01022002>Do forensic biologists draw such 
  conclusions in their own minds based on the results they get, whether they 
  speak them on the stand or not?&nbsp; Of course they do.&nbsp; Are they 
  valid?&nbsp; I may not know enough about those probability assessments to 
  properly judge, but I tend to think they are.&nbsp; Their opinions of those 
  assessments (even if arguably not as good as a statistician's) are certainly 
  better informed and more reliable than the layperson's would be.&nbsp; So why 
  shouldn't they offer those expert opinions to the laity during testimony, to 
  assist them in evaluating the weight of the evidence presented?&nbsp; 
  </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=770155620-01022002><FONT size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=770155620-01022002><FONT size=2>Expert guidance in 
  interpretation of the scientific evidence is a forensic scientist's most 
  important contribution to a trial.&nbsp; A paraprofessional technician can 
  competently do the analysis and produce the statistics by following an 
  analytical recipe, but it takes an expert forensic scientist to properly 
  interpret the significance of those highly technical results for the judge and 
  jury.&nbsp;&nbsp;Isn't that why we're on the stand,&nbsp;not just to 
  regurgitate facts and figures, but to provide a professional scientific 
  interpretation of those facts and figures; or in other words, to provide 
  expert opinion testimony?&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=770155620-01022002><FONT size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=770155620-01022002><FONT size=2><SPAN 
  class=560150522-01022002>My thanks to Bharat for his engaging conversation, 
  and for his consent to bring our dialog to the list.&nbsp; I find 
  this</SPAN>&nbsp;<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>a fascinating 
  </SPAN>discussion, one that I hope will continue with input from additional 
  list members.<SPAN class=560150522-01022002>&nbsp; What do the rest of you 
  think?&nbsp; Have a great weekend, 
  everyone!</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
  Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
  College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> <SPAN 
  class=770155620-01022002><FONT face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>This E-mail and any files transmitted are private and intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are</DIV>
<DIV>addressed. If you receive this E-mail in error, please notify 
ITSecurity@fss.org.uk and delete it from your system.</DIV>
<DIV>This E-mail has been swept for the presence of computer 
viruses.</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1AE4F.A66B3DE0--

From daemon Tue Feb  5 14:20:35 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g15JKZe13305
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:20:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from f04n07.cac.psu.edu (f04s07.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.35])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g15JKY913300
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:20:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [130.203.167.42] (tnt2-164-24.cac.psu.edu [130.203.164.24])
	by f04n07.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA372554;
	Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:20:34 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: rpw109@email.psu.edu
Message-Id: <v04011705b885def169cf@[130.203.167.42]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:16:53 -0500
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, ENTOMO-L@LISTSERV.UOGUELPH.CA
From: RP Withington <rpw109@psu.edu>
Subject: Forensic Entomology Workshop
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1669

        Announcing the Tenth Annual Workshop on Forensic Entomology offered
by the Entomology Department at The Pennsylvania State University.  The
workshop is led by Dr. K.C. Kim, Board Certified Forensic Entomologist, and
runs from Wednesday, 22 May 2002, to Friday, 24 May 2002.  This course is
designed for forensic investigators working for law-enforcement agencies,
including state police, municipal police, forensic pathologists, and
coroners.  The course has been approved by the State Board of Coroners and
covers the principles of forensic entomology, the ecology of necrophagous
arthropod communities, and forensic entomological analysis.
        For course information, contact:
                Dr. K.C. Kim
                The Pennsylvania State University
                501 ASI Building
                University Park, PA  16802-3508
                Phone: (814) 865-1895
                E-mail: kck@psu.edu
        For course registration, contact:
                Ag. Short Courses and Conferences
                The Pennsylvania State University
                306 Ag. Administration Building
                University Park, PA  16802-2601
                Phone: (814) 865-8301
                FAX: (814) 865-7050
                TTY: (814) 865-1204
        Please visit our Web sites at:
	http://www.ento.psu.edu/ForensicSC/index.htm
                http://conferences.cas.psu.edu


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert P. Withington III
Frost Entomological Museum
University Park, PA  16802
U.S.A.

Telephone:  (814) 863-2865 (w)
                   (814) 861-4305  (h)
FAX: (814) 865-3048 (w)
          (814) 861-4305 (h)
E-mail:   rpw109@psu.edu

From daemon Tue Feb  5 17:35:05 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g15MZ5S17338
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:35:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web14203.mail.yahoo.com (web14203.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.145])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g15MZ4917333
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:35:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20020205223504.42058.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.48.43.217] by web14203.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:35:04 PST
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:35:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Tamara Leher <tamara_leher@yahoo.com>
Subject: CSU, Chico Fourth Annual Forensic Conference
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: HUMBIO-L@ACC.FAU.EDU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1083

This notice is to announce CSU, Chico 
Fourth Annual Forensic Mini-Conference.

The Conference will be held March 8-10 with March 9th
activities open to the general public from 10Am-4PM in
Holt Hall on the CSU, Chico Campus. 

Confirmed speakers for the conference include:

Wayne Lord(Forensic Entomology, Behavior Profile, CSI)
Marcella Sorg(Forensic Taphonomy)
Skip Sperber(Odontologist)
Dennis Dirkmaat (Forensic Archaeology, recently worked
                   on the plane crash in PA


Admission is free (Donations accepted)

If you need information on area hotels, dining,
directions, or other questions regarding the
conference, please feel free to respond to:
chico4n6@yahoo.com.

Please forward this notice on to any individuals who
may be interested in this conference and send us an
e-mail to add them to our notification list.

Thank you for your time and attention.

We apologize if you receive this notice more than
once.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

From daemon Wed Feb  6 18:04:32 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g16N4V809724
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:04:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g16N4U909719
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:04:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 23:04:31 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHYNGHX>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:03:45 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE15@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: FW: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:03:44 -0500 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE15@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C1AF62.86DEF8E0"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 23786

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1AF62.86DEF8E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Here's the last part of the discussion between Bharat and myself on this
topic.  Bharat expressed a desire to hear what others (particularly DNA
specialists) think about our musings and the topic in general.  I echo that
desire, particularly because I'm not a DNA analyst and recognize that I may
not entirely know what I'm talking about.  So come on, DNA folks, put your
own two cents in (on-list, preferably).
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lakhkar, Bharat [mailto:bnl1@westchestergov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:09
To: 'Robert Parsons'
Subject: RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy


Bob:
 
It really has been a very interesting discussion. I think that a body like
DAB or NRC should really come up with guidelelines in this issue, because it
is a controvercial topic.
 
What I found really interesting is how some of the statistical measures get
misinterpreted in the light of common sense. I will give you an example of
how likelihood ratio gets interpreted in mixture cases.
 
At common sense level likelihood ratio is interpreted very commonly as ratio
of the two probabilities:
 
1. The suspect and the victim ( or their profiles) are there in the mixture
2. Someone else and the victim are there in the mixture.
 
At first glance this even seems fine. But let's see how dead wrong this
interpretation is, since it's so close to saying that it's the ratio of the
prob. of the suspect being guilty and the prob. of someone else being
guilty.
 
In the likelihood the numerator is "1", which means  certainty and we have
predecided that the suspect is present in the mixture or that he is
guilty.How do we know that? All that we know is that one of the possible
explanations of the profile of the mixture is the presence of suspect's and
victim's blood. 
 
In fact the likelihood ratio is a ratio of the probabilities associated with
the abilities to explain the evidence ( profile of the mixture ). Under the
hypothesis that the suspect and the victim contributed to the mixture the
prob. of explaining the evidence is 1. Under the other hypothesis ( victim
and someone else ) the prob. figure generally is extremely miniscule. So the
likelihood ratio is normally a very large figure. However what is not
realised most often is that the ratio will be an equally large figure for
any two individual profiles that can explain the mixture profile (  and
imagine the no. of such individual profile pairs that can explain the
evidence! ).
 
And now think about how much havoc can common sense create because I am
extremely dobtful if those who testify on mixtures explain all these
subtleties and limitations of the likelihood ratio. I think it's much more
tempting to go with common sense and explain to the jury in a language that
is easier to understand and say that it's the ratio of the prob. of the
suspect plus the victim and someone else and the victim. 
 
It's because of these kinds of potential pitfalls that I don't like the idea
explaining statististics on the scale of common sense. 
 
[Lakhkar, Bharat]  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons 
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 17:54
To: 'Lakhkar, Bharat'
Subject: RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy


Bharat,
 
I'm finding this discussion extremely stimulating also.  I think you're
right about the great chance of misinterpretation of likelihood ratios by
the jury, which is why I wonder if it wouldn't be better to avoid giving
them any complex numbers or statistical models to misinterpret in the first
place.  Providing all that complexity forces them to rely on a "common
sense" interpretation because they don't understand the subtleties you're
talking about.  Wouldn't it be better to give them an expert opinion that
distills those complexities into plain language that is less likely to be
misunderstood?  E.g., simply tell them that it is a 99.995% probability that
the defendant or someone with an identical profile contributed to the
mixture profile (if that's true), and then simply state that the odds of an
unrelated person contributing that particular profile are that very
miniscule number you mentioned.  Wouldn't this essentially explain (in a
simplified way) the same things that likelihood ratios are intended to
express, but with much less chance of confusing or accidentally misleading
the jury with details that would seem  to them like nothing more than
technobabble?  I'm quite certain I don't even begin to understand the
subtleties involved in mixture results, and I at least have some exposure to
the topic and some genetics and statistical background to help me make sense
of it.  Most jurors lack even that, so I think the KISS principle applies
with such testimony - keep it accurate, but as simple as possible.  Not an
easy job, I'm sure. 
 
We scientists are naturally very concerned about being as accurate and
detailed as possible in reporting our results and conclusions, but we
(perhaps especially the researchers among us) sometimes forget that when
talking to the layperson too much information can be as bad, or even worse,
than too little.  Think about the panic and unjustified responses that
result from ignorance of science and misinterpretation of scientific reports
in the health and environmental fields (e.g., cyclamates, Alar, processed
sugar, irradiated and genetically modified foods, etc.).  When research
reports are read by laypersons in the media or lay activists among the
general public, their implications are almost always misunderstood or
exaggerated.  Information overload is a real phenomenon, and juries can
suffer from it just as easily as the media and general public.  In speech as
well as in writing, to be properly understood one must tailor not only one's
vocabulary but also one's level of discussion to the intended audience,
keeping in mind the level of understanding of the reader or listener.  You
wouldn't use the same level or detail of explanation to answer the question
"Why is the sky blue?" when the question comes from a 5-year-old as you
would when it comes from an adult.  This is why military manuals in the
1970s were written at a fifth-grade reading level -- to match the average
reading comprehension capabilities of the recruits at the time.  Likewise,
you can't use the same level of discussion or detail in explaining DNA
results to laypersons on a jury as you would when talking to colleagues in a
scientific forum.  We can't offer juries concepts that are alien to the
average person on the street and which are too complex to teach to them in
our short time on the stand.  That isn't helpful to them.  Instead, we've
got to try to find a way to simplify our testimony and express the import of
our results in a simpler fashion, so that those results (and our conclusions
about them) can be well understood and not misconstrued.
 
It seems that even NRC ducked the issue as far as providing guidance for
creating definitive guidelines to express the degree of certainty in
results.  The way you explained it,  it sounds like they decided they lacked
sufficient forensics background among themselves to provide such guidance,
and so deferred the decision to career forensic biologists.  The job then
falls, I would think, to SWGDAM since the DAB no longer exists.  I don't
envy them the job, but someone needs to come up with some kind of guidance
in expressing results to the lay jury in a simple, straightforward, and easy
to understand way.
 
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 
 

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1AF62.86DEF8E0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_000_01C1AF62.86DEF8E0--

From daemon Wed Feb  6 20:31:39 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g171VcZ12351
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:31:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g171Va912346
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:31:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from vifp.monash.edu.au (pc_haem_1 [130.194.124.124])
	by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00728
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:31:31 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C61D9CC.11789892@vifp.monash.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 12:35:08 +1100
From: Bentley Atchison <bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Source attribution 
References: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE15@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------551A1ED7167361933D6F7367"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 4055


--------------551A1ED7167361933D6F7367
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The comments by Bob Parsons and Bharat are very interesting.  Basically, they
seem to be examples of the "Prosecutor's fallacy" (or transposition of the
conditional) .

eg.,

At common sense level likelihood ratio is interpreted very commonly as ratio
of the two probabilities:

1. The suspect and the victim ( or their profiles) are there in the mixture
2. Someone else and the victim are there in the mixture.

and

I think it's much more
tempting to go with common sense and explain to the jury in a language that
is easier to understand and say that it's the ratio of the prob. of the
suspect plus the victim and someone else and the victim.

and

simply tell them that it is a 99.995% probability that
the defendant or someone with an identical profile contributed to the
mixture profile (if that's true), and then simply state that the odds of an
unrelated person contributing that particular profile are that very
miniscule number you mentioned.


Of course the DNA results and probabilities are not answering these questions.
They are answering the exact opposite, viz, for the denominator, the probability
of obtaining the results, given the stain came from the victim and someone
else.  As it is a conditional probability, the "given" part of course has to be
true.

If you want to answer the questions posed above then you have to resort to the
use of prior odds.  Of course, courts ban the idea of a jury even hearing about
prior odds and their use in Bayes' Theorem.  Under this circumstance juries
probably commit the fallacy, which is a pity/disaster because the power of the
Bayesian approach has a lot going for it when fully explained.

Bentley Atchison
Manager, Molecualr Biology




--------------551A1ED7167361933D6F7367
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
The comments by Bob Parsons and Bharat are very interesting.&nbsp; Basically,
they seem to be examples of the "Prosecutor's fallacy" (or transposition
of the conditional) .
<p>eg.,<i></i>
<p><i>At common sense level likelihood ratio is interpreted very commonly
as ratio</i>
<br><i>of the two probabilities:</i>
<br><i>&nbsp;</i>
<br><i>1. The suspect and the victim ( or their profiles) are there in
the mixture</i>
<br><i>2. Someone else and the victim are there in the mixture.</i><i></i>
<p><i>and</i><i></i>
<p><i>I think it's much more</i>
<br><i>tempting to go with common sense and explain to the jury in a language
that</i>
<br><i>is easier to understand and say that it's the ratio of the prob.
of the</i>
<br><i>suspect plus the victim and someone else and the victim.</i><i></i>
<p><i>and</i><i></i>
<p><i>simply tell them that it is a 99.995% probability that</i>
<br><i>the defendant or someone with an identical profile contributed to
the</i>
<br><i>mixture profile (if that's true), and then simply state that the
odds of an</i>
<br><i>unrelated person contributing that particular profile are that very</i>
<br><i>miniscule number you mentioned.</i>
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Of course the DNA results and probabilities are not answering these
questions. They are answering the exact opposite, viz, for the denominator,
the probability of obtaining the results, <b><i><u>given </u></i></b>the
stain came from the victim and someone else.&nbsp; As it is a conditional
probability, the "given" part of course has to be true.
<p>If you want to answer the questions posed above then you have to resort
to the use of prior odds.&nbsp; Of course, courts ban the idea of a jury
even hearing about prior odds and their use in Bayes' Theorem.&nbsp; Under
this circumstance juries probably commit the fallacy, which is a pity/disaster
because the power of the Bayesian approach has a lot going for it when
fully explained.
<p>Bentley Atchison
<br>Manager, Molecualr Biology
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------551A1ED7167361933D6F7367--


From daemon Wed Feb  6 20:41:29 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g171fTe12727
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:41:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb2-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.136])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g171fS912722
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:41:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 29807 invoked by uid 0); 7 Feb 2002 01:41:28 -0000
Received: from ut59.students.srd.org (HELO UTX73.mail.utexas.edu) (206.77.187.59)
  by umbs-smtp-2 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 01:41:28 -0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206171244.00a2a850@pop3.norton.antivirus>
X-Sender: asalter/mail.utexas.edu@pop3.norton.antivirus
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:43:32 -0600
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Amber <asalter@mail.utexas.edu>
Subject: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 262

I was wondering if anyone out there had any good demonstrations for 
children in elementary school?  We are doing a science lesson for 3-5 
graders at underprivileged schools in Austin, TX?
Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated!
Thank you,
Amber Salter


From daemon Thu Feb  7 02:19:21 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g177JLk17274
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:19:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g177JJ917269
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:19:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from forensic.demon.co.uk ([194.222.14.17])
	by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
	id 16Yipy-0005iv-0K; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:19:19 +0000
Message-ID: <ddzGaAAoniY8EwLj@forensic.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:16:56 +0000
To: Bentley Atchison <bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au>
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: stuart kind <alan@forensic.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: stuart kind <kind@forensic.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FW: Source attribution
References: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE15@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
 <3C61D9CC.11789892@vifp.monash.edu.au>
In-Reply-To: <3C61D9CC.11789892@vifp.monash.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <w8Yevz5nzbJPzfTnsSfleK9sgK>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 657

In message <3C61D9CC.11789892@vifp.monash.edu.au>, Bentley Atchison
<bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au> writes
>  
snip
> Of course, courts ban the idea of 
>    a jury even hearing about prior odds and their use in Bayes' 
>    Theorem.  Under this circumstance juries probably commit the 
>    fallacy, which is a pity/disaster because the power of the Bayesian 
>    approach has a lot going for it when fully explained. 
>
>    Bentley Atchison 
>    Manager, Molecualr Biology 
>     
>      
>      
For a contrary view read Chapter 13 of "The Sceptical Witness" now
available on free download from my web site.
Stuart Kind
http://www.forensic.demon.co.uk


From daemon Thu Feb  7 03:09:32 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1789Wa18076
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:09:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1789V918071
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 03:09:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from att.net ([12.81.128.193]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020207080930.XABD5540.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@att.net>;
          Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:09:30 +0000
Message-ID: <3C6235FA.9EA83286@att.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:08:26 -0800
From: "John P. Bowden" <jaybow@att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Amber <asalter@mail.utexas.edu>
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: 
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020206171244.00a2a850@pop3.norton.antivirus>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------8EE2F0D7415725EC888693D5"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1723


--------------8EE2F0D7415725EC888693D5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Amber,

You might check the American Chemical Society web page. I believe it is
www.acs.org.

I know the Student Chapter at California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS) has a lot that they do for kids on various demonstration days. You
might be able to get some info from them. Try www.chem.csus.edu

John P. Bowden
Forensic Consultant
Dum Spiro Spero

Amber wrote:

> I was wondering if anyone out there had any good demonstrations for
> children in elementary school?  We are doing a science lesson for 3-5
> graders at underprivileged schools in Austin, TX?
> Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated!
> Thank you,
> Amber Salter

--------------8EE2F0D7415725EC888693D5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Amber,
<p>You might check the American Chemical Society web page. I believe it
is www.acs.org.
<p>I know the Student Chapter at California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS) has a lot that they do for kids on various demonstration days. You
might be able to get some info from them. Try www.chem.csus.edu
<p>John P. Bowden
<br>Forensic Consultant
<br><b><i>Dum Spiro Spero</i></b><b><i></i></b>
<p>Amber wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I was wondering if anyone out there had any good
demonstrations for
<br>children in elementary school?&nbsp; We are doing a science lesson
for 3-5
<br>graders at underprivileged schools in Austin, TX?
<br>Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated!
<br>Thank you,
<br>Amber Salter</blockquote>
</html>

--------------8EE2F0D7415725EC888693D5--


From daemon Thu Feb  7 05:16:59 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g17AGxC19730
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtpmail.cix.co.uk (smtpmail.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.151])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17AGv919725
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:16:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from email3.fss.org.uk (fss.compulink.co.uk [194.153.11.118])
	by smtpmail.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g17AGtI13056
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:16:56 GMT
X-Envelope-From: jsb02@fss.org.uk
Received: from email1.fss.org.uk (unverified) by email3.fss.org.uk
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id <T58ec83ea30ac112e6206e@email3.fss.org.uk> for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>;
 Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:19:50 +0000
Received: by EMAIL1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <W51FH0K5>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:16:08 -0000
Message-ID: <A18C03E91B3ED411BD5100508BCF87FB0333A005@EMAIL1>
From: "Buckleton, Dr John" <jsb02@fss.org.uk>
To: "'Robert Parsons'" <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>,
   "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)"
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Source attribution - reply to Bob and Bharat
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:16:07 -0000 
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
Content-Length: 2957

Reporting likelihood ratios
 
Dear Bob and Bharat, 
 
Your discussion of source attribution has strayed onto the subject of
reporting likelihood ratios.  You have, to some extent fairly, pointed out
that reporting likelihood ratios uses a cumbersome wording that can lead to
misunderstanding.  It is interesting to we committed Bayesians to try to
remember this feeling because with famiarity the opposite happens.  We are
comfortable with likelihood ratios but seem to see endless issues with the
very nature of probability per se.  Just to give you one simple example of
where we spend a lot of thinking time consider a single event:  one roll of
a dice that you have never rolled before.  It comes up 6.  I ask you 'What
was the probability that it would come up 6?'  This problem is surprisingly
akin to the court case problem in it's 'one off' nature.  Even when we form
an answer we cannot test it.  Let us say that I conclude that the
probability of a 6 was 1/6.  Does my roll of a 6 support or rebut the
probability?  Bayesians claim that that question is unanswerable in a
frequentist framework.  
 
 
Putting that aside, let us accept that likelihood ratios are hard to present
in court.  We have several options:
 
1.  Abandon a superior systen (the likelihood ratio approach) and give less
correct answers that can at least be understood.
2.  Retain the likelihood ratio approach scientifically, but report in some
other way in court.
3.  Do research and train ourselves and in likelihood ratios.
 
In the UK we regularly attend Judicial Study Boards.  At these we discuss
the likelihood ratio approach to universal understanding and approval.
These Judges can easily assimilate these ideas and help convery them to a
jury.  In fact the Bayesian approach to evidence was not started by forensic
scientists but by legal commentators.  
 
I further claim that the Bayesian approach is actually akin to how most
people think.  This is how most people make 'life' decisions about things
like pensions, insurance, even barbeques.  What is lacking is a way to
transfer this understanding to scientific evidence.  
 
Is the frequentist approach easier?  I claim barely.  Consider, for
instance, the confusion that has occured over database hits.  Suppose we
search our database here of 1.3 million people and find a match to one
person.  We estimate the frequency of this profile to be 1 in a billion
(forgive my wording).  Assess the weight to be assigned this evidence.  In a
Bayesian framework - no problem - sensible answer.  In a frequentist
framework see NRC II or Stockmarr for self rebutting arguments and endless
confusion.  
 
 
 


This E-mail and any files transmitted are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you receive this E-mail in error, please notify ITSecurity@fss.org.uk and delete it from your system.
This E-mail has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.


From daemon Thu Feb  7 11:26:02 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g17GNiR25391
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:23:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17GKj925308
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:20:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SkipnCar@aol.com
	by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id f.3c.18e49950 (4454);
	Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:17:23 -0500 (EST)
From: SkipnCar@aol.com
Message-ID: <3c.18e49950.29940292@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:17:22 EST
Subject: Assistance Needed
To: bajfisher@earthlink.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, ascld@lab.fws.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 271

Do you have names of presidents and presidents elect of various forensic 
societies?  I'd appreciate them ASAP if you can, like today if possible.  

I have already gotten a list from the American Academy but it is not up to 
date.

Thanks,

Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS

From daemon Thu Feb  7 13:07:26 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g17I7Qu27288
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:07:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17I7P927283
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:07:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pete.fsalab.com (pm9-75.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.75])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/jjb-sd) with ESMTP id g17I7I8x008108
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:07:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com
X-Envelope-To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020207090704.00adfb00@pop.nothingbutnet.net>
X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:13:48 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@fsalab.com>
Subject: Humor?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id g17I7Q927284
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2189

I ran across the following recently and thought it sufficiently relevant to 
share with members of this list who may feel that some recent judicial 
decisions indicate a recently acquired inability of the judiciary to deal 
effectively with contemporary issues.

A Corrupt Judge

Passes Judgment as a Gamester does false Dice.  The first Thing he takes is 
his Oath and his Commission, and afterwards the strongest Side and 
Bribes.  He gives Judgment, as the Council at the Bar are said to give 
Advice, when they are paid for it.  He wraps himself warm in Furs, that the 
cold Air may not strike his Conscience inward. . . . [H}e takes Liberty to 
do what he pleases; this he maintains with Canting, of which himself being 
the only Judge, he can give what arbitrary Interpretation he pleases; yet 
is a great Enemy to arbitrary Power, because he would have no Body use it 
but himself.  If he have Hopes of Preferment he makes all the Law run on 
the King’s Side; if not, it always takes part against him; for as he was 
bred to make any Thing right or wrong between Man and Man, so he can do 
between King and his Subjects….He usurps unsufferable Tyranny over Words; 
for when he has enslaved and debased them from their original Sense, he 
makes them serve against themselves to support him, and their own 
Abuse.  He is as stiff to Delinquents, and makes as harsh a noise as a new 
Cart-wheel, until he is greased, and then he turns about as easily.  He 
calls all necessary and unavoidable Proceedings of State, without the 
punctual Formality of Law, arbitrary and illegal, but never considers, that 
his own Interpretations of Law are more arbitrary, and, when he pleases, 
illegal.  He cannot be denied to be a very impartial judge; for right or 
wrong are all one to him.  He takes Bribes, as pious Men give Alms, with so 
much Caution, that his right Hand never knows what his left receives.

 From Samuel Butler(1612-1680) on "Varieties of malice and corruption" (as 
quoted in Amelie Rorty, "The Many Faces of Evil - Historical Perspectives")
Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com

http://www.fsalab.com


From daemon Thu Feb  7 13:57:57 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g17IvvP28283
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:57:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17Ivu928278
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.253.80.154]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020207185753.HIAX9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:57:53 +0000
Message-ID: <004301c1b009$357c0900$bbc9fc3e@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <Satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Standardizing DNA Testing Systems and Databases
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:56:12 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003E_01C1B009.1CB36E40"
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 4395

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C1B009.1CB36E40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am aware that in the 1990s there were a series of exercises conducted =
by a number of forensic science laboratories throughout Europe under the =
auspices of the European DNA Profiling group (EDNAP). The aim of these =
exercises was to standardize DNA protocols and testing systems =
throughout Europe. This was deemed particularly important due to =
mobility of experts throughout Europe.

In 1999 the Forensic Science Service developed a system of DNA testing =
called SGM+. This system used Short Tandem Repeats (STR) typing. It =
amplified and tested at eleven loci including amelogenin. In the UK we =
now have a DNA database that stores DNA results obtained through SGM+. I =
understand that scientists in the USA use a system called CODIS that =
tests at thirteen genes. Does anybody know if systems used in the USA =
and elsewhere are compatible with SGM+? It struck me that if DNA testing =
systems were standardized throughout the world then the databases could =
also be standardized throughout the world which would enable police to =
check crime scene DNA against results stored on databases throughout the =
world. This would be useful in terms of linking crimes committed by =
internationally mobile serial killers and also criminals whose DNA may =
be on record in foreign jurisdictions, but not in the country where the =
crime was committed. This would also assist in speedy processing of =
extradition requests for certain crimes.

Does anyone know if such efforts are underway and if not what objections =
there are to implementing such proposals. Look forward to hearing from =
you.=20

Best Wishes

Satish

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C1B009.1CB36E40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am aware that in the 1990s there were =
a series of=20
exercises conducted by a number of forensic science laboratories =
throughout=20
Europe under the auspices of the European DNA Profiling group (EDNAP). =
The aim=20
of these exercises was to standardize DNA protocols and testing systems=20
throughout Europe. This was deemed particularly important due to =
mobility of=20
experts throughout Europe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In 1999 the Forensic Science Service =
developed a=20
system of DNA testing called SGM+. This system used Short Tandem Repeats =
(STR)=20
typing. It amplified and tested at eleven loci including amelogenin. In =
the UK=20
we now have a DNA database that stores DNA results obtained through =
SGM+. I=20
understand that scientists in the USA use a system called CODIS that =
tests at=20
thirteen genes. Does anybody know if systems used in the USA and =
elsewhere are=20
compatible with SGM+? It struck me that if DNA testing systems were =
standardized=20
throughout the world then the databases could also be standardized =
throughout=20
the world which would enable police to check crime scene DNA against =
results=20
stored on databases throughout the world. This would be useful in terms =
of=20
linking crimes committed by internationally mobile serial killers and =
also=20
criminals whose DNA may be on record in foreign jurisdictions, but not =
in the=20
country where the crime was committed. This would also assist in speedy=20
processing of extradition requests for certain crimes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Does anyone know if such efforts are =
underway and=20
if not what objections there are to implementing such proposals. Look =
forward to=20
hearing from you. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best Wishes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Satish</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01C1B009.1CB36E40--


From daemon Fri Feb  8 13:26:44 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g18IQiG18911
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:26:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g18IQh918906
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:26:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (as3-3-134.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.195.184])
	by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g18IQah21563
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020207170517.00c20140@mail.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:06:31 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Charles Brenner <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Standardizing DNA Testing Systems and Databases
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_223281==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3451

--=====================_223281==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 06:56 PM 2/7/02 +0000, Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com wrote:
>In the UK we now have a DNA database that stores DNA results obtained 
>through SGM+. I understand that scientists in the USA use a system called 
>CODIS that tests at thirteen genes. Does anybody know if systems used in 
>the USA and elsewhere are compatible with SGM+?

There is substantial overlap, but neither battery is a subset of the other. 
I posted a comparison chart of these and other STR panels at 
http://dna-view.com/pcrtable.htm.

>  It struck me that if DNA testing systems were standardized throughout 
> the world then the databases could also be standardized throughout the 
> world which would enable police to check crime scene DNA against results 
> stored on databases throughout the world. This would be useful in terms 
> of linking crimes committed by internationally mobile serial killers and 
> also criminals whose DNA may be on record in foreign jurisdictions, but 
> not in the country where the crime was committed. This would also assist 
> in speedy processing of extradition requests for certain crimes.

I suppose it is possible to query the CODIS system with a partial profile 
consisting of those SGM loci that common to the two panels -- or the 
converse -- but I will not be surprised if no such international query has 
ever been made. It does seem like a worthwhile thing to do though.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics
http://dna-view.com 
--=====================_223281==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 06:56 PM 2/7/02 +0000, Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>In the UK we now
have a DNA database that stores DNA results obtained through SGM+. I
understand that scientists in the USA use a system called CODIS that
tests at thirteen genes. Does anybody know if systems used in the USA and
elsewhere are compatible with SGM+?</font></blockquote><br>
There is substantial overlap, but neither battery is a subset of the
other. I posted a comparison chart of these and other STR panels at
<a href="http://dna-view.com/pcrtable.htm" eudora="autourl">http://dna-view.com/pcrtable.htm</a>.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;It struck me
that if DNA testing systems were standardized throughout the world then
the databases could also be standardized throughout the world which would
enable police to check crime scene DNA against results stored on
databases throughout the world. This would be useful in terms of linking
crimes committed by internationally mobile serial killers and also
criminals whose DNA may be on record in foreign jurisdictions, but not in
the country where the crime was committed. This would also assist in
speedy processing of extradition requests for certain
crimes.</font></blockquote><br>
I suppose it is possible to query the CODIS system with a partial profile
consisting of those SGM loci that common to the two panels -- or the
converse -- but I will not be surprised if no such international query
has ever been made. It does seem like a worthwhile thing to do
though.<br>
<br>
Charles Brenner<br>
forensic mathematics<br>
<a href="http://dna-view.com/" eudora="autourl">http://dna-view.</a><a href="http://dna-view.com/" eudora="autourl">com</a>
</html>

--=====================_223281==_.ALT--



From daemon Sat Feb  9 09:36:19 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g19EaJt04893
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:36:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g19EaI904888
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:36:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost)
	by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g19EaHr00054
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:36:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 09:36:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net>
X-X-Sender:  <cdefine@mail>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: [forens] Data Unlimited International, Inc. [DUII]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202090922480.14437-100000@mail>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 4472


Does anyone use DUII's Laboratory Information Management System?  And has
anyone had problems with it?

There was an article in yesterday's [Feb 8, 2002] Baltimore Sun Newspaper
'City Drops Drug Cases for Lack of Lab Results' saying that 'Prosecutors
say hundreds of drug cases have been dropped, dismissed, or postponed in
Baltimore courts in recent months because they could not obtain results of
drug tests from the Police Department's crime lab.'  '...Prosecutors say
it likely numbers more than 1,000 since late summer.'  The Sun states,
'The problem began last fall and has become a crisis, leading to the loss
of what would otherwise be solid cases'.

According to an email sent to me in August 2001, Data Unlimited
International, Inc. [DUII] delivered a Laboratory Information Management
System [LIMS] to the BCPD. Below it states, 'The delivery (of the system)
included chain of custody, scientist proficiency, security management,
test results and forms, sample tracking, peer review, and export of case
reports to the State's Attorney's Office for the Accelerated Drug
Analysis.'

At present, DUII's LIMS does not appear to be an effective solution at the
BCPD crime lab, though the description of the system indicates that all
the possible problems one might encounter should be covered. In fact, it
appears that the crime lab/communication problems accelerated after the
LIMS was 'delivered' to the BCPD.  I'm wondering if anyone else is
familiar with DUII's LIMS system?


Carol Define, MD

-----------------------------------
Release Date: August 7, 2001
information contact:

Flora Kan,  fkan@duii.com
Phone 240-631-7933

Data Unlimited International, Inc., Maryland, USA - August 7, 2001 - DUII
successfully delivered a customized Starfruit DNA Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) to the Crime Laboratory of Baltimore City Police
Department (BCPD). The delivery included chain of custody, scientist
proficiency, security management, test results and forms, sample tracking,
peer review, and export of case reports to the State's Attorney's Office
for the Accelerated Drug Analysis. The Accelerated Drug Analysis and Case
Disposal Program requires that the laboratory complete the test and
analysis of the drug evidences in less than 12 hours and the state
attorney should dispose of the case within 24 hours of arrest. Starfruit
DNA LIMS uses Smart Card Technology of Samsung Data Systems America, Inc.
(SDSA) to systematically generate chain of custody. When laboratory
scientists of BCPD use smart cards to obtain access to samples, to witness
transferring samples, and to review laboratory processes and reports,
Starfruit DNA LIMS generates chain of custody in the background that is
transparent to Starfruit users by recording who, where, when, what, and
why the samples are transferred. The chain of custody is a
no-human-intervention document.  Starfruit DNA LIMS directly exports the
chain of custody and casework documents to the State Attorney -- again
no-human-intervention. Starfruit DNA LIMS eliminates errors such as
incomplete chain of custody, wrong tests, scheduled procedure not
performed, no testing chronology, no details of supervisory oversight, no
signature, wrong samples used to test, samples contaminated or damage,
improperly stored/handled, sample lost, test failure and lost/erased
casework documents. Email to get Smart Card white paper.

                                     ###

About Data Unlimited International, Inc. (DUII)

DUII is a private-held company with concentration in forensic, healthcare
and bioinformatics. DUII develops and markets its products and services
including laboratory information management system (LIMS), 21CFR11-aware
computational infrastructure, and Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP)-driven networks. These satisfy the requirements of 21CRF11 by
authority check, operational system check, device check, SOP, electronic
signature and closed systems. DUII creates tools to enhance communication
and to enforce compliance.

)2001 Data Unlimited International, Inc. All rights reserved. Starfruit
DNA and Starfruit Technologies are trademarks of Data Unlimited
International, Inc.  registered in the U.S. and other countries. All other
trademarks are the property of their respective owner. The mention of
third party products and companies is for informational purposes only and
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.

                                 -30-










From daemon Mon Feb 11 01:13:16 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1B6DGX27863
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:13:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1B6DF927858
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:13:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:13:15 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [66.61.68.113]
From: "Shaun Wheeler" <shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Cc: <jchisum@profiling.org>
Subject: ABP Ethics And Jerry Chisum
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:12:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Disposition-Notification-To: "Shaun Wheeler" <shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <OE18JswFCHOzyfyz5b60000dc72@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2002 06:13:15.0252 (UTC) FILETIME=[30F08340:01C1B2C3]
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 4989

During the passing weeks I decided to begin researching the ethics of
members of the "Academy of Behavioral Profiling". For those unfamiliar with
the sordid details, Brent Turvey, a purported and disproven forensic
scientist, was on the cusp of a lifetime ban from the prestigious American
Academy of Forensic Science in the middle of 1999. Less than a few months
before the conclusion of an AAFS ethics investigation he had instigated,
Turvey founded this 'new non-partisan' organization, 'Academy of Behavioral
Profiling'. He preaches it as an answer to professionalizing the profiling
field. Two weeks before a general membership meeting at which the report of
that investigation, apparently headed by Ken Melton, was due to report,
Turvey withdrew his application to AAFS.

Three weeks ago I lodged an ethics complaint with Dr. Daniel Kennedy, ethics
chair for ABP. Kennedy's remarkable lack of grasp for the key issues
suggests that their professional society has more in common with a guild
than anything else. It appears to exist, not to protect the public or endow
them with peer scrutiny, but to protect themselves from each other. For
those who are interested, I am only too delighted to say that I can provide
a copy of Dr. Kennedy's amusing and illogical email.

It occurred to me that to expand on what appeared to be a remarkable lack of
ethics and standards in ABP,  I should scrutinize the writings of their
members. Among them is Jerry Chisum. A brief review of his background
suggests that he is both a competent and well respected criminalist. I have
little doubt as to his training and accumen. That in mind, I questioned how
a man so well trained and respected would find himself in a professional
society of any sort with people like Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Turvey.

One of the cases into which Mr. Turvey injected himself may shed some light
on this as well as on the issue of partisanship and credibility. Turvey
offered an opinion on the Sam Sheppard civil trial. The defense, despite Mr.
Turvey's claims, was unable to use it to supress the testimony of Gregg O.
McCrary, Supervisory Agent (ret) FBI. Though I was not surprised to find
Turvey's untrained opinion being offered, I was surprised to find Jerry
Chisum apparently engaging in a bit of what appears to be a very biased
criticism.

Chisum is both a vice-president and member of the 'board of directors' of
ABP. Normally I would offer him the opportunity to comment directly to my
questions prior to writing, but after Dr. Kennedy's ridiculous and assinine
comments I think it is more appropriate to simply send him a copy and let
him do what it with he will.

Reviewing the article that Mr. Chisum published, I find that he is indeed
critical of Gregg McCrary and have to question whether or not this is a
professional critique or mere cronyism. To that end, I looked to see if Mr.
Chisum had reviewed any of Mr. Turvey's testimony with a similarly keen eye
for detail. I found nothing. Though Chisum's remarks with respect to McCrary
might otherwise deserve merit, how he can escape similar criticisms of a
peer and member of a professional organization he plays a leading role in is
beyond me.

I note that in reviewing the testimony and depositions of Mr. Turvey, who
'founded ABP', he has both overstated his credentials and his training by a
wide margin such that a laymen like myself can discern it.

In Kansas v. Artis Cobb, Turvey offered testimony related to DNA and false
confessions, though he is not qualified as an expert in either. The court
reached this conclusion and his testimony was not admitted.

In California v. Alex Dale Thomas, Turvey offered testimony related to
sexual assault, which was ironically admitted, despite his lack of training
in sexual assault. According to his alma mater, the University of New Haven,
nothing in Turvey's training there would have been adequate for him to
express an opinion on the subject of an autopsy photograph on the issue of
whether or not forcible rape had occurred, yet Turvey did so under oath.

In Pierce County v. Guy Matthews Rasumussen, Turvey offered opinions on
sexual assault and manual strangulation as well as torture/sadism, despite
the fact that he is not qualified as a pathologist, has no training in
sexual assault from any credible source nor has he any training of any
repute in recognizing torture/sadism. Worse, he denied any knowledge of DNA
evidence that established that the perpetrator had contact with the victims
blood, found on his shirt in his residence.

Though Mr. Chisum is probably a professional and well accreditted, I think
that until I find criticisms of Turvey, with whom he must certainly be
better acquainted than Gregg McCrary, I will suspect that he is guilty of
cronyism and forgoes the application of his excellent powers of analysis and
his intimate knowledge of criminalistics for purposes only he can fully
explain.

http://www.law-forensic.com/bloodstain_2.htm


Shaun Wheeler - Forensic Debunker

From daemon Mon Feb 11 08:12:17 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1BDCHI01945
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:12:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from duiisvr1.duii (gateway.duii.com [216.32.84.130])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BDCG901940
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:12:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DUIISVR1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <14A6Q3M0>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:08:09 -0500
Message-ID: <701BFAF94B4DD5119B0B0090273CD57609B7CA@DUIISVR1>
From: Flora Kan <fkan@DUII.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: "'cdefine@bcpl.net'" <cdefine@bcpl.net>
Subject:  re: BaltimorePD/LIMS 
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:08:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 5819

Dr. Define:

You are right.  Since we delivered LIMS to BPD Drug Unit, BPD has been
unable to coordinate BPD's own MIS  Department to disseminate our drug
reports through Baltimore City's network. Up to last Thursday (02/07/2002),
MIS Department has not implemented the network integration as it agreed in
12/2000 to deliver drug reports to the SAO, though our LIMS does track
samples, monitor test results, validate QA/QC, and generate drug reports
with electornic signature and the entire chain of custody.  Because of the
lack of MIS support, our LIMS reports only get to the gate of MIS network.

As a vendor of LIMS that wanted to support to improve the justice system, I
am personally as concerned as you are with the situation that was reported
by Baltimore Sun.

DUII has proposed an alternative method which is not to rely on BPD MIS
network to electronically deliver drug reports to the SAO and requesting
police officers.  BPD has not reponded. 

I will keep you post of our progress if you will permit my email
communication to you regarding this issue.

Regards,

Flora Kan
Email: fkan@duii.com
Data Unlimited International, Inc.
Headquarters: 362A Christopher Avenue
                       Gaithersburg, MD 20879, USA
                       240-631-7933
                       240-631-7937 (FAX)
Texas Branch: 7220 Valley Bend Way
                       Plano, TX 75024
                       214-450-3710
Web URL: www.duii.com





-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 12:20 PM
To: contact@duii.com
Subject: BaltimorePD/LIMS 



Dear contact-person,

There was an article in yesterday's [Feb 8, 2002] Baltimore Sun Newspaper
'City Drops Drug Cases for Lack of Lab Results' saying that 'Prosecutors
say hundreds of drug cases have been dropped, dismissed, or postponed in
Baltimore courts in recent months because they could not obtain results of
drug tests from the Police Department's crime lab.'  '...Prosecutors say
it likely numbers more than 1,000 since late summer.'

According to the email sent to me in August 2001, your company DUII
delivered a Laboratory Information Management System [LIMS] to the BCPD.
You state below, 'The delivery (of the system) included chain of custody,
scientist proficiency, security management, test results and forms, sample
tracking, peer review, and export of case reports to the State's
Attorney's Office for the Accelerated Drug Analysis.'

As a physician and long-time Marylander, I am very concerned about the
drug problems in Baltimore City and the difficulties prosecutors face in
disposing of cases.  DUII's LIMS does not appear to be effectively
addressing inadequacies. Can you please explain why you think your LIMS
has not worked for the BCPD?

Thank you,
Carol Define, MD
-----------------------------------
Release Date: August 7, 2001
information contact:

Flora Kan,  fkan@duii.com
Phone 240-631-7933

Who Else Needs Paperless Chain of Custody?

Data Unlimited International, Inc., Maryland, USA - August 7, 2001 - DUII
successfully delivered a customized Starfruit DNA Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) to the Crime Laboratory of Baltimore City Police
Department (BCPD). The delivery included chain of custody, scientist
proficiency, security management, test results and forms, sample tracking,
peer review, and export of case reports to the State's Attorney's Office
for the Accelerated Drug Analysis. The Accelerated Drug Analysis and Case
Disposal Program requires that the laboratory complete the test and
analysis of the drug evidences in less than 12 hours and the state
attorney should dispose of the case within 24 hours of arrest. Starfruit
DNA LIMS uses Smart Card Technology of Samsung Data Systems America, Inc.
(SDSA) to systematically generate chain of custody. When laboratory
scientists of BCPD use smart cards to obtain access to samples, to witness
transferring samples, and to review laboratory processes and reports,
Starfruit DNA LIMS generates chain of custody in the background that is
transparent to Starfruit users by recording who, where, when, what, and
why the samples are transferred. The chain of custody is a
no-human-intervention document.  Starfruit DNA LIMS directly exports the
chain of custody and casework documents to the State Attorney -- again
no-human-intervention. Starfruit DNA LIMS eliminates errors such as
incomplete chain of custody, wrong tests, scheduled procedure not
performed, no testing chronology, no details of supervisory oversight, no
signature, wrong samples used to test, samples contaminated or damage,
improperly stored/handled, sample lost, test failure and lost/erased
casework documents. Email to get Smart Card white paper.

                                     ###

About Data Unlimited International, Inc. (DUII)

DUII is a private-held company with concentration in forensic, healthcare
and bioinformatics. DUII develops and markets its products and services
including laboratory information management system (LIMS), 21CFR11-aware
computational infrastructure, and Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP)-driven networks. These satisfy the requirements of 21CRF11 by
authority check, operational system check, device check, SOP, electronic
signature and closed systems. DUII creates tools to enhance communication
and to enforce compliance.

)2001 Data Unlimited International, Inc. All rights reserved. Starfruit
DNA and Starfruit Technologies are trademarks of Data Unlimited
International, Inc.  registered in the U.S. and other countries. All other
trademarks are the property of their respective owner. The mention of
third party products and companies is for informational purposes only and
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.

                                 -30-







From daemon Mon Feb 11 09:51:29 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1BEpTN03964
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:51:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from duiisvr1.duii (gateway.duii.com [216.32.84.130])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BEpQ903954
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:51:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DUIISVR1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <14A6Q3N6>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:47:28 -0500
Message-ID: <701BFAF94B4DD5119B0B0090273CD57609B7D3@DUIISVR1>
From: Flora Kan <fkan@DUII.com>
To: "'Carol Define MD'" <cdefine@bcpl.net>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: "Pamela K. Shaw (E-mail)" <Pamela.Shaw@BaltimorePolice.org>,
   "Shiv K. Soni (E-mail)" <shiv.soni@BaltimorePolice.org>,
   "Edgar F. Koch SR. (E-mail)" <edgar.koch@BaltimorePolice.org>,
   Andrei Kitchaev <akitchaev@DUII.com>, David Kan <dkan@DUII.com>
Subject: RE: [forens] Data Unlimited International, Inc. [DUII]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:47:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 5807

Dr. Define:

Greetings!!

After your inquiry, we have received many a concern like yours.

Responding to the industry's questions, DUII appreciated and we contacted
Baltimore City Police Department and found out that BCPD would send press
release.

Meanwhile, DUII certifies that Starfruit Drug Unit LIMS meets the
specifications of our contract with the Baltimore Police Department.  The
interface for the SAO office is not a part of the LIMS contract.  Further
requests for information should be made to the Baltimore Police Department
Office Public Affairs office at 410-396-2012.

If you have more questions regarding DUII Starfruit Technologies, please
visit www.duii.com or contact me at 240-631-7933/fkan@duii.com.

Thank you fo your concern.

Regards,

Flora Kan
Email: fkan@duii.com
Data Unlimited International, Inc.
Headquarters: 362A Christopher Avenue
                       Gaithersburg, MD 20879, USA
                       240-631-7933
                       240-631-7937 (FAX)
Texas Branch: 7220 Valley Bend Way
                       Plano, TX 75024
                       214-450-3710
Web URL: www.duii.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:36 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: [forens] Data Unlimited International, Inc. [DUII]



Does anyone use DUII's Laboratory Information Management System?  And has
anyone had problems with it?

There was an article in yesterday's [Feb 8, 2002] Baltimore Sun Newspaper
'City Drops Drug Cases for Lack of Lab Results' saying that 'Prosecutors
say hundreds of drug cases have been dropped, dismissed, or postponed in
Baltimore courts in recent months because they could not obtain results of
drug tests from the Police Department's crime lab.'  '...Prosecutors say
it likely numbers more than 1,000 since late summer.'  The Sun states,
'The problem began last fall and has become a crisis, leading to the loss
of what would otherwise be solid cases'.

According to an email sent to me in August 2001, Data Unlimited
International, Inc. [DUII] delivered a Laboratory Information Management
System [LIMS] to the BCPD. Below it states, 'The delivery (of the system)
included chain of custody, scientist proficiency, security management,
test results and forms, sample tracking, peer review, and export of case
reports to the State's Attorney's Office for the Accelerated Drug
Analysis.'

At present, DUII's LIMS does not appear to be an effective solution at the
BCPD crime lab, though the description of the system indicates that all
the possible problems one might encounter should be covered. In fact, it
appears that the crime lab/communication problems accelerated after the
LIMS was 'delivered' to the BCPD.  I'm wondering if anyone else is
familiar with DUII's LIMS system?


Carol Define, MD

-----------------------------------
Release Date: August 7, 2001
information contact:

Flora Kan,  fkan@duii.com
Phone 240-631-7933

Data Unlimited International, Inc., Maryland, USA - August 7, 2001 - DUII
successfully delivered a customized Starfruit DNA Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) to the Crime Laboratory of Baltimore City Police
Department (BCPD). The delivery included chain of custody, scientist
proficiency, security management, test results and forms, sample tracking,
peer review, and export of case reports to the State's Attorney's Office
for the Accelerated Drug Analysis. The Accelerated Drug Analysis and Case
Disposal Program requires that the laboratory complete the test and
analysis of the drug evidences in less than 12 hours and the state
attorney should dispose of the case within 24 hours of arrest. Starfruit
DNA LIMS uses Smart Card Technology of Samsung Data Systems America, Inc.
(SDSA) to systematically generate chain of custody. When laboratory
scientists of BCPD use smart cards to obtain access to samples, to witness
transferring samples, and to review laboratory processes and reports,
Starfruit DNA LIMS generates chain of custody in the background that is
transparent to Starfruit users by recording who, where, when, what, and
why the samples are transferred. The chain of custody is a
no-human-intervention document.  Starfruit DNA LIMS directly exports the
chain of custody and casework documents to the State Attorney -- again
no-human-intervention. Starfruit DNA LIMS eliminates errors such as
incomplete chain of custody, wrong tests, scheduled procedure not
performed, no testing chronology, no details of supervisory oversight, no
signature, wrong samples used to test, samples contaminated or damage,
improperly stored/handled, sample lost, test failure and lost/erased
casework documents. Email to get Smart Card white paper.

                                     ###

About Data Unlimited International, Inc. (DUII)

DUII is a private-held company with concentration in forensic, healthcare
and bioinformatics. DUII develops and markets its products and services
including laboratory information management system (LIMS), 21CFR11-aware
computational infrastructure, and Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP)-driven networks. These satisfy the requirements of 21CRF11 by
authority check, operational system check, device check, SOP, electronic
signature and closed systems. DUII creates tools to enhance communication
and to enforce compliance.

)2001 Data Unlimited International, Inc. All rights reserved. Starfruit
DNA and Starfruit Technologies are trademarks of Data Unlimited
International, Inc.  registered in the U.S. and other countries. All other
trademarks are the property of their respective owner. The mention of
third party products and companies is for informational purposes only and
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.

                                 -30-









From daemon Mon Feb 11 10:01:14 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1BF1Ec04683
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:01:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BF1DF04676
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:01:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:01:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: WPMO 2002 - Forensic Conference
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202111000270.4650-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1890

---------- Forwarded message ----------

The message below came from  Jayne Walsh <JWALSH@tourhosts.com.au>

Please respond to her about getting the attachment.



Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:29:42 +1100
Subject: WPMO 2002 - Forensic Conference


Dr Claude Roux, Forensic Science Course Co-ordinator, Dept. of Chemistry,
Materials and Forensic Science at the University of Technology Sydney
forwarded this email address to us.

He indicated that if we send an email to this address asking for our
conference information to be posted to forensic discussion list called
forens-l.

Please find attached our email advertisement for the WPMO 2002 Conference
which outlines the panel session we are holding for the general public.

If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact the WPMO 2002
Conference Managers.

Yours Sincerely
WPMO 2002 Conference
_________________________
Jayne Walsh
Conference Coordinator
GPO Box 128 Sydney NSW 2001<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
(Level 4, 66 King Street)
Tel + 61 2 9262 2277 Fax + 61 2 9262 3135
Email jwalsh@tourhosts.com.au <mailto:jwalsh@tourhosts.com.au>
Website www.tourhosts.com.au/wpmo <http://www.tourhosts.com.au/wpmo>

* * * * * * * P L E A S E  R E A D * * * * * * *

This email and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this e-mail in error please
notify the sender immediately, then delete it.
Confidentiality and legal privilege are not waived
or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
The contents of this email are not given or endorsed
by Tour Hosts Pty Limited unless otherwise indicated
by an authorised officer of the company. Copyright
law may also apply to the contents of this e-mail.

Feel free to visit our website!
Click http://www.tourhosts.com.au



From daemon Mon Feb 11 14:57:34 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1BJvYZ12071
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:57:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f258.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.133])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1BJvX912066
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:57:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:57:34 -0800
Received: from 66.88.142.163 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:57:34 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [66.88.142.163]
From: "Jamie Ballou" <jamieballou@hotmail.com>
To: forensic-science@eGroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu,
   ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Fwd: forensics
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:57:34 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F258bhsKd6QR7j1HaKt00016b61@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2002 19:57:34.0938 (UTC) FILETIME=[5935ABA0:01C1B336]
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 761




>From: neil.goldberg@divatv.com (Neil Goldberg)
>To: jamieballou@hotmail.com
>Subject: forensics
>Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:15:08 -0800
>
>Jamie,
>
>I just read your email, and was wondering if you have any time and
>inclination to help me.  I am currently trying to break into the television
>writing business, and writing an episode of CSI.  I have created a story,
>but need a forensics person to give me the step by step process of how the
>crimes would be solved.  I'm looking for both the process and the details,
>what tools they use, how they determine things, etc.
>
>any interest?
>
>thank you,
>Neil
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


From daemon Tue Feb 12 08:13:19 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CDDJt24483
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:13:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CDDIo24478
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:13:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:13:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forwarded message: reply to list or sender
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202120812370.24463-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id g1CDDIo24479
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1017

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:12:06 +0100
From: "raphael.coquoz" <raphael.coquoz@amslab.ch>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [fr] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: DNA typing from stains on concrete
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

A collegue involved in studies on the potential interstellar travel of
biological cells or molecules asks me if there are efficient protocols
to recover DNA from the surface of stones or concrete. He seems to have
difficulties to extract and/or amplify DNA experimentally deposited on
(refractory) concrete.

The situation is quite similar to the DNA analysis of stains on
concrete. I thought there might be some people on the list who may have
had DNA extraction problems (and solutions !) with such stains.

--
Raphael Coquoz

AMS génétique, pl. de la Navigation 10, 1006 Lausanne, Switzerland
41 21 613 70 40, Fax 41 21 613 70 49, raphael.coquoz@amslab.ch



From daemon Tue Feb 12 10:01:28 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CF1SZ26849
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CF1R926842
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:01:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost)
	by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1CF1P100908;
	Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:01:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:01:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net>
X-X-Sender:  <cdefine@mail>
To: Flora Kan <fkan@DUII.com>
cc: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>,
   "Pamela K. Shaw (E-mail)" <Pamela.Shaw@BaltimorePolice.org>,
   "Shiv K. Soni (E-mail)" <shiv.soni@BaltimorePolice.org>,
   "Edgar F. Koch SR. (E-mail)" <edgar.koch@BaltimorePolice.org>,
   Andrei Kitchaev <akitchaev@DUII.com>, David Kan <dkan@DUII.com>
Subject: RE: [forens] Data Unlimited International, Inc. [DUII]
In-Reply-To: <701BFAF94B4DD5119B0B0090273CD57609B7D3@DUIISVR1>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202120943460.21459-100000@mail>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 6540



Dear Ms Kan,

Thank you for your replies.  I appreciated learning that there are other
concerned citizens and that the BCPD is aware of this concern.  I
understand that the Police Department tries to do its best for the
Baltimore community with the resources it has, but this is a very
important issue, and allowing drug-related crime to go unprosecuted
will not help to save what is left of the City neighborhoods.

Thanks again.

Carol Define MD

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Flora Kan wrote:

> Dr. Define:
>
> Greetings!!
>
> After your inquiry, we have received many a concern like yours.
>
> Responding to the industry's questions, DUII appreciated and we contacted
> Baltimore City Police Department and found out that BCPD would send press
> release.
>
> Meanwhile, DUII certifies that Starfruit Drug Unit LIMS meets the
> specifications of our contract with the Baltimore Police Department.  The
> interface for the SAO office is not a part of the LIMS contract.  Further
> requests for information should be made to the Baltimore Police Department
> Office Public Affairs office at 410-396-2012.
>
> If you have more questions regarding DUII Starfruit Technologies, please
> visit www.duii.com or contact me at 240-631-7933/fkan@duii.com.
>
> Thank you fo your concern.
>
> Regards,
>
> Flora Kan
> Email: fkan@duii.com
> Data Unlimited International, Inc.
> Headquarters: 362A Christopher Avenue
>                        Gaithersburg, MD 20879, USA
>                        240-631-7933
>                        240-631-7937 (FAX)
> Texas Branch: 7220 Valley Bend Way
>                        Plano, TX 75024
>                        214-450-3710
> Web URL: www.duii.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:36 AM
> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
> Subject: [forens] Data Unlimited International, Inc. [DUII]
>
>
>
> Does anyone use DUII's Laboratory Information Management System?  And has
> anyone had problems with it?
>
> There was an article in yesterday's [Feb 8, 2002] Baltimore Sun Newspaper
> 'City Drops Drug Cases for Lack of Lab Results' saying that 'Prosecutors
> say hundreds of drug cases have been dropped, dismissed, or postponed in
> Baltimore courts in recent months because they could not obtain results of
> drug tests from the Police Department's crime lab.'  '...Prosecutors say
> it likely numbers more than 1,000 since late summer.'  The Sun states,
> 'The problem began last fall and has become a crisis, leading to the loss
> of what would otherwise be solid cases'.
>
> According to an email sent to me in August 2001, Data Unlimited
> International, Inc. [DUII] delivered a Laboratory Information Management
> System [LIMS] to the BCPD. Below it states, 'The delivery (of the system)
> included chain of custody, scientist proficiency, security management,
> test results and forms, sample tracking, peer review, and export of case
> reports to the State's Attorney's Office for the Accelerated Drug
> Analysis.'
>
> At present, DUII's LIMS does not appear to be an effective solution at the
> BCPD crime lab, though the description of the system indicates that all
> the possible problems one might encounter should be covered. In fact, it
> appears that the crime lab/communication problems accelerated after the
> LIMS was 'delivered' to the BCPD.  I'm wondering if anyone else is
> familiar with DUII's LIMS system?
>
>
> Carol Define, MD
>
> -----------------------------------
> Release Date: August 7, 2001
> information contact:
>
> Flora Kan,  fkan@duii.com
> Phone 240-631-7933
>
> Data Unlimited International, Inc., Maryland, USA - August 7, 2001 - DUII
> successfully delivered a customized Starfruit DNA Laboratory Information
> Management System (LIMS) to the Crime Laboratory of Baltimore City Police
> Department (BCPD). The delivery included chain of custody, scientist
> proficiency, security management, test results and forms, sample tracking,
> peer review, and export of case reports to the State's Attorney's Office
> for the Accelerated Drug Analysis. The Accelerated Drug Analysis and Case
> Disposal Program requires that the laboratory complete the test and
> analysis of the drug evidences in less than 12 hours and the state
> attorney should dispose of the case within 24 hours of arrest. Starfruit
> DNA LIMS uses Smart Card Technology of Samsung Data Systems America, Inc.
> (SDSA) to systematically generate chain of custody. When laboratory
> scientists of BCPD use smart cards to obtain access to samples, to witness
> transferring samples, and to review laboratory processes and reports,
> Starfruit DNA LIMS generates chain of custody in the background that is
> transparent to Starfruit users by recording who, where, when, what, and
> why the samples are transferred. The chain of custody is a
> no-human-intervention document.  Starfruit DNA LIMS directly exports the
> chain of custody and casework documents to the State Attorney -- again
> no-human-intervention. Starfruit DNA LIMS eliminates errors such as
> incomplete chain of custody, wrong tests, scheduled procedure not
> performed, no testing chronology, no details of supervisory oversight, no
> signature, wrong samples used to test, samples contaminated or damage,
> improperly stored/handled, sample lost, test failure and lost/erased
> casework documents. Email to get Smart Card white paper.
>
>                                      ###
>
> About Data Unlimited International, Inc. (DUII)
>
> DUII is a private-held company with concentration in forensic, healthcare
> and bioinformatics. DUII develops and markets its products and services
> including laboratory information management system (LIMS), 21CFR11-aware
> computational infrastructure, and Standard Operating Procedure
> (SOP)-driven networks. These satisfy the requirements of 21CRF11 by
> authority check, operational system check, device check, SOP, electronic
> signature and closed systems. DUII creates tools to enhance communication
> and to enforce compliance.
>
> )2001 Data Unlimited International, Inc. All rights reserved. Starfruit
> DNA and Starfruit Technologies are trademarks of Data Unlimited
> International, Inc.  registered in the U.S. and other countries. All other
> trademarks are the property of their respective owner. The mention of
> third party products and companies is for informational purposes only and
> does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.
>
>                                  -30-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



From daemon Tue Feb 12 10:40:37 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CFebj27585
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:40:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (mail.webster.k12.mo.us [204.184.92.241])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CFea927580
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:40:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (204.184.92.1) by 
 mail.webster.k12.mo.us with ESMTP (Eudora
 Internet Mail Server 3.0.3) for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:39:42 -0600
Message-ID: <3C6933B9.184C1F2F@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:24:41 -0800
From: jeanette hencken <hencken.jeanette@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: candles
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 195

I have recently received an email about gel candles exploding.  Is it
possible for them to explode and be a high fire risk?

Jeanette Hencken
Forensic Science Teacher
Webster Groves High School


From daemon Tue Feb 12 11:07:20 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CG7Kl28347
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:07:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp016.mail.yahoo.com (smtp016.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.113])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1CG7J928342
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:07:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp043-107.creighton.edu (HELO drxlecter) (147.134.43.107)
  by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 16:07:19 -0000
From: "Brenna Primrose" <absolut_contagion@yahoo.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: candles
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:07:18 -0600
Message-ID: <064901c1b3df$58cad010$6b2b8693@drxlecter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
In-Reply-To: <3C6933B9.184C1F2F@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1414

There was a recall on a particular brand of gel candles a couple years
ago.  

See the following:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml98/98114.html


However, there is also an e-mail with misinformation about the
"exploding" gel candles.  More info on that can be found at the
following site: http://www.snopes2.com/toxins/gel.htm


http://profiles.yahoo.com/absolut_contagion
http://gsa.creighton.edu
AIM - absolut x psycho
ICQ - 1363187
Yahoo! - absolut_contagion
*********************************************************************
Use your computer and a screen saver to help in cancer and anthrax
research @
http://members.ud.com/services/teams/team.htm?id=CB4726CD-49B8-4FD8-9D81
-41F448198647 -- Join the Creighton University Gay/Straight Alliance
team!
*********************************************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu
[mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of
jeanette hencken
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:25 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: candles

I have recently received an email about gel candles exploding.  Is it
possible for them to explode and be a high fire risk?

Jeanette Hencken
Forensic Science Teacher
Webster Groves High School


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


From daemon Tue Feb 12 11:29:37 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CGTba29056
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:29:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.baltimorepolice.org ([151.196.160.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1CGTa929048
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu.>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:29:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BPD_WEB-Message_Server by mail.baltimorepolice.org
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:05:32 -0500
Message-Id: <sc67cfac.007@mail.baltimorepolice.org>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:08:07 -0500
From: "Pamela Shaw" <Pamela.Shaw@BaltimorePolice.org>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject:  Digest
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id g1CGTa929052
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 176

I'm a new member. Could you send me the digests for 2/8 - 2/11, just to get me up to speed on current issues?  Thanks!

Pamela K. Shaw
Phone - 410.396.2668
Fax - 410.783.5194


From daemon Tue Feb 12 11:53:19 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CGrJU29761
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:53:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CGrI929756
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:53:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.253.84.253]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020212165316.NMCG305.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer>;
          Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:53:16 +0000
Message-ID: <007901c1b3e5$9fa11020$c755fd3e@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <Satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
To: "Charles Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Cc: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: DNA Statistics
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:52:13 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0076_01C1B3E5.9E747700"
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 9868

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C1B3E5.9E747700
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Charles,

Thank you for your prompt reply. Sorry for the delay in replying. I have =
visited your website. I now see that there are nine shared loci between =
the CODIS system and SGM+. As you confirmed this would adversely affect =
the discriminating power. The two loci that are present in SGM+, but not =
stored on CODIS are D2S1338 and D19S433. Forensic scientists report that =
the possibility that a person's DNA might randomly match some unrelated =
person using SGM+ is of the order of 1:1billion. This is for all eleven =
loci. I wonder if you could tell me what the possibility of a random =
match would be at the nine loci that are common to both SGM+ and the =
loci stored on the CODIS database?

I take your point regarding standardization. There plainly won't be a =
system that is accepted universally and the expense of validating all =
systems used in juridictions throughout the world is likely to prove =
prohibitive. My concern is over very cold cases where there is no lead =
other than a DNA profile obtained from the crime scene. In today's world =
international travel is far more accessible than it once was, especially =
within Europe after the Schengen Agreement. I therefore feel that it is =
unacceptable to assume that criminals will remain in their home =
jurisdictions. Consequently hits on national DNA databases may not be =
forthcoming and international searches do not appear to be conducted =
routinely.=20

My concern is particularly over cold cases with no identified suspect or =
lead worth following up apart from a crime scene DNA profile and details =
of the crime. I think it reasonable for the public to expect that =
searches of relevant databases be conducted. This would apply to =
signature crimes, fingerprints, palmprints, facial imaging and DNA. =
Given the fact that some jurisdictions have statute preventing people =
being compelled to incriminate themselves or co-operate with DNA testing =
I am slightly concerned that the loss of discriminating power could lead =
(potentially) to more than one hit, especially on an international =
search. Correct me if I am wrong, but the possibility of a random match =
or hit to an SGM+ profile is higher on a search of CODIS (nine loci) =
than if a hit was achieved on a database where the SGM+ system has been =
validated. It may well be unlikely, but what would happen if several =
hits were achieved on a search of all databases and the matched =
individuals lived in jurisdictions where they could not be compelled to =
assist by giving samples for testing using the system that had yielded =
the DNA from the crime scene. If there were databases of all systems =
validated throughout the world refusal to co-operate would have no =
consequence and there would be fewer hits due to no loss of =
discriminating power.

I suspect what I am after is perfection in an imperfect world and that =
certain compromises may have to be made. I can't be sure if there would =
ever be a situation where too many hits are achieved to be useful to =
investigators. If the people identified by such hits refuse to =
co-operate by giving samples for testing using the same system as the =
one used to obtain a DNA profile from the crime scene sample such =
inquiries may stagnate. It strikes me that this is a possibility - =
perhaps a remote one, but possible nevertheless. If this were to happen =
in an emotive high profile case I fear that knee-jerk legislation would =
result that could prove worse than the problem in several jurisdictions. =
By debating such issues in advance of events safer solutions that =
protect the rights of all are more likely to emerge. Consequently, I =
wonder what the cost would be to validate the two afore-mentioned loci =
on CODIS. Given that the overwhelming majority of loci used in SGM+ are =
validated and used in systems validated in the USA, would the cost of =
validating the other two be so prohibitive that it could not be done? It =
could even be suggested that other juridictions should also validate the =
outstanding loci that are used in other testing systems used in foreign =
jurisdictions for their databases. Thank you for your attention in this =
matter.

Best Wishes

Satish

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C1B3E5.9E747700
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Charles,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thank you for your prompt reply. Sorry =
for the=20
delay in replying. I have visited your website. I now see that there are =
nine=20
shared loci between the CODIS system and SGM+. As you confirmed this =
would=20
adversely affect the discriminating power. The two loci that are present =
in=20
SGM+, but not stored on CODIS are D2S1338 and D19S433. Forensic =
scientists=20
report that the possibility that&nbsp;a person's DNA might randomly =
match some=20
unrelated person using SGM+ is of the order of 1:1billion. This is for =
all=20
eleven loci. I wonder if you could tell me what the possibility of a =
random=20
match would be at the nine loci that are common to both SGM+ and the =
loci stored=20
on the CODIS database?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I take your point regarding =
standardization. There=20
plainly won't be a system that is accepted universally and the expense =
of=20
validating all systems used in juridictions throughout the world is =
likely to=20
prove prohibitive. My concern is over very cold cases where there is no =
lead=20
other than a DNA profile obtained from the crime scene. In today's world =

international travel is far more accessible than it once was, especially =
within=20
Europe after the Schengen Agreement. I therefore feel that it is =
unacceptable to=20
assume that criminals will remain in their home jurisdictions. =
Consequently hits=20
on national DNA databases may not be forthcoming and international =
searches do=20
not appear to be conducted routinely. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My concern is particularly over cold =
cases with no=20
identified suspect or lead worth following up apart from a crime scene =
DNA=20
profile and details of the crime. I think it reasonable for the public =
to expect=20
that searches of relevant databases be conducted. This would apply to =
signature=20
crimes, fingerprints, palmprints, facial imaging and DNA. Given the fact =
that=20
some jurisdictions have statute preventing people being compelled to =
incriminate=20
themselves or co-operate with DNA testing I am slightly concerned that =
the loss=20
of discriminating power could lead (potentially) to more than one hit,=20
especially on an international search. Correct me if I am wrong, but the =

possibility of a random match or hit to an SGM+ profile is higher on a =
search of=20
CODIS (nine loci) than if a hit was achieved on a database where the =
SGM+ system=20
has been validated. It may well be unlikely, but what would happen if =
several=20
hits were achieved on a search of all databases and the matched =
individuals=20
lived in jurisdictions where they could not be compelled to assist by =
giving=20
samples for testing using the system that had yielded the DNA from the =
crime=20
scene. If there were databases of all systems validated throughout the =
world=20
refusal to co-operate would have no consequence and there would be fewer =
hits=20
due to no loss of discriminating power.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I suspect what I am after is perfection =
in an=20
imperfect world and that certain compromises may have to be made. I =
can't be=20
sure if there would ever be a situation where too many hits are achieved =
to be=20
useful to investigators.&nbsp;If the people identified by such hits =
refuse to=20
co-operate by giving samples for testing using the same system as the =
one used=20
to obtain a DNA profile from the crime scene sample such inquiries may =
stagnate.=20
It strikes me that this is a possibility - perhaps a remote one, but =
possible=20
nevertheless. If this were to happen in an emotive high profile case I =
fear that=20
knee-jerk legislation would result that could prove worse than the =
problem in=20
several jurisdictions. By debating such issues in advance of events =
safer=20
solutions that protect the rights of all are more likely to emerge.=20
Consequently, I wonder what the cost would be to validate the two=20
afore-mentioned loci on CODIS. Given that the overwhelming majority of =
loci used=20
in SGM+ are validated and used in systems validated in the USA, would =
the cost=20
of validating the other two be so prohibitive that it could not be done? =
It=20
could even be suggested that other juridictions should also validate the =

outstanding loci that are used in other testing systems used in foreign=20
jurisdictions for their databases. Thank you for your attention in this=20
matter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best Wishes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Satish</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C1B3E5.9E747700--


From daemon Tue Feb 12 12:19:09 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1CHJ9f00514
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:19:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1CHJ7900509
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:19:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.252.200.67]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020212171907.MJJY7206.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:19:07 +0000
Message-ID: <008601c1b3e9$3c1efc20$c755fd3e@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <Satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Standardization of DNA
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:18:04 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0083_01C1B3E9.3AFA0420"
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 4596

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C1B3E9.3AFA0420
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I recently asked certain questions relating to the possibility of =
standardizing DNA testing systems and databases throughout the world. I =
have had some very useful replies and found information relating to =
standardization attempts in Europe and the CODIS and NDIS databases in =
the USA. I still have more work to do on this subject, but it struck me =
that it would be useful to find out what systems are used throughout the =
world and which loci are used in these systems.

Thanks to Charles Brenner I now know that nine loci arte common to the =
CODIS database and SGM+. This would mean a slight loss in discriminating =
power, but it is certainly better than nothing. I have so far been =
unable to find any information on DNA testing systems used in Africa, =
Asia, Australia, South America, Central America, New Zealand, non-EU =
countries, not to mention numerous islands.

I wonder if anyone has information on all DNA testing systems that have =
been validated in any jurisdiction throughout the world and if a =
comparison of common loci between these systems has ever been attempted =
as in an imperfect world it may be that an internationally accessable =
database can only be achieved in terms of such common loci if sufficient =
loci are shared. I would envisage that it should not be too difficult =
nor expensive to compare crime scene DNA profiles with those stored on =
such a centralised database possibly maintained and run by an =
internationally respected organisation such as UN Committee for example. =
I suggest this simply to save time and expense as otherwise individual =
checks would be required on each national database. Thank you for your =
attention in this matter.

Best Wishes

Satish

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C1B3E9.3AFA0420
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I recently asked certain questions =
relating to the=20
possibility of standardizing DNA testing systems and databases =
throughout the=20
world. I have had some very useful replies and found information =
relating to=20
standardization attempts in Europe and the CODIS and NDIS databases in =
the USA.=20
I still have more work to do on this subject, but it struck me that it =
would be=20
useful to find out what systems are used throughout the world and which =
loci are=20
used in these systems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks to Charles Brenner I now know =
that nine loci=20
arte common to the CODIS database and SGM+. This would mean a slight =
loss in=20
discriminating power, but it is certainly better than nothing. I have so =
far=20
been unable to find any information on DNA testing systems used in =
Africa, Asia,=20
Australia, South America, Central America, New Zealand, non-EU =
countries, not to=20
mention numerous islands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I wonder if anyone has information on =
all DNA=20
testing systems that have been validated in any jurisdiction throughout =
the=20
world and if a comparison of common loci between these systems has ever =
been=20
attempted as in an imperfect world it may be that an internationally =
accessable=20
database can only be achieved in terms of such common loci if sufficient =
loci=20
are shared. I would envisage that it should not be too difficult nor =
expensive=20
to compare crime scene DNA profiles with those stored on such a =
centralised=20
database possibly maintained and run by an internationally respected=20
organisation such as UN Committee for example. I suggest this simply to =
save=20
time and expense as otherwise individual checks would be required on =
each=20
national database. Thank you for your attention in this =
matter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best Wishes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Satish</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C1B3E9.3AFA0420--


From daemon Tue Feb 12 20:08:07 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1D186215420
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:08:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1D185915415
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:08:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (tnt-1-138.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.197.74])
	by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g1D183Z23395;
	Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020212114052.00c171d0@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:15:15 -0800
To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <Satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
From: Charles Brenner <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: DNA Statistics
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
In-Reply-To: <007901c1b3e5$9fa11020$c755fd3e@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_13643181==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3185

--=====================_13643181==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 04:52 PM 2/12/02 +0000, Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com wrote:
>As you confirmed this would adversely affect the discriminating power.

I confirm your logic, but not a practical effect.

>The two loci that are present in SGM+, but not stored on CODIS are D2S1338 
>and D19S433. Forensic scientists report that the possibility that a 
>person's DNA might randomly match some unrelated person using SGM+ is of 
>the order of 1:1billion.
>  This is for all eleven loci.

The typical matching odds between unrelated people using the SGM panel 
excluding Amelogenin (hence 10 loci) is 1000 to 4000 (Caucasian or Black 
respectively) times the number of men in the world (so "of the order of 1 
billion" as the word "billion" used to be used outside of the US).

>  I wonder if you could tell me what the possibility of a random match 
> would be at the nine loci that are common to both SGM+ and the loci 
> stored on the CODIS database?

For the reduced panel of the 8 autosomal loci common between CODIS and SGM, 
the typical matching odds drop to about the world population (a bit less 
than the number you would get by taking the 8/10 power of the 10-locus 
figures). Spurious matches are unlikely.

Best regards,
Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics etc.
http://dna-view.com


--=====================_13643181==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 04:52 PM 2/12/02 +0000, Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>As you confirmed
this would adversely affect the discriminating power.
</font></blockquote><br>
I confirm your logic, but not a practical effect.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>The two loci that
are present in SGM+, but not stored on CODIS are D2S1338 and D19S433.
Forensic scientists report that the possibility that a person's DNA might
randomly match some unrelated person using SGM+ is of the order of
1:1billion.<br>
&nbsp;This is for all eleven loci.</font></blockquote><br>
The typical matching odds between unrelated people using the SGM panel
excluding Amelogenin (hence 10 loci) is 1000 to 4000 (Caucasian or Black
respectively) times the number of men in the world (so &quot;of the order
of 1 billion&quot; as the word &quot;billion&quot; used to be used
outside of the US).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>&nbsp;I wonder if
you could tell me what the possibility of a random match would be at the
nine loci that are common to both SGM+ and the loci stored on the CODIS
database?</font></blockquote><br>
For the reduced panel of the 8 autosomal loci common between CODIS and
SGM, the typical matching odds drop to about the world population (a bit
less than the number you would get by taking the 8/10 power of the
10-locus figures). Spurious matches are unlikely.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Charles Brenner<br>
forensic mathematics etc.<br>
<a href="http://dna-view.com/" eudora="autourl">http://</a>dna<a href="http://dna-view.com/" eudora="autourl">-view.com</a>
<br>
<br>
</html>

--=====================_13643181==_.ALT--



From daemon Wed Feb 13 09:56:18 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1DEuIT26188
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:56:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.dupagectr.org (proxy2.dupageco.org [207.32.133.77])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DEuH926183
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:56:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by COMMMAIN with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <D3R7WTV0>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:56:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CF8E795641E0D211BE9B0008C75DB489486CDD@POLICE2>
From: cdonaghey@dupageco.org
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: modafinil
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:51:55 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 181

I have a case with Modafinil tablets and had to obtain the standard from the
pharmaceutical company. Has anyone found the standard elsewhere?
TIA
Claire Donaghey
Forensic Scientist

From daemon Wed Feb 13 12:24:37 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1DHObM29776
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:24:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.baltimorepolice.org ([151.196.160.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1DHOa929771
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu.>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:24:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BPD_WEB-Message_Server by mail.baltimorepolice.org
	with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:22:18 -0500
Message-Id: <sc6a5a7a.014@mail.baltimorepolice.org>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:24:24 -0500
From: "Pamela Shaw" <Pamela.Shaw@BaltimorePolice.org>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Digest
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id g1DHOa929772
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3285

The delivery of the DUII's LIMS is in no way related to the problems described in the paper.  The article was not a fair representation of the situation (as is often the case with the press)  In fact the Mayor's investigation in response to the article found only one case was actually dropped, and that was due to a bad Complaint Number entered into a different computer system at Central Booking.  Virtually all of the instances where analysis cannot be located are due to bad complaint number entered into another computer system which they are trying to match up with paper reports.  

We make multiple copies of every CDS report and send, fax and physically drive them to various part of the SAO on a daily basis.  It is these paper copies of approximately 35,000 analysis that are at issue not anything derived from the LIMS.  

DUII's product creates an electronic version of the report.  DUII's product is currently undergoing an extensive validation process by my team prior to full implementation.  This extensive validation is a necessary process prior to the implementation of new software.  DUII has done further development on this particular custom module since August and we are nearing completion.  DUII also continues to work on the custom development of modules for the other units of our Laboratory and we are very satisfied.  


The link with the SAO from the LIMS is not yet in place and is not DUII's contractual responsibility.  Our MIS department and the SAO MIS department are building the infrastructure to enable the LIMS report to be available real-time to the SAO.  They may still have trouble finding the analysis they want if they don't have the right complaint number.  

I hope this has clarified this situation for you.  We share your concern about drug abuse in Baltimore and we are all working hard to enable the system to identify those person and redirect them to treatment and rehabilitation.


Pamela K. Shaw
Phone - 410.396.2668
Fax - 410.783.5194

>>> Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net> 02/12/02 12:03PM >>>

Pamela, if you can't get a 'digest', let me know and I will forward all
the posts for the period you mention.  There were only a few.  Probably
most are mine anyway.  I'm a physician working in Addiction Medicine and
was very concerned about the situation at the BCPD as described in the
Baltimore Sun.  I put two and two together and realized that the problems
escalated when the DUII system was installed at the PD. From Ms Kan's
replies, it appears that the blame for the chaos is with the PD, but to me
it looks like the LIMS system has to be somehow at fault, though as it
said in the paper, it is probably a combination of problems.  By the way,
other reasons for my concerns about drug cases being prosecuted is because
I have four children...although my kids escaped the drug culture, 2 of
them lost friends to drugs.  When I went to school, I don't recall ever
hearing of anyone my age dying from drugs.

Let me know if you want me to send the forens email...I'm off today.

Carol Define MD

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Pamela Shaw wrote:

> I'm a new member. Could you send me the digests for 2/8 - 2/11, just to get me up to speed on current issues?  Thanks!
>
> Pamela K. Shaw
> Phone - 410.396.2668
> Fax - 410.783.5194
>
>




From daemon Wed Feb 13 17:28:01 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1DMS1P05899
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:28:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1DMS0905894
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:28:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 22:28:00 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHYN921>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:26:53 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE20@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Source attribution - reply to Bob and Bharat
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:26:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B4DD.848ED5D0"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 14931

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B4DD.848ED5D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Not to get too far afield from the main topic, but do Bayesians really
question a frequency expression of such a simple probability as rolling
dice?  I'd have to disagree that the question "what are the odds of throwing
a six" is unanswerable.  This is the most basic of statistical probability
exercises (one that even I can do).  Assuming each roll of the die is truly
random, with no effort or systematic effect of any kind to influence the
outcome (no holding the die a certain way or throwing it with any
intentionally particular force or technique), then the odds of any given
side coming up must necessarily be one out of six, as there are only six
possibilities and each of the six is equally likely to occur in any given
roll.  A single roll of 6 neither supports nor detracts from the hypothesis
that the chances of rolling a 6 are 1/6, but it would only take a simple (if
tedious) experiment to demonstrate strong support for the frequency
statement.  Roll the die 1000 times.  It should come up "6" approximately
167 times, or 1/6th the total number of rolls.  Since maintaining true
randomness in the rolls is virtually impossible, especially given a human
throwing the die (a mechanism like a Lotto ball machine would probably
produce greater randomness), the actual number will likely vary from 167 but
will not be too far off from it.  The greater the total number of rolls
(5,000, 10,000, 100,000, etc.), the closer the actual number of "6" rolls
will be to exactly 1/6th of the total.  In an infinite number of rolls, the
actual number of times a "6" is rolled will theoretically be exactly 1/6th
of the total, but since "1/6th of infinity" is undefined, that probability
theorem can never be absolutely proven.  As the number of rolls grows very
large, however, the number of times "6" appears will become so close to
exactly 1/6th of the total that the theorem can be considered proven from a
practical point of view.  Anyone care to try it and report back?
 
I'm sure there are more sophisticated mathematical ways to prove that same
probability assessment, but I'm a lab rat - nothing is more demonstrative
than hands-on experimentation.
 

Bob Parsons, F-ABC 
Forensic Chemist 
Regional Crime Laboratory 
at Indian River Community College 
Ft. Pierce, FL 

-----Original Message-----
From: Buckleton, Dr John [mailto:jsb02@fss.org.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 05:16
To: 'Robert Parsons'; FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: Source attribution - reply to Bob and Bharat


Reporting likelihood ratios
 
Dear Bob and Bharat, 
 
Your discussion of source attribution has strayed onto the subject of
reporting likelihood ratios.  You have, to some extent fairly, pointed out
that reporting likelihood ratios uses a cumbersome wording that can lead to
misunderstanding.  It is interesting to we committed Bayesians to try to
remember this feeling because with famiarity the opposite happens.  We are
comfortable with likelihood ratios but seem to see endless issues with the
very nature of probability per se.  Just to give you one simple example of
where we spend a lot of thinking time consider a single event:  one roll of
a dice that you have never rolled before.  It comes up 6.  I ask you 'What
was the probability that it would come up 6?'  This problem is surprisingly
akin to the court case problem in it's 'one off' nature.  Even when we form
an answer we cannot test it.  Let us say that I conclude that the
probability of a 6 was 1/6.  Does my roll of a 6 support or rebut the
probability?  Bayesians claim that that question is unanswerable in a
frequentist framework.  
 
 
Putting that aside, let us accept that likelihood ratios are hard to present
in court.  We have several options:
 
1.  Abandon a superior systen (the likelihood ratio approach) and give less
correct answers that can at least be understood.
2.  Retain the likelihood ratio approach scientifically, but report in some
other way in court.
3.  Do research and train ourselves and in likelihood ratios.
 
In the UK we regularly attend Judicial Study Boards.  At these we discuss
the likelihood ratio approach to universal understanding and approval.
These Judges can easily assimilate these ideas and help convery them to a
jury.  In fact the Bayesian approach to evidence was not started by forensic
scientists but by legal commentators.  
 
I further claim that the Bayesian approach is actually akin to how most
people think.  This is how most people make 'life' decisions about things
like pensions, insurance, even barbeques.  What is lacking is a way to
transfer this understanding to scientific evidence.  
 
Is the frequentist approach easier?  I claim barely.  Consider, for
instance, the confusion that has occured over database hits.  Suppose we
search our database here of 1.3 million people and find a match to one
person.  We estimate the frequency of this profile to be 1 in a billion
(forgive my wording).  Assess the weight to be assigned this evidence.  In a
Bayesian framework - no problem - sensible answer.  In a frequentist
framework see NRC II or Stockmarr for self rebutting arguments and endless
confusion.  
 
 
 
This E-mail and any files transmitted are private and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you receive this E-mail in error, please notify
ITSecurity@fss.org.uk and delete it from your system.
This E-mail has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B4DD.848ED5D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>RE: Source attribution - reply to Mary Raidy</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=560410422-07022002><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Not to get too 
far afield from the main topic, but do Bayesians really question a frequency 
expression of such a simple probability as rolling dice?&nbsp; I'd have to 
disagree that the question "what are the odds of throwing a six" is 
unanswerable.&nbsp; This is the most basic of statistical probability exercises 
(one that even I can do).&nbsp; Assuming each roll of the die is truly random, 
with no effort&nbsp;<SPAN class=250072922-07022002>or systematic effect 
</SPAN>of any kind to influence the outcome (no holding the die a certain way or 
throwing it with any intentionally particular force or technique), then the odds 
of any given side coming up must necessarily be one out of six, as there are 
only six possibilities and each of the six is equally likely to occur in any 
given roll.&nbsp; A single roll of 6 neither supports nor detracts from the 
hypothesis that the chances of rolling a 6 are 1/6, but it would only take a 
simple (if tedious) experiment to demonstrate strong support for the frequency 
statement.&nbsp; Roll the die 1000 times.&nbsp; It should come up "6" 
approximately 167 times, or 1/6th the total number of rolls.&nbsp; Since 
maintain<SPAN class=250072922-07022002>ing</SPAN> true randomness in the rolls 
is virtually impossible, especially given a human throwing the die&nbsp;(a 
mechanism like&nbsp;<SPAN class=250072922-07022002>a </SPAN>Lotto ball machine 
would probably produce greater randomness), the actual number will likely vary 
from 167 but&nbsp;<SPAN class=250072922-07022002>will </SPAN>not be too far off 
from it.&nbsp; The greater the total number of rolls (5,000, 10,000, 100,000, 
etc.), the closer the actual number of "6" rolls will be to exactly 1/6th of the 
total.&nbsp; In an infinite number of rolls, the actual number of times a "6" is 
rolled will theoretically be&nbsp;exactly 1/6th of the total, but since "1/6th 
of infinity" is undefined,&nbsp;that probability theorem can never&nbsp;<SPAN 
class=250072922-07022002>be </SPAN>absolutely prove<SPAN 
class=250072922-07022002>n</SPAN>.&nbsp; As the number of rolls grows very 
large, however, the number of times "6" appears will become so close to exactly 
1/6th of the total that the theorem can be considered proven from a practical 
point of view.<SPAN class=250072922-07022002>&nbsp; Anyone care to try it and 
report back?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=560410422-07022002><FONT face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=560410422-07022002><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm sure there are 
more sophisticated math<SPAN class=250072922-07022002>e</SPAN>matical ways to 
prove that same probability assessment, but I'm a lab&nbsp;<SPAN 
class=250072922-07022002>rat </SPAN>- nothing is more demonstrative&nbsp;than 
hands-on experimentation.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Buckleton, Dr John 
[mailto:jsb02@fss.org.uk]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 07, 2002 
05:16<BR><B>To:</B> 'Robert Parsons'; FORENS-L POSTING 
(E-mail)<BR><B>Subject:</B> Source attribution - reply to Bob and 
Bharat<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Reporting likelihood ratios</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Dear 
Bob and Bharat, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Your 
discussion of source attribution has strayed onto the subject of reporting 
likelihood ratios.&nbsp; You have, to some extent fairly, pointed out that 
reporting likelihood ratios uses a cumbersome wording that can lead to 
misunderstanding.&nbsp; It is interesting to we committed Bayesians to try to 
remember this feeling because with famiarity the opposite happens.&nbsp; We are 
comfortable with likelihood ratios but seem to see endless issues with the very 
nature of probability per se.&nbsp; Just to give you one simple example of where 
we spend a lot of thinking time consider a single event:&nbsp; one roll of a 
dice that you have never rolled before.&nbsp; It comes up 6.&nbsp; I ask you 
'What was the probability that it would come up 6?'&nbsp; This problem is 
surprisingly akin to the court case problem in it's 'one off' nature.&nbsp; Even 
when we form an answer we cannot test it.&nbsp; Let us say that I conclude that 
the probability of a 6 was 1/6.&nbsp; Does my roll of a 6 support or rebut the 
probability?&nbsp; Bayesians claim that that question is unanswerable in a 
frequentist framework.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Putting that aside, let us accept that likelihood ratios are hard to 
present in court.&nbsp; We have several options:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>1.&nbsp; Abandon a superior systen (the likelihood ratio approach) and 
give less correct answers that can at least be understood.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>2.&nbsp; Retain the likelihood ratio approach scientifically, but report 
in some other way in court.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2>3.&nbsp; Do research and train ourselves and in likelihood 
ratios.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In the 
UK we regularly attend Judicial Study Boards.&nbsp; At these we discuss the 
likelihood ratio approach to universal understanding and approval.&nbsp; These 
Judges can easily assimilate these ideas and help convery them to a jury.&nbsp; 
In fact the Bayesian approach to evidence was not started by forensic scientists 
but by legal commentators.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I 
further claim that the Bayesian approach is actually akin to how most people 
think.&nbsp; This is how most people make 'life' decisions about things like 
pensions, insurance, even barbeques.&nbsp; What is lacking is a way to transfer 
this understanding to scientific evidence.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Is the 
frequentist approach easier?&nbsp; I claim barely.&nbsp; Consider, for instance, 
the confusion that has occured over database hits.&nbsp; Suppose we search our 
database here of 1.3 million people and find a match to one person.&nbsp; We 
estimate the frequency of this profile to be 1 in a billion (forgive my 
wording).&nbsp; Assess the weight to be assigned this evidence.&nbsp; In a 
Bayesian framework - no problem - sensible answer.&nbsp; In a frequentist 
framework see NRC II or Stockmarr for self rebutting arguments and endless 
confusion.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=796163409-07022002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>This E-mail and any files transmitted are private and intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are</DIV>
<DIV>addressed. If you receive this E-mail in error, please notify 
ITSecurity@fss.org.uk and delete it from your system.</DIV>
<DIV>This E-mail has been swept for the presence of computer 
viruses.</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B4DD.848ED5D0--

From daemon Wed Feb 13 17:52:02 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1DMq2U06409
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:52:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMq1906404
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:52:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost)
	by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1DMpxb03416;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:51:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:51:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net>
X-X-Sender:  <cdefine@mail>
To: Pamela Shaw <Pamela.Shaw@BaltimorePolice.org>
cc: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Digest
In-Reply-To: <sc6a5a7a.014@mail.baltimorepolice.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202131614270.2003-100000@mail>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3608


Dear Pamela,

Thank you for your reply...but, no, it hasn't clarified too much.

Are you implying that the Sun article was mostly a fabrication?

Carol

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Pamela Shaw wrote:

> The delivery of the DUII's LIMS is in no way related to the problems
> described in the paper.  The article was not a fair representation of
> the situation (as is often the case with the press)  In fact the
> Mayor's investigation in response to the article found only one case
> was actually dropped, and that was due to a bad Complaint Number
> entered into a different computer system at Central Booking.
> Virtually all of the instances where analysis cannot be located are
> due to bad complaint number entered into another computer system which
> they are trying to match up with paper reports.
>
> We make multiple copies of every CDS report and send, fax and
> physically drive them to various part of the SAO on a daily basis.
> It is these paper copies of approximately 35,000 analysis that are at
> issue not anything derived from the LIMS.
>
> DUII's product creates an electronic version of the report.  DUII's
> product is currently undergoing an extensive validation process by my
> team prior to full implementation.  This extensive validation is a
> necessary process prior to the implementation of new software.  DUII
> has done further development on this particular custom module since
> August and we are nearing completion.  DUII also continues to work on
> the custom development of modules for the other units of our
> Laboratory and we are very satisfied.
>
>
> The link with the SAO from the LIMS is not yet in place and is not
> DUII's contractual responsibility.  Our MIS department and the SAO MIS
> department are building the infrastructure to enable the LIMS report
> to be available real-time to the SAO.  They may still have trouble
> finding the analysis they want if they don't have the right complaint
> number.
>
> I hope this has clarified this situation for you.  We share your
> concern about drug abuse in Baltimore and we are all working hard to
> enable the system to identify those person and redirect them to
> treatment and rehabilitation.
>
>
> Pamela K. Shaw
> Phone - 410.396.2668
> Fax - 410.783.5194
>
> >>> Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net> 02/12/02 12:03PM >>>
>
> Pamela, if you can't get a 'digest', let me know and I will forward all
> the posts for the period you mention.  There were only a few.  Probably
> most are mine anyway.  I'm a physician working in Addiction Medicine and
> was very concerned about the situation at the BCPD as described in the
> Baltimore Sun.  I put two and two together and realized that the problems
> escalated when the DUII system was installed at the PD. From Ms Kan's
> replies, it appears that the blame for the chaos is with the PD, but to me
> it looks like the LIMS system has to be somehow at fault, though as it
> said in the paper, it is probably a combination of problems.  By the way,
> other reasons for my concerns about drug cases being prosecuted is because
> I have four children...although my kids escaped the drug culture, 2 of
> them lost friends to drugs.  When I went to school, I don't recall ever
> hearing of anyone my age dying from drugs.
>
> Let me know if you want me to send the forens email...I'm off today.
>
> Carol Define MD
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Pamela Shaw wrote:
>
> > I'm a new member. Could you send me the digests for 2/8 - 2/11, just to get me up to speed on current issues?  Thanks!
> >
> > Pamela K. Shaw
> > Phone - 410.396.2668
> > Fax - 410.783.5194
> >
> >
>
>
>
>





From daemon Wed Feb 13 17:56:42 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1DMug806611
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:56:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f22.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.22])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMuf906606
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:56:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:56:40 -0800
Received: from 24.61.131.56 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:56:40 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [24.61.131.56]
From: "Vaughan Caines" <vaughancaines@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: vcaines@dhhs.state.nh.us
Subject: Blood Collecting Tubes
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:56:40 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F22pLTkUD5euwdUTaGm0000858f@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 22:56:40.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2FF6D90:01C1B4E1]
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 714




HI, I am working in the State Toxicology Lab in New Hampshire, and we are 
running into some difficulty finding 10 ml blood collecting tubes which 
contain Potassium Oxalate and Sodium Flouride. We used to purchse these 
tubes from Becton Dickson, but they are discontinuing this line at this 
time, because of lack of sales etc.
I am wondering if anybody else is having this problem, and or if they know 
of a different manufacturer that does make these or similar tubes... all 
replies would be much appreciated. I thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Vaughan Caines

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


From daemon Thu Feb 14 12:14:09 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1EHE9P19169
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:14:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1EHE5919164
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:14:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 17:14:05 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHY3BGK>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:12:57 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE22@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Blood Collecting Tubes
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:12:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B57A.D875A230"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 5629

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B57A.D875A230
Content-Type: text/plain

Tri-Tech, Inc., still makes NaF/Pot oxalate tubes:

Tubes: http://www.tritechusa.com/Workplace/Bloodtubes.htm
BAC kits:  http://www.tritechusa.com/Workplace/bloodspecimen.htm

Lynn Peavey still lists the BD Vacutainer tubes for sale:
http://www.lynnpeavey.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/cgi-bin/smpagegen.exe?U+scsto
re+kgds2346ff929892+-p+-c+scstore.cfg+6170

NIK Public Safety, Inc., also sells kits using oxalate tubes:
http://www.armorholdings.com/products/nik/sck.htm

While I too prefer the oxalate tubes, if you have trouble obtaining them you
can always fall back on tubes containing NaF and disodium EDTA - they work
almost as well, and meet all legal requirements for preservative and
anticoagulant additives.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Vaughan Caines [mailto:vaughancaines@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 17:57
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: vcaines@dhhs.state.nh.us
Subject: Blood Collecting Tubes





HI, I am working in the State Toxicology Lab in New Hampshire, and we are 
running into some difficulty finding 10 ml blood collecting tubes which 
contain Potassium Oxalate and Sodium Flouride. We used to purchse these 
tubes from Becton Dickson, but they are discontinuing this line at this 
time, because of lack of sales etc.
I am wondering if anybody else is having this problem, and or if they know 
of a different manufacturer that does make these or similar tubes... all 
replies would be much appreciated. I thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Vaughan Caines

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B57A.D875A230
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Blood Collecting Tubes</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tri-Tech, Inc., still makes NaF/Pot oxalate =
tubes:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tubes: <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.tritechusa.com/Workplace/Bloodtubes.htm" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.tritechusa.com/Workplace/Bloodtubes.htm</A>=
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>BAC kits:&nbsp; <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.tritechusa.com/Workplace/bloodspecimen.htm" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.tritechusa.com/Workplace/bloodspecimen.htm<=
/A></FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Lynn Peavey still lists the BD Vacutainer tubes for =
sale:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
HREF=3D"http://www.lynnpeavey.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/cgi-bin/smpagegen=
.exe?U+scstore+kgds2346ff929892+-p+-c+scstore.cfg+6170" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.lynnpeavey.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/cgi-bin=
/smpagegen.exe?U+scstore+kgds2346ff929892+-p+-c+scstore.cfg+6170</A></FO=
NT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>NIK Public Safety, Inc., also sells kits using =
oxalate tubes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
HREF=3D"http://www.armorholdings.com/products/nik/sck.htm" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.armorholdings.com/products/nik/sck.htm</A><=
/FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>While I too prefer the oxalate tubes, if you have =
trouble obtaining them you can always fall back on tubes containing NaF =
and disodium EDTA - they work almost as well, and meet all legal =
requirements for preservative and anticoagulant additives.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Forensic Chemist</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regional Crime Laboratory</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>at Indian River Community College</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Vaughan Caines [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:vaughancaines@hotmail.com">mailto:vaughancaines@hotmail.c=
om</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 17:57</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: vcaines@dhhs.state.nh.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Blood Collecting Tubes</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>HI, I am working in the State Toxicology Lab in New =
Hampshire, and we are </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>running into some difficulty finding 10 ml blood =
collecting tubes which </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>contain Potassium Oxalate and Sodium Flouride. We =
used to purchse these </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>tubes from Becton Dickson, but they are =
discontinuing this line at this </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>time, because of lack of sales etc.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am wondering if anybody else is having this =
problem, and or if they know </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>of a different manufacturer that does make these or =
similar tubes... all </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>replies would be much appreciated. I thank you in =
advance.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sincerely,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Vaughan Caines</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>_______________________________________________________________=
__</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A =
HREF=3D"http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp</A>.</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B57A.D875A230--

From daemon Thu Feb 14 17:49:28 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1EMnSl24847
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:49:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1EMnR924842
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:49:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 22:49:26 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHY3CZ1>; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:48:17 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE2F@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re:  Source attribution
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:48:16 -0500
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE2F@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C1B5A9.B0EEB920"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 17014

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1B5A9.B0EEB920
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

I've been out of town attending the ABC and ASTM meetings in Atlanta (held
just prior to the AAFS conference), so I haven't been able to continue this
discussion until now.  My thanks to John Buckleton and Bently Achinson for
marching in where angels seemingly fear to tread.  This is what I was hoping
for - people who actually specialize in forensic DNA work chiming in with
their explanations of the complexities involved, and ideas for better
presenting results in court, so that we can all learn something.  Perhaps if
we're lucky this discussion can lead to useful models for explaining
statistical results that will be less confusing and more easily
understandable to the jury, without significantly sacrificing accuracy or
giving them a false impression.

For those needing a brief introduction to the use of DNA statistics, I
recommend Charles Brenner's web page, "The Forensic mathematics of DNA
matching" at http://dna-view.com/profile.htm.

The problem, I think, is that the average layperson does not perceive any
practical difference between what Charles labels "the correct statement" of
probability, as opposed to the "Prosecutor's Fallacy" statement. They would
interpret both as equal to the paraphrased statement Charles labels "the
ambiguous statement."  (See box, "correct statement vs. prosecutor's
fallacy," on the above web page).  Those with a modest understanding of
statistics can easily see the two statements do not have the same meanings
or implications, but I suspect that difference would not be clear to the
average person on the street.  So I believe we still need a better way to
present DNA results to juries.

>From what relatively little I know about Bayesian analysis, it seems a
powerful statistical methodology with some obvious advantages over simpler
methods like the product rule, in that it can address complex combinations
of dependant as well as independent variables.  But how do we effectively
and accurately convey the meaning of Bayesian results to those with no
understanding of even rudimentary statistical principles?  It may be that
the human mind intuitively uses a Bayesian-like approach in making everyday
decisions as John speculated, but how do we describe that process as applied
to DNA results in words that the jury will understand?  I believe the same
complexity that makes Bayesian calculations so useful to statisticians and
scientists also makes it incomprehensible to the average person without a
great deal of tutoring, rooted as it is in what must seem to the layperson
to be advanced mathematical equations with alien symbologies.  The average
person has never even heard of mathematical concepts like set theory and
Bayesian probability (or has long ago forgotten them), let alone recognizes
their symbology, so I doubt an explanation like Charles' (as excellent as it
was) is going to be of much help to the average juror.  Bayesian analysis is
a form of statistics that can be a bit challenging even for a scientist, if
he/she is not used to working with it.  When it comes to the average
non-scientist, you might as well be trying to explain advanced calculus and
differential equations.  The concepts are simply too unfamiliar and
seemingly formidable.  Given that few courts will suffer (and fewer juries
will stay awake through) a day-long dissertation on Bayes' Theorem and its
application to DNA analysis, it's unlikely an expert witness will be able to
help juries truly understand all the calculations and subtleties of
implication involved; and everyone seems to agree that juries probably
misinterpret much what they hear about these probabilities, accepting the
prosecutor's fallacy or defender's fallacy or some other error in
understanding.  Since we can't provide them with a course in statistics from
the stand, I believe the average juror would still take all the Bayesian
reasoning and distill it down to one of Charles' "ambiguous statements," or
perhaps simply get frustrated and ignore the statistical evidence entirely.


It is an intractable situation then, but is it insolvable?  I hope not.
There's got to be a simpler way to explain it; perhaps trading some depth
and breadth of understanding for the ability to draw a reasonably accurate
conclusion regarding the general strength of the evidence.  That conclusion
might not be exactly correct by strict probability theory principles, but so
long as it was pointing in the correct direction with an appropriate amount
of weight it would be far better than a clearly erroneous conclusion or a
complete disregard for the DNA evidence, as we sometimes (and suspect often)
see among juries now.

Consider the two following approaches to solving "The Taxi Problem," as
presented in the pages of the on-line periodical "+Plus"
(http://www.pass.maths.org)

The problem:  A witness sees a crime involving a taxi in the city of
Carborough (UK?). The witness says that the taxi is blue. It is known from
previous research that witnesses are correct 80% of the time when making
such statements. The police also know that 85% of the taxis in Carborough
are blue, the other 15% being green. What is the probability that a blue
taxi was involved in the crime?  

Solution using a contingency table, elementary math, and some simple logical
reasoning:  http://www.pass.maths.org/issue2/puzzle/taxisolution.html

Solution using Bayes' Theorem and the more sophisticated Bayesian
probability calculations:
http://www.pass.maths.org/issue4/puzzle/taxi/solution.html

Both solutions arrive at the same correct answer to "The Taxi Problem."
Which approach would be easier for a lay jury to accurately grasp?  While
neither might be "easy" for them to understand, I would say the contingency
table has the a much better chance of conveying an accurate understanding of
the solution to a layperson.  Most people's eyes start glazing over the
minute you begin discussing calculations using more than one variable
symbol.  If neither of these works well, then I think it perhaps best to
avoid trying to explain the numbers and instead make a simple value judgment
such as previously discussed.  I'm not sure of the practicality of this
approach legally, but it might be far more useful to the jury than confusing
them with statistics they can't hope to properly interpret.  It could
perhaps be accomplished even under Daubert by means of an evidentiary
hearing in which all the statistical data and interpretive argument is
provided to the judge in the absence of the jury.  If the judge could be
made to understand it, then the reliability of the expert's scientific
foundation for his/her opinion could be ruled on, and if ruled "reliable,"
the expert's conclusion/opinion could be provided to the jury without
rehashing the complex statistical testimony in front of them.  A pipe dream?
Perhaps, although it might be easier to accomplish in jurisdictions that
reject the Daubert doctrine and instead rely on the Frye principle.  Under
Frye, once expert witnesses have been deemed by the court to be "qualified"
in their field of endeavor they have historically been allowed to offer
expert opinion without being required to provide the jury with reams of data
or complex dissertations on the science behind the opinion.  This is a two
edged sword of course - while it might make it easier for juries to
understand the testimony, it might also make it easier for charlatans and
junk science to remain fixtures in our courtrooms.

Again, I'm not advocating any particular approach, just musing over the
possibilities.  From what has been said, it seems clear to me that current
methods of testimony are not easily understood by juries and so DNA evidence
winds up having a greater or lesser impact than it should in a given case.
That is not a good situation.  I'm not sure what the best answer may be but
I think that trying to find a simpler, yet still reasonably accurate, way of
conveying the general implications of DNA results to juries is a worthwhile
pursuit.  Anything that will help them better grasp the bottom line and
avoid confusion would be useful, and would serve to improve the
administration of justice in such cases.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1B5A9.B0EEB920
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_000_01C1B5A9.B0EEB920--

From daemon Fri Feb 15 14:24:15 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1FJOFd12280
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:24:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1FJOCM12274
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:24:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:24:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202151423190.12252-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 10994

Please reply to rthompson@cmpd.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Thompson, Roger" <rthompson@cmpd.org>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, ascld@lab.fws.gov
Subject: Employment Opportunity
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:10:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B654.5F26C910"

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B654.5F26C910
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"


Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department-Crime Laboratory Charlotte, North
Carolina

Position Announcement:  (Open until Position Filled)
Crime Scene Search Manager 44.852/3146 (Police/Crime laboratory)

Salary Range:  ($46,359 to 53,450) Dependent on Qualifications and
		      Experience

Position Description:

This is a full time managerial and supervisory position for a 24-hour crime
scene search field operation, and 8-hour forensic photography unit in a
city/county crime laboratory.

Assignment:

*	Requires knowledge of all facets of crime scene search services to
include: detecting, collecting, photographing, and the preservation of
physical evidence found at crime scenes and the supervision and directing of
23 crime-scene search investigators including 5 shift supervisors to render
this service.
*	Computer communications, Microsoft Word, Excel, including the use of
Access for statistical entries and monthly reporting.
*	Oversees recruitment, interview, and selection  of qualified
personnel
*	Occasional response to the scene of major incidents and coordinates
the activities of the Crime Scene Search Section, and monitors activities
for quality assurance.
*	Compiles, prepares and coordinates preparation of the section's
budget requests, monitors the implementation of the budget, verifies
charges, reviews and approves the requisition of section equipment and
supplies.
*	Coordinates and acts as a liaison between the Crime Scene Search
Section and other sections of the Crime Laboratory, department and other
criminal justice agencies.
*	Develops, maintains and updates work product specifications for the
section, including work quality standards, standard operating procedures,
and other relevant methods, procedures and documents.
*	Analyzes Crime Scene Search Section methods, operations and
activities, and develops new methods and/or procedures as needed.
*	Identifies operational or policy problems and procedures, collects,
analyzes and prepares staff recommendations including solutions and methods
of implementation.
*	Prepares and maintains accurate reports and documentation of the
Crime Scene Search Section activities.

Requirements of Work

At least 2 years experience in crime scene search work with at least a
baccalaureate degree in Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, a physical
science (Chemistry, Biology, Physics, etc.) or equivalent combination of
experience in course work and training equal to a baccalaureate degree in
the aforementioned degree programs.  Strong personnel supervisory and
management experience pertaining to law enforcement missions.





Page-2



Thorough knowledge in detection, collection and preservation of scientific
evidence as well as the forensic requirements for the proper collection of
analytical evidence, and knowledge of photographic preservation of the
scene.

Knowledge of general laws, policies, rules and regulations involved in law
enforcement.  Ability to supervise and train crime scene search technicians
to efficiently process and collect appropriate evidential materials and
maintain a high quality work product.


2/14/02

SEND CURRENT RESUME or for MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
 	Roger C. Thompson
Crime Laboratory Director
 	Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Crime Laboratory
 	601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, N C 28202-2940
Voice: (704) 353-1100 FAX: (704) 353-0088
	E-mail:  rthompson@cmpd.org





------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B654.5F26C910
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Employment Opportunity</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Charlotte-Mecklenburg =
Police Department-Crime Laboratory Charlotte, North Carolina</FONT></B>
</P>

<P><B><U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Position =
Announcement</FONT></U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">:&nbsp; =
(Open until Position Filled)</FONT></B>
<BR><B><U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Crime Scene Search =
Manager</FONT></U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> 44.852/3146 =
(Police/Crime laboratory) </FONT></B>
</P>

<P><B><U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Salary =
Range</FONT></U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman"></FONT><B></B><B>&nbsp;<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> =
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">($46,359 to 53,450) =
Dependent on Qualifications and </FONT></B>
<BR><B>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times =
New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Experience&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></B>
</P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Position =
Description:&nbsp;</FONT></B>=20
</P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This is a full time managerial and =
supervisory position for a 24-hour crime scene search field operation, =
and 8-hour forensic photography unit in a city/county crime =
laboratory.</FONT></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">Assignment:</FONT></B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> </FONT>
</P>

<UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Requires knowledge of all facets =
of crime scene search services to include: detecting, collecting, =
photographing, and the preservation of physical evidence found at crime =
scenes and the supervision and directing of 23 crime-scene search =
investigators including 5 shift supervisors to render this service. =
</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Computer communications, Microsoft =
Word, Excel, including the use of Access for statistical entries and =
monthly reporting.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Oversees recruitment, interview, and =
selection&nbsp; of qualified personnel</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Occasional response to the scene of =
major incidents and coordinates the activities of the Crime Scene =
Search Section, and monitors activities for quality =
assurance.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Compiles, prepares and coordinates =
preparation of the section's budget requests, monitors the =
implementation of the budget, verifies charges, reviews and approves =
the requisition of section equipment and supplies.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Coordinates and acts as a liaison =
between the Crime Scene Search Section and other sections of the Crime =
Laboratory, department and other criminal justice agencies.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Develops, maintains and updates work =
product specifications for the section, including work quality =
standards, standard operating procedures, and other relevant methods, =
procedures and documents.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Analyzes Crime Scene Search Section =
methods, operations and activities, and develops new methods and/or =
procedures as needed. </FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Identifies operational or policy =
problems and procedures, collects, analyzes and prepares staff =
recommendations including solutions and methods of =
implementation.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Prepares and maintains accurate =
reports and documentation of the Crime Scene Search Section =
activities.</FONT></LI>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Requirements of</FONT></B><B><U> =
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Work&nbsp; </FONT></U></B>
</P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">At least 2 years experience in crime =
scene search work with at least a baccalaureate degree in Law =
Enforcement, Criminal Justice, a physical science (Chemistry, Biology, =
Physics, etc.) or equivalent combination of experience in course work =
and training equal to a baccalaureate degree in the aforementioned =
degree programs.&nbsp; Strong personnel supervisory and management =
experience pertaining to law enforcement missions.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Page-2</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Thorough knowledge in detection, =
collection and preservation of scientific evidence as well as the =
forensic requirements for the proper collection of analytical evidence, =
and knowledge of photographic preservation of the scene.&nbsp; =
</FONT></P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Knowledge of general laws, policies, =
rules and regulations involved in law enforcement.&nbsp; Ability to =
supervise and train crime scene search technicians to efficiently =
process and collect appropriate evidential materials and maintain a =
high quality work product.</FONT></P>

<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">2/14/02</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">SEND CURRENT RESUME or for =
MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Roger C. =
Thompson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Crime Laboratory =
Director&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Charlotte-Mecklenburg =
Police Crime Laboratory</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 601 E. Trade =
Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Charlotte, N C 28202-2940 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Voice: (704) 353-1100 FAX: =
(704) 353-0088</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D4 =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">E-mail:&nbsp; rthompson@cmpd.org</FONT><B></B>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B654.5F26C910--


From daemon Sat Feb 16 17:23:11 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1GMNBe03067
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:23:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1GMNA903062
	for <Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:23:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from MrGQ28@cs.com
	by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id p.129.ca4652a (4421);
	Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:22:56 -0500 (EST)
From: MrGQ28@cs.com
Message-ID: <129.ca4652a.29a035c0@cs.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:22:56 EST
Subject: Fwd: Digest
To: Cdefine@bcpl.net, owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.ed,
   Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_boundary"
X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 6.0 for Windows US sub 10509
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 6634


--part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_alt_boundary"


--part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

List Members:

My grandfather is currently experiencing kidney failure.  The nephrologists 
gave the option to have Kidney Dialysis.  I am trying to find out the 
side-effects/symptoms of having Kidney Dialysis.  If there is anyone out 
there that knows the answer to my question, please email me at MrGQ28@cs.com

Thank you!
Todd Trzeciak

--part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>List Members:
<BR>
<BR>My grandfather is currently experiencing kidney failure. &nbsp;The nephrologists gave the option to have Kidney Dialysis. &nbsp;I am trying to find out the side-effects/symptoms of having Kidney Dialysis. &nbsp;If there is anyone out there that knows the answer to my question, please email me at MrGQ28@cs.com
<BR>
<BR>Thank you!
<BR>Todd Trzeciak</FONT></HTML>

--part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_alt_boundary--

--part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: from  rly-xb05.mx.aol.com (rly-xb05.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.106]) by air-xb03.mail.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILINXB38-0213175906; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:59:06 -0500
Received: from  sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) by rly-xb05.mx.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXB58-0213175901; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:59:01 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1DMq7f06445;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:52:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:52:02 -0500
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1DMq2U06409
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:52:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1DMq1906404
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:52:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost)
	by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1DMpxb03416;
	Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:51:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:51:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net>
X-X-Sender:  <cdefine@mail>
To: Pamela Shaw <Pamela.Shaw@BaltimorePolice.org>
cc: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Digest
In-Reply-To: <sc6a5a7a.014@mail.baltimorepolice.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202131614270.2003-100000@mail>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)


Dear Pamela,

Thank you for your reply...but, no, it hasn't clarified too much.

Are you implying that the Sun article was mostly a fabrication?

Carol

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Pamela Shaw wrote:

> The delivery of the DUII's LIMS is in no way related to the problems
> described in the paper.  The article was not a fair representation of
> the situation (as is often the case with the press)  In fact the
> Mayor's investigation in response to the article found only one case
> was actually dropped, and that was due to a bad Complaint Number
> entered into a different computer system at Central Booking.
> Virtually all of the instances where analysis cannot be located are
> due to bad complaint number entered into another computer system which
> they are trying to match up with paper reports.
>
> We make multiple copies of every CDS report and send, fax and
> physically drive them to various part of the SAO on a daily basis.
> It is these paper copies of approximately 35,000 analysis that are at
> issue not anything derived from the LIMS.
>
> DUII's product creates an electronic version of the report.  DUII's
> product is currently undergoing an extensive validation process by my
> team prior to full implementation.  This extensive validation is a
> necessary process prior to the implementation of new software.  DUII
> has done further development on this particular custom module since
> August and we are nearing completion.  DUII also continues to work on
> the custom development of modules for the other units of our
> Laboratory and we are very satisfied.
>
>
> The link with the SAO from the LIMS is not yet in place and is not
> DUII's contractual responsibility.  Our MIS department and the SAO MIS
> department are building the infrastructure to enable the LIMS report
> to be available real-time to the SAO.  They may still have trouble
> finding the analysis they want if they don't have the right complaint
> number.
>
> I hope this has clarified this situation for you.  We share your
> concern about drug abuse in Baltimore and we are all working hard to
> enable the system to identify those person and redirect them to
> treatment and rehabilitation.
>
>
> Pamela K. Shaw
> Phone - 410.396.2668
> Fax - 410.783.5194
>
> >>> Carol Define MD <cdefine@bcpl.net> 02/12/02 12:03PM >>>
>
> Pamela, if you can't get a 'digest', let me know and I will forward all
> the posts for the period you mention.  There were only a few.  Probably
> most are mine anyway.  I'm a physician working in Addiction Medicine and
> was very concerned about the situation at the BCPD as described in the
> Baltimore Sun.  I put two and two together and realized that the problems
> escalated when the DUII system was installed at the PD. From Ms Kan's
> replies, it appears that the blame for the chaos is with the PD, but to me
> it looks like the LIMS system has to be somehow at fault, though as it
> said in the paper, it is probably a combination of problems.  By the way,
> other reasons for my concerns about drug cases being prosecuted is because
> I have four children...although my kids escaped the drug culture, 2 of
> them lost friends to drugs.  When I went to school, I don't recall ever
> hearing of anyone my age dying from drugs.
>
> Let me know if you want me to send the forens email...I'm off today.
>
> Carol Define MD
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Pamela Shaw wrote:
>
> > I'm a new member. Could you send me the digests for 2/8 - 2/11, just to get me up to speed on current issues?  Thanks!
> >
> > Pamela K. Shaw
> > Phone - 410.396.2668
> > Fax - 410.783.5194
> >
> >
>
>
>
>





--part1_129.ca4652a.29a035c0_boundary--

From daemon Sun Feb 17 18:08:58 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1HN8w605737
	for forens-outgoing; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:08:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1HN8vM05732
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:08:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (tnt-1-214.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.197.150])
	by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g1HN8sj22174
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020216195922.00c1f690@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:16:22 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Charles Brenner <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re:  Source attribution
In-Reply-To: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE2F@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.
 us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2493

At 05:48 PM 2/14/02 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote:

>I believe we still need a better way to present DNA results to juries.
>
> >From what relatively little I know about Bayesian analysis, ...

>There's got to be a simpler way to explain ... DNA evidence
>
>Consider the two following approaches to solving "The Taxi Problem," as
>presented in the pages of the on-line periodical "+Plus"
>(http://www.pass.maths.org)

>The problem:  A witness sees a crime involving a taxi in the city of
>Carborough (UK?). The witness says that the taxi is blue. It is known from
>previous research that witnesses are correct 80% of the time --

i.e. that they report "blue" for 80% of blue cars and for 20% of green cars.

>when making such statements. The police also know that 85% of the taxis in 
>Carborough
>are blue, the other 15% being green. What is the probability that a blue
>taxi was involved in the crime?

from the point of view of the police, that is.

>Solution using a contingency table, elementary math, and some simple logical
>reasoning:  http://www.pass.maths.org/issue2/puzzle/taxisolution.html
>
>Solution using Bayes' Theorem and the more sophisticated Bayesian
>probability calculations:
>http://www.pass.maths.org/issue4/puzzle/taxi/solution.html
>
>Both solutions arrive at the same correct answer to "The Taxi Problem."
>Which approach would be easier for a lay jury to accurately grasp?

Since the two expositions appear to have been written by two different 
people, it may be unfair to draw an inference from the fact that the 
"Bayesian" presentation is more ponderous than the other.

In summary, both analysis eventually come to the point that there are 68 
chances the taxi is blue for every 3 chances it is green. (Both analysis 
then continue to convert this information to a probability, but I suggest 
we stop here.)

Stripping away all explanations, the difference between the two approaches 
comes down to the order of performing arithmetic to compute

80%      0.85
------   x  ------
20%      0.15

(which equals 68/3).

The "Bayesian" solution first evaluates each of the two fractions by 
division, then multiplies together the results.

The "contingency" solution first multiplies together the numerators and 
multiplies together the denominators, then divides.

Not a dime's worth of difference.

However, for the real-life DNA situation, I do not see how the 
"contingency" approach could be applied.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics
http://dna-view.com




From daemon Mon Feb 18 08:01:59 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1ID1xs14917
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:01:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:01:59 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Message-Id: <200202181301.g1ID1xs14917@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Content-Length: 11039

Send inquiries to rthompson@cmpd.org
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Thompson, Roger" <rthompson@cmpd.org>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Employment Announcement
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:56:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B663.41763D10"

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B663.41763D10
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department-Crime Laboratory Charlotte, North
Carolina

Position Announcement:  (Open until Position Filled)
Crime Scene Search Manager 44.852/3146 (Police/Crime laboratory)

Salary Range:  ($46,359 to 53,450) Dependent on Qualifications and
		      Experience

Position Description:

This is a full time managerial and supervisory position for a 24-hour crime
scene search field operation, and 8-hour forensic photography unit in a
city/county crime laboratory.

Assignment:

*	Requires knowledge of all facets of crime scene search services to
include: detecting, collecting, photographing, and the preservation of
physical evidence found at crime scenes and the supervision and directing of
23crime-scene search technicians including 5 shift supervisors to render
this service.
*	Computer communications, Microsoft Word, Excel, including the use of
Access for statistical entries and monthly reporting.
*	Oversees recruitment, interview, and selection  of qualified
personnel
*	Occasional response to the scene of major incidents and coordinates
the activities of the Crime Scene Search Section, and monitors activities
for quality assurance.
*	Compiles, prepares and coordinates preparation of the section's
budget requests, monitors the implementation of the budget, verifies
charges, reviews and approves the requisition of section equipment and
supplies.
*	Coordinates and acts as a liaison between the Crime Scene Search
Section and other sections of the Crime Laboratory, department and other
criminal justice agencies.
*	Develops, maintains and updates work product specifications for the
section, including work quality standards, standard operating procedures,
and other relevant methods, procedures and documents.
*	Analyzes Crime Scene Search Section methods, operations and
activities, and develops new methods and/or procedures as needed.
*	Identifies operational or policy problems and procedures, collects,
analyzes and prepares staff recommendations including solutions and methods
of implementation.
*	Prepares and maintains accurate reports and documentation of the
Crime Scene Search Section activities.

Requirements of Work

At least 2 years experience in crime scene search work with at least a
baccalaureate degree in Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, a physical
science (Chemistry, Biology, Physics, etc.) or equivalent combination of
experience in course work and training equal to a baccalaureate degree in
the aforementioned degree programs.  Strong personnel supervisory and
management experience pertaining to law enforcement missions.


Page-2



Thorough knowledge in detection, collection and preservation of scientific
evidence as well as the forensic requirements for the proper collection of
analytical evidence, and knowledge of photographic preservation of the
scene.

Knowledge of general laws, policies, rules and regulations involved in law
enforcement.  Ability to supervise and train crime scene search technicians
to efficiently process and collect appropriate evidential materials and
maintain a high quality work product.


2/14/02

SEND CURRENT RESUME or for MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
 	Roger C. Thompson
Crime Laboratory Director
 	Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Crime Laboratory
 	601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, N C 28202-2940
Voice: (704) 353-1100 FAX: (704) 353-0088
	E-mail:  rthompson@cmpd.org




------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B663.41763D10
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Employment Announcement</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Charlotte-Mecklenburg =
Police Department-Crime Laboratory Charlotte, North Carolina</FONT></B>
</P>

<P><B><U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Position =
Announcement</FONT></U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">:&nbsp; =
(Open until Position Filled)</FONT></B>
<BR><B><U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Crime Scene Search =
Manager</FONT></U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> 44.852/3146 =
(Police/Crime laboratory) </FONT></B>
</P>

<P><B><U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Salary =
Range</FONT></U><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman"></FONT><B></B><B>&nbsp;<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> =
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">($46,359 to 53,450) =
Dependent on Qualifications and </FONT></B>
<BR><B>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times =
New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Experience&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></B>
</P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Position =
Description:&nbsp;</FONT></B>=20
</P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This is a full time managerial and =
supervisory position for a 24-hour crime scene search field operation, =
and 8-hour forensic photography unit in a city/county crime =
laboratory.</FONT></P>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">Assignment:</FONT></B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> </FONT>
</P>

<UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Requires knowledge of all facets =
of crime scene search services to include: detecting, collecting, =
photographing, and the preservation of physical evidence found at crime =
scenes and the supervision and directing of 23crime-scene search =
technicians including 5 shift supervisors to render this service. =
</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Computer communications, Microsoft =
Word, Excel, including the use of Access for statistical entries and =
monthly reporting.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Oversees recruitment, interview, and =
selection&nbsp; of qualified personnel</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Occasional response to the scene of =
major incidents and coordinates the activities of the Crime Scene =
Search Section, and monitors activities for quality =
assurance.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Compiles, prepares and coordinates =
preparation of the section's budget requests, monitors the =
implementation of the budget, verifies charges, reviews and approves =
the requisition of section equipment and supplies.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Coordinates and acts as a liaison =
between the Crime Scene Search Section and other sections of the Crime =
Laboratory, department and other criminal justice agencies.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Develops, maintains and updates work =
product specifications for the section, including work quality =
standards, standard operating procedures, and other relevant methods, =
procedures and documents.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Analyzes Crime Scene Search Section =
methods, operations and activities, and develops new methods and/or =
procedures as needed. </FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Identifies operational or policy =
problems and procedures, collects, analyzes and prepares staff =
recommendations including solutions and methods of =
implementation.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Prepares and maintains accurate =
reports and documentation of the Crime Scene Search Section =
activities.</FONT></LI>
<BR>
</UL>
<P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Requirements of</FONT></B><B><U> =
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Work&nbsp; </FONT></U></B>
</P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">At least 2 years experience in crime =
scene search work with at least a baccalaureate degree in Law =
Enforcement, Criminal Justice, a physical science (Chemistry, Biology, =
Physics, etc.) or equivalent combination of experience in course work =
and training equal to a baccalaureate degree in the aforementioned =
degree programs.&nbsp; Strong personnel supervisory and management =
experience pertaining to law enforcement missions.</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Page-2</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Thorough knowledge in detection, =
collection and preservation of scientific evidence as well as the =
forensic requirements for the proper collection of analytical evidence, =
and knowledge of photographic preservation of the scene.&nbsp; =
</FONT></P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Knowledge of general laws, policies, =
rules and regulations involved in law enforcement.&nbsp; Ability to =
supervise and train crime scene search technicians to efficiently =
process and collect appropriate evidential materials and maintain a =
high quality work product.</FONT></P>

<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">2/14/02</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">SEND CURRENT RESUME or for =
MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Roger C. =
Thompson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Crime Laboratory =
Director&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Charlotte-Mecklenburg =
Police Crime Laboratory</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 601 E. Trade =
Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Charlotte, N C 28202-2940 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D4 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Voice: (704) 353-1100 FAX: =
(704) 353-0088</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D4 =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">E-mail:&nbsp; rthompson@cmpd.org</FONT><B></B>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B663.41763D10--


From daemon Mon Feb 18 09:12:27 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1IECR516761
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:12:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web9904.mail.yahoo.com (web9904.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.247])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1IECQM16756
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:12:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20020218141225.59143.qmail@web9904.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [35.9.12.76] by web9904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:12:25 PST
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:12:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Sarah Walbridge <walbridges@yahoo.com>
To: Forensics Server <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1270

Hello List Members-

The Michigan State University Forensic Science
Department has recently purchased a
microspectrophotometer and would like to begin
building a paint database for graduate students to
utilize.  At this time, I am specifically looking for
automotive paint samples with known make/model and
year of automobile.  I have already visited local body
shops and a junk yard.  Our research goal is to obtain
as many samples as possible, create a database of
transmission and reflectance spectra and allow
graduate students in the program a chance to analyze
unknown samples with the aid of the database. I hope
that enhancing our paint collection will also provide
many future research opportunities for other graduate
students.  

Would anyone out there be willing to donate samples or
provide information regarding other possible sources?
Any and all donations are greatly appreciated.

Please e-mail me walbridges@yahoo.com and I will
provide a mailing address here at Michigan State.

Thank you.

  


=====
Sarah E. Walbridge
Michigan State University
School of Criminal Justice
Specialization in Forensic Science

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

From daemon Mon Feb 18 20:02:27 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1J12Rr00132
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:02:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1J12QM00127
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:02:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 01:02:27 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <ZZHY3MV8>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:01:05 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE44@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Source attribution
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:01:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1B8E0.E8226D80"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 11979

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B8E0.E8226D80
Content-Type: text/plain

Charles Brenner wrote:

>>The problem:  A witness sees a crime involving a taxi in the city of
>>Carborough (UK?). The witness says that the taxi is blue. It is known from
>>previous research that witnesses are correct 80% of the time -- 
>
>i.e. that they report "blue" for 80% of blue cars and for 20% of green
cars.
>
>
>>when making such statements. The police also know that 85% of the taxis in

>>Carborough
>>are blue, the other 15% being green. What is the probability that a blue
>>taxi was involved in the crime?
>
>from the point of view of the police, that is.

>From anyone's point of view.  Either a blue car was involved or it wasn't.
What is the probability a blue car was involved?  We could of course
question how the police "know" the accuracy of color reporting and how the
percentage make-up of the city's blue and green car population was
determined, but the problem assumes the statistics reported are accurate for
illustrative purposes.  That being a given, I don't see how "point of view"
is a variable.  Can you explain?


>Since the two expositions appear to have been written by two different 
>people, it may be unfair to draw an inference from the fact that the 
>"Bayesian" presentation is more ponderous than the other.

A valid point.  Is there a simpler way to explain the Bayesian results?


>In summary, both analysis eventually come to the point that there are 68 
>chances the taxi is blue for every 3 chances it is green. (Both analysis 
>then continue to convert this information to a probability, but I suggest 
>we stop here.)

Was there something wrong with the conversions, or am I misinterpreting your
comment?


>Stripping away all explanations, the difference between the two approaches 
>comes down to the order of performing arithmetic to compute
>
>80%      0.85
>------   x  ------
>20%      0.15
>
>(which equals 68/3).
>
>The "Bayesian" solution first evaluates each of the two fractions by 
>division, then multiplies together the results.
>
>The "contingency" solution first multiplies together the numerators and 
>multiplies together the denominators, then divides.
>
>Not a dime's worth of difference.

Not in the result, of course not; both methods are valid so the result is
the same.  I already granted that.  But how about in the understanding of
the jury? Given that attorneys will not allow a "stripping away of all
explanations" in court and will demand an explanation of how the numbers
were determined, which explanation given will be more easily understood by
the average juror?  Is there a simpler way to explain the Bayesian
derivation?


>However, for the real-life DNA situation, I do not see how the 
>"contingency" approach could be applied.

Perhaps it cannot be.  I did find it offered as a way to contrast the two
approaches, but it may not be appropriate for adaptation to DNA statistics.
If not, then that makes the exercise moot to this discussion and I chose a
poor example due to my inexpertise in DNA probability assessment.  If a
"contingency" approach explanation is not a viable alternative to a complex
explanation, is any other simpler explanation possible (Bayesian or not)?  I
just think the explanations of the Bayesian approach I've seen so far are
beyond the easy grasp or interest of the average non-statistically-educated
juror.  Isn't there some way the probabilities can be simply but
appropriately expressed without having to teach complex (to the layperson)
statistical theory?  If not, then I must continue to wonder if a "value"
statement about source attribution without presenting statistical figures
and calculations (like the FBI's approach to reporting/testimony) isn't
ultimately more helpful to the jury, assuming it's a valid statement of
course.  That validity is apparently open to debate, but even the FBI's
critics seem to agree the probabilities required before they are willing to
make a source-attribution statement are so astronomically high that there is
little practical difference in the probative effect of the statement (except
perhaps in terms of technical principle).  If the probative impact on the
jury is similar, then wouldn't the increased ease of understanding be
conducive to arrival at a just verdict, and therefore beneficial? 

Thanks for responding Charles.  I don't know - it may be that there is no
simpler way to present this testimony, but juries are clearly confused by
current presentations.  That much is undisputed, so I think this discussion
is worth pursuing in the hope of finding a better way.  I'd like to hear
other ideas discussed.  Any volunteers?

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B8E0.E8226D80
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Source attribution</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charles Brenner wrote:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;The problem:&nbsp; A witness sees a crime =
involving a taxi in the city of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;Carborough (UK?). The witness says that the =
taxi is blue. It is known from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;previous research that witnesses are correct =
80% of the time -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;i.e. that they report &quot;blue&quot; for 80% =
of blue cars and for 20% of green cars.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;when making such statements. The police also =
know that 85% of the taxis in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;Carborough</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;are blue, the other 15% being green. What is =
the probability that a blue</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&gt;taxi was involved in the crime?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;from the point of view of the police, that =
is.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>From anyone's point of view.&nbsp; Either a blue car =
was involved or it wasn't.&nbsp; What is the probability a blue car was =
involved?&nbsp; We could of course question how the police =
&quot;know&quot; the accuracy of color reporting and how the percentage =
make-up of the city's blue and green car population was determined, but =
the problem assumes the statistics reported are accurate for =
illustrative purposes.&nbsp; That being a given, I don't see how =
&quot;point of view&quot; is a variable.&nbsp; Can you =
explain?</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Since the two expositions appear to have been =
written by two different </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;people, it may be unfair to draw an inference =
from the fact that the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&quot;Bayesian&quot; presentation is more =
ponderous than the other.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>A valid point.&nbsp; Is there a simpler way to =
explain the Bayesian results?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;In summary, both analysis eventually come to the =
point that there are 68 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;chances the taxi is blue for every 3 chances it =
is green. (Both analysis </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;then continue to convert this information to a =
probability, but I suggest </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;we stop here.)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Was there something wrong with the conversions, or am =
I misinterpreting your comment?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Stripping away all explanations, the difference =
between the two approaches </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;comes down to the order of performing arithmetic =
to compute</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;80%&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0.85</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;------&nbsp;&nbsp; x&nbsp; ------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;20%&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0.15</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;(which equals 68/3).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;The &quot;Bayesian&quot; solution first =
evaluates each of the two fractions by </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;division, then multiplies together the =
results.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;The &quot;contingency&quot; solution first =
multiplies together the numerators and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;multiplies together the denominators, then =
divides.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Not a dime's worth of difference.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Not in the result, of course not; both methods are =
valid so the result is the same.&nbsp; I already granted that.&nbsp; =
But how about in the understanding of the jury? Given that attorneys =
will not allow a &quot;stripping away of all explanations&quot; in =
court and will demand an explanation of how the numbers were =
determined, which explanation given will be more easily understood by =
the average juror?&nbsp; Is there a simpler way to explain the Bayesian =
derivation?</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;However, for the real-life DNA situation, I do =
not see how the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&quot;contingency&quot; approach could be =
applied.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Perhaps it cannot be.&nbsp; I did find it offered as =
a way to contrast the two approaches, but it may not be appropriate for =
adaptation to DNA statistics.&nbsp; If not, then that makes the =
exercise moot to this discussion and I chose a poor example due to my =
inexpertise in DNA probability assessment.&nbsp; If a =
&quot;contingency&quot; approach explanation is not a viable =
alternative to a complex explanation, is any other simpler explanation =
possible (Bayesian or not)?&nbsp; I just think the explanations of the =
Bayesian approach I've seen so far are beyond the easy grasp or =
interest of the average non-statistically-educated juror.&nbsp; Isn't =
there some way the probabilities can be simply but appropriately =
expressed without having to teach complex (to the layperson) =
statistical theory?&nbsp; If not, then I must continue to wonder if a =
&quot;value&quot; statement about source attribution without presenting =
statistical figures and calculations (like the FBI's approach to =
reporting/testimony) isn't ultimately more helpful to the jury, =
assuming it's a valid statement of course.&nbsp; That validity is =
apparently open to debate, but even the FBI's critics seem to agree the =
probabilities required before they are willing to make a =
source-attribution statement are so astronomically high that there is =
little practical difference in the probative effect of the statement =
(except perhaps in terms of technical principle).&nbsp; If the =
probative impact on the jury is similar, then wouldn't the increased =
ease of understanding be conducive to arrival at a just verdict, and =
therefore beneficial? </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks for responding Charles.&nbsp; I don't know - =
it may be that there is no simpler way to present this testimony, but =
juries are clearly confused by current presentations.&nbsp; That much =
is undisputed, so I think this discussion is worth pursuing in the hope =
of finding a better way.&nbsp; I'd like to hear other ideas =
discussed.&nbsp; Any volunteers?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Forensic Chemist</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regional Crime Laboratory</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>at Indian River Community College</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B8E0.E8226D80--

From daemon Mon Feb 18 21:48:20 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1J2mKv01681
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:48:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1J2mHM01676
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:48:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Tue Feb 19 15:48:15 2002 +1300
Received: by kscxchg2.esrit.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <D0TW8XH9>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:48:15 +1300
Message-ID: <BD434082AA75D511819C0002A57497151ACC38@MASCBDC1>
From: "Ashton, Jason" <Jason.Ashton@esr.cri.nz>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Frequency of stains unrelated to crimes
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:48:07 +1300
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <BD434082AA75D511819C0002A57497151ACC38@MASCBDC1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C1B8EF.DC75D990"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 5318

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_000_01C1B8EF.DC75D990
Content-Type: text/plain

We are looking for information for a study on the incidence (frequency etc)
of stains (seminal fluids, blood) on clothing, household objects etc
unrelated to crimes.

We have located a single article on the subject:
Owen, G W & K W Smalldon. Blood and semen stains on outer clothing and shoes
not related to crime. Report of a survey using presumptive tests. Journal of
forensic science 20(2) 391, 1975

If anyone knows of another more recent article or study on this subject
could they please forward the citation to us.

Thanks.

Jason
-------------------------------------------
Information & Research Services
ESR: Institute of Environmental Science & Research
Private bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert
Auckland, New Zealand


------_=_NextPart_000_01C1B8EF.DC75D990
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_000_01C1B8EF.DC75D990--

From daemon Tue Feb 19 00:47:33 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1J5lX804390
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1J5lVM04385
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:47:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saimonmd2.huji.ac.il ([62.0.148.42]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep  5 2001))
 with SMTP id <0GRR00739MR4U5@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for
 forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:47:30 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:55:03 +0200
From: biologit <biologit@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: Frequency of stains unrelated to crimes
To: "Ashton, Jason" <Jason.Ashton@esr.cri.nz>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Message-id: <001201c1b909$fcbbe0e0$2a94003e@huji.ac.il>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <BD434082AA75D511819C0002A57497151ACC38@MASCBDC1>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1296

Dear Dr Ashton,

We wrote a recent case report in the J Forensic Sci 2001;46(5):1232-1234, in
which microclots of blood were found in the fur of a dog alleged to have
attacked a girl.  DNA profiling EXCLUDED the blood from the dog fur as
having originated from the bite victim.

Hope this is of use.

Regards,

Paul Brauner




----- Original Message -----
From: Ashton, Jason <Jason.Ashton@esr.cri.nz>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:48 AM
Subject: Frequency of stains unrelated to crimes


> We are looking for information for a study on the incidence (frequency
etc)
> of stains (seminal fluids, blood) on clothing, household objects etc
> unrelated to crimes.
>
> We have located a single article on the subject:
> Owen, G W & K W Smalldon. Blood and semen stains on outer clothing and
shoes
> not related to crime. Report of a survey using presumptive tests. Journal
of
> forensic science 20(2) 391, 1975
>
> If anyone knows of another more recent article or study on this subject
> could they please forward the citation to us.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jason
> -------------------------------------------
> Information & Research Services
> ESR: Institute of Environmental Science & Research
> Private bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert
> Auckland, New Zealand
>
>


From daemon Tue Feb 19 08:05:03 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1JD52G09177
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:05:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JD52M09172
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:05:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from LamarM@aol.com
	by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id y.7e.22f9beaf (3845)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:04:57 -0500 (EST)
From: LamarM@aol.com
Message-ID: <7e.22f9beaf.29a3a779@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:04:57 EST
Subject: Forensic Oversite Committee
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7e.22f9beaf.29a3a779_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1000


--part1_7e.22f9beaf.29a3a779_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Colleagues, you may wish to read this.  
http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?j5215_BC_AL-X

GR--Forensics&&news&newsflash-alabama
<A HREF="http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?j5215_BC_AL-XGR--Forensics&&news&newsflash-alabama">Click here: al.com: NewsFlash</A>  

--part1_7e.22f9beaf.29a3a779_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Colleagues, you may wish to read this.&nbsp; http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?j5215_BC_AL-XGR--Forensics&amp;&amp;news&amp;newsflash-alabama<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?j5215_BC_AL-XGR--Forensics&&news&newsflash-alabama">Click here: al.com: NewsFlash</A>&nbsp; </FONT></HTML>

--part1_7e.22f9beaf.29a3a779_boundary--

From daemon Tue Feb 19 08:13:22 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1JDDMB09443
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:13:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sulphur.cix.co.uk (sulphur.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.149])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JDDKM09438
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:13:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cix.co.uk (pc2-lica5-0-cust231.bir.cable.ntl.com [213.107.85.231])
	by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1JDDZU14999;
	Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:13:35 GMT
X-Envelope-From: forensics@cix.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: forensics@cix.co.uk (Mark Webster)
Subject: Re: Frequency of stains unrelated to crimes
To: Jason.Ashton@esr.cri.nz
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk
In-Reply-To: <BD434082AA75D511819C0002A57497151ACC38@MASCBDC1>
Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk
Message-Id: <memo.20020219131005.24561A@forensics.cix.co.uk>
X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A )
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 287

See also:

"The probative value of blood stain on clothing", TJ Briggs, Medicine 
Science and the Law (1978) Vol 18(2) pages 79-83.

Briggs examined clothing and shoes from a large group of people. Some 38% 
of these people had bloodstaining on their clothing or footwear.

Mark Webster

From daemon Tue Feb 19 09:02:11 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1JE2BH10296
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:02:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange2.dupageco.org (exchange2.dupageco.org [66.89.229.66] (may be forged))
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1JE2AM10291
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:02:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by EXCHANGE2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <FHN3AR8B>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:00:43 -0600
Message-ID: <CF8E795641E0D211BE9B0008C75DB489486CE3@POLICE2>
From: "Donaghey, Claire" <cdonaghey@dupageco.org>
To: "Forensic List (E-mail)" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: black powder
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:57:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 170

good morning. I'm looking for any articles/literature concerning hazards
associated with using black powder in latent processing. TIA.
Claire Donaghey
Forensic Scientist

From daemon Tue Feb 19 10:42:07 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1JFg7k12163
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:42:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 66-162-146-157.gen.twtelecom.net (66-162-146-157.gen.twtelecom.net [66.162.146.157])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1JFg6M12158
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:42:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SCANMAIL by 66-162-146-157.gen.twtelecom.net
          via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 15:32:30 UT
Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Tue Feb 19 07:38:31 2002 -0800
Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:42:04 -0800
Message-Id: <sc7201cc.002@mail.co.kern.ca.us>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.2.1
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:41:23 -0800
From: "Greg Laskowski" <glaskows@co.kern.ca.us>
To: <cdonaghey@dupageco.org>, <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: black powder
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id g1JFg6M12159
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 821

Claire,

I suggest you look at the book by Nancy C. Masters entitled "Safety for the Forensic Identification Specialist."  It is available throught the Lightning Powder Company.
Address is:

Lightning Powder
13386 International Parkway
Jacksonville, FL 32218

Nancy Masters was an identification technician with the California Department of Justice for a number years before her retirement.

Good Luck in your search.  

Gregory E. Laskowski
Supervising Criminalist
Kern County District Attorney
Forensic Science Division
e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us
office phone: (661) 868-5659


>>> "Donaghey, Claire" <cdonaghey@dupageco.org> 02/19 5:57 AM >>>
good morning. I'm looking for any articles/literature concerning hazards
associated with using black powder in latent processing. TIA.
Claire Donaghey
Forensic Scientist


From daemon Wed Feb 20 08:57:02 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1KDv2E00939
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:57:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KDv0M00934
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:57:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.252.203.137]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020220135657.BBIU7000.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer>;
          Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:56:57 +0000
Message-ID: <004301c1ba16$4fef1540$89cbfc3e@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <Satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Saliva & Animal Blood
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:55:51 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01C1BA16.4EF35020"
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 7832

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C1BA16.4EF35020
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am dealing with a case where it appears that a potentially viable =
defence was completely missed by everyone. It concerns the only =
scientific link between the defendant and the murder.

A young man was convicted of murdering his good friend. The only =
scientific link was that traces a bloodstaining was found on the sleeve =
of his jacket. The DNA of the victim was obtained from that area of =
staining - only one of the six areas of staining yielded a DNA profile. =
The system used was conventional SGM STR typing - in other words the six =
loci used in the original system and amelogenin. The possibility of a =
random match was detewrmined to be 1:23 million.

I do not dispute that this is the DNA of the victim, but I am concerned =
that a potentially viable explanation appears not to have been =
investigated by anyone, let alone eliminated.

There is evidence that the young man and the victim were always having =
play fights that involved putting each other in headlocks. There is also =
evidence that the young man came into contact with animal blood - namely =
that of rabbits, pidgeons, squirrels and a dog. My concern is whether it =
is possible for the staining to give the appearance of just being blood, =
while actually being a mixture of animal blood and human saliva. This =
would, I understand, yield a DNA profile from the victim, which would =
appear to have been obtained from his blood, where it may actually have =
been obtained from saliva. I have been informed that if animal blood had =
been present an extra peak would be detected. What allele position would =
that be likely to be in? Would it be possible for such a peak to be =
misinterpreted due to allele dropout, or for other reasons. Given the =
position of the staining at the end of the sleeve I would have thought =
that this explanation is possible until proven otherwise. As this was a =
particularly horrible crime I want to eliminate the slightest =
possibility of such a defence being possible unless it is correct. If =
this young man is guilty he deserves everything he gets and a bit more =
besides - something he readily concedes.

Would extra peaks be recorded routinely if there had never been a =
suggestion of animal blood previously? Would the DNA profile itself be =
stored so it could be examined for such a peak? Is it possible that the =
blood of any of the species referred to earlier would not yield the =
extra peak?

If the samples still exist it could be retested. Would amylase activity =
still be detectable in a mixed stain after more than three years if the =
saliva was on top of the blood staining? Would the saliva be sealed in =
by the animal blood if it was below the bloodstaining? Would it be worth =
conducting a Phadebas Test on the sample after this length of time? From =
the information at my disposal this was not done at the time. I have =
also been informed that there is a test called Precipitin that detects =
animal blood. Would this be worth conducting now? Are there any =
drawbacks with either the Phadebas Test or Precipitin Test? Thank you =
for your attention in this matter.

Best Wishes

Satish


------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C1BA16.4EF35020
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am dealing with a case where it =
appears that a=20
potentially viable defence was completely missed by everyone. It =
concerns the=20
only scientific link between the defendant and the murder.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A young man was convicted of murdering =
his good=20
friend. The only scientific link was that traces a bloodstaining was =
found on=20
the sleeve of his jacket. The DNA of the victim was obtained from that =
area of=20
staining - only one of the six areas of staining yielded a DNA profile. =
The=20
system used was conventional SGM STR typing - in other words the six =
loci used=20
in the original system and amelogenin. The possibility of a random match =
was=20
detewrmined to be 1:23 million.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I do not dispute that this is the DNA =
of the=20
victim, but I am concerned that a potentially viable explanation appears =
not to=20
have been investigated by anyone, let alone eliminated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There is evidence that the young man =
and the victim=20
were always having play fights that involved putting each other in =
headlocks.=20
There is also evidence that the young man came into contact with animal =
blood -=20
namely that of rabbits, pidgeons, squirrels and a dog. My concern is =
whether it=20
is possible for the staining to give the appearance of just being blood, =
while=20
actually being a mixture of animal blood and human saliva. This would, I =

understand, yield a DNA profile from the victim, which would appear to =
have been=20
obtained from his blood, where it may actually have been obtained from =
saliva. I=20
have been informed that if animal blood had been present an extra peak =
would be=20
detected. What allele position would that be likely to be in? Would it =
be=20
possible for such a peak to be misinterpreted due to allele dropout, or =
for=20
other reasons. Given the position of the staining at the end of the =
sleeve I=20
would have thought that this explanation is possible until proven =
otherwise. As=20
this was a particularly horrible crime I want to eliminate the slightest =

possibility of such a defence being possible unless it is correct. If =
this young=20
man is guilty he deserves everything he gets and a bit more besides - =
something=20
he readily concedes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Would extra peaks be recorded routinely =
if there=20
had never been a suggestion of animal blood previously? Would the DNA =
profile=20
itself be stored so it could be examined for such a peak? Is it possible =
that=20
the blood of any of the species referred to earlier would not yield the =
extra=20
peak?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If the samples still exist it could be =
retested.=20
Would amylase activity still be detectable in a mixed stain after more =
than=20
three years if the saliva was on top of the blood staining? Would the =
saliva be=20
sealed in by the animal blood if it was below the bloodstaining? Would =
it be=20
worth conducting a Phadebas Test on the sample after this length of =
time? From=20
the information at my disposal this was not done at the time. I have =
also been=20
informed that there is a test called Precipitin that detects animal =
blood. Would=20
this be worth conducting now? Are there any drawbacks with either the =
Phadebas=20
Test or Precipitin Test? Thank you for your attention in this=20
matter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Best Wishes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Satish</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C1BA16.4EF35020--


From daemon Wed Feb 20 12:58:43 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1KHwhh06355
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:58:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1KHwgM06350
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:58:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.47])
          by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020220175838.KNJM11755.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>;
          Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:58:38 +0000
Message-ID: <3C73E4BD.D0C3A97F@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:03:08 -0500
From: "E. J. Wagner" <EJWagner@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Forens <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Forensic Forum at SUNY Stony Brook NY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 550

List members:

I'm delighted to tell you that the 2nd Forensic Forum will take place at
State University at Stony Brook NY on Saturday evening, March 9, 2002.

The title this year is "Notes from the Devil; Dangerous Documents and
the Crime Laboratory". Questioned Document Examiner Jeff Luber of the
Suffolk County Crime Lab will be presenting with me.
Complete information is on my website listed below. Just click on
Forensic Forum 2.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.

EJ
-- 
on the World Wide Web at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/

From daemon Wed Feb 20 19:56:03 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1L0u3C13476
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:56:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ruby.co.clark.nv.us (ruby.co.clark.nv.us [198.200.132.17])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1L0u2M13471
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:56:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ruby.co.clark.nv.us; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA02257; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:56:02 -0800
Received: from conversion.co.clark.nv.us by mailhub.co.clark.nv.us
 (PMDF V6.0-24 #46719) id <01KEI666FO0G002UDI@mailhub.co.clark.nv.us> for
 forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us
 (ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us [172.20.100.85]) by mailhub.co.clark.nv.us
 (PMDF V6.0-24 #46719) with SMTP id <01KEI666AEPK0046RA@mailhub.co.clark.nv.us>
 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from GWGATE-Message_Server by ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us	with
 Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:55:55 -0800
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:55:59 -0800
From: Torrey Johnson <T4820J@ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us>
Subject: FA/TM Examiner Position in Las Vegas, NV
To: "<forens"<@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Message-Id: <sc73d51b.062@ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_AelDdE40+KcBxSSjnjV+Og)"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2864


--Boundary_(ID_AelDdE40+KcBxSSjnjV+Og)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

FIREARMS/TOOLMARK EXAMINER

"The LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT is recruiting for FIREARMS/TOOLMARK EXAMINER,  annual salary range is $52,035 to $77,029.  Requirements for this position are a Bachelor's degree in criminalistics, forensic science, chemistry, biology or related field and 3 years of responsible research and practical experience working in a forensic laboratory as a professional firearms/toolmark examiner.  To apply, please obtain an Employment and Supplemental Application by contacting the LVMPD Personnel Bureau, 101 E. Convention Center Drive, Suite P200, Las Vegas, NV 89109, (702) 229-3497, M-F, 8:00a - 4:00p.  The deadline for applying is Friday, May 31, 2002, or when a sufficient number of qualified individuals have submitted application packages.  The LVMPD offers excellent benefits.  For additional information, please visit www. lvmpd.com.  

The LVMPD also anticipates recruiting for the position of Latent Print Examiner in the near future.  Look out for information on this position as it becomes available."

--Boundary_(ID_AelDdE40+KcBxSSjnjV+Og)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 8pt MS Sans Serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px">
<DIV><FONT size=1>FIREARMS/TOOLMARK EXAMINER</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>"The LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT is recruiting 
for FIREARMS/TOOLMARK EXAMINER,&nbsp; annual salary range is $52,035 to 
$77,029.&nbsp; Requirements for this position are a Bachelor&#8217;s degree in 
criminalistics, forensic science, chemistry, biology or related field and 3 
years of responsible research and practical experience working in a forensic 
laboratory as a professional firearms/toolmark examiner.&nbsp; To apply, please 
obtain an Employment and Supplemental Application by contacting the LVMPD 
Personnel Bureau, 101 E. Convention Center Drive, Suite P200, Las Vegas, NV 
89109, (702) 229-3497, M-F, 8:00a - 4:00p.&nbsp; The deadline for applying is 
Friday, May 31, 2002, or when a sufficient number of qualified individuals have 
submitted application packages.&nbsp; The LVMPD offers excellent benefits.&nbsp; 
For additional information, please visit www. lvmpd.com.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>The LVMPD also anticipates recruiting for the position of 
Latent Print Examiner in the near future.&nbsp; Look out for information on this 
position as it becomes available."</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_AelDdE40+KcBxSSjnjV+Og)--

From daemon Thu Feb 21 11:21:21 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1LGLLJ25587
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:21:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LGLKM25582
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:21:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from user-uini762.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.28.194] helo=cp.calicopress.com)
	by smtp6.mindspring.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 16dvyA-0007va-00
	for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:21:19 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221081032.022d2240@pop.business.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:19:04 -0800
To: Forens <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: John Houde <john@calicopress.com>
Subject: Wall Street Journal article
In-Reply-To: <3C73E4BD.D0C3A97F@worldnet.att.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1088


>A couple of months ago, a reporter from the WSJ contacted me and asked 
>several questions regarding how forensic science seems to be gaining 
>popularity among high school teachers. My quoted response along with at 
>least one other member of this list (Brent Turvey) appeared on the front 
>page of Tuesday's WSJ (Feb 19, 2002).

I didn't know that the thrust of the article would be that perhaps the 
subject matter is inappropriate for very young children, and further, 
that  perhaps some teachers might trivialize forensic science as a 
discipline. OK, but nowhere in the article did I see mention of the need 
for recruiting the next generation of forensic scientists as a 
justification for presenting this material at least in high school. I tend 
to agree that jr high and earlier is too young for concepts such as rape 
with a foreign object. I think I was fairly and accurately quoted, but 
somehow the reporter thought I was a retired "detective." Seems journalists 
have a mental block against the term criminalist!
Oh well, any thoughts from the multitudes?
John Houde



From daemon Thu Feb 21 12:11:02 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1LHB2L26964
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:11:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (mail.webster.k12.mo.us [204.184.92.241])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LHApM26948
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:10:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (204.184.92.1) by 
 mail.webster.k12.mo.us with ESMTP (Eudora
 Internet Mail Server 3.0.3); Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:09:57 -0600
Message-ID: <3C752759.51B5DA3E@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:59:05 -0800
From: jeanette hencken <hencken.jeanette@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Houde <john@calicopress.com>
CC: Forens <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221081032.022d2240@pop.business.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1648

I hope a few a you got to see my attempt to defend those teachers who teach
forensic science.  CNN interviewed me live on Feb. 20th as a response to this
article. ( I really fell the author of the article deliberately searched out
and slanted her examples to make it sound as bad as possible.)  I really never
had time to talk about the science in the class due to the need to defend
myself.  I think I made my point as well as time allowed, though.

Jeanette Hencken
Forensic Science Teacher
Webster Groves High School

John Houde wrote:

> >A couple of months ago, a reporter from the WSJ contacted me and asked
> >several questions regarding how forensic science seems to be gaining
> >popularity among high school teachers. My quoted response along with at
> >least one other member of this list (Brent Turvey) appeared on the front
> >page of Tuesday's WSJ (Feb 19, 2002).
>
> I didn't know that the thrust of the article would be that perhaps the
> subject matter is inappropriate for very young children, and further,
> that  perhaps some teachers might trivialize forensic science as a
> discipline. OK, but nowhere in the article did I see mention of the need
> for recruiting the next generation of forensic scientists as a
> justification for presenting this material at least in high school. I tend
> to agree that jr high and earlier is too young for concepts such as rape
> with a foreign object. I think I was fairly and accurately quoted, but
> somehow the reporter thought I was a retired "detective." Seems journalists
> have a mental block against the term criminalist!
> Oh well, any thoughts from the multitudes?
> John Houde


From daemon Thu Feb 21 17:05:13 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1LM5Dc02113
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:05:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1LM5CM02108
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:05:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.82])
          by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020221220510.BKSW6916.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>;
          Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:05:10 +0000
Message-ID: <3C757004.D6205D74@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:09:12 -0500
From: "E. J. Wagner" <EJWagner@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jeanette hencken <hencken.jeanette@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
CC: John Houde <john@calicopress.com>, Forens <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221081032.022d2240@pop.business.earthlink.net> <3C752759.51B5DA3E@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2671

Good for you Jeanette. I just re-read the transcript of the CNN interview.
I thought  Cafferty's opening line about " what do you hope to
accomplish introducing HS students to blood spatter" was baiting and of
the "when will you stop beating your wife" school of journalism.

I just wrote to CNN to tell them that, and to point out that since CNN
presents crime news in detail, and televised Dr Henry Lee's  complete
lecture on blood spatter during the OJ trial, it is odd for them to
object to high school students learning to evaluate this sort of thing objectively.

John,

Ihaven't seen the WSJ yet.but who on earth is telling folks to teach JHS
 students about rape with foreign objects? I couldn't find anything like
that in your book.
Anyway, its a miracle if you can get kids away from the pristine
delights of MTV long enough to teach them anything.

EJ

jeanette hencken wrote:
> 
> I hope a few a you got to see my attempt to defend those teachers who teach
> forensic science.  CNN interviewed me live on Feb. 20th as a response to this
> article. ( I really fell the author of the article deliberately searched out
> and slanted her examples to make it sound as bad as possible.)  I really never
> had time to talk about the science in the class due to the need to defend
> myself.  I think I made my point as well as time allowed, though.
> 
> Jeanette Hencken
> Forensic Science Teacher
> Webster Groves High School
> 
> John Houde wrote:
> 
> > >A couple of months ago, a reporter from the WSJ contacted me and asked
> > >several questions regarding how forensic science seems to be gaining
> > >popularity among high school teachers. My quoted response along with at
> > >least one other member of this list (Brent Turvey) appeared on the front
> > >page of Tuesday's WSJ (Feb 19, 2002).
> >
> > I didn't know that the thrust of the article would be that perhaps the
> > subject matter is inappropriate for very young children, and further,
> > that  perhaps some teachers might trivialize forensic science as a
> > discipline. OK, but nowhere in the article did I see mention of the need
> > for recruiting the next generation of forensic scientists as a
> > justification for presenting this material at least in high school. I tend
> > to agree that jr high and earlier is too young for concepts such as rape
> > with a foreign object. I think I was fairly and accurately quoted, but
> > somehow the reporter thought I was a retired "detective." Seems journalists
> > have a mental block against the term criminalist!
> > Oh well, any thoughts from the multitudes?
> > John Houde

-- 
on the World Wide Web at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/

From daemon Thu Feb 21 21:04:44 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1M24i905729
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:04:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe40.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.97])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M24hM05724
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:04:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:04:41 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [66.61.68.113]
From: "Shaun Wheeler" <shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221081032.022d2240@pop.business.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:59:12 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Disposition-Notification-To: "Shaun Wheeler" <shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <OE40tzsG06vdGg1fDc50001c7ee@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2002 02:04:41.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A3688B0:01C1BB45]
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 722

It's sad to see that the Wall Street Journal isn't taking investigative
reporting as seriously as they used to, but I guess after Pearl they are
acting out of an abundance of caution.




----- Original Message -----
From: "John Houde" <john@calicopress.com>
To: "Forens" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: Wall Street Journal article


>
> >A couple of months ago, a reporter from the WSJ contacted me and asked
> >several questions regarding how forensic science seems to be gaining
> >popularity among high school teachers. My quoted response along with at
> >least one other member of this list (Brent Turvey) appeared on the front
> >page of Tuesday's WSJ (Feb 19, 2002).
>

From daemon Thu Feb 21 22:44:29 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1M3iTi07057
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:44:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx.seanet.com (mx.seanet.com [199.181.164.10])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M3iSM07052
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:44:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 8sv5f01 (ip-64-38-163-12.dialup.seanet.com [64.38.163.12])
	by mx.seanet.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g1M3iPS04946
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <059d01c1bb53$3a0e9b40$9da32640@8sv5f01>
From: "Bob Kegel" <bobkegel@seanet.com>
To: "Forensic Science List" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020221081032.022d2240@pop.business.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:42:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 534

On Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 8:19 AM, John Houde wrote:

> somehow the reporter thought I was a retired "detective." Seems
journalists
> have a mental block against the term criminalist!

You're fortunate the reporter didn't think you're a retired criminal.

I read the transcript of Jeanette Hencken's interview. I suppose it went as
well as could be expected, considering the reporter thinks ballistics is
"the science of bullets and firearms and ... peculiar fingerprints."

LPO Bob Kegel
Aberdeen Police Dept.
Aberdeen, WA


From daemon Fri Feb 22 00:55:25 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1M5tPA08822
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:55:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns1.inland.net (ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1M5tOM08817
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:55:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from user (iii-pm3-2-2.inland.net [209.85.112.65])
	by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06360;
	Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:54:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "M. Horton" <scitch@inland.net>
To: "'Bob Kegel'" <bobkegel@seanet.com>,
   "'Forensic Science List'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Wall Street Journal article
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:05:34 -0800
Message-ID: <000001c1bb66$f19f6ce0$417055d1@inland.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <059d01c1bb53$3a0e9b40$9da32640@8sv5f01>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2847

The reporter wasn't completely wrong in thinking that some forensic
science is inappropriate at some levels.  I went to a science teachers'
conference once in which a middle school (12-13 year olds) teacher did a
presentation about using forensics in her science classroom. 

She showed us some of the slides that she showed to her classes.  One
was a picture of a man with a knife sticking out of his neck and a
bullet hole in his forehead (I believe this was from a case in San
Diego).  Not only was the content completely inappropriate, but the case
was about using dental imprints from a piece of gum to identify the
suspect.  The pictures were also completely unnecessary.

Another presentation that she did was to drive out to the country and
pick up some "road kill".  She'd put the road kill in the trunk of her
car and drive it to school. She then would place the road kill in the
school parking lot and have students sketch the crime scene.  I think
that there are some health issues there and I know that if I tried this
at my school, I'd have a line of parents waiting outside the principal's
office to complain.  The point of this demonstration was to show how
observant scientists must be.  I think that there are plenty of other,
more appropriate ways to demonstrate this point.
I use my own blood when doing the Kastle-Meyer blood test in chemistry
and I've considered not doing it anymore because of liability in a
lawsuit-happy world (I'm diabetic, so I have lots of blood stained
kleenex available).

I talk about forensics so much in my classes that half of my physics
students want to be forensic scientists and at least 15 of my chemistry
students are doing forensics projects for their "chemistry is
everywhere" project.  Used properly, these activities can be great
motivational activities and wonderful learning experiences.  But used
improperly, they can do more harm than good.

M. Horton
Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair
Perris High School; Perris, CA


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu 
> [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Bob Kegel
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:43 PM
> To: Forensic Science List
> Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 8:19 AM, John Houde wrote:
> 
> > somehow the reporter thought I was a retired "detective." Seems
> journalists
> > have a mental block against the term criminalist!
> 
> You're fortunate the reporter didn't think you're a retired criminal.
> 
> I read the transcript of Jeanette Hencken's interview. I 
> suppose it went as well as could be expected, considering the 
> reporter thinks ballistics is "the science of bullets and 
> firearms and ... peculiar fingerprints."
> 
> LPO Bob Kegel
> Aberdeen Police Dept.
> Aberdeen, WA
> 
> 


From daemon Fri Feb 22 08:41:46 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1MDfk814360
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:41:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (mail.webster.k12.mo.us [204.184.92.241])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MDfiM14355
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:41:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (204.184.92.1) by 
 mail.webster.k12.mo.us with ESMTP (Eudora
 Internet Mail Server 3.0.3); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:40:50 -0600
Message-ID: <3C764779.7CD668CC@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:28:26 -0800
From: jeanette hencken <hencken.jeanette@mail.webster.k12.mo.us>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "M. Horton" <scitch@inland.net>
CC: "'Bob Kegel'" <bobkegel@seanet.com>,
   "'Forensic Science List'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
References: <000001c1bb66$f19f6ce0$417055d1@inland.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3662

Mike:

I agree with the things you've said.  I'd like to have said these very same
things in the interview but I had a 3 minute limit and knew what his
objective was.  Forensic science can be an incredible motivator for
students.  I also have several graduate every year expecting to pursue a
career in some law enforcement or forensic field.  It is a sham e that the
media does not want to give a balanced view of any subject.  There is always
a slant that is their real objective because sensational sells.

Why can't the positive, making a difference side be shown to be
"sensational"?

Jeanette Hencken
Forensic Science  and Physics Teacher
Webster Groves High School
St. Louis, MO

"M. Horton" wrote:

> The reporter wasn't completely wrong in thinking that some forensic
> science is inappropriate at some levels.  I went to a science teachers'
> conference once in which a middle school (12-13 year olds) teacher did a
> presentation about using forensics in her science classroom.
>
> She showed us some of the slides that she showed to her classes.  One
> was a picture of a man with a knife sticking out of his neck and a
> bullet hole in his forehead (I believe this was from a case in San
> Diego).  Not only was the content completely inappropriate, but the case
> was about using dental imprints from a piece of gum to identify the
> suspect.  The pictures were also completely unnecessary.
>
> Another presentation that she did was to drive out to the country and
> pick up some "road kill".  She'd put the road kill in the trunk of her
> car and drive it to school. She then would place the road kill in the
> school parking lot and have students sketch the crime scene.  I think
> that there are some health issues there and I know that if I tried this
> at my school, I'd have a line of parents waiting outside the principal's
> office to complain.  The point of this demonstration was to show how
> observant scientists must be.  I think that there are plenty of other,
> more appropriate ways to demonstrate this point.
> I use my own blood when doing the Kastle-Meyer blood test in chemistry
> and I've considered not doing it anymore because of liability in a
> lawsuit-happy world (I'm diabetic, so I have lots of blood stained
> kleenex available).
>
> I talk about forensics so much in my classes that half of my physics
> students want to be forensic scientists and at least 15 of my chemistry
> students are doing forensics projects for their "chemistry is
> everywhere" project.  Used properly, these activities can be great
> motivational activities and wonderful learning experiences.  But used
> improperly, they can do more harm than good.
>
> M. Horton
> Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair
> Perris High School; Perris, CA
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu
> > [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Bob Kegel
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:43 PM
> > To: Forensic Science List
> > Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal article
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 8:19 AM, John Houde wrote:
> >
> > > somehow the reporter thought I was a retired "detective." Seems
> > journalists
> > > have a mental block against the term criminalist!
> >
> > You're fortunate the reporter didn't think you're a retired criminal.
> >
> > I read the transcript of Jeanette Hencken's interview. I
> > suppose it went as well as could be expected, considering the
> > reporter thinks ballistics is "the science of bullets and
> > firearms and ... peculiar fingerprints."
> >
> > LPO Bob Kegel
> > Aberdeen Police Dept.
> > Aberdeen, WA
> >
> >


From daemon Fri Feb 22 11:34:21 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1MGYL017662
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:34:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pete.uri.edu (RockyPoint.uri.edu [131.128.1.58])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MGYJM17657
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:34:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.132])
	by pete.uri.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1MGVDW28618;
	Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:31:13 -0500
Received: from DIRECTOR ([131.128.32.129])
	by terms.uri.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g1MGVPU14108;
	Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:31:25 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020222113307.00dad328@postoffice.uri.edu>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:33:07 -0500
To: Forens <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>, DUI-DWI@yahoogroups.com
From: Dennis Hilliard <dch@uri.edu>
Subject: drink safe coasters
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1410

Hi,

I am cross-posting this e-mail from the DRE Discussion list. I would be
interested in any experiences anyone on the list has had with this
"coaster". Also if anyone is familiar with the chemistries involved. I will
forward answers to the DRE list (DRE is a Restricted list).

Thanks,

Dennis Hilliard, M.S.
RI State Crime Laboratory

Sender: Drug Recognition Discussion List
<DRUG-RECOGNITION-L@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU>
>From: Matson Chuck <cmatson@radiks.net>
>Subject:      drink safe coasters
>To: DRUG-RECOGNITION-L@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU
>
>    "drink safe coasters" from Drink Safe Technology.
>http://www.drinksafetech.com. The company implies the coasters can detect
>GHB, Rohypnol,Ketamine and other foreign substances or compounds made from
>similar components. From their Web Site "put a drop of your drink into one
>of the white test circles on the coaster, rubbing gently. Wait for
>approximately one minute. If the circle remains white or clear, your drink
>can be safely consumed. However, if the tested area turns red, blue or
>green, it signals that your drink is contaminated and should be discarded.
>It is as simple as that.   Think tactically and stay safe Chuck Matson
>Omaha PD DECP Coord  
>******************************************************************  *  
>http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/drug-recognition-l.html 
>****************************************************************** 

From daemon Fri Feb 22 14:54:35 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1MJsZP21100
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MJsZd21095
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:54:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu:    Non-member submission from
 ["Lakhkar, Bharat" <bnl1@westchestergov.com>] (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202221454220.21081-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2793

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:49:18 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu:    Non-member submission from
    ["Lakhkar, Bharat" <bnl1@westchestergov.com>]

>From forens-owner Fri Feb 22 14:49:17 2002
Received: from exch011.westchestergov.com (Cow.westchestergov.com [163.151.0.253] (may be forged))
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1MJnHM20975
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:49:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by exch011.westchestergov.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <FJWTZMH6>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:48:59 -0500
Message-ID: <AFC51FFA4729D21188E100A0C9CE018D026AF6@exch011.westchestergov.com>
From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" <bnl1@westchestergov.com>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject:
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:48:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

This question is for those list members who regularly use "t" tests to
compare two methods. I am specifically referring to pairs test, but this
question will also apply to other similar tests. The steps followed in such
a test will be:

1. Get quantitative results for say 15 samples by the two methods A and B.

2. Calculate the individual differences for all the samples, the mean
difference, and the s.d. of the differences.

3. Calculate the value of the " t " statistic ( = ( mean difference) / (
std. dev./ no. of samples ) )

4. Compare the value of this statistic to the critical value from the " t"
table for the appropriate d.f. and confidence level ( 1 - a ).( This is
    a two sided test ).

5. If the value of the statistic is less than the critical value, you have
proven that there is not a statistically significant difference at the above
confidence level.


    The problem that I face is when the statistic is larger than the
critical value. If you look at the " t " tables the values keep on
increasing as you go to higher confidence levels. This would mean that if
you could not conclude nonexistence of significant difference at 95%
confidence level, you can reach that conclusion at 99% confidence level. On
the face of it this seems absurd. The high value of the statistic is really
indicative of higher difference between the two methods ( for similar std.
deviations ).

I am sure I am missing something obvious. However since I am only a
practitioner of statistical tests and not a statistician I would like to
hear from the list members who have more familiarity with this issue or a
background in statistics.

Bharat Lakhkar

Quality Assurance Manager
Westchester County Toxicological and Fornsic Science Services


From daemon Sat Feb 23 16:12:05 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1NLC5B06314
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 16:12:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1NLC3M06309
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 16:12:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oemcomputer ([62.253.82.163]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP
          id <20020223211200.PGSH22101.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:12:00 +0000
Message-ID: <001201c1bcae$9559b460$a352fd3e@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <Satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" <satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Research into Transfer of Saliva
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:10:53 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C1BCAE.93F198E0"
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 6880

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C1BCAE.93F198E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I wonder if anyone can help me. I have been informed that saliva is an =
easily transferable body fluid to the point that in the course of face =
to face conversation one would expect to find saliva transfer onto the =
outer clothing of the person you are talking to and vice versa. It =
strikes me that this would mean that there would be nothing unusual in =
finding saliva at crime scenes on outer clothing. Would the same thing =
occur regarding exposed skin such as the face and hands just from =
ordinary conversation and if so, what quantity of saliva/DNA would be =
expected?

Given that full DNA profiles can be obtained from very small quantities =
of any body material including saliva it would potentially be easy to =
obtain DNA profiles from a crime scene. I wonder if it is possible to =
distinguish between the following possibilities for obtaining a full DNA =
profile from a man's saliva found on a woman's breast:

1) Direct contact between man's mouth and woman's breast through licking =
or sucking said breast.
2) Secondary transfer: i.e. man kisses woman on cheek. Woman later wipes =
face with hand and adjusts breast back into bra with same hand.

I have been informed that there are certain indicators of quantity of =
saliva from stains. Could anyone assist by informing me what possible =
indicators of quantity there would be and whether variables are taken =
into account. For example, I understand that people shed varying amounts =
of DNA. Would this then mean that in considering the two possibilities =
mentioned above the shedding quantity of suspects would have to be =
considered? If so, how could this be measured to assist in the =
evaluation of the possibilities referred to above? Does it also consider =
other variables such as whether people receive and retain saliva on =
their bodies, or even different parts of the same body in varying =
quantities? Are there other variables that could affect the production =
and reception/retention of saliva?

Does anyone know if there is any published data on this subject that =
could help to distinguish between the two possibilities of direct =
contact or secondary transfer? Has anyone conducted research into this =
subject? Has anyone conducted any research tests into this to compile =
data on the subject that would allow firm conclusions to be drawn based =
on such research? It seems to me that in the absence of such research =
the scope for mistaken conclusions to be reached would exist.=20

I am simply trying to consider ways of eliminating the variables. That =
may be seeking perfection in an imperfect world, but would it not be =
possible to conduct research that could identify and hopefully eliminate =
some if not all of them, thereby delivering improvements if not =
perfection? That in turn would result in a firmer evidential basis for =
conclusions drawn in actual cases. Does this make sense?

Best Wishes

Satish


------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C1BCAE.93F198E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV>I wonder if anyone can help me. I have been informed that saliva is =
an=20
easily transferable body fluid to the point that in the course of face =
to face=20
conversation one would expect to find saliva transfer onto the outer =
clothing of=20
the person you are talking to and vice versa. It strikes me that this =
would mean=20
that there would be nothing unusual in finding saliva at crime scenes on =
outer=20
clothing. Would the same thing occur regarding exposed skin such as the =
face and=20
hands just from ordinary conversation and if so, what quantity of =
saliva/DNA=20
would be expected?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Given that full DNA profiles can be obtained from very small =
quantities of=20
any body material including saliva it would potentially be easy to =
obtain DNA=20
profiles from a crime scene. I wonder if it is possible to distinguish =
between=20
the following possibilities for obtaining a full DNA profile from a =
man's saliva=20
found on a woman's breast:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>1) Direct contact between man's mouth and woman's breast through =
licking or=20
sucking said breast.</DIV>
<DIV>2) Secondary transfer: i.e. man kisses woman on cheek. Woman later =
wipes=20
face with hand and adjusts breast back&nbsp;into bra with same =
hand.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I have been informed that there are certain indicators of quantity =
of=20
saliva from stains. Could anyone assist by informing me what possible =
indicators=20
of quantity there would be and whether variables are taken into account. =
For=20
example, I understand that people shed varying amounts of DNA. Would =
this then=20
mean that in considering the two possibilities mentioned above the =
shedding=20
quantity of suspects would have to be considered? If so, how could this =
be=20
measured to assist in the evaluation of the possibilities referred to =
above?=20
Does it also consider other variables such as whether people receive and =
retain=20
saliva on their bodies, or even different parts of the same body in =
varying=20
quantities? Are there other variables that could affect the production =
and=20
reception/retention of saliva?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Does anyone know if there is any published data on this subject =
that could=20
help to distinguish between the two possibilities of direct contact or =
secondary=20
transfer? Has anyone conducted research into this subject? Has anyone =
conducted=20
any research tests into this to compile data on the subject that would =
allow=20
firm conclusions to be drawn based on such research? It seems to me that =
in the=20
absence of such research the scope for mistaken conclusions to be =
reached would=20
exist. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I am simply trying to consider ways of eliminating the variables. =
That may=20
be seeking perfection in an imperfect world, but would it not be =
possible to=20
conduct research that could identify and hopefully eliminate some if not =
all of=20
them, thereby delivering improvements if not perfection? That in turn =
would=20
result in a firmer evidential basis for conclusions drawn in actual =
cases. Does=20
this make sense?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Best Wishes</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Satish</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C1BCAE.93F198E0--


From daemon Sun Feb 24 14:25:42 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1OJPgT17672
	for forens-outgoing; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:25:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1OJPfM17667
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:25:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (as3-3-97.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.195.147])
	by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g1OJPSt17915;
	Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020219080633.00c29ef0@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:12:42 -0800
To: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Charles Brenner <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Source attribution
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
In-Reply-To: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A0243CE44@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.
 us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_76049584==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 8564

--=====================_76049584==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Earlier Robert Parsons mentioned the logic problem
>  A witness sees a crime involving a taxi. The witness says that the taxi 
> is blue. It is known from previous research that witnesses report "blue" 
> for 80% of blue cars and for 20% of green cars.
> >
>  The police also know that 85% of the taxis are blue, the other 15% being 
> green. What is the probability that a blue taxi was involved in the crime?

and in my recapitulation I added:       from the point of view of the 
police, that is.

to suggest two ideas:
1. Probability is always from a point of view. A probability describes not 
the physical world, but rather is a summary of some set of information.
2. If we later want to analogize the puzzle to the situation where DNA 
evidence is presented to a jury, the analogy of the fact here known to the 
police, that  taxi's are 85%:15% blue (the "prior odds"), will be a jury's 
estimate of "prior odds" about the crime (i.e. the jury's estimate of the 
suspect's guilt, prior to hearing the DNA evidence). That estimate is, 
necessarily, exclusively the jury's.

> From anyone's point of view.   We could of course question how the police 
> "know" the accuracy of color reporting and how the percentage make-up of 
> the city's blue and green car population was determined, but the problem 
> assumes the statistics reported are accurate for illustrative 
> purposes.  That being a given, I don't see how "point of view" is a 
> variable.  Can you explain?

I agree that for purposes of the logic puzzle we all share the police's 
point of view.

>both analysis eventually come to the point that there are 68 chances the 
>taxi is blue for every 3 chances it is green. (Both analysis then continue 
>to convert this information to a probability, but I suggest  we stop here.)
>
>RP: Was there something wrong with the conversions, or am I 
>misinterpreting your comment?

Nothing wrong. Just needless extra complexity.

> >Stripping away all explanations, the difference between the two 
> approaches comes down to the order of performing arithmetic

> >The "Bayesian" solution first  [divides] then multiplies.
> >
> >The "contingency" solution first multiplies, then divides.
> >
> >Not a dime's worth of difference.
>
>RP: Not in the result, of course not; both methods are valid so the result 
>is the same.  I already granted that.

You seem to be saying that my pointing out the nature of the difference 
adds nothing. I am disappointed! I hoped it would lead you to suspect that 
understanding the "Bayesian" approach may involve no more than a change in 
perspective compared to the "contingency" solution, rather than requiring 
the addition of advanced or convoluted "statistics".

>  But how about in the understanding of the jury? Given that attorneys 
> will not allow a "stripping away of all explanations" in court and will 
> demand an explanation of how the numbers were determined, which 
> explanation given will be more easily understood by the average juror?

Explain mathematical derivations to a jury? Surely, that is not quite the 
point.

>   Is there a simpler way to explain the Bayesian derivation?

I hope the jury will be satisfied if the expert witness can explain what 
the result means, without worrying how to get there. The experts themselves 
would like to understand the basis of the result, and ideally in a simple 
way. But I think people vary in the way they learn, and even the route to a 
simple understanding is not necessarily a simple explanation. As Euclid 
said, there is no royal road to learning mathematics.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics etc.
http://dna-view.com 
--=====================_76049584==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Earlier Robert Parsons mentioned the logic problem<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>&nbsp;A witness sees a crime
involving a taxi. The witness says that the taxi is blue. It is known
from</font> <font size=2>previous research that witnesses report
&quot;blue&quot; for 80% of blue cars and for 20% of green cars.</font>
<br>
<font size=2>&gt;</font> <br>
<font size=2>&nbsp;The police also know that 85% of the taxis are blue,
the other 15% being green. What is the probability that a blue</font>
<font size=2>taxi was involved in the crime?</font> </blockquote><br>
and in my recapitulation I added:
<font size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from the point of view of the
police, that is.</font> <br>
<br>
to suggest two ideas:<br>
1. Probability is always from a point of view. A probability describes
not the physical world, but rather is a summary of some set of
information. <br>
2. If we later want to analogize the puzzle to the situation where DNA
evidence is presented to a jury, the analogy of the fact here known to
the police, that&nbsp; taxi's are 85%:15% blue (the &quot;prior
odds&quot;), will be a jury's estimate of &quot;prior odds&quot; about
the crime (i.e. the jury's estimate of the suspect's guilt, prior to
hearing the DNA evidence). That estimate is, necessarily, exclusively the
jury's.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>From anyone's point of
view.&nbsp;&nbsp; We could of course question how the police
&quot;know&quot; the accuracy of color reporting and how the percentage
make-up of the city's blue and green car population was determined, but
the problem assumes the statistics reported are accurate for illustrative
purposes.&nbsp; That being a given, I don't see how &quot;point of
view&quot; is a variable.&nbsp; Can you 
explain?</font></blockquote><br>
I agree that for purposes of the logic puzzle we all share the police's
point of view.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>both analysis eventually come to
the point that there are 68 chances the taxi is blue for every 3 chances
it is green. (Both analysis then continue to convert this information to
a probability, but I suggest&nbsp; we stop here.)</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>RP: Was there something wrong with the conversions, or am I
misinterpreting your comment?</font> </blockquote><br>
Nothing wrong. Just needless extra complexity.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>&gt;Stripping away all
explanations, the difference between the two approaches comes down to the
order of performing arithmetic</font></blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>&gt;The &quot;Bayesian&quot;
solution first&nbsp; [divides] then multiplies.</font><br>
<font size=2>&gt;</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt;The &quot;contingency&quot; solution first multiplies,
then divides.</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt;</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt;Not a dime's worth of difference.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>RP: Not in the result, of course not; both methods are valid
so the result is the same.&nbsp; I already granted that.
</font></blockquote><br>
You seem to be saying that my pointing out the nature of the difference
adds nothing. I am disappointed! I hoped it would lead you to suspect
that understanding the &quot;Bayesian&quot; approach may involve no more
than a change in perspective compared to the &quot;contingency&quot;
solution, rather than requiring the addition of advanced or convoluted
&quot;statistics&quot;.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>&nbsp;But how about in the
understanding of the jury? Given that attorneys will not allow a
&quot;stripping away of all explanations&quot; in court and will demand
an explanation of how the numbers were determined, which explanation
given will be more easily understood by the average
juror?</font></blockquote><br>
Explain mathematical derivations to a jury? Surely, that is not quite the
point.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>&nbsp; Is there a simpler way to
explain the Bayesian derivation?</font></blockquote><br>
I hope the jury will be satisfied if the expert witness can explain what
the result means, without worrying how to get there. The experts
themselves would like to understand the basis of the result, and ideally
in a simple way. But I think people vary in the way they learn, and even
the route to a simple understanding is not necessarily a simple
explanation. As <font size=2>Euclid said, there is no royal road to
learning mathematics. <br>
<br>
Charles Brenner<br>
forensic mathematics etc.<br>
<a href="http://dna-view.com/" eudora="autourl">http://dna-view.</a><a href="http://dna-view.com/" eudora="autourl">com</a>
</font></html>

--=====================_76049584==_.ALT--


From daemon Mon Feb 25 15:39:09 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1PKd9L07221
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:39:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1PKd2M07215
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:39:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Tue Feb 26 09:38:52 2002 +1300
Received: by kscxchg2.esrit.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <D0TW9CVV>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:38:51 +1300
Message-ID: <BD434082AA75D511819C0002A57497151B2208@MASCBDC1>
From: "Walsh, Kevan" <Kevan.Walsh@esr.cri.nz>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: T-tests
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:38:50 +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
Content-Length: 4452

Bharat
I am not a statistician (this gives me an excuse if someone points out that
I've said something statistically incorrect) but I do use such statistical
tests to ASSIST in decision making.  One comment I have firstly relates to
your statement that "If the value of the statistic is less than the critical
value, you have proven that there is not a statistically significant
difference at the above confidence level".  It is a commonly accepted (and
taught) belief that statistics will "prove" something "statistically".  In
the search for hard and fast rules to solve problems or make decisions, we
can latch onto statistical testing as some form of definitive tool because
it has a cut-off or criteria that allows us to decide when something "passes
muster".  However all confidence testing really does is give us some level
of support for or against a particular hypothesis. 

If we are working at the 5% confidence level, is a p value of 0.051 (reject)
really that different from a p value of 0.049 (accept) ?  

To get back to your original question, raising the confidence level (or
criteria or cut-off) from 95% to 99% doesn't increase one's confidence that
the answer is 'more' correct.  
A way I like to look at it, is that if, say, the test statistic equals the
critical value for the 95% level, then on average I'd expect to get the
difference seen between the two sets of data about 5 times every 100 times
(if I were to gather data again and repeat the test many times).  So you'd
expect to "wrongly reject" about 5% of the time.
If we obtained a result equal to the critical value for the 99% level, then
on average I'd expect to get the difference seen between the two sets of
data about once every 100 times.  So you'd expect to "wrongly reject" about
1% of the time.  However this indicates that the difference between the two
sets of data was a little more unusual and therefore "more significantly
different", or "less significantly the same".

This leads onto a discussion of Type I and Type II errors which relate to
either wrongly rejecting data that is actually the same, or wrongly
accepting data that is actually different.

For those who want to clarify this issue using the gospel from real
statisticians, I would recommend, for example, "Chance Encounters" by Wild &
Seber, John Wiley & Sons (eg. p390)  But be warned - the authors try to
tempt the reader to the "dark side" with the possibility that using Bayesian
inference may assist in decision-making!

Kevan Walsh
ESR
Private Bag 92021
Auckland 
NEW ZEALAND
Ph    #64-9-8153903
Fax  #64-9- 8496046
email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz

> This question is for those list members who regularly use "t" tests to
> compare two methods. I am specifically referring to pairs test, but this
> question will also apply to other similar tests. The steps followed in
> such
> a test will be:
> 
> 1. Get quantitative results for say 15 samples by the two methods A and B.
> 
> 2. Calculate the individual differences for all the samples, the mean
> difference, and the s.d. of the differences.
> 
> 3. Calculate the value of the " t " statistic ( = ( mean difference) / (
> std. dev./ no. of samples ) )
> 
> 4. Compare the value of this statistic to the critical value from the " t"
> table for the appropriate d.f. and confidence level ( 1 - a ).( This is
>     a two sided test ).
> 
> 5. If the value of the statistic is less than the critical value, you have
> proven that there is not a statistically significant difference at the
> above
> confidence level.
> 
> 
>     The problem that I face is when the statistic is larger than the
> critical value. If you look at the " t " tables the values keep on
> increasing as you go to higher confidence levels. This would mean that if
> you could not conclude nonexistence of significant difference at 95%
> confidence level, you can reach that conclusion at 99% confidence level.
> On
> the face of it this seems absurd. The high value of the statistic is
> really
> indicative of higher difference between the two methods ( for similar std.
> deviations ).
> 
> I am sure I am missing something obvious. However since I am only a
> practitioner of statistical tests and not a statistician I would like to
> hear from the list members who have more familiarity with this issue or a
> background in statistics.
> 
> Bharat Lakhkar
> 
> Quality Assurance Manager
> Westchester County Toxicological and Fornsic Science Services
> 

From daemon Tue Feb 26 20:39:06 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1R1d6t11343
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:39:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web14205.mail.yahoo.com (web14205.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.151])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1R1d4M11338
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:39:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20020227013905.17843.qmail@web14205.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.48.41.213] by web14205.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:39:05 PST
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:39:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Tamara Leher <tamara_leher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Chico Forensic Conference - Update
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1022

Greetings

As the time for the Fourth Annual Forensic Conference
at CSU, Chico approaches, we wanted to make sure that
everyone continues to stay informed.  

We have had some changes.  To get the most current
information regarding the conference, please go to our
website that is now up and running:

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/Forensics

Please check back at the website next week for the
schedule of speakers and their particular talks.

March 9th is open to everyone and is free (donations
accepted), however, at this time the events on the 8th
and 10th are only open to students currently enrolled
at CSU, Chico.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
us via e-mail at chico4n6@yahoo.com
or at 530-898-4029.

We apologize to those of you who may receive this
message more than once.

Thank  you

Ben Figura
Mitch Keur
Tamara Leher
Carolyn Orbann


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

From daemon Wed Feb 27 09:22:37 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1REMbo22536
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:22:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1REMaI22528
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:22:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202270922110.22519-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 2852

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" <bnl1@westchestergov.com>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Suspects found only through database searches
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:00:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650"

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The NRC had recommended in their report that if a suspect is located purely
through a search of a database the alleles used in this search should be
excluded while generating the final probability of a randomly chosen person
having the same profile as the suspect. In their next report they had
recommended arriving at the probability considering all the alleles but
multiplying by the size of the database.

I am not sure if these recommendations are being followed by FBI, CODIS or
all the states using CODIS or local databases. Can some of the members who
are more knowledgable in this issue throw more light on this issue?

Bharat Lakhkar


------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=730214912-27022002>The
NRC had recommended in their report that if a suspect is located purely through
a search of a database the alleles used in this search should be excluded while
generating the final probability of a randomly chosen person having the same
profile as the suspect. In their next report they had recommended arriving at
the probability considering all the alleles but multiplying by the size of the
database.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=730214912-27022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=730214912-27022002>I am
not sure if these recommendations are being followed by FBI, CODIS or all the
states using CODIS or local databases. Can some of the members who are more
knowledgable in this issue throw more light on this issue?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=730214912-27022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=730214912-27022002>Bharat
Lakhkar</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=730214912-27022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650--


From daemon Wed Feb 27 22:56:41 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1S3ufh08569
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:56:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f153.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.153])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1S3ueM08564
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:56:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:56:38 -0800
Received: from 207.73.72.212 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:56:38 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [207.73.72.212]
From: "Kelly Esslinger" <kjessling@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: DNA & soil
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:56:38 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Message-ID: <F153yp8ARf3sllNY30k00001118@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2002 03:56:38.0758 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC788860:01C1C00B]
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 430

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>Dear fellow list lurkers,<BR><BR>Can anyone tell me if there is a published paper that discusses the effect of bacteria in the soil on a human DNA sample?&nbsp; The only reference I could find was Schwartz (1991) JFS.<BR>TIA,<BR>Kelly</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag2_etl_EN.asp'>Click Here</a><br></html>

From daemon Thu Feb 28 05:23:25 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SANPU13090
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:23:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au [143.216.236.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SANNM13085
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:23:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
                        by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au OUTGOING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10134
                        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:53:19 +1030 (CST)'
Received: from sagemsbb006.saugov.sa.gov.au (sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au [143.216.59.14])
                        by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au INCOMING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10130
                        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:53:18 +1030 (CST)'
Received: by sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89)
	id <F15LQHYM>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:53:18 +1030
Message-ID: <D34DE75EDDB2D511BFB60008C70D6DD9074342@sagemsg0004.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au>
From: "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" <Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Identifying dog saliva
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:53:18 +1030
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 338

Does anyone know of any forensic labs that:
 
1) perform canine-specific DNA analyses (STRs or sequencing) and/or
 
2) can specifically detect the presence of canine saliva (other than
inferring from a DNA result)? (Does such a test exist?).
 
Thanks in anticipation.
 
 
Andrew Donnelly
Forensic Science Centre
Adelaide, South Australia

From daemon Thu Feb 28 05:31:35 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SAVZH13350
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:31:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SAVYM13345
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:31:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SAWebster@aol.com
	by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id y.143.a43629b (30950)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:31:28 -0500 (EST)
From: SAWebster@aol.com
Message-ID: <143.a43629b.29af6100@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:31:28 EST
Subject: FYI
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_143.a43629b.29af6100_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows XP US sub 51
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 11966


--part1_143.a43629b.29af6100_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

New trial in '83 killing 

Destroyed DNA, other irregularities cited by appeals court 

February 28, 2002BY DAVID ZEMAN
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERThe Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial 
for a man convicted in the 1983 murder of a Battle Creek teenager, citing 
irregularities that included a prosecutor's destruction of DNA evidence that 
might have cleared the man. In a ruling released Wednesday for Thomas Cress, 
the appeals court also rebuked a lower-court judge who earlier refused to 
grant Cress a new trial. The appeals court said the judge abused his 
discretion in discounting the testimony of a suspected serial killer, who 
confessed to the 1983 slaying and to two similar slayings in the Battle Creek 
area. Questions about Cress' 1985 murder conviction were chronicled in a June 
2000 Free Press investigation. The case has since gained national attention, 
with Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin citing it as a reason to pass 
legislation that requires states to preserve DNA evidence while criminal 
defendants are in prison. "We scarcely can imagine a scenario that would 
constitute a more appropriate basis for an order granting a new trial," wrote 
Appeals Judge Hilda Gage, in an opinion joined by Judge E. Thomas Fitzgerald. 
"To refuse defendant a new trial under these circumstances . . . would 
represent a miscarriage of justice." David Moran, Cress' appellate lawyer, 
was ecstatic. "I'm still on cloud nine," he said. Calhoun County Prosecutor 
John Hallacy vowed to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, and 
perhaps beyond. Hallacy would not discuss the ruling. He said, though, that 
it would be difficult to retry the case, if it comes to that, so many years 
later. "Time is always an issue and, if and when it comes to that point, we 
would have to do an evaluation on our ability to retry it," he said. Cress, 
45, has served 17 years of a life sentence in Michigan prisons. He was 
convicted in the rape-murder of 17-year-old Patricia Rosansky, who was 
abducted as she walked to school on Feb. 3, 1983. Her body was later found in 
a wooded ravine near Battle Creek. There was no physical evidence tying Cress 
to the murder. Strands of hair clutched in Rosansky's hand didn't match his, 
and semen on her body could not be linked through DNA back then. At his 1985 
trial, Cress, who functioned at the level of a third-grader, denied killing 
Rosansky and presented an alibi witness who said Cress was helping him 
deliver newspapers at the time Rosansky disappeared. But several prosecution 
witnesses testified Cress later bragged of the killing. The jury believed the 
witnesses and convicted Cress. Several of those witnesses have since 
recanted, been discredited or died. In early 1992, Battle Creek Police 
Detective Dennis Mullen interviewed a convicted murderer in Arkansas named 
Michael Ronning. Ronning, who was from Battle Creek, told the detective that 
he, not Cress, killed Rosansky. He also admitted killing two other young 
women in the Battle Creek area in the early 1980s: Maggie Hume, 20, and Karry 
Evans, 17. Mullen and his commander said they repeatedly informed 
then-Calhoun County Prosecutor Jon Sahli about Ronning's admissions. Despite 
the warnings, Sahli signed an order in May 1992 allowingthe State Police to 
destroy the DNA evidence in the Rosansky case. Sahli, now a prosecutor in 
Saginaw, has said he did not know about Ronning's confession when he signed 
the order. He could not be reached Wednesday. In its ruling, the appeals 
court cast a skeptical eye on Sahli's claim. It noted, for instance, that 
Mullen had documented his conversations with Sahli on several occasions. 
Calling Sahli's actions "deeply disturbing," the appeals court said the 
destruction of DNA evidence created "an inference of the prosecutor's bad 
faith." The court then went further, saying that if the case is retried, the 
trial judge must instruct the jury that if it finds Sahli acted in bad faith 
it must infer that the destroyed evidence would have supported Cress' 
defense. The court then took aim at Calhoun County Circuit Judge Allen 
Garbrecht, who in 1997 granted Cress a new trial, then reversed himself a 
year later. The appeals court said Garbrecht erred when he completely 
discounted Ronning's confessions when experts in the case offered conflicting 
testimony on Ronning's credibility. In any event, the court said, Garbrecht 
should have also considered that Ronning passed a lie-detector test in which 
he admitted to three Michigan murders. Cress, too, passed a polygraph in 
which he denied killing Rosansky. The court also praised Mullen, the 
detective whose career was ultimately ruined by his belief in Cress' 
innocence. That praise was echoed by Moran, Cress' appellate lawyer. "There 
are some real heroes in this case and Dennis Mullen is one of them," Moran 
said. "He was willing to put his career at risk to tell the truth about what 
his investigation revealed. I don't think there is anything better you can 
say about a police officer." Mullen retired in 2000. In a partial dissent, 
Appeals Judge Richard Bandstra agreed that Garbrecht should have considered 
the destruction of the DNA evidence in deciding whether Cress deserved a new 
trial. But Bandstra said he did not believe Garbrecht abused his discretion, 
and believed more hearings were in order, not a new trial.Contact DAVID ZEMAN 
at 248-586-2604 or <A HREF="mailto:zeman@freepress.com">zeman@freepress.com</A>. To read the June 2000 Free Press 
story on this case, go to <A HREF="http://www.freep.com/news/mich/cress14%3Cgfunderbar%3E20000614.htm.">www.freep.com /news/mich/cress14 20000614.htm.</A> 
    





--part1_143.a43629b.29af6100_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=5><B>New trial in '83 killing 
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>Destroyed DNA, other irregularities cited by appeals court 
<BR>
<BR><I>February 28, 2002<B></I>BY DAVID ZEMAN</B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=1 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">The Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a man convicted in the 1983 murder of a Battle Creek teenager, citing irregularities that included a prosecutor's destruction of DNA evidence that might have cleared the man. In a ruling released Wednesday for Thomas Cress, the appeals court also rebuked a lower-court judge who earlier refused to grant Cress a new trial. The appeals court said the judge abused his discretion in discounting the testimony of a suspected serial killer, who confessed to the 1983 slaying and to two similar slayings in the Battle Creek area. Questions about Cress' 1985 murder conviction were chronicled in a June 2000 Free Press investigation. The case has since gained national attention, with Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin citing it as a reason to pass legislation that requires states to preserve DNA evidence while criminal defendants are in prison. "We scarcely can imagine a scenario that would constitute a more appropriate basis for an order granting a new trial," wrote Appeals Judge Hilda Gage, in an opinion joined by Judge E. Thomas Fitzgerald. "To refuse defendant a new trial under these circumstances . . . would represent a miscarriage of justice." David Moran, Cress' appellate lawyer, was ecstatic. "I'm still on cloud nine," he said. Calhoun County Prosecutor John Hallacy vowed to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, and perhaps beyond. Hallacy would not discuss the ruling. He said, though, that it would be difficult to retry the case, if it comes to that, so many years later. "Time is always an issue and, if and when it comes to that point, we would have to do an evaluation on our ability to retry it," he said. Cress, 45, has served 17 years of a life sentence in Michigan prisons. He was convicted in the rape-murder of 17-year-old Patricia Rosansky, who was abducted as she walked to school on Feb. 3, 1983. Her body was later found in a wooded ravine near Battle Creek. There was no physical evidence tying Cress to the murder. Strands of hair clutched in Rosansky's hand didn't match his, and semen on her body could not be linked through DNA back then. At his 1985 trial, Cress, who functioned at the level of a third-grader, denied killing Rosansky and presented an alibi witness who said Cress was helping him deliver newspapers at the time Rosansky disappeared. But several prosecution witnesses testified Cress later bragged of the killing. The jury believed the witnesses and convicted Cress. Several of those witnesses have since recanted, been discredited or died. In early 1992, Battle Creek Police Detective Dennis Mullen interviewed a convicted murderer in Arkansas named Michael Ronning. Ronning, who was from Battle Creek, told the detective that he, not Cress, killed Rosansky. He also admitted killing two other young women in the Battle Creek area in the early 1980s: Maggie Hume, 20, and Karry Evans, 17. Mullen and his commander said they repeatedly informed then-Calhoun County Prosecutor Jon Sahli about Ronning's admissions. Despite the warnings, Sahli signed an order in May 1992 allowingthe State Police to destroy the DNA evidence in the Rosansky case. Sahli, now a prosecutor in Saginaw, has said he did not know about Ronning's confession when he signed the order. He could not be reached Wednesday. In its ruling, the appeals court cast a skeptical eye on Sahli's claim. It noted, for instance, that Mullen had documented his conversations with Sahli on several occasions. Calling Sahli's actions "deeply disturbing," the appeals court said the destruction of DNA evidence created "an inference of the prosecutor's bad faith." The court then went further, saying that if the case is retried, the trial judge must instruct the jury that if it finds Sahli acted in bad faith it must infer that the destroyed evidence would have supported Cress' defense. The court then took aim at Calhoun County Circuit Judge Allen Garbrecht, who in 1997 granted Cress a new trial, then reversed himself a year later. The appeals court said Garbrecht erred when he completely discounted Ronning's confessions when experts in the case offered conflicting testimony on Ronning's credibility. In any event, the court said, Garbrecht should have also considered that Ronning passed a lie-detector test in which he admitted to three Michigan murders. Cress, too, passed a polygraph in which he denied killing Rosansky. The court also praised Mullen, the detective whose career was ultimately ruined by his belief in Cress' innocence. That praise was echoed by Moran, Cress' appellate lawyer. "There are some real heroes in this case and Dennis Mullen is one of them," Moran said. "He was willing to put his career at risk to tell the truth about what his investigation revealed. I don't think there is anything better you can say about a police officer." Mullen retired in 2000. In a partial dissent, Appeals Judge Richard Bandstra agreed that Garbrecht should have considered the destruction of the DNA evidence in deciding whether Cress deserved a new trial. But Bandstra said he did not believe Garbrecht abused his discretion, and believed more hearings were in order, not a new trial.<I>Contact DAVID ZEMAN at 248-586-2604 or <A HREF="mailto:zeman@freepress.com">zeman@freepress.com</A>. To read the June 2000 Free Press story on this case, go to <A HREF="http://www.freep.com/news/mich/cress14%3Cgfunderbar%3E20000614.htm.">www.freep.com /news/mich/cress14 20000614.htm.</A> </I>
<BR>    
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_143.a43629b.29af6100_boundary--

From daemon Thu Feb 28 09:11:44 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SEBif16424
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:11:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from arwshkhn45 (arwshkhn45.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.45])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1SEBhM16419
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:11:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil BY arwshkhn45 ; Thu Feb 28 08:11:30 2002 -0600
Received: by dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <F4LT8MJH>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:11:23 -0600
Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439C7D@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: (was FYI) Copyright law
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:10:58 -0600
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 529

See http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ about copying articles.  Basically, you
CAN use excerpts but not the complete published work, without violating
copyright laws.  A work does not have to have the little copyright symbol;
when it is reduced to permanent form, it IS copyrighted by the author.
Violating this subjects both the poster and the listowner to penalty.
David W. Hause, LTC MC
Chief, Pathology Division
General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital
Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473
ph. 573-596-1509
David.Hause@amedd.army.mil 

From daemon Thu Feb 28 09:25:15 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SEPEh17054
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:25:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from arwshkhn45 (arwshkhn45.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.45])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1SEPDM17049
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:25:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil BY arwshkhn45 ; Thu Feb 28 08:25:04 2002 -0600
Received: by dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <F4M1CK67>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:24:59 -0600
Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439C7F@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: (was FYI) Copyright law
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:24:31 -0600
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1113

Sorry, left something out.  Going to the original Web page, which is
actually
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/cress28_20020228.htm I find the cute notation
"All content © copyright 2002 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished
without permission." which sort of thing is common.  It behooves us, in the
forensic sciences, to conform our own conduct to the law.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:11 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: (was FYI) Copyright law


See http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ about copying articles.  Basically, you
CAN use excerpts but not the complete published work, without violating
copyright laws.  A work does not have to have the little copyright symbol;
when it is reduced to permanent form, it IS copyrighted by the author.
Violating this subjects both the poster and the listowner to penalty.
David W. Hause, LTC MC
Chief, Pathology Division
General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital
Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473
ph. 573-596-1509
David.Hause@amedd.army.mil 

From daemon Thu Feb 28 11:23:40 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SGNdd19844
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:23:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SGNdd19839
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:23:39 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:23:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202281123120.19822-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 1555

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:58:01 +0000
To: "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" <Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au>
Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: Stuart Kind <stuart@forensic.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Identifying dog saliva
References: <D34DE75EDDB2D511BFB60008C70D6DD9074342@sagemsg0004.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au>
In-Reply-To: <D34DE75EDDB2D511BFB60008C70D6DD9074342@sagemsg0004.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 S <w8Yevz5nzbJPzfTnsSfleK9sgK>

In message <D34DE75EDDB2D511BFB60008C70D6DD9074342@sagemsg0004.sagemsmrd
01.sa.gov.au>, Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS) <Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au
> writes
>Does anyone know of any forensic labs that:
>
>1) perform canine-specific DNA analyses (STRs or sequencing) and/or
>
>2) can specifically detect the presence of canine saliva (other than
>inferring from a DNA result)? (Does such a test exist?).
>
>Thanks in anticipation.
>

You could try a traditional precipitin test, possibly by agar diffusion.

I've never had your specific problem but many years ago I identified
cow's milk stains that way.

The assailant had struck the victim over the head with a milk bottle,
which wasn't empty, and the milk soaked into the right forearm of his
jacket. Thus proof of cow protein by precipitin, plus a positive test
for lactose, gave some good evidence.

You never know until you try.



>
>Andrew Donnelly
>Forensic Science Centre
>Adelaide, South Australia

Stuart Kind
http://www.forensic.demon.co.uk


From daemon Thu Feb 28 11:25:49 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SGPnj20022
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:25:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SGPmI20017
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:25:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:25:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: forwarded message (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202281125380.19822-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3628

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:54:46 -0500
From: frank chiafari <frank@rhlab.com>
To: Basten <cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: forwarded message

No, they are not being followed...you would need to test with others systems
besides the codis 13 for the first suggestion, and use haplotype frequencies
rather than multiplying the frequency for each locu together.  Both methods,
as far as I know, are in disrepute.

f


----- Original Message -----
From: "Basten" <cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:22 AM
Subject: forwarded message


> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" <bnl1@westchestergov.com>
> To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
> Subject: Suspects found only through database searches
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:00:47 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650"
>
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The NRC had recommended in their report that if a suspect is located
purely
> through a search of a database the alleles used in this search should be
> excluded while generating the final probability of a randomly chosen
person
> having the same profile as the suspect. In their next report they had
> recommended arriving at the probability considering all the alleles but
> multiplying by the size of the database.
>
> I am not sure if these recommendations are being followed by FBI, CODIS or
> all the states using CODIS or local databases. Can some of the members who
> are more knowledgable in this issue throw more light on this issue?
>
> Bharat Lakhkar
>
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
>
>
> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=730214912-27022002>The
> NRC had recommended in their report that if a suspect is located purely
through
> a search of a database the alleles used in this search should be excluded
while
> generating the final probability of a randomly chosen person having the
same
> profile as the suspect. In their next report they had recommended arriving
at
> the probability considering all the alleles but multiplying by the size of
the
> database.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
> class=730214912-27022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=730214912-27022002>I am
> not sure if these recommendations are being followed by FBI, CODIS or all
the
> states using CODIS or local databases. Can some of the members who are
more
> knowledgable in this issue throw more light on this
issue?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
> class=730214912-27022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=730214912-27022002>Bharat
> Lakhkar</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
> class=730214912-27022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1BF8E.C618A650--
>
>


From daemon Thu Feb 28 14:11:49 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SJBnQ23355
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:11:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f213.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.213])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SJBlM23344
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:11:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:11:45 -0800
Received: from 203.109.250.98 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:11:45 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [203.109.250.98]
From: "Richard Wright" <richwrigau@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: root etching on teeth
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:11:45 +1100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F213A7OIkUqLpHkatd400017484@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2002 19:11:45.0715 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3914830:01C1C08B]
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 491

I have a question about the root etching pattern formed on a tooth surface 
caused by root growth.

Its existence is taken for granted in the taphonomic literature.

Can anybody point me in the direction of a comprehensive illustrated 
account, with discussion of the chemical causative processes.

Richard Wright


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


From daemon Thu Feb 28 14:13:55 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SJDtw23539
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:13:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.93])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SJDsM23534
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:13:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from metsys.demon.co.uk ([158.152.36.125])
	by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 16gVzz-000B1z-0Z
	for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:13:52 +0000
Message-ID: <3C7E8045.7A3CF2E@metsys.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:08:53 +0000
From: John Standen <John@metsys.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: CCR5 gene mutated to delta 32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 304

Genetics is not my strong subject,

Can anyone advise me with regard to the chemokine receptor CCR5 gene
3q21-24 mutation to delta 32, whether this can only be found in nuclear
DNA or in mitochondrial DNA. If nuclear only, can I extract this from
bones and up to what age after burial.

Thanks


John S.

From daemon Thu Feb 28 14:45:43 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SJjh625017
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:45:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SJjgE25012
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:45:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:45:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forwarded messaged
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0202281445150.24987-100000@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 8115

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:23:34 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu:    Non-member submission from
    ["Joel Duncan" <Joel.Duncan@doj.ca.gov>]

>From forens-owner Thu Feb 28 12:23:32 2002
Received: from mail.doj.ca.gov (mail.doj.ca.gov [167.10.5.240])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SHNWM21470
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:23:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gwia.doj.ca.gov ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov
          (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS96ZJ00.MCO for
          <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:23:43 -0800
Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-Message_Server by gwia.doj.ca.gov
	with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:22:24 -0800
Message-Id: <sc7df6d0.074@gwia.doj.ca.gov>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:22:28 -0800
From: "Joel Duncan" <Joel.Duncan@doj.ca.gov>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: (was FYI) Copyright law
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_0D504240.13720321"
X-Guinevere: 1.0.14 ; Department of Justic

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_0D504240.13720321
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David,

Interestingly enough, USC Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107 (http://www.loc.=
gov/copyright/title17/) reads:

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 =
=AF
(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 =
copy-righted 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.

Though I'm not a copyright attorney, I think that reposting an article in =
its entirety for the purpose of critical discussion falls within the =
boundaries of fair use.

Now mindless roboposting with no intention of critical discussion...(cough-=
kjohn-cough!)


Joel Duncan
CA DOJ/BFS Freedom


*******************************************************************
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
*******************************************************************

--=_0D504240.13720321
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 10pt Arial; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>David,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Interestingly enough, USC Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107 (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/">http://www.loc.gov/copyright=
/title17/</A>)=20
reads:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>107.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<?xml:nam=
espace=20
prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 =
and 106A,=20
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in =
copies=20
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for =
purposes=20
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple =
copies=20
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of=20
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular =
case=20
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include=20
=97<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">(1) the purpose and character of the use, =
including=20
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational=
=20
purposes;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">(2) the nature of the copyrighted=20
work;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion =
used in=20
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></=
P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value =
of the=20
copy-righted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself =
bar a=20
finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the =
above=20
factors.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Though I'm not a copyright attorney, I think that reposting an =
article in=20
its entirety for the purpose of critical discussion falls within the =
boundaries=20
of fair use.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Now mindless roboposting with no intention of critical=20
discussion...(cough-kjohn-cough!)</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Joel Duncan</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>CA DOJ/BFS Freedom</FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>

<BR>
*******************************************************************<BR>
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any<BR>
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)<BR>
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any <BR>
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.<BR>
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by<BR>
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.<BR>
*******************************************************************<BR>

--=_0D504240.13720321--


From daemon Thu Feb 28 17:19:22 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SMJLm28126
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:19:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from arwshkhn45 (arwshkhn45.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.45])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1SMJKM28121
	for <Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:19:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil BY arwshkhn45 ; Thu Feb 28 16:19:18 2002 -0600
Received: by dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <F4M1DR73>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:19:17 -0600
Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439C81@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'Joel.Duncan@doj.ca.gov'" <Joel.Duncan@doj.ca.gov>,
   "Forens (E-mail)"
	 <Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: (was FYI) Copyright law
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:18:38 -0600
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 7186

Yeah, I read that first, before my post.  I think posting ALL of an article
except the copyright notice probably goes beyond 'fair use.'  And most of
the writers on a forum I visit frequently seem to think so, also.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:46 PM
From: "Joel Duncan" <Joel.Duncan@doj.ca.gov>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: (was FYI) Copyright law
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_0D504240.13720321"
X-Guinevere: 1.0.14 ; Department of Justic

David,

Interestingly enough, USC Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107 (http://www.loc.=
gov/copyright/title17/) reads:

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 =
=AF
(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 =
copy-righted 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.

Though I'm not a copyright attorney, I think that reposting an article in =
its entirety for the purpose of critical discussion falls within the =
boundaries of fair use.

Now mindless roboposting with no intention of critical discussion...(cough-=
kjohn-cough!)


Joel Duncan
CA DOJ/BFS Freedom


*******************************************************************
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
*******************************************************************

--=_0D504240.13720321
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2712.300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 10pt Arial; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>David,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Interestingly enough, USC Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107 (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/">http://www.loc.gov/copyright=
/title17/</A>)=20
reads:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>107.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<?xml:nam=
espace=20
prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 =
and 106A,=20
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in =
copies=20
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for =
purposes=20
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple =
copies=20
for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of=20
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular =
case=20
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include=20
=97<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">(1) the purpose and character of the use, =
including=20
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational=
=20
purposes;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">(2) the nature of the copyrighted=20
work;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion =
used in=20
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></=
P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value =
of the=20
copy-righted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself =
bar a=20
finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the =
above=20
factors.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Though I'm not a copyright attorney, I think that reposting an =
article in=20
its entirety for the purpose of critical discussion falls within the =
boundaries=20
of fair use.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Now mindless roboposting with no intention of critical=20
discussion...(cough-kjohn-cough!)</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Joel Duncan</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>CA DOJ/BFS Freedom</FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>

<BR>
*******************************************************************<BR>
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any<BR>
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)<BR>
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any <BR>
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.<BR>
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by<BR>
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.<BR>
*******************************************************************<BR>

--=_0D504240.13720321--

From daemon Thu Feb 28 18:39:28 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g1SNdSL29897
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au [143.216.236.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SNdQM29892
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:39:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
                        by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au OUTGOING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19621
                        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:09:24 +1030 (CST)'
Received: from sagemsbb006.saugov.sa.gov.au (sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au [143.216.59.14])
                        by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au INCOMING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19606
                        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:09:23 +1030 (CST)'
Received: by sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89)
	id <F15LQPXH>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:09:23 +1030
Message-ID: <D34DE75EDDB2D511BFB60008C70D6DD9074346@sagemsg0004.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au>
From: "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" <Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Identifying dog saliva
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:09:21 +1030 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 601


Thanks for the replies they have been very useful!

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS) [mailto:Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2002 20:53
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: Identifying dog saliva


Does anyone know of any forensic labs that:
 
1) perform canine-specific DNA analyses (STRs or sequencing) and/or
 
2) can specifically detect the presence of canine saliva (other than
inferring from a DNA result)? (Does such a test exist?).
 
Thanks in anticipation.
 
 
Andrew Donnelly
Forensic Science Centre
Adelaide, South Australia

From daemon Thu Feb 28 20:00:51 2002
Return-Path: <forens-owner>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id g2110pv01212
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:00:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au [143.216.236.20])
	by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2110nM01207
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:00:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
                        by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au OUTGOING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05829
                        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:30:46 +1030 (CST)'
Received: from sagemsbb006.saugov.sa.gov.au (sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au [143.216.59.14])
                        by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au INCOMING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05788
                        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:30:45 +1030 (CST)'
Received: by sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89)
	id <F15LQVFV>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:30:43 +1030
Message-ID: <D34DE75EDDB2D511BFB60008C70D6DD9074349@sagemsg0004.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au>
From: "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" <Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: CCR5 gene mutated to delta 32
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:30:38 +1030 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 841

Hi John,

>From the info you've given it is only found on chromosome 3 ie it is a
nuclear gene. I expect a successful extraction will be technically difficult
- it depends on the decomposition & preservation conditions & what type of
bone you use - however, there are many groups around the world that do
appear to routinely extract DNA from bone.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Standen [mailto:John@metsys.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2002 5:39
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: CCR5 gene mutated to delta 32


Genetics is not my strong subject,

Can anyone advise me with regard to the chemokine receptor CCR5 gene
3q21-24 mutation to delta 32, whether this can only be found in nuclear
DNA or in mitochondrial DNA. If nuclear only, can I extract this from
bones and up to what age after burial.

Thanks


John S.