From daemon Wed Jan 1 16:16:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h01LGjV07662 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:16:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao04.cox.net (fed1mtao04.cox.net [68.6.19.241]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h01LGiY07656 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.west.cox.net ([172.18.180.55]) by fed1mtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20030101211653.HFHX27125.fed1mtao04.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:16:53 -0500 From: "Catherine R. Clark" Reply-To: cclark18@cox.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: polymerized polyacrylamide Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:16:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20030101211653.HFHX27125.fed1mtao04.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 214 Carol, I believe that polyacrylamide may also be used in landscaping, to aid irrigation and prevent soil erosion. Take a look at this website for more info: http://www.hydrosource.com/clpbbs02.htm --Catherine From daemon Wed Jan 1 16:38:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h01Lcmr08306 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:38:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta06ps.bigpond.com (mta06ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.138]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h01LckY08300 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2003 16:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([144.135.25.78]) by mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta06ps May 23 2002 23:53:28) with SMTP id H821GR00.DNG for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 07:38:51 +1000 Received: from nspp-p-144-138-25-95.prem.tmns.net.au ([144.138.25.95]) by PSMAM04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0n 92/11121408); 02 Jan 2003 07:38:51 Message-ID: <000601c2b1de$27d19d60$5f198a90@oemcomputer> From: "Luke P" To: References: <20030101211653.HFHX27125.fed1mtao04.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Subject: List Removal Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:38:37 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Disposition-Notification-To: "Luke P" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 178 Can anyone please tell me how I can remove myself from this mauling list? Someone has accessed my information and added me to this list without my authorisation. Thanks Luke From daemon Thu Jan 2 10:31:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h02FVWO28098 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h02FVTY28085 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1B140CFB; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:05:56 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.253.162]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:05:58 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E1453A6.14290DCA@vsnl.net> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:28:46 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Cc: lorijor@sccoast.net, Cajordan@lexcominc.net Subject: From Anil Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2017 Dear List, I got the following message from a stranger. I thought, someone in this list might help. The name of the person who Emailed me is Lori Jordan. Thanks for your time. ******* I am trying to reach a Senior Toxicologist in Barcelona that had a story in a book called"What the Corpse revealed" By Hugh Miller can you help me find Mr.Jorge Perlosin.I believe he can help me on a case I am working on.If you can help me please email me back at this email Cajordan@lexcominc.net This is my Vacation email and I will be leaving Thursday a.m. Thank You For Your Time, ******* I take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very best new year. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Thu Jan 2 23:07:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0347ZK11762 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 23:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0347UY11756 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 23:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from 1cust39.tnt4.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net ([63.15.137.39] helo=pnoth) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18UJ7Q-0005hL-00; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:07:37 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030102220619.00804aa0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 22:06:19 -0600 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: What the Corpse Revealed Cc: lorijor@sccoast.net, Cajordan@lexcominc.net In-Reply-To: <3E1453A6.14290DCA@vsnl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1798 Dear Dr. Aggrawal, Ms. Jordan, and all, I happen to have a copy of Hugh Miller's "What the Corpse Revealed". From the cover, you would think you're getting a set of case histories of criminal investigations which were cleared by the application of the forensic sciences, but it reads much more like fiction than fact. The name of the toxicologist in the book is in fact "Jorge Pelosio". The section of the book in which he is featured describes the murders of 11 young women in Spain from 1990 through 1992 who had been poisoned with paracetamol (acetaminophen.). Other names in the story are journalist Miguel Barea, Mr. Pelosio's assistant Juan Lafadio, and the poisoner Federico Bascos. I tried quick Google searches on all those names and I found no relevant matches. There were also some details in the story that sound fishy to me. For example, Pelosio and his assistant are easily able to identify a particular brand of beer that all the victims had drunk 2-4 days before their deaths, by the distinctive smell emanating from their livers, during reautopsies 3-25 months after death. Sorry, but I think this book is a work of fiction. Best, Peter Nothnagle At 08:28 PM 1/2/03 +0530, Professor Anil Aggrawal wrote: >Dear List, >I got the following message from a stranger. I thought, someone in this >list might help. The name of the person who Emailed me is Lori Jordan. >Thanks for your time. >******* > > I am trying to reach a Senior Toxicologist in Barcelona that had a >story in a book called"What the Corpse > revealed" By Hugh Miller can you help me find Mr.Jorge Perlosin.I >believe he can help me on a case I am working > on.If you can help me please email me back at this email >Cajordan@lexcominc.net This is my Vacation email and I > will be leaving Thursday a.m. From daemon Fri Jan 3 00:53:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h035r7Y13246 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:53:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.hyp.com.au (mail.hyp.com.au [203.33.34.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h035r5Y13240 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from max (ppp-2026241-159.hyp.com.au [202.62.41.159]) by mail.hyp.com.au (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:54:13 +1100 Message-ID: <001401c2b2ec$6b2359a0$9f293eca@max> From: "lynn " To: Cc: "Peter Nothnagle" , , References: <3.0.6.32.20030102220619.00804aa0@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: What the Corpse Revealed Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:53:14 +1100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2612 Dear Peter et al, I have that book as well and and am wishing I hadn't wasted my money. I hate to be picky but the guy's name is "PeRlosio", Peter. Perhaps if you try another such under that spelling you might find something. I might give it a go and see what happens. It's a very "amateurish" book, don't you think? I also think it's more like fiction than fact. I have to be honest and say I couldn't even bring myself to finish the book. Regards to all for 2003 Lynn Coceani lynn@hyp.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Nothnagle To: Cc: ; Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: What the Corpse Revealed | Dear Dr. Aggrawal, Ms. Jordan, and all, | | I happen to have a copy of Hugh Miller's "What the Corpse Revealed". From | the cover, you would think you're getting a set of case histories of | criminal investigations which were cleared by the application of the | forensic sciences, but it reads much more like fiction than fact. | | The name of the toxicologist in the book is in fact "Jorge Pelosio". The | section of the book in which he is featured describes the murders of 11 | young women in Spain from 1990 through 1992 who had been poisoned with | paracetamol (acetaminophen.). Other names in the story are journalist | Miguel Barea, Mr. Pelosio's assistant Juan Lafadio, and the poisoner | Federico Bascos. I tried quick Google searches on all those names and I | found no relevant matches. There were also some details in the story that | sound fishy to me. For example, Pelosio and his assistant are easily able | to identify a particular brand of beer that all the victims had drunk 2-4 | days before their deaths, by the distinctive smell emanating from their | livers, during reautopsies 3-25 months after death. | | Sorry, but I think this book is a work of fiction. | | Best, | Peter Nothnagle | | | | At 08:28 PM 1/2/03 +0530, Professor Anil Aggrawal wrote: | >Dear List, | >I got the following message from a stranger. I thought, someone in this | >list might help. The name of the person who Emailed me is Lori Jordan. | >Thanks for your time. | >******* | > | > I am trying to reach a Senior Toxicologist in Barcelona that had a | >story in a book called"What the Corpse | > revealed" By Hugh Miller can you help me find Mr.Jorge Perlosin.I | >believe he can help me on a case I am working | > on.If you can help me please email me back at this email | >Cajordan@lexcominc.net This is my Vacation email and I | > will be leaving Thursday a.m. | From daemon Fri Jan 3 09:53:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03ErGD19714 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:53:16 -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 h03ErFY19708 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-134-91.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.134.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h03ErBwf021566; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 06:53:13 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030103064917.00abb400@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 06:52:59 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: DNA analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 564 Check out this article, then answer the short quiz below: http://bioforensics.com/press/genophiler_guardian.html QUIZ for credit: Does this article stand for the proposition that: A. You don't need to have a brain to write a forensic DNA report. B. You don't need to be a forensic scientist to write a DNA report. C.. Forensic DNA analysts are vastly overpaid. HINT: There may be more than one correct answer. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Jan 3 10:05:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03F5CB20403 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:05:12 -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 h03F5BY20393 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:05:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-134-91.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.134.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h03F54wf022547; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:05:10 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030103065554.00a96220@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 07:04:41 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: DNA Reports - Question 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 577 After reading this report, http://bioforensics.com/deliverables/report.html Question #2: This report will A. Be "readable to lawyers, humans and people that want to interpret that evidence" B. Prove that "Genophiler is a system for making DNA evidence clear and understandable." C. Insure a hefty consulting fee for the author of the report to explain it to his now terminally confused client. HINT: There is only one correct answer. Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Jan 3 10:05:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03F5gf20562 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us ([63.225.16.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h03F5eY20555 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:05:40 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: DNA analysis X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 08:05:35 -0700 Message-ID: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE402C0@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DNA analysis Thread-Index: AcKzN+1mZ2bogohMQiivx/ZrP+8/EAAANCuA From: "Jeff Baker" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h03F5fY20556 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1235 List: My favorite part is when the article says that the object is to "produce a report that is readable to lawyers, humans and people that want to interpret that evidence." As far as the quiz, I'd select A & B. "C" would be open to interpretation. By the way, I'm new to the list. Jeff Baker, Arapahoe County, Colorado. I teach an introductory Forensic Science class at the Community College of Aurora (suburb of Denver.) If I can ever be of assistance, please let me know. -Jeff Baker- -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:53 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DNA analysis Check out this article, then answer the short quiz below: http://bioforensics.com/press/genophiler_guardian.html QUIZ for credit: Does this article stand for the proposition that: A. You don't need to have a brain to write a forensic DNA report. B. You don't need to be a forensic scientist to write a DNA report. C.. Forensic DNA analysts are vastly overpaid. HINT: There may be more than one correct answer. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Jan 3 10:16:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03FGQg21233 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.tulsaconnect.com (mail.tulsaconnect.com [65.38.1.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h03FGPY21227 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [65.38.7.26] (HELO price) by mail.tulsaconnect.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.3) with SMTP id 9766134 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 09:15:56 -0600 Message-ID: <00e301c2b33a$fd0232d0$0100a8c0@price> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: DNA analysis Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:15:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1939 This type of approach has been going on in biotechnology for years. If you don't have enough people with sufficient skills to perform the technique or to interpret it then you make equipment that requires little skill, automate as much as you can and fit the method to the available skill level. I saw this happen with electron microscopy when the manufacturers wanted to break in to the hospital market. There were too few who knew how to disassemble, clean, reassemble, align, etc so the manufacturers "dumbed-down" the microscopes. Generally that marketing trend has been followed with other methods, especially when applied to forensics. With megabucks pouring into law enforcement labs and colleges training forensic science version of 90-day wonders to fill the demand I imagine you will see more of this. Forensics is further burdened with attorneys and judges who generally have little, if any, scientific training. So the dumbing-down of people and scientific equipment continues. If you don't believe this then try explaining to a judge or many so-called forensic chemists why benzene can't have a pH of 7.0! (In government lab reports, btw, pH is written PH) JTP -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Friday, January 03, 2003 8:54 AM Subject: DNA analysis Check out this article, then answer the short quiz below: http://bioforensics.com/press/genophiler_guardian.html QUIZ for credit: Does this article stand for the proposition that: A. You don't need to have a brain to write a forensic DNA report. B. You don't need to be a forensic scientist to write a DNA report. C.. Forensic DNA analysts are vastly overpaid. HINT: There may be more than one correct answer. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Jan 3 10:22:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03FM3w21581 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us (hide-117.state.me.us [198.182.163.117]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h03FM2Y21575 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:22:03 -0500 Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C01C6097F@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "Forens-l (E-mail)" Subject: Expert Killed in Gun-Lab Accident Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:06:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 168 To all, I didn't know this gentleman, but the article was forwarded to me and I thought I would pass it along. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jan/01032003/utah/16947.asp From daemon Fri Jan 3 10:39:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03FdiZ22296 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:39:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h03FdhY22290 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:39:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 900314928 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 09:39:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 15:33:58 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Fri Jan 03 07:39:36 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 07:41:48 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 07:41:24 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: DNA analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h03FdhY22291 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 297 Perhaps the Cougars should have used this system and adopted it for their playbook while playing against Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Fri Jan 3 12:34:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h03HYeH25322 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from fourier.sag.gwu.edu (fourier.sag.gwu.edu [128.164.127.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h03HYdY25314 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from fuchs.sag.gwu.edu (fuchs.sag.gwu.edu [192.168.61.126]) by fourier.sag.gwu.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0H8500L02FG0F3@fourier.sag.gwu.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from fermi.nit.gwu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fuchs.sag.gwu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h03HVIY24394 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:31:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from acad1 (acad.gwu.edu [128.164.127.128]) by fermi.nit.gwu.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h03HY93K019327 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:34:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:34:37 -0500 (EST) From: Alexis Turner Subject: Re: What the Corpse Revealed In-reply-to: <001401c2b2ec$6b2359a0$9f293eca@max> X-X-Sender: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3131 A quick look at Amazon.com reveals that the book is non-fiction, but " the names of the characters, places, and certain incidents and photographs... have been changed and/or fictionalized." If the case in question is real, a better Google search might consist of the incidents and specificities of the investigation, rather than the names. --- Alexis Turner On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, lynn wrote: > Dear Peter et al, I have that book as well and and am wishing I hadn't > wasted my money. I hate to be picky but the guy's name is "PeRlosio", > Peter. Perhaps if you try another such under that spelling you might find > something. I might give it a go and see what happens. > > It's a very "amateurish" book, don't you think? I also think it's more like > fiction than fact. I have to be honest and say I couldn't even bring myself > to finish the book. > > Regards to all for 2003 > > Lynn Coceani > lynn@hyp.com.au > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Nothnagle > To: > Cc: ; > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:06 PM > Subject: What the Corpse Revealed > > > | Dear Dr. Aggrawal, Ms. Jordan, and all, > | > | I happen to have a copy of Hugh Miller's "What the Corpse Revealed". From > | the cover, you would think you're getting a set of case histories of > | criminal investigations which were cleared by the application of the > | forensic sciences, but it reads much more like fiction than fact. > | > | The name of the toxicologist in the book is in fact "Jorge Pelosio". The > | section of the book in which he is featured describes the murders of 11 > | young women in Spain from 1990 through 1992 who had been poisoned with > | paracetamol (acetaminophen.). Other names in the story are journalist > | Miguel Barea, Mr. Pelosio's assistant Juan Lafadio, and the poisoner > | Federico Bascos. I tried quick Google searches on all those names and I > | found no relevant matches. There were also some details in the story that > | sound fishy to me. For example, Pelosio and his assistant are easily able > | to identify a particular brand of beer that all the victims had drunk 2-4 > | days before their deaths, by the distinctive smell emanating from their > | livers, during reautopsies 3-25 months after death. > | > | Sorry, but I think this book is a work of fiction. > | > | Best, > | Peter Nothnagle > | > | > | > | At 08:28 PM 1/2/03 +0530, Professor Anil Aggrawal wrote: > | >Dear List, > | >I got the following message from a stranger. I thought, someone in this > | >list might help. The name of the person who Emailed me is Lori Jordan. > | >Thanks for your time. > | >******* > | > > | > I am trying to reach a Senior Toxicologist in Barcelona that had a > | >story in a book called"What the Corpse > | > revealed" By Hugh Miller can you help me find Mr.Jorge Perlosin.I > | >believe he can help me on a case I am working > | > on.If you can help me please email me back at this email > | >Cajordan@lexcominc.net This is my Vacation email and I > | > will be leaving Thursday a.m. > | > > From daemon Fri Jan 3 20:23:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h041NXK04091 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 20:23:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.jobe.net (www.jobe.net [208.18.94.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h041NWY04085 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 20:23:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.174] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.06) id A7932FFA00F6; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 19:23:31 -0600 Message-ID: <010101c2b390$2e30ae40$aebf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: "Forens-l \(E-mail\)" References: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C01C6097F@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> Subject: Re: Expert Killed in Gun-Lab Accident Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:25:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 434 I suppose the paper got it wrong - I have difficulty seeing how this could be simultaneously "a gun expert" and an "accident." Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To all, I didn't know this gentleman, but the article was forwarded to me and I thought I would pass it along. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jan/01032003/utah/16947.asp From daemon Sat Jan 4 05:52:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h04AqLc09184 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.jobe.net (www.jobe.net [208.18.94.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h04AqJY09178 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:52:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.225] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.06) id ACE23A5C0146; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 04:52:18 -0600 Message-ID: <001101c2b3df$a3b62f60$e1bf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: "Forens-l \(E-mail\)" References: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C01C6097F@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> <010101c2b390$2e30ae40$aebf22d0@dwhause> Subject: Re: Expert Killed in Gun-Lab Accident Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 04:54:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1049 Apologies to those I offended. This is what comes of relying on memory of what was read in an article several hours earlier than the post. But my point was that ANYONE who handles firearms, especially hundreds or thousands, should know the safety rules cold. Always assume any firearm is loaded unless you have just checked it personally. Never point one at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Hause" To: "Forens-l (E-mail)" Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Expert Killed in Gun-Lab Accident I suppose the paper got it wrong - I have difficulty seeing how this could be simultaneously "a gun expert" and an "accident." Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To all, I didn't know this gentleman, but the article was forwarded to me and I thought I would pass it along. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jan/01032003/utah/16947.asp From daemon Sat Jan 4 12:40:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h04HeuS13385 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 12:40:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h04HetY13379 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 12:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from 1cust10.tnt3.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net ([63.15.134.10] helo=pnoth) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18UsI0-0001ww-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 09:40:52 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030104113928.0084f5a0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:39:28 -0600 To: "lynn " , From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: What the Corpse Revealed Cc: , In-Reply-To: <001401c2b2ec$6b2359a0$9f293eca@max> References: <3.0.6.32.20030102220619.00804aa0@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1359 At 04:53 PM 1/3/03 +1100, lynn wrote: >Dear Peter et al, I have that book as well and and am wishing I hadn't >wasted my money. I hate to be picky but the guy's name is "PeRlosio"... You are quite correct, and I apologize for my carelessess -- but I stand by my conclusion that the stories in "What the Corpse Revealed" are fictional. Another Google search with the correct name, "Jorge Perlosio", returned only one hit: http://www.alsirat.com/silence/cemtime/time5.html. This is actually a rather interesting page, a timeline of events related to unusual deaths, archeological oddities, and other tidbits of interest to "news of the weird" fans. However, the item concerning "Jorge Perlosio" is taken from the book in question, so it doesn't increase my confidence in his existence. To Celia Jordan, who asked about better books on death investigation (I assume you mean books for general readers, not technical works for professionals), I would recommend the autobiographical books by Sydney Smith, Michael Baden, William Maples, and Cyril Wecht, as well as "Witnesses from the Grave", the biography of Clyde Snow by Christopher Joyce and Eric Stover. Each of these explains the science in a very accessible way, and contains a wealth of fascinating case histories presented in a clear, thoughtful, humanistic manner. All the best, Peter Nothnagle From daemon Sat Jan 4 13:09:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h04I9PA13979 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 13:09:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h04I9NY13973 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 13:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF5040A66; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 23:38:10 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.235.99]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:38:12 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E170675.8922B1B3@vsnl.net> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:36:13 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Some DNA questions Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3503 4 January 2003 Dear List, A very happy new year to all of you. I write this mail to ask a few nagging questions rearding Forensic DNA analysis. They might be very simple to many, but I am only a novice in this subject, only trying to understand this interesting technology. 1. I was reading Butler's book on Forensic DNA analysis. On page 31, he talks about FTA paper as a method for DNA analysis. Can somebody tell me what FTA stands for. I may add, that Butler says that FTA paper was developed at Flinders University in Australia. Does this have anything to do with this? Flinders University in Australia would actually stand for FUA. 2. We are getting lot of unknown bodies for medicolegal postmortems. What is the best tissue to preserve for DNA analysis, and how. I used to keep psoas muscles, but recentnly I have been told, that muscle is not a very good tissue to keep as it is not rich in DNA. I have been told that liver, kidney, or brain would be fine. Also 2-50 hair pulled out of scalp would be okay. Another person told me to simply take out the sternum and send it in a paper bag. Would solve the preservation problem too. Because the scientists in the lab would extract the marrow from the sternum and would get DNA out of it. So the tissue (bone marrow) basically goes "preserved" in its "natural" container (sternum). The method appears simple and straightforward. So many ideas, but all are based on sundry reading and hearsay. I would like to know the really useful tissues and methods to preserve them from the real people in this group. The tissues in our place can take anywhere from one week to one month to reach the DNA laboratory. 3. How do we keep preserve the vaginal swabs in living victims of rape for DNA? These may also take the same amount of time to reach the lab. 4. I was trying to understand the origin of terms such as DYS19 etc. I was told that D stands for DNA, Y for Y-chromosome etc. I was told that "S" actually stands for "single-copy". A "Z" would indicate multiple copies of the sequence in the genome. This is not entirely clear to me. Can somebody explain please? Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Sat Jan 4 17:05:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h04M5tc16690 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:05:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.hyp.com.au (mail.hyp.com.au [203.33.34.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h04M5rY16684 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from max (ppp-2026241-130.hyp.com.au [202.62.41.130]) by mail.hyp.com.au (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 09:06:59 +1100 Message-ID: <004501c2b43d$7b2c49e0$82293eca@max> From: "lynn " To: "Peter Nothnagle" Cc: , , References: <3.0.6.32.20030102220619.00804aa0@mail.earthlink.net> <3.0.6.32.20030104113928.0084f5a0@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: What the Corpse Revealed Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 09:06:05 +1100 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1039 Hello again. I hope you didn't think I was being picky, Peter. I did go and do a search on Perlosio and, of course, got the same result as you. It is an interesting page but doesn't do anything to convince me of his existence either. I don't even know where I got this book but it definitely sounds fictional. Now you might think I'm batty, but there's something about books with large writing (well, larger than is usual in a text book) that makes me suspicious, and this is one of those books! (I told you you would think I'm batty!). I agree with you about "Witnesses from the Grave". It's a very good book and not "overly" technical. Of course, Celia, you may want something extremely technical. Can you let us know and I'll see what else is worth reading and I'm sure Peter will be able to come up with something else (not having met Peter, I'm taking it upon myself to presume he can recommend other books. He certainly sounds like he knows more about the subject than I. Regards, Lynn lynn@hyp.com.au Surf Coast Services From daemon Mon Jan 6 11:18:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h06GI6S15037 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h06GI5Y15031 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:18:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from LeonStein@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id y.a.2aec1f5c (4328); Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:16:30 EST Subject: Toxicology Workshop offered by NFSTC - respond off list and to indicated e-mails To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: jas@nfstc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h06GI6T15037 Content-Length: 7450 The National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) is pleased to announce recruitment is underway for the Toxicology Workshop.  The Toxicology Workshop is a four day course of study for experienced toxicologists. The instructors on the course are Ian Tebbett irt@nfstc.org  and Barry Logan BLogan@wsp.wa.gov Ian will cover analytical techniques, pharmacology and pharmacokinetics and Barry will cover new developments such as GHB and oxycontin. The Workshop is scheduled to run from 9:00 am Tuesday February 25, 2003 to 5:00pm Friday February 28, 2003. The expectation is that if you are selected for the workshop that you will travel to NFSTC on February 24th, 2003 and return home either the evening of February 28 or the morning of March 1. To facilitate the travel arrangements and to register your intention to attend if you are selected, please complete the following information. The critical information is the name of the traveler. It must be the same as your government issued ID. Note submission of this information does not guarantee your selection - it merely speeds up the process. If you are selected we will notify you once we have booked your airfare. If you are unable to attend please do not submit airfare booking information as a place holder as this will create a problem at our end. While every effort will be made to try to accommodate your travel preferences please be aware that sometimes due to circumstances outside our control we may not be able to give you your preference. Airfare Booking Information Required by training@nfstc.org to book your ticket and register your intent to attend. 1.    Name of Traveler (It must match your government issued ID) 2.    Home Airport (Please give me the name of the airport and the City and State) 3.    Date of Departure is 24 February 2003 - Please choose a departure time either evening or afternoon - note if we can not obtain a flight that meets your preference we may have to book you on another flight. Therefore, if you have some critical appointment that precludes you from departing at a particular time, please let us know now. 4.    Date of return is either 28 February 2003 after 7:00pm or 1 March before 12 noon - please choose which option you would prefer. 5.     Do you want a smoking or non-smoking room at the hotel? 6.    Please provide the following information -    Participant Name,                                                                         -    Participant's Postal address,                                                                         -    Participant's Phone/Fax number,                                                                         -    Participant's Email address,                                                                          -    Participant's Supervisor Name,                                                                         -    Participant's Laboratory,                                                                         -    Field of participant's expertise,                                                                         -    Participant's number of years of experience in each field of expertise.                                                                         -    Does the participant currently work as an operational toxicologist? The Workshop is open to all Public Crime Laboratories in the USA.  To ensure that opportunity is provided equitably to Forensic Laboratories across the USA, only one employee from any one laboratory will be accepted in the first round of offers.  The cutoff date for registration is January 10, 2003. To ensure fair and equitable opportunity for laboratories to participate in the course we will endeavor to select a representative cross section of different State and Local Laboratories however positions will be filled on a first come basis. I have included a list of frequently asked questions in an attempt to clarify any questions you have. Please feel free to email me at training@nfstc.org if you have any further questions. Frequently asked questions If I want to know more details about the course content who should I contact? Ian Tebbett at irt@nfstc.org and Barry Logan at BLogan@wsp.wa.gov  Who do I email my airfare booking information to? Julie Sutton at training@nfstc.org  If I have questions about any travel arrangements or course logistics, who should I contact? Julie Sutton at training@nfstc.org  When does the course participant need to be present? Participants need to be present on the 25th February to 28th February inclusive.  This means we would like to fly the participant to Tampa on Monday 24th February in the afternoon or evening so that you are available to start the course at 9am on the Tuesday. The course is due to finish at 4pm 28th February. You are welcome to stay overnight on the 28th or you may return home - we are leaving this up to each participant to decide. Put in your preferences in the travel form and I shall try to get those flights for you. What expenses will be covered for the Course? A return airfare between your home lab and Tampa for both the participant. The hotel accommodation at the Holiday Inn Harborside Indian Rocks Beach for the participant. Mileage expenses incurred by the participant for travel between your home and your home airport (rate of 36.5 cents per mile) or cab fares between your home and your home airport. Cab fares between Tampa airport and the Holiday Inn (please keep your receipt - we can ONLY reimburse you if you have a receipt) Per diem for the participant at the government rate. What is the address of the Hotel? NFSTC will organize the accommodation from our end - it will be at the Holiday In Harborside. i.e. it will be a direct bill so that it does not have to go onto your credit card. The address of the Holiday Inn Harborside is 401 2nd St Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 USA Telephone 727 595 9484 How will I get from Tampa airport to the hotel? Cab is the easiest option - keep the receipt and NFSTC will reimburse you. Unfortunately we are not able to reimburse you if you don't have a receipt. How will I get from the hotel to NFSTC for the course? We will organize transport between the Holiday Inn and NFSTC for each day of the course. Do I need a rental car? If your organization is prepared to pay for one for you, it will give you more freedom. However there are restaurants in within walking distance of the Holiday Inn and NFSTC will organize transport for you from the Holiday Inn to the course each day. NFSTC will also reimburse your cab fare from Tampa airport to the Holiday Inn and from NFSTC or the Holiday Inn to Tampa airport. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Julie Sutton PhD MBA Deputy Director Training and Education National Forensic Science Technology Center 114th Ave North Largo Florida 33773 Tel 727 549 6067 Fax 727 549 6070 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Jan 6 14:16:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h06JGi519814 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h06JGhY19808 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from 66-44-124-34.c3-0.gth-ubr1.lnh-gth.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.124.34] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 18Vcjt-0002bw-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:16:45 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030106141333.00b770a0@pop.rcn.com> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:16:56 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: Poppy Seed Positives Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 364 Is anyone aware of evidence showing that consumption of a reasonable amount of poppy seeds - say 2 or 3 rolls, bagels, buns, etc., has a measured probability of producing a morphine (opiate) positive at the newer 2000ng/ml cutoff point? Positives at the old 300ng/ml cutoff were so common the level was raised, but was it raised enough? Thanks, John French From daemon Wed Jan 8 14:57:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h08JvYg20925 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from wmpmta05-app.mail-store.com ([194.73.242.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h08JvX120919 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:57:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([213.1.115.141]) by wmpmta05-app.mail-store.com with SMTP id <20030108195720.TKYA786.wmpmta05-app.mail-store.com@oemcomputer> for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:57:20 +0000 Message-ID: <007601c2b750$1a6839a0$8d7301d5@oemcomputer> From: "Rachel Goodman" To: Subject: crime scene photography Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:56:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h08JvYh20925 Content-Length: 935 Dear List, I am Crime Scene Investigator in England and I am writing a project that includes a section on the history of photography. I have been able to find reams of information from various sources on this subject, that explains the development of cameras and films from when they were first developed to the present day. However I have been unable to find any useful information on the history of crime scene photography which is principally what the project is about. So I was wondering first of all if anyone knows when crime scene photography was first introduced and secondly can anyone recommend any books or websites or other sources of information that would cover this subject. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanking you in anticipation, Sincerely, Rachel. e-mail. rachel75@talk21.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Jan 8 16:32:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h08LWfj23412 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (dav75.pav3.hotmail.com [64.4.38.179]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h08LWe123406 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:32:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:32:39 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [204.32.20.251] From: "FRANK SHONBERGER" To: "Rachel Goodman" , References: <007601c2b750$1a6839a0$8d7301d5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: crime scene photography Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:32:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2003 21:32:39.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[785A71B0:01C2B75D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1228 Court TV recently produced a program on the history of the Crime Scene Photography. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachel Goodman" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:56 PM Subject: crime scene photography > Dear List, > > I am Crime Scene Investigator in England and I am writing a project that includes a section on the history of photography. I have been able to find reams of information from various sources on this subject, that explains the development of cameras and films from when they were first developed to the present day. However I have been unable to find any useful information on the history of crime scene photography which is principally what the project is about. So I was wondering first of all if anyone knows when crime scene photography was first introduced and secondly can anyone recommend any books or websites or other sources of information that would cover this subject. Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanking you in anticipation, > Sincerely, > Rachel. > e-mail. rachel75@talk21.com > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Thu Jan 9 07:35:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h09CZp504481 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from holt.mail.atl.earthlink.net (holt.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.187]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h09CZo104475 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from smui03.slb.mindspring.net ([199.174.114.22]) by holt.mail.atl.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18WbuZ-0003PK-00; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 07:35:51 -0500 Received: by smui03.slb.mindspring.net id HAA0000021720; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:35:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 07:35:50 -0500 From: "David Goldman" To: Reply-To: goldmand@mindspring.com Subject: DOT markings on Tires Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 198.26.119.84 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 688 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:43:30 -0500 From: goldmand@mindspring.com Reply-to: goldmand@mindspring.com To: forens-l@ACC.FAU.EDU Subject: DOT markings on Tires I am trying to find a location on the web or anyother place where I can determine the DOT markings on tires that specify the manufacturer of the tire. The Specific marking was on a Kirkland tire (Size 31X10.50R15) as follows: DOT AN60 P333 239 (spacing is my construct) and the 6 could be a G (all I had was a digital photo to judge by. Any help would be most appreciated. Private Email is ok as well. David S. Goldman, P.E. David Lee & Associates goldmand@mindspring.com Tel: 508-435-4146 Cell: 508-509-8801 From daemon Thu Jan 9 08:17:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h09DHPw05457 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us ([170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h09DHO105451 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:17:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: DOT markings on Tires To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, goldmand@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 07:17:29 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 01/09/2003 07:17:31 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2702 David, I used the 2001 Tire Directory published by Bennett Garfield but available through Tire Guides, 1101-6 S. Rogers Circle, Boca Raton, FL 33487 (561) 997-9229 The Tire Manufacturer Code number, the first two letters, indicate Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Manufacturing, Uniroyal Rd & Hwy 169, PO Box 30, Opelika, AL 36802-0030 I'm pretty sure the date code, the last 3 digits indicate the 23 week of 1999. (The new date codes are in the format of two digit week and two digit year - for example the date written in the new code would be 2399) Hope this helps, Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab Baton Rouge, LA (225) 925-6216 |---------+-------------------------------------------> | | "David Goldman" | | | | | | Sent by: | | | owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statg| | | en.ncsu.edu | | | | | | | | | 01/09/2003 06:35 AM | | | Please respond to goldmand | | | | |---------+-------------------------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: | | cc: | | Subject: DOT markings on Tires | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:43:30 -0500 From: goldmand@mindspring.com Reply-to: goldmand@mindspring.com To: forens-l@ACC.FAU.EDU Subject: DOT markings on Tires I am trying to find a location on the web or anyother place where I can determine the DOT markings on tires that specify the manufacturer of the tire. The Specific marking was on a Kirkland tire (Size 31X10.50R15) as follows: DOT AN60 P333 239 (spacing is my construct) and the 6 could be a G (all I had was a digital photo to judge by. Any help would be most appreciated. Private Email is ok as well. David S. Goldman, P.E. David Lee & Associates goldmand@mindspring.com Tel: 508-435-4146 Cell: 508-509-8801 From daemon Thu Jan 9 10:26:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h09FQnm09279 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h09FQm109273 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:26:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from Solo9550LS (12-245-84-6.client.attbi.com[12.245.84.6]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <20030109152638001000g5vee>; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:26:38 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01c2b7f3$7a7921d0$0654f50c@Solo9550LS> Reply-To: "Daryl W. Clemens" From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: References: <007601c2b750$1a6839a0$8d7301d5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: crime scene photography Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:26:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2093 The show and the book they made that goes along with it are titled "Shots in the Dark". I have the book, and while the information is limited, there is a long list of references. One interesting note is that photography of crime scenes was originally suggested by Alphonse Bertillon (father of the anthropometric system of identification), in his book La Photographie Judicaire which was published in 1890. The book has alot of neat old pictures as well. It should be available through Amazon or by order from your local bookseller. Regards, Daryl W. Clemens ----- Original Message ----- From: "FRANK SHONBERGER" To: "Rachel Goodman" ; Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: Re: crime scene photography > Court TV recently produced a program on the history of the Crime Scene > Photography. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rachel Goodman" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:56 PM > Subject: crime scene photography > > > > Dear List, > > > > I am Crime Scene Investigator in England and I am writing a project that > includes a section on the history of photography. I have been able to find > reams of information from various sources on this subject, that explains the > development of cameras and films from when they were first developed to the > present day. However I have been unable to find any useful information on > the history of crime scene photography which is principally what the project > is about. So I was wondering first of all if anyone knows when crime scene > photography was first introduced and secondly can anyone recommend any books > or websites or other sources of information that would cover this subject. > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thanking you in anticipation, > > Sincerely, > > Rachel. > > e-mail. rachel75@talk21.com > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > > From daemon Thu Jan 9 11:05:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h09G55e10420 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from gatekeeper.rhlab.com (rhtyping.charm.net [209.143.102.22]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h09G54110414 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:05:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gatekeeper.rhlab.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA14305 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:52:02 -0500 Received: from SFruitStation ([192.168.1.68] [192.168.1.68]) by gatekeeper (VaMailArmor-2.0.1.5) id 14298-290CD9F2; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:52:02 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01c2b7f8$e12584a0$4401a8c0@SFruitStation> Reply-To: "Nana Lamouse-Smith" From: "Nana Lamouse-Smith" To: Subject: acceptance of STRs Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:05:07 -0500 Organization: BRT Laboratories Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira MailArmor (version: 2.0.1.5; VAE: 6.17.0.2; VDF: 6.17.0.14; host: gatekeeper) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h09G55f10420 Content-Length: 191 Does anyone know how many states have accepted STRs in their courts? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Jan 9 11:19:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h09GJM511009 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h09GJK110999 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h09G5HoT029274 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:19:19 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:19:18 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:15:57 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us, goldmand@mindspring.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: DOT markings on Tires MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12037E8D346744-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h09GJL111002 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1935 David, Although I haven't checked on Adam's info (and I'm sure he's right), I might add that the date implies it was manufactured in the 23rd week of a year ending in a 9. Whilst this is most likely 1999, depending on the state of the tire, don't immediately discard the possibility that it was made in 1989. A call to the Goodrich Tire Co. should help clear up any potential mistakes. Good luck with your investigation. Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section >>> 01/09/03 05:17AM >>> David, I used the 2001 Tire Directory published by Bennett Garfield but available through Tire Guides, 1101-6 S. Rogers Circle, Boca Raton, FL 33487 (561) 997-9229 The Tire Manufacturer Code number, the first two letters, indicate Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Manufacturing, Uniroyal Rd & Hwy 169, PO Box 30, Opelika, AL 36802-0030 I'm pretty sure the date code, the last 3 digits indicate the 23 week of 1999. (The new date codes are in the format of two digit week and two digit year - for example the date written in the new code would be 2399) Hope this helps, Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab Baton Rouge, LA (225) 925-6216 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:43:30 -0500 From: goldmand@mindspring.com Reply-to: goldmand@mindspring.com To: forens-l@ACC.FAU.EDU Subject: DOT markings on Tires I am trying to find a location on the web or anyother place where I can determine the DOT markings on tires that specify the manufacturer of the tire. The Specific marking was on a Kirkland tire (Size 31X10.50R15) as follows: DOT AN60 P333 239 (spacing is my construct) and the 6 could be a G (all I had was a digital photo to judge by. Any help would be most appreciated. Private Email is ok as well. David S. Goldman, P.E. David Lee & Associates goldmand@mindspring.com Tel: 508-435-4146 Cell: 508-509-8801 From daemon Thu Jan 9 13:31:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h09IVcX15386 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:31:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h09IVbn15380 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:31:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:31:37 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 809 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thompson, Roger" To: "'Nana Lamouse-Smith'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: acceptance of STRs Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:38:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" A good contact would be for that statistic would be http://DNAresource.com telephone (202) 258-2301 -----Original Message----- From: Nana Lamouse-Smith [mailto:smith@brtlabs.com] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 11:05 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: acceptance of STRs Does anyone know how many states have accepted STRs in their courts? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Jan 11 14:29:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0BJT9n08703 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0BJT7108697 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863AC40D85 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:57:59 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.230.54]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:58:00 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E206DF8.427162C7@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:48:17 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Mass murders Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2178 11 January, 2003 Dear List, Can somebody explain me the difference between "mass murder" and "serial killings". Mass murder - to me - is a subspecies of Multiple murder, when all murders - usually more than ten - are committed at a single point in time (Tokyo cyanide poisoning case of 1948). Serial murders, the other subspecies (as in the classic case of Jack the Ripper) is generally taken to mean multiple murders committed over an extended period of time. Also can someone tell me, how many killings qualify a person to be called a mass murderer or a serial killer. Is it 5 or 20 or some other figure? Which murderer, with the least number of killings to his credit has been generally termed as a serial killer? To me, it is Jack the ripper with 5, perhaps 6 killings to his credit. Kindly let me know. Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Sun Jan 12 18:28:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0CNSfj29758 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:28:41 -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 h0CNSe129750 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([62.252.200.13]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20030112232839.OUSJ900.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer> for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:28:39 +0000 Message-ID: <009301c2ba91$e0151ee0$fcc9fc3e@oemcomputer> Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" To: Subject: Moon Brightness Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:25:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0CNSfk29758 Content-Length: 237 List Members, Could anyone tell me how many lux would be given off by the moon at any phase? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Jan 13 03:26:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0D8QnP07302 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0D8Qj107296 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:26:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A5940FBD; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:55:31 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([203.197.229.238]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:55:33 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E223F6B.B6EB6121@vsnl.net> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:54:11 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: satish.sekar@ntlworld.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, "cb (important mails)" , cb , cb , Amitabh Panday , Amitabh Pandey Subject: Moon Brightness Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1820 ***Your Original Message*** List Members, Could anyone tell me how many lux would be given off by the moon at any phase? Best Wishes Satish ***End of your Original Message*** My dear Satish, The two biggest astronomers that I know of, and who have answers to all astronomy questions are CB and Amitabh Pandey. They are running an school in astronomy here in India. Try asking them. Their Emails are: cbdevgun@technologist.com and amipan@yahoo.com Thanks Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Mon Jan 13 13:18:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0DIIuf20184 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp32.wxs.nl (smtp32.wxs.nl [195.121.6.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0DIIt120178 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by smtp32.wxs.nl with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:16:34 +0100 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by smtp32.wxs.nl with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 13 Jan 2003 00:40:36 +0100 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h0CNSfJ29773; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:28:41 -0500 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0CNSfj29758 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:28:41 -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 h0CNSe129750 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([62.252.200.13]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20030112232839.OUSJ900.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@oemcomputer> for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:28:39 +0000 Message-ID: <009301c2ba91$e0151ee0$fcc9fc3e@oemcomputer> Reply-To: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" To: Subject: Moon Brightness Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:25:19 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0CNSfk29758 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2003 23:42:32.0916 (UTC) FILETIME=[4703E940:01C2BA94] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 237 List Members, Could anyone tell me how many lux would be given off by the moon at any phase? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Jan 13 17:31:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0DMVCc27762 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0DMVA127756 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:31:11 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: DOT markings on Tires Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DOT markings on Tires Thread-Index: AcK33TChFWjLioswRYSnzMe6oAZfbwAENOFg From: "Robert Parsons" To: , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0DMVB127757 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1156 The following web site is a good resource that may be helpful: http://members.aol.com/varfee/mastssite/home.html It contains manufacturer's data for tires and for footwear. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: David Goldman [mailto:goldmand@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 07:36 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DOT markings on Tires Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:43:30 -0500 From: goldmand@mindspring.com Reply-to: goldmand@mindspring.com To: forens-l@ACC.FAU.EDU Subject: DOT markings on Tires I am trying to find a location on the web or anyother place where I can determine the DOT markings on tires that specify the manufacturer of the tire. The Specific marking was on a Kirkland tire (Size 31X10.50R15) as follows: DOT AN60 P333 239 (spacing is my construct) and the 6 could be a G (all I had was a digital photo to judge by. Any help would be most appreciated. Private Email is ok as well. David S. Goldman, P.E. David Lee & Associates goldmand@mindspring.com Tel: 508-435-4146 Cell: 508-509-8801 From daemon Fri Jan 17 19:22:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0I0Mg717095 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:22:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailer.shadow.net (mailer.shadow.net [65.166.1.50]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0I0Mf117089 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:22:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (01-161.140.popsite.net [66.248.48.161]) by mailer.shadow.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h0I0OAh3021566 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:24:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <013c01c2be87$958cf2e0$9d30f842@default> From: "Anthony Romano" To: "Forens-L" Subject: Test Message Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:21:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0I0Mg817095 Content-Length: 181 This is just test message to see if I am getting messages. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Jan 20 04:18:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0K9IUD03491 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailrouter2.strath.ac.uk (harris.cc.strath.ac.uk [130.159.248.11]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0K9IT103485 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 04:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from khafre.cc.strath.ac.uk ([130.159.248.48] helo=vrouter1.strath.ac.uk) by mailrouter2.strath.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #1) id 18aY4b-0006wX-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:18:29 +0000 Received: from orkney.cc.strath.ac.uk ([130.159.248.40] helo=mailrouter1.strath.ac.uk) by khafre.cc.strath.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 18aY41-0003UP-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:17:53 +0000 Received: from p-bryson.cc.strath.ac.uk ([130.159.32.232]) by mailrouter1.strath.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #2) id 18aY3e-0002GI-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:17:30 +0000 X-Sender: cbas53@pop-hub.strath.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:15:33 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Niamh Nic Daeid Subject: Interpol symposium on forensic science X-Mail-Scan: clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 834 Dear all, As part of the organisation of the 14 Interpol symposium on forensic science we are trying to compile a list of the various forensic science networks in various disciplines which exist around the World. If you have information about such lists/networks could you please e-mail me the name of the list/network, topic or discipline of forensic science to which it relates and the contact person who is in charge or manages it. Also how the list/network can be accessed, whether it is closed or open and so on would be very helpful Thank you for your help Regards Niamh Co-ordinating Committee Interpol Symposium on Forensic Science Dr. Niamh Nic Daeid Senior Lecturer Forensic Science Unit University of Strathclyde Royal College 204 George St Glasgow G1 1WX Scotland Phone INT +141 548 4700 Fax INT + 141 548 2532 From daemon Mon Jan 20 16:37:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0KLbSf08544 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0KLbRh08538 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:37:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from SkipnCar@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id v.7b.7aee58b (4362); Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:37:13 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <7b.7aee58b.2b5dc609@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:37:13 EST Subject: Internship Requested To: ascld@lab.fws.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0KLbSg08544 Content-Length: 1068 An acquaintance is seeking an internship at a forensic laboratory. Her information follows and, if you have one available, please contact her.   Peggy Bublitz hobbit@oldowl.com is a permanent e-mail address BA Chemistry -Eastern Kentucky University   (1) Forensic semester including microscopy, GC, XRF,   IR, NMR, TLC; physical chemistry, quantitative analysis using GC, AA;  organic (1 yr);   CHE 525: Instrumental Methods -GC/MS, HPLC, IR, qualifying identification of hydrocarbons by GC, determination of arson accelerants GC/MS   3.413 GPA   I am looking for an internship beginning in May, and willing to work anywhere in the country in any lab facility. Thank you for your consideration of her request. Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Chair, Board of Trustees Forensic Science Foundation Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067-3403 954-796-8063 fax 954-796-8063 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Jan 21 20:04:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0M14kk12841 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:04:46 -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 h0M14ih12835 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Wed Jan 22 14:04:42 2003 +1300 Received: by KSCXCHG2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:04:42 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Bruce Weir'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Forensis Interpretation courses Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:04:34 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 360 Professor Weir is repeating his excellent Forensic Interpretation courses. here are the details. > "Short courses in Population Genetics and Statistics for Forensic Science" > > June 2,3,4 2003 at North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC, USA > > July 16,17,18 at LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Australia > > Details at http://statgen.ncsu.edu > > From daemon Wed Jan 22 15:20:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0MKK7608623 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:20:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sherlock.holmes.nl (sherlock.holmes.nl [195.169.99.99]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0MKK5h08617 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by sherlock.holmes.nl (Postfix, from userid 8) id C3DD810F8; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:19:45 +0100 (CET) Comments: Passed Amavis/Sophos Anti-Virus for Unix (sherlock.holmes.nl) Received: from mailserver.gl.minjus.nl (nfi.minjus.nl [10.1.0.134]) by sherlock.holmes.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90A110BF; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:19:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by MAILSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:18:34 +0100 Message-ID: <6C515CBE2D1FD6119E8900B0D0685C80B9FD3D@MAILSERVER> From: Gerard van der Peyl To: Subject: EAFS2003 - Environmental Forensics and Soil Forensics session - a bstracts to be submitted before February 1 2003 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:18:29 +0100 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: 633 Dear colleagues, Please be aware that Environmental Forensics abstracts for the European Academy of Forensic Science (EAFS2003) Meeting this September in Istanbul have to be submitted before February 1 2003. For details on abstract submission please see http://www.eafs2003.org/sub/guide.php . Questions on session content can be referred to me. Yours, Dr Gerard J.Q. van der Peijl, Forensic Scientist, Netherlands Forensic Institute of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, PO Box 3110, 2280 GC Rijswijk, The Netherlands tel +31 70 413 53 53 fax +31 70 413 54 54 e-mail: g.van.der.peyl@nfi.minjus.nl www.forensischinstituut.nl From daemon Wed Jan 22 15:41:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0MKfEU09705 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:41:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f75.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.75]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0MKfDh09699 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:41:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:32:19 -0800 Received: from 65.113.89.198 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:32:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [65.113.89.198] From: "Carissa A. Webster-Lake" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forensic Path. Summer Internship? Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:32:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 20:32:19.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BF4E520:01C2C255] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 723 Dear List, I am a freshman student and Biology major at the University of the Virgin Islands, who has a deep interest in Forensic pathology. I am eager to know if there is anyone out there who would be willing to provide me with a summer internship, in order to broaden my knowledge of and deepen my interest in the area. If any other information is required before an internship can be offered be sure to contact me at email address carissawl@hotmail.com. Awaiting a favorable response, and thanks in advance. Carissa Webster-Lake _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From daemon Wed Jan 22 21:17:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0N2Hm517197 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.jobe.net (www.jobe.net [208.18.94.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0N2Hlh17191 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.75] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.06) id A0CACC140144; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:17:46 -0600 Message-ID: <00f401c2c285$f0622d00$4bbf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Forensic Path. Summer Internship? Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:20:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 963 You might try posting your question to the Webmaster of the National Association of Medical Examiners at http://www.thename.org/ probably with further details of what area (geographic) you would consider and whether you expect to be paid. Next, this is essentially a professional interest list, I would suggest using your other email address and re-subscribing to this list. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carissa A. Webster-Lake" I am a freshman student and Biology major at the University of the Virgin Islands, who has a deep interest in Forensic pathology. I am eager to know if there is anyone out there who would be willing to provide me with a summer internship, in order to broaden my knowledge of and deepen my interest in the area. If any other information is required before an internship can be offered be sure to contact me at email address carissawl@hotmail.com. From daemon Thu Jan 23 04:02:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0N927e23988 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:02:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from sherlock.holmes.nl (sherlock.holmes.nl [195.169.99.99]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0N926h23982 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by sherlock.holmes.nl (Postfix, from userid 8) id 7D33810C7; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:02:06 +0100 (CET) Comments: Passed Amavis/Sophos Anti-Virus for Unix (sherlock.holmes.nl) Received: from mailserver.gl.minjus.nl (nfi.minjus.nl [10.1.0.134]) by sherlock.holmes.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8BD107D for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:02:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by MAILSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:01:12 +0100 Message-ID: <6C515CBE2D1FD6119E8900B0D0685C80B9FD44@MAILSERVER> From: Gerard van der Peyl To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: EAFS2003 - Environmental Forensics and Soil Forensics session - a bstracts to be submitted before February 1 2003 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:01:12 +0100 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: 679 > Dear colleagues, > > Please be aware that Environmental Forensics abstracts for the European > Academy of Forensic Science (EAFS2003) Meeting this September in Istanbul > have to be submitted before February 1 2003. For details on abstract > submission please see http://www.eafs2003.org/sub/guide.php . Questions on > session content can be referred to me. > > Yours, > > Dr Gerard J.Q. van der Peijl, > Forensic Scientist, > Netherlands Forensic Institute of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, > PO Box 3110, > 2280 GC Rijswijk, > The Netherlands > tel +31 70 413 53 53 > fax +31 70 413 54 54 > > e-mail: g.van.der.peyl@nfi.minjus.nl > www.forensischinstituut.nl > > From daemon Thu Jan 23 10:20:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0NFKr102522 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from LOUDHOWARD.ISP.STATE.ID.US (loudhoward.isp.state.id.us [164.165.217.202]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0NFKqh02516 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:20:52 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Arson Analysis Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:20:28 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Arson Analysis Thread-Index: AcLC8vYmaTks0hKkRLGNjwbokTU3cA== From: "Laycock, Dave" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0NFKqh02517 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 256 Does anyone know of an introductory arson analysis course? I'm interested in the laboratory analysis of fire debris, not the on-site investigation. A web search this morning didn't seem to disclose any. Thanks. Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics From daemon Thu Jan 23 10:35:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0NFZK503198 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from nfstc.org ([208.234.15.125]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0NFZKh03192 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from NFSTCKLOTHR (111bus12.tampabay.rr.com [24.94.111.12]) by nfstc.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NFZ6d31126; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:35:07 -0500 From: "Kevin Lothridge" To: "'Laycock, Dave'" , Subject: RE: Arson Analysis Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:34:50 -0500 Message-ID: <003201c2c2f4$fb64a100$8701a8c0@NFSTC> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 799 Dave, Look at www.ncfs.ucf.edu They teach both an Introduction and Advanced course. Cheers, Kevin Lothridge Deputy Executive Director National Forensic Science Technology Center 7881 114th Avenue North Largo, FL 33773 Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070 Cell Phone 727-686-1695 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Laycock, Dave Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:20 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Arson Analysis Does anyone know of an introductory arson analysis course? I'm interested in the laboratory analysis of fire debris, not the on-site investigation. A web search this morning didn't seem to disclose any. Thanks. Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics From daemon Thu Jan 23 11:27:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0NGRPx04753 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20508.mail.yahoo.com (web20508.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.143]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h0NGROh04747 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:27:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030123162724.77282.qmail@web20508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20508.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:27:24 PST Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:27:24 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: Arson Analysis To: "Laycock, Dave" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1638 The California Criminalistics Institute (CCI) in Sacramento offers a one-week course dealing with the analysis of fire debris. In the past, Dr. John DeHaan has been the primary instructor, usually assisted with someone from ATF. It's an excellent course, nominally 40 hours, but for those who know John, it's actually closer to 50-60 hours. If you're interested in that course, contact the Program Manager in Chemistry at CCI (Jerry Massetti) at 916.227.3575. John also teaches that course privately under the auspices of his company, but I'd rather not put that information out. If you're interested in his private course, please contact me off-list and I'll pass on John's contact info. By the way, CCI also offer an excellent course dealing with the analysis of low order explosives, also taught by John. Another "one week (~50 hour) course that deals with the all aspects of this area - from the basics of explosion technology to the construction of devices and the analysis of post-blast debris. For info, contact Jerry at the above number. Hope that helps, Tom Abercrombie, Crim III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory --- "Laycock, Dave" wrote: > > Does anyone know of an introductory arson analysis > course? I'm interested in the laboratory analysis > of fire debris, not the on-site investigation. > A web search this morning didn't seem to disclose > any. > Thanks. > > Dave Laycock > Idaho State Police Forensics __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From daemon Thu Jan 23 12:44:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0NHixk06136 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0NHiwh06130 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from h-69-3-28-72.snvacaid.covad.net ([69.3.28.72] helo=Homey.kruglaw.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18blPO-0005wG-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:44:58 -0800 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030123094057.01bba1c8@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:44:56 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: IR & Invisible injuries Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 535 Hi Folks, I'm looking for information on a claimed new procedure of taking infra-red pictures of non-visible injuries because it allows visualizing bruises that are under the skin and not visible to the naked eye. Any info would be appreciated. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Jan 23 17:51:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0NMpUr15187 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:51:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0NMpTh15181 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:51:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:48:38 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A0C0@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: IR & Invisible injuries Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:42:35 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1171 About 6-7 years ago, while I was at AFIP, we had a demonstration of a far-IR camera that the Coast Guard was supposedly using to trace oil slicks back to their origin. It was sensitive enough to allow identification of an old (Civil War era) set of apparent graves that were otherwise unmarked (although, as it was in a National Park, we couldn't dig down to prove they were graves.) This was by temperature differences in the soil, four plots neatly arrayed in standard side-by in the standard 6' x 3' size. The vendor claimed it could detect remarkably small temperature differences, I think about 0.04 deg F. They were about $10,000, so we didn't get one. Deep bruises could theoretically be visualized that way, as they typically have increased blood flow. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Kim Kruglick [mailto:kim@kruglaw.com] Hi Folks, I'm looking for information on a claimed new procedure of taking infra-red pictures of non-visible injuries because it allows visualizing bruises that are under the skin and not visible to the naked eye. Any info would be appreciated. From daemon Thu Jan 23 19:55:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0O0tUO17198 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:55:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0O0tTh17192 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0O0tQMw011679; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:55:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:55:26 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Kim Kruglick cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: IR & Invisible injuries In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20030123094057.01bba1c8@pop.kruglaw.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4280 Do you mean near-IR/thermography or far-IR? They are very different. Near-IR basically senses temperature differences. Far-IR provides information about chemical composition. There is a large medical literature on near-IR of the skin; near-IR/thermography is a well-documented way of assessing healing and circulation. Looking at things on the skin with IR was all the rage in the mid-60s. Basically, areas with increased circulation are warmer and areas with decreased circulation are cooler. Thus, one can asses revascularization of a limb, for instance, by looking at the change in temperature. Far-IR is different because it measures the energy emitted by the stretching/twisting/etc of chemical bonds rather than the temperature of the subject. It is, for instance, the basis of IR spectrometry. Far-IR sensors are much more expensive. Thus, for instance, it is far-IR that is useful in assessing the kinds of chemicals emitted from factories by sensors in satellites. It is intuitively appealing to want to use both to look at patterned injuries of the skin, and a couple of people have made stabs at it. I know a group at the Mass. ME office were looking into it for near-IR, and I spent a year trying to get funding to build a far-IR sensor to look at autopsy material. That being said, I have never seen a study that demonstrates the characterization of a bruise by thermography. Really, the best you could say with near-IR that there is a temperature difference. One would have to demonstrate a) that is it, in fact, due to a change in circulation, not a change in some other parameter (e.g. changes due to clothing or bandaging, changes due to surface irritation due to adhesive, the result of superficial manipulation, etc.) For instance, you can increase the temperature of a place on the skin by rubbing it. b) that it is, in fact, due to a bruise instead of any of a zillion other reasons for changes in circulation. c) that bruises, per se, have a characteristic thermal signature. d) that "bruises" containing extravasated blood not visible on the skin can be distinguished from erythema. In particular, I have not seen the last two demonstrated by any study in the literature. However, since my interest has been primarily with far-IR, I can't claim encyclopedic command. The hardest thing with thermography would be to prove that it is a "bruise" (i.e. extravasated blood) as opposed to erythema (increased circulation). With non-thermographic IR photography, it would be necessary to prove that the lesion is really blood at all -- since there is no visible contusion. I know that the forensic dentists are sometimes big fans of IR, but I haven't seen more than a case report and that didn't claim (as I vaguely remember) that it could show bruising that was otherwise invisible, just that it showed better delineation of a visible bruise (which makes sense, since IR can penetrate about 3mm into the skin). Gibson (1) demonstrated a lot of lesions under IR photography, including such things as flame hemorrhages. Basically, it sounds like an unproven extrapolation from much more conservative findings. With respect to far-IR, NIST and others have demonstrated a characteristic signature for hemaglobin. However, I have not seen a study of how that changes for bruising. If you turn up a reference for the IR analysis of bruising, particularly one that shows anything about "bruises" that have no visible spectrum signature, I would love to hear about it. 1) Gibson, HL Further data on the use of infrared color film. J. Biol. Photogr. Assoc. 33, 155, 1965 billo On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Kim Kruglick wrote: > From: Kim Kruglick > > Hi Folks, > > I'm looking for information on a claimed new procedure of taking > infra-red pictures of non-visible injuries because it allows visualizing > bruises that are under the skin and not visible to the naked > eye. Any info would be appreciated. > > Best regards, > Kim Kruglick > mailto:kim@kruglaw.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Forensic Resource and > Criminal Law Search Site > http://www.kruglaw.com > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Thu Jan 23 20:25:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0O1Pn918103 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:25:49 -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 h0O1Pmh18097 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from 8sv5f01 (ip-64-38-163-233.dialup.seanet.com [64.38.163.233]) by mx.seanet.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h0O1PmH22729 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:25:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002401c2c347$8b464dd0$e9a32640@8sv5f01> From: "Bob Kegel" To: "Forensic Science List" References: <5.0.0.25.2.20030123094057.01bba1c8@pop.kruglaw.com> Subject: Re: IR & Invisible injuries Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:25:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 491 > I'm looking for information on a claimed new procedure of taking > infra-red pictures of non-visible injuries because it allows visualizing > bruises that are under the skin and not visible to the naked > eye. Any info would be appreciated. An article at http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/sme/maynews.htm , "Alternative Light Source Photography Methods," discusses the use of IR and UV wavelengths for documenting injuries. LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA From daemon Fri Jan 24 08:19:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0ODJZd00387 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0ODJZh00381 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id k.13.170ffd0e (4380); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:19:30 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <13.170ffd0e.2b629761@aol.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:19:29 EST Subject: Re: IR & Invisible injuries To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2099 David While in the FBI I saw a demonstration of the same technology (which could coincidentally "strip" an individual naked due to the difference in temperature between clothing and body) and I can imagine that such technology might be useful in detecting bruising if there is a temperature difference between bruise and unbruised flesh. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 1/23/2003 5:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL writes: > Subj:RE: IR & Invisible injuries > Date:1/23/2003 5:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > About 6-7 years ago, while I was at AFIP, we had a demonstration of a > far-IR > camera that the Coast Guard was supposedly using to trace oil slicks back > to > their origin. It was sensitive enough to allow identification of an old > (Civil War era) set of apparent graves that were otherwise unmarked > (although, as it was in a National Park, we couldn't dig down to prove they > were graves.) This was by temperature differences in the soil, four plots > neatly arrayed in standard side-by in the standard 6' x 3' size. The > vendor > claimed it could detect remarkably small temperature differences, I think > about 0.04 deg F. They were about $10,000, so we didn't get one. Deep > bruises could theoretically be visualized that way, as they typically have > increased blood flow. > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim Kruglick [mailto:kim@kruglaw.com] > > Hi Folks, > > I'm looking for information on a claimed new procedure of taking > infra-red pictures of non-visible injuries because it allows visualizing > bruises that are under the skin and not visible to the naked > eye. Any info would be appreciated. > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Jan 24 09:00:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0OE0jR01473 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.133]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0OE0ih01467 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:52:45 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A0C1@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: IR & Invisible injuries Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:43:56 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 615 I never do anything but pay close attention when Billo speaks optics. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] David While in the FBI I saw a demonstration of the same technology (which could coincidentally "strip" an individual naked due to the difference in temperature between clothing and body) and I can imagine that such technology might be useful in detecting bruising if there is a temperature difference between bruise and unbruised flesh. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 1/23/2003 5:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL writes: From daemon Fri Jan 24 14:16:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0OJGYw12341 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0OJGWh12333 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0OJGTMw003203; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:16:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:16:29 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com cc: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, Subject: Re: IR & Invisible injuries In-Reply-To: <13.170ffd0e.2b629761@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 906 On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com > > David > While in the FBI I saw a demonstration of the same technology (which could > coincidentally "strip" an individual naked due to the difference in > temperature between clothing and body) and I can imagine that such technology > might be useful in detecting bruising if there is a temperature difference > between bruise and unbruised flesh. > Fred Whitehurst In fact, most digital cameras can do this -- it's an undocumented "feature" except for SONY, who crippled its IR abilities because of liability issues and then sells it as an enhanced ability. See: www.pauck.de/marco/photo/infrared/ccd/ccd.html www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/ir.htm www.bythom.com/infrared.htm The key for evaluating near-IR of the skin is to distinguiish between emitted IR for thermography and reflected/absorbed for vein mapping. billo From daemon Fri Jan 24 18:34:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0ONYSJ20436 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0ONYRh20430 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:34:28 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: Arson Analysis Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:34:27 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Arson Analysis Thread-Index: AcLC8vYmaTks0hKkRLGNjwbokTU3cAABNM7A From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0ONYRh20431 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1372 Both the FBI's Forensic Science Research and Training Center (FBI Academy, Quantico), and the ATF's National Laboratory Center (Rockville, MD) have traditionally offered one-week comprehensive introductory (i.e., training for beginners) courses in laboratory analysis of fire debris, although I couldn't find their current offering schedules on their web sites, www.atf.treas.gov and http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/org/fstu.htm. They may have cut back training support since 9-11, but it's worth a call to them to find out for sure. The National Center for Forensic Science (http://ncfs.ucf.edu/) offers both basic and advanced courses led by Steve Allen, the FBI's former instructor for the Quantico course. I believe several state training centers (e.g., the California Criminalistics Institute) also offer similar courses. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Laycock, Dave [mailto:dave.laycock@isp.state.id.us] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:20 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Arson Analysis Does anyone know of an introductory arson analysis course? I'm interested in the laboratory analysis of fire debris, not the on-site investigation. A web search this morning didn't seem to disclose any. Thanks. Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics From daemon Tue Jan 28 08:19:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0SDJKa12117 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0SDJIh12111 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936DA42A7D; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:28:24 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.254.28]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:28:26 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E367DB8.8EEDF664@vsnl.net> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:25:20 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Cc: idin@uclan.ac.uk Subject: Paint analysis of motor vehicles Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1760 Dear List, I have got the following question from a forensic colleague **************** Hello Sir i wanted to request from you any journals or information regarding paint analysis of motor vehicles!! all your help would off course be appriciated..... From Din ************** His Email is idin@uclan.ac.uk May be somebody would like to help him. Even I would love to have this information. thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Wed Jan 29 15:54:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0TKsko26940 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0TKsjG26934 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:54:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:54:45 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Gerger, Mark E [SUP/0200]" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2550 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:14:31 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Gerger, Mark E [SUP/0200]" ] >From forens-owner Wed Jan 29 13:14:30 2003 Received: from gateway3.pharmacia.com (gateway3.pharmacia.com [193.235.243.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0TIEUh22039 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateway3.pharmacia.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gateway3.pharmacia.com (Switch-2.2.4/Switch-2.2.4) with ESMTP id h0TIETj14579 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:14:29 GMT Received: from uskzoms008.uskzo.am.pnu.com (uskzoms008.uskzo.am.pnu.com [146.240.201.76]) by gateway3.pharmacia.com (Switch-2.2.4/Switch-2.2.4) with ESMTP id h0TIESZ14563; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:14:28 GMT Received: from uskzoms008.uskzo.am.pnu.com ([146.240.201.76]) by uskzoms008.uskzo.am.pnu.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id D6HZL7TZ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:14:28 -0500 Received: from 10.88.16.103 by uskzoms008.uskzo.am.pnu.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:14:28 -0500 Received: by uschvms001.uschv.am.pnu.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:14:27 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Gerger, Mark E [SUP/0200]" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: "'kalcolab@aol.com'" , "'megerger@aol.com'" Subject: contacts for microcrystal testing Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:14:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Good Afternoon, I am looking for contact persons from crime labs who currently conduct microcrystal tests for heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. We are currently in the process of combining two crime lab operations and would like to standardize the testing methodology used as our court system permits these tests. Consequently, we are interested in better understanding what others are doing. You can contact me either by e-mail (megerger@aol.com) or phone ((269) 383-8779) or you can contact my Sergeant, Marty Johnson at (269) 383-8779. Regards, Mark Gerger Criminalist Kalamazoo County Sheriff Forensic Science Laboratory Kalamazoo, MI 49001 (269) 383-8779 From daemon Wed Jan 29 23:10:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0U4AG905132 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0U4AGh05126 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:10:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from DavidB7818@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id y.11.88d9bd5 (4246) for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:10:12 -0500 (EST) From: DavidB7818@aol.com Message-ID: <11.88d9bd5.2b69ffa4@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:10:12 EST Subject: SAFS cruise To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 654 The Fall 2003 Southern Association of Forensic Scientists meeting is a cruise on the Royal Caribbean ship "Enchantment of the Seas". It's a four night trip, departing Sep. 11, 2003 from Ft. Lauderdale, Fl., with stops in Key West and Cozumel, Mexico. Non-members are welcome to join us. For more information go to www.southernforensic.org/cruise.htm You can also contact Jaime Johnson at jamjohnson@mcl.state.ms.us Dave Baer --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Jan 30 10:49:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0UFnwf17328 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [205.141.32.43]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0UFnqh17322 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by H3-EXCH3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:49:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Cc: "Nordhoff, Todd" Subject: safety concerns Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:49:52 -0500 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: 864 In our lab there has been an increased interest in safety while performing chemical analysis ( drug / fire debris / blood alcohol ). Our safety officer has been told by OSHA safety personnel that a deciding factor in acceptable operations is " what does your peer group do". In that light , I ask the following questions. Your responses would be greatly appreciated. >>are gloves required to handle all drug evidence? liquid ignitable liquids? >> how do you deal with static electricity when handling small drug samples while wearing latex gloves? >>are all drug cases worked in the hood? how do you deal with weighing problems with the hood turned on? >>is eye protection mandatory when handling 'organic' solvents? >>are gloves mandatory when handling 'organic' solvents? >>are MSDS handling requirements conscientiously followed? From daemon Thu Jan 30 19:31:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0V0VZR00499 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (bay2-f39.bay2.hotmail.com [65.54.247.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0V0VYh00492 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:31:35 -0800 Received: from 203.109.240.25 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:31:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [203.109.240.25] From: "Richard Wright" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: cranial fragment detached by high velocity bullet Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:31:34 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2003 00:31:35.0023 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C154FF0:01C2C8C0] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 525 Does anybody know of a published case where a cranial fragment detached by a high velocity bullet has been recovered at a crime scene shooting, though the perpetrator(s) removed the body itself? ------------------------------------------ MSN 8 helps ------------------------------------------ ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Thu Jan 30 21:42:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0V2gto02885 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41411.mail.yahoo.com (web41411.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.77]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h0V2gsh02879 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:42:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030131024255.66026.qmail@web41411.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.61.74.244] by web41411.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:42:55 PST Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:42:55 -0800 (PST) From: L DeShong Subject: Noncardiogenic Pulmonary Edema To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 457 I've done some online research regarding noncardiogenic pulmonary edema secondary to head trauma, but I'm looking for more specific information. Are any list members familiar with this condition? Thank you, L. DeShong --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Jan 31 10:50:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0VFo6l14056 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0VFnoh14038 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from LCTOX@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id t.140.934257d (15887); Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from aol.com (mow-d15.webmail.aol.com [205.188.139.131]) by air-id08.mx.aol.com (v90_r2.5) with ESMTP id MAILINID82-0131104934; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:34 -0500 From: LCTOX@aol.com To: tiaft-ml@tiaft.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Toxicology staffing MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3372FDE9.46A8DC1F.0000E45A@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 659 Hi all, I am doing a quick survey to see how many other toxicology labs are staffed with. If you have time to get some info to me before Feb 5th, please respond offlist. I need to know: number of antemortem drug cases per month or year number of postmortem drug cases per moth or year Are postmortem cases quantitated? How many staff positions work in the toxicology section Location of lab and population of service area (if available) We are trying to find support for getting more staffing in our toxicology unit and need to see "what everyone else has". Thanks in advance, Lisa Caughlin Sacramento County DA Lab of Forensic Services Toxicology Unit From daemon Fri Jan 31 11:56:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0VGujp16546 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0VGuih16540 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h0VGuiIS005190 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:53:35 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:53:33 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:49:51 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: richwrigau@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: cranial fragment detached by high velocity bullet MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12247584671330-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h0VGujh16541 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1365 I do not off hand know of published cases but I have worked on cases where skull fragments have been recovered in the scene. These would remain if the body was removed unless the scene was cleaned up. In the case of contact wounds large fragments are sometimes recovered. Check: DiMaio, Gunshot Wounds, CRC press, Second Edition p. 177. He discusses Centerfire Rifle Wounds and in talking of contact wounds states: "Large pieces of the skull and brain are typically blown away,..." Skull becoming a secondary projectile is not rare, tangential shots can carry fragments out through exit wounds. Jim James L. Roberts Firearm & Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA. 93009 (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "Richard Wright" 01/30/03 04:31PM >>> Does anybody know of a published case where a cranial fragment detached by a high velocity bullet has been recovered at a crime scene shooting, though the perpetrator(s) removed the body itself? ------------------------------------------ MSN 8 helps ------------------------------------------ ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Fri Jan 31 15:07:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h0VK7NT22348 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:07:23 -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 h0VK7Mh22342 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:07:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from 8sv5f01 (ip-64-38-163-237.dialup.seanet.com [64.38.163.237]) by mx.seanet.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h0VK7LR16412 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:07:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <113d01c2c89b$3929ec10$eda32640@8sv5f01> From: "Bob Kegel" To: "Forensic Science List" References: Subject: Re: cranial fragment detached by high velocity bullet Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:07:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1803 > Does anybody know of a published case where a cranial fragment detached by a high velocity bullet has been recovered at a crime scene shooting, though the perpetrator(s) removed the body itself? Possibly: J Forensic Sci 1991 May;36(3):953-7 Bone fragments a body can make. Stout SD, Ross LM Jr. Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia. Data obtained from various analytical techniques applied to a number of small bone fragments recovered from a crime scene were used to provide evidence for the occurrence of a fatality. Microscopic and histomorphometric analyses confirmed that the fragments were from a human skull. X-ray microanalysis of darkened areas on the bone fragments revealed a chemical signature that matched the chemical signature of a shotgun pellet recovered at the scene of the crime. The above findings supported the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprint evidence which, along with other evidence, was used to convict a man for the murder of his wife, even though her body was never recovered. and J Forensic Sci 1991 May;36(3):949-52 Bones, blood, pellets, glass, and no body. Dix JD, Stout SD, Mosley J. Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia. A man was found guilty of killing his wife, although her body was never found. The case centered on her car, which contained fragments of bone, glass, shotgun pellets, and dried blood. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting techniques were used to establish the decedent's identity. Examination of the bone fragments revealed that they were from the skull. These two pieces of information, added to other evidence, proved that the defendant's wife had received a fatal injury in her car, and a guilty verdict was rendered. LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA From daemon Sun Feb 2 02:39:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h127d3S16935 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:39:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h127d0h16929 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:39:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8BC41283 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:07:48 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.235.102]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:07:57 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E3CC48C.E88FFCDF@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:41:08 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Insanity Defence law in various countries Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2189 2 February 2003 Dear List, I am collecting data on insanity defence law in various countries. In India, the insanity defence law is enshrined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states thus: "Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." Can the list members send me equivalent laws in other countries, and preferably some representative legal cases. I would also be interested in knowing the history of insanity defence in various countries. In India for instance, this law is in force since 1860. Prior to this there was no explicit law on insanity defence. Kindly let me know. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Sun Feb 2 02:41:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h127fmn17061 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:41:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h127fkh17055 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:41:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6144127B for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:10:54 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.226.243]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:10:55 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E3CC48C.E88FFCDF@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:41:08 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Insanity Defence law in various countries Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2192 2 February 2003 Dear List, I am collecting data on insanity defence law in various countries. In India, the insanity defence law is enshrined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states thus: "Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." Can the list members send me equivalent laws in other countries, and preferably some representative legal cases. I would also be interested in knowing the history of insanity defence in various countries. In India for instance, this law is in force since 1860. Prior to this there was no explicit law on insanity defence. Kindly let me know. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failedX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Sun Feb 2 11:05:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h12G5C722546 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:05:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h12G5Ah22540 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:05:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A4D40BBE for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:34:13 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.226.100]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:34:13 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E3CC48C.E88FFCDF@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:41:08 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Insanity Defence law in various countries Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2192 2 February 2003 Dear List, I am collecting data on insanity defence law in various countries. In India, the insanity defence law is enshrined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states thus: "Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." Can the list members send me equivalent laws in other countries, and preferably some representative legal cases. I would also be interested in knowing the history of insanity defence in various countries. In India for instance, this law is in force since 1860. Prior to this there was no explicit law on insanity defence. Kindly let me know. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failedX-MoX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Sun Feb 2 11:06:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h12G6a122652 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h12G6Yh22646 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF0A40F11 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:35:42 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.226.100]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:35:43 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E3CC48C.E88FFCDF@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:41:08 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Insanity Defence law in various countries Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2192 2 February 2003 Dear List, I am collecting data on insanity defence law in various countries. In India, the insanity defence law is enshrined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states thus: "Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." Can the list members send me equivalent laws in other countries, and preferably some representative legal cases. I would also be interested in knowing the history of insanity defence in various countries. In India for instance, this law is in force since 1860. Prior to this there was no explicit law on insanity defence. Kindly let me know. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failedX-MoXX-Mozilla-Status: 0009(_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Sun Feb 2 11:12:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h12GCHu23081 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h12GCFh23075 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9487640C56 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:40:46 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.226.100]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:40:47 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E3D42B8.B75AF1C7@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:39:28 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Insanity Defence law in various countries Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2188 2 February 2003 Dear List, I am collecting data on insanity defence law in various countries. In India, the insanity defence law is enshrined in section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states thus: "Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." Can the list members send me equivalent laws in other countries, and preferably some representative legal cases. I would also be interested in knowing the history of insanity defence in various countries. In India for instance, this law is in force since 1860. Prior to this there was no explicit law on insanity defence. Kindly let me know. Thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failedX-MoXX-Mozilla-Status: 0009(_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Mon Feb 3 13:24:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h13IOio19677 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:24:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h13IOil19671 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:24:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:24:44 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1714 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:05:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] >From forens-owner Mon Feb 3 12:05:55 2003 Received: from som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us (hide-117.state.me.us [198.182.163.117]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h13H5sF17500 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <1FFT48SW>; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:46:03 -0500 Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C01C60AAD@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "Forens-l (E-mail)" Subject: Technicians Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:45:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Good morning all. I have questions regarding technicians in the laboratory. We are having a great debate regarding the status of technicians in our laboratory and I have a few questions. Does your laboratory utilize technicians for casework samples such as batch testing, instrumental testing, etc? Do your technicians write reports on their work or are the notes and results handed to a criminalist to add to his/her report? Has this been an issue with ASCLD? Thanks in advance for your response. Sincerely, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 26 Hospital St. Augusts, ME 04333 P: 207-624-7028 F: 207-624-7123 From daemon Mon Feb 3 13:25:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h13IPEI19712 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h13IPDW19706 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:25:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:25:13 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [John Houde ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1575 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:15:30 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [John Houde ] >From forens-owner Fri Jan 31 18:15:29 2003 Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h0VNFTh26978 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-2ini998.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.37.40] helo=cp.ix.netcom.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ekNd-0007PF-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:15:30 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030131111703.027603d0@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: jnh3@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:27:29 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Microcrystals Articles in CACNews 3rdQ 2000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Mark (and all interested parties) If you are seeking information re microcrystals tests for drugs I strongly urge you to download a copy of the 3rd quarter, 2000 issue of The CACNews. You can get it from www.cacnews.org. This entire issue is devoted to the questions you posed and includes lots of potential contacts. John Houde ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From daemon Mon Feb 3 14:57:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h13JvXc23039 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:57:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from vixen.shef.ac.uk (vixen.shef.ac.uk [143.167.2.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h13JvWF23033 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:57:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [143.167.1.9] (helo=mailhub1.shef.ac.uk) by vixen.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #4) id 18fmie-0000xl-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:57:28 +0000 Received: from swineshaw.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.107.251]) by mailhub1.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #4) id 18fmie-0007HQ-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:57:28 +0000 Received: from SWINESHAW/SpoolDir by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 3 Feb 03 19:57:28 +0000 Received: from SpoolDir by SWINESHAW (Mercury 1.48); 3 Feb 03 19:57:16 +0000 Received: from swineshaw (143.167.157.128) by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 3 Feb 03 19:57:06 +0000 From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: Covert Drug Screening Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:56:24 -0000 Message-ID: <017801c2cbbe$54c02ae0$809da78f@shef.ac.uk.shef.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal X-Scanner: exiscan@shef.ac.uk *18fmie-0000xl-00* http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/ X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 882 I gather one or two organisations are now offering commercially covert drug screening. E.G., the subject is offered a drink from a paper cup, which is then retrieved and packed up and sent off to the lab who then pronounce a yea or nay on the basis of sweat and or saliva trace analyses. Leaving aside the ethical issues of doing this in the clinical or workplace context, does anyone know who these companies are, how they are doing it (GC-MS??Raman?? dowsing??) and of anything published in the peer reviewed literature on this. Robert Forrest A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, Professor of Forensic Toxicology University Dept of Forensic Pathology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK Voice +44 (0)114 2738721 Fax +44 (0)114 279 8942 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Feb 3 18:08:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h13N8Mp26996 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from lsh110.siteprotect.com (lsh110.siteprotect.com [66.113.130.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h13N8LF26990 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:08:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from heaven (bc178189.bendcable.com [216.228.178.189]) by lsh110.siteprotect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA09004; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:08:22 -0600 Reply-To: From: "BJTT" To: Subject: Online training: DNA Analysis Intro, Stalking, Investigations, Profiling, etc. Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:09:22 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1355 Upcoming online training that may be of interest to list members: * An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis: APR 26 - JUN 6 * Fundamental Concepts in Forensic Science: MAR 8 - APR 4 * Introduction to Stalking Concepts: MAR 15 - APR 11 * Criminal Profiling: FEB 1 - MAR 28 * Criminal Profiling & Psychopathy, II: FEB 8 - MAR 7 * Rape Investigation II: FEB 8 - MAR 7 * Investigating Child Abuse: MAR 1 - 29 * Criminal Profiling & Domestic Homicide: MAR 8 - APR 4 * Serial Homicide Investigation: APR 5 - MAY 30 * Criminal Profiling & Psychopathy: MAY 3 - MAY 30 For details on any of our courses, including course descriptions, fees, deadlines, or to register, please see our Course Catalog at: http://www.forensic-science.com/courses.html ======================================================================== We also offer a variety of free resources related to the forensic sciences and criminal investigation at: www.corpus-delicti.com Thank you, Knowledge Solutions Staff ================================================== Knowledge Solutions LLC www.corpus-delicti.com Quality Online Forensic Science Courses since 1997 www.forensic-science.com Career Guide to Criminal Profiling www.forensic-science.com/faq_career_cp.html Forensic Science Bookstore www.corpus-delicti.com/bookstore.html ================================================== From daemon Mon Feb 3 19:06:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14064h28236 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h14060F28230 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:06:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h13NZfM5022819 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:05:53 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:05:51 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:02:23 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: FBI technique on trace metals in bullets MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1221DC6B952398-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h14063F28231 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 404 The FBI technique on bullet lead elemental analysis has a big (negative) article on page 1, section A below the fold, of today's (Mon. 2-3-03) L.A. Times. You may want to pick up a copy on your way home tonight (it is available on their web sight for those of you out of the L.A. area http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-bullets3feb03,0,2097243.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines). Jim Roberts From daemon Tue Feb 4 10:08:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14F82211665 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:08:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us ([63.225.16.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h14F81F11659 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:08:01 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Oregon Lab System Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:08:01 -0700 Message-ID: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE402E7@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: FBI technique on trace metals in bullets Thread-Index: AcLL4UJ0rKrFZUBAS7GgFFDDdgQTwgAfOxNw From: "Jeff Baker" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h14F81F11660 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 511 Forens-friends: Here in the state of Colorado, USA, we have been hearing about a pretty radical change in the Oregon state crime laboratory system. The few local crime lab or Criminalist jobs that are being advertised have recently seen a glut of applications from people formerly employed in Oregon. We have heard that numerous staff were forced to leave due to a budget shortfall. Is there anyone from Oregon subscribing that can offer some information about this? Jeff Baker Arapahoe County, Colorado From daemon Tue Feb 4 11:31:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14GVil14297 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h14GVhh14291 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:31:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:31:43 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h14GVhh14292 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3922 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:12:14 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] >From forens-owner Tue Feb 4 10:12:13 2003 Received: from som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us (hide-117.state.me.us [198.182.163.117]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h14FCDF12028 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <1FFTVWMF>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:12:13 -0500 Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C01C60ABE@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'Jeff Baker'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Oregon Lab System Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:12:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h14FCEF12029 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" This article was recently sent around our laboratory. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific Oregon lays off troopers, lab techs By The Associated Press SALEM, Ore. - Just days after voters rejected an income-tax increase, Oregon State Police troopers and technicians are turning in their badges following the first round of state layoffs. "I received several calls this morning from friends who have already turned in their equipment - they were crying," Trooper Sherri Yoakum said Friday as she handed in her gun and identification. Yoakum, who was assigned to patrol the Capitol Mall, was among the 129 troopers laid off Friday after voters rejected Measure 28 on Tuesday. Oregon State Police will lose 286 positions, including almost 100 scientists and technicians in crime laboratories. Among them are forensic scientists Casey Roberts and Jennifer Bray, who both worked in the state-police crime lab in Springfield. Both had recently bought houses and planned to work in the area for many years. "I think it's the people of Oregon who are going to suffer," said Bray, who holds a degree in chemistry and has six years of forensic experience. Lab manager Terry Bekkedahl lost more than half the staff Friday - 10 of 17 people. "We're taking a group of people who would be our future, and now they're gone," Bekkedahl said. In Portland, the 11-member staff at the state DNA lab has been cut to four. They no longer will enter DNA data from convicts into a national database that last year matched offenders to 143 crimes in Oregon when investigators had no other clues. "Criminals will go free. We're not going to be able to make these cases," said Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad. The layoffs also will push highway patrols to the lowest levels since the 1960s, officials said. Some troopers may be rehired if the Legislature quickly approves a new state-police budget. But the technicians likely will end up moving to other states where demand for their skills is high, and many may be reluctant to return. "We're in a political game," said Jeff Borngasser, who plans to interview for a forensics lab job in Colorado. Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company More local news headlines ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WhyNotOwn.com Refinance Now! Interest rates are at an all time low! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- seattletimes.com home Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site index NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company Back to top From daemon Tue Feb 4 11:32:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14GWvg14538 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:32:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h14GWuG14532 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:32:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:32:56 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks,Gretchen D" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1418 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:48:04 -0800 From: Greg Laskowski To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks,Gretchen D" Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14GXBg14678 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h14GXA214672 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:33:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:33:10 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gr... (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1218 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:00:01 EST From: CaReinarz14@aol.com To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gr... I work in the Cal DOJ Lab System and, until recently, our Lab Technicians performed the same duties as the criminalists did, with the exception of homicide field calls. We could be trained to do analysis, submit reports, go to court, and respond to Clan Lab calls. Things are beginning to change now though. The general idea is that if the lab tech duties are the same as criminalist duties, why have lab techs? We all (at my lab) pretty much have the same education and qualifications as the criminalists do, so as our job descriptions begin to change to fit the lab tech ideal, (evidence, support, etc.), our angst over promotion (or lack thereof) increases. We're hangin' on to some analysis though. Mostly doing Blood Alcohol Analysis and working in the Breath Alcohol Program (not so bad). The word is that when the budget outlook is a bit more rosy, the tech positions may, MAY be upgraded to crim positions so this will no longer be an issue. Brian DOJ Riverside From daemon Tue Feb 4 11:54:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14GsCk15989 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:54:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20509.mail.yahoo.com (web20509.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h14GsBF15983 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:54:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030204165407.3950.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20509.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 08:54:07 PST Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:54:07 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: Oregon Lab System To: Jeff Baker , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE402E7@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1380 Jeff, I'm sure that someone from Oregon will respond later, but according to news reports (from the AP wire-service), they just laid off about 100 forensic scientists. Evidently, the voters of Oregon did not ratify an income-tax increase, so 286 positions (both sworn and non-sworn) with the OSP wer dumped. As an example, the article cites a specific lab - Portland - where the 11-member DNA unit was cut to four. Obviously, this will impact the state of Oregon in ways that they've not considered . . . penny-wise and pound (or dollar) foolish leaps to mind. Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland PD Crime Laboratory --- Jeff Baker wrote: > Forens-friends: > > Here in the state of Colorado, USA, we have been > hearing about a pretty radical change in the Oregon > state crime laboratory system. The few local crime > lab or Criminalist jobs that are being advertised > have recently seen a glut of applications from > people formerly employed in Oregon. We have heard > that numerous staff were forced to leave due to a > budget shortfall. > > Is there anyone from Oregon subscribing that can > offer some information about this? > > Jeff Baker > Arapahoe County, Colorado __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Feb 4 12:11:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h14HBn716798 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lion.state.or.us (lion.state.or.us [159.121.88.21]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h14HBmF16792 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [159.121.171.23] by lion.state.or.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:10:18 -0800 Received: from OSPDOM-MTA by OSP_MAIL1.OSP.STATE.OR.US with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:10:45 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:10:41 -0800 From: "Brad Putnam" To: , Subject: Re: Oregon Lab System Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1365 Jeff (and Group) You're right, due to budget cuts in the last quarter of the biennium the Oregon State Police was forced to relinquish a number of vacant positions and physically lay off 32 scientists and 11 Latent print examiners. This is in addition to a large number of support staff as well (front end people and technicians). The scientists were from all areas (drug chem, firearms, DNA) including a number of individuals proficient in field investigations. The minimum experience was 2 years, max of around six. These individuals were laid off Feb 1, with no indication of a return date. So that's about it, any questions? Brad Putnam Oregon State Police >>> "Jeff Baker" 02/04/03 07:08AM >>> Forens-friends: Here in the state of Colorado, USA, we have been hearing about a pretty radical change in the Oregon state crime laboratory system. The few local crime lab or Criminalist jobs that are being advertised have recently seen a glut of applications from people formerly employed in Oregon. We have heard that numerous staff were forced to leave due to a budget shortfall. Is there anyone from Oregon subscribing that can offer some information about this? Jeff Baker Arapahoe County, Colorado --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 6 05:43:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h16AhCW03227 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 05:43:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f26.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h16AhBF03221 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 05:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 02:39:00 -0800 Received: from 164.100.35.156 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:38:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.100.35.156] From: "anil aggrawal" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Conference on a cruise Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:38:59 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2003 10:39:00.0237 (UTC) FILETIME=[F59A23D0:01C2CDCB] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 686 Dear List, Some days back I received a message that there was going to be a conference in mid ocean on a cruise. I accidentally lost that mail. Can someone please let me know the Email of the person to contact for this conference. Or preferably their website. Thanks. My Email is dr_anil@hotmail.com Many thanks for your time. Regards Anil Aggrawal ------------------------------------------ Add photos to your messages with ------------------------------------------ MSN 8. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Fri Feb 7 01:56:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h176uNO28092 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:56:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost.bcv1.ameritech.net (mailhost1-bcvloh.bcvloh.ameritech.net [66.73.20.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h176uMF28086 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:56:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from D17LPS11.ameritech.net ([66.72.200.178]) by mailhost.bcv1.ameritech.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20030207065617.TXUJ14902.mailhost.bcv1.ameritech.net@D17LPS11.ameritech.net> for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:56:17 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207015438.01f8faa0@mailhost.cle.ameritech.net> X-Sender: hnraaf@mailhost.cle.ameritech.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 01:55:41 -0500 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" From: "Heather N. Raaf, M.D." Subject: test--please ignore In-Reply-To: <3E3CC48C.E88FFCDF@vsnl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7 test From daemon Fri Feb 7 16:53:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h17LrdK14620 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from postino8.prima.com.ar (postino8.prima.com.ar [200.42.0.179]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h17Lrc614614 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:53:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6021 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2003 21:53:36 -0000 Received: from dup-200-42-111-92.prima.net.ar (HELO fito) (200.42.111.92) by postino8.prima.com.ar with SMTP; 7 Feb 2003 21:53:36 -0000 Message-ID: <002001c2cef4$9e937080$0100007f@fito> From: "Adolfo Scatena" To: "forens" Subject: Fw: Insanity Defence law in various countries Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:59:49 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4744 By mistake this message was sent without signature. Sorry Dr. Adolfo Scatena Medico Forense 2ª Circunsc Judicial Gral Roca, Rio Negro ARGENTINA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adolfo Scatena" To: Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:52 PM Subject: Re: Insanity Defence law in various countries > Dear Dr. Anil Aggrawal > > In Argentina the general feeling is that Society can prosecute a person > that has committed a typical unlawful act that could and ought (or should) > be avoided. But the prosecution could not take place if the subject could > not act differently because he had an abnormal motive or could not control > his actions . > But this way of thinking was not always the same and has changed through > history as showed by multiple and different proposals: > > In 1886, the Penal Code gave impunity to mental disease or metal retardation > and also to cases of mental perturbation that caused that the acused could > not be conscious of the unlawful act. > > In 1906, a proposal inspired by the criminologic positivism let drop the > psicological aspect leaving only the biological aspect, forfeiting prison > for those who acted under influence of mental disease in spite that could > have conciousness of what they were doing. > > In 1917 it was proposed to copy, in this subject, the Russian Code , when it > says that it is not enough to have a mental disease, but the disease should > blur the comprehension of what is done or unable the person to act > according to reason. > > Nowadays the Argentine Penal Code, from 1923, established that no one could > be prosecuted if at the moment of the crime, he could not understand the > unlawfullness of his act because of metal retardation, mental disease, or > unconciousness. > > It seems to me that with different wording (due perhaps that are written in > different languages) the Indian Penal Code is very similar to the Argentine > Code in this item, but I would like to know what do you understand for > "unsoundness of > mind". > > Sincerely > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Professor Anil Aggrawal" > To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:11 AM > Subject: Insanity Defence law in various countries > > > > 2 February 2003 > > Dear List, > > I am collecting data on insanity defence law in various countries. In > > India, the insanity defence law is enshrined in section 84 of the Indian > > Penal Code (IPC), which states thus: > > > > "Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done > > by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of > > mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing > > what is either wrong or contrary to law." > > > > Can the list members send me equivalent laws in other countries, and > > preferably some representative legal cases. I would also be interested > > in knowing the history of insanity defence in various countries. In > > India for instance, this law is in force since 1860. Prior to this there > > was no explicit law on insanity defence. > > > > Kindly let me know. > > Thanks for your time. > > > > > > Sincerely > > Professor Anil Aggrawal > > Professor of Forensic Medicine > > Maulana Azad Medical College > > S-299 Greater Kailash-1 > > New Delhi-110048 > > INDIA > > Phone: 26465460, 26413101 > > Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com > > Page me via ICQ #19727771 > > Websites: > > > > 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals > > http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html > > 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology > > http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html > > 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia > > http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html > > 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page > > http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html > > 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page > > http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 > > 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews > > http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html > > 7. Forensic Careers > > http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html > > > > *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I > > tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being > > called when the top doctors have failedX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 > > ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ > > _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| > > ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ > > _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ > > > > > > > > > > > From daemon Sat Feb 8 19:59:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h190xvD04963 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe163.pav0.hotmail.com [64.4.33.156]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h190xu604957 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:59:57 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [65.101.42.187] From: "Alyssa Deinhart" To: "Forensic Science List" Subject: Training for a CSI Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:59:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2003 00:59:57.0895 (UTC) FILETIME=[90CAB570:01C2CFD6] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h190xvE04963 Content-Length: 241 I was wondering if someone could give me an estimate on the amount of time and training it would take to become a CSI? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sun Feb 9 14:28:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h19JSbP18360 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 14:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h19JSQ618354 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 14:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-2ini8oh.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.35.17] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by hall.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18hx7s-0004ZQ-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:28:28 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030209112541.0307dc70@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 11:27:44 -0800 To: "forens" From: John Houde Subject: Training for CSI In-Reply-To: <002001c2cef4$9e937080$0100007f@fito> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 258 How to train for CSI. Well, first you should go to a fine school for the dramatic arts. I've heard bad things about Julliard's acting program, so I wouldn't go there. Then, you should spend hours perfecting your craft, perhaps summer stock... sorry ;-) From daemon Mon Feb 10 07:54:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ACsKg29131 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from f04n01.cac.psu.edu (f04s01.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ACsJ629125 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [130.203.164.141] (tnt2-164-141.cac.psu.edu [130.203.164.141]) by f04n01.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA96966; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:54:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rpw109@email.psu.edu Message-Id: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:51:04 -0500 To: Recipient List Suppressed:; From: RP Withington Subject: Forensic Entomology Workshop Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1583 Announcing the Eleventh 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, 21 May 2003, to Friday, 23 May 2003. 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 525 ASI Bldg. University Park, PA 16802 U.S.A. Telephone: (814) 865-5392 FAX: (814) 865-3048 E-mail: rpw109@psu.edu From daemon Mon Feb 10 17:30:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1AMUXc16631 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:30:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1AMUU616625 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:30:24 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Paint analysis of motor vehicles X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:30:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Paint analysis of motor vehicles Thread-Index: AcLG0GOIuSnCjZ3mRUuqc8Ij66GJ1wAEhrHA From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1AMUW616626 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3440 There are a wealth of journal articles on this topic - a search of the Journal of Forensic Science, Science & Justice (formerly, Journal of the Forensic Science Society), and Forensic Science International will yield tremendous results. Subscribers to any of these journals can search them on-line for free, and in many cases see the full text articles. AAFS members and ASTM Committee E30 members both have free access to the JFS. If you're not a subscriber, you can use a general science search engine like PubMed to at least see abstracts and have the option of ordering the full text for a fee. You can also find useful information using a generic search engine like Google. In addition, there are good articles on paint examination in Saferstein's Forensic Science Handbook, Haas' Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, among others, and there are numerous reference texts devoted to paint analysis (industrial and forensic). There are also some very extensive paint comparison databases maintained around the world, including ones at the FBI (USA), the RCMP (Canada), the Forensic Science Service (Britain), forensic science services in Japan, Korea, etc. This is such a common type of analysis that I should think most countries with national forensic science agencies probably have databases of their own, at least in the developed world. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Professor Anil Aggrawal [mailto:tarun_84@vsnl.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 07:55 To: Forensic Newsgroup (main) Cc: idin@uclan.ac.uk Subject: Paint analysis of motor vehicles Dear List, I have got the following question from a forensic colleague **************** Hello Sir i wanted to request from you any journals or information regarding paint analysis of motor vehicles!! all your help would off course be appriciated..... From Din ************** His Email is idin@uclan.ac.uk May be somebody would like to help him. Even I would love to have this information. thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Mon Feb 10 18:20:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ANKHq17523 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ANKH617517 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from Flagella123@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1e0.1a01143 (4320) for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:20:12 -0500 (EST) From: Flagella123@aol.com Message-ID: <1e0.1a01143.2b798dac@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:20:12 EST Subject: change of e-mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 271 could you change my e-mail for the list to coreilly2003@yahoo.com Cathy O'Reilly Science Department Mamaroneck High School o'reilly@mamkschools.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Feb 10 18:43:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ANhsY18212 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ANhs618206 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:54 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: safety concerns X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: safety concerns Thread-Index: AcLId5fO0YvZP/IARYKCRQ4YrweppwI36Auw From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1ANhs618207 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5827 -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.org] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:50 To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Cc: Nordhoff, Todd Subject: safety concerns >In our lab there has been an increased interest in safety while performing >chemical analysis ( drug / fire debris / blood alcohol ). Our safety officer >has been told by OSHA safety personnel that a deciding factor in >acceptable operations is " what does your peer group do". In that light , I >ask the following questions. Your responses would be greatly appreciated. >>are gloves required to handle all drug evidence? liquid ignitable liquids? No. It's situation dependant. For most coated tablets, capsules, and other pharmaceutical preparations for example, gloves aren't really necessary. However, the ubiquitous "unknown white powder" always has the potential of being something that exhibits significant absorption through the skin, so gloves are a good idea. For liquid ignitables, your sample handling procedures should make gloves unnecessary except when eluting the charcoal trap or strip (you don't want skin exposure to carbon disulfide or other solvents used). The charcoal strips will tightly bind ignitables until eluted, so there's little exposure risk when handling them (especially in their sample holders), and once the eluted sample is in an autosampler vial, there is no further exposure risk in handling the sealed vial. In fact, the better reason for wearing gloves is to avoid contaminating the charcoal strip with whatever you might have gotten on your hands since you last washed them. You should of course wear gloves while eluting the strip with solvent, as the solvent presents a far greater exposure risk than the ignitable residue. >> how do you deal with static electricity when handling small drug samples while wearing latex gloves? It's never been much of a problem; but then again I work in Florida, home of pretty much year-round 95% humidity. Static electricity is of little concern here, even when handling printed circuit boards and other electronics, except perhaps during the few weeks a year when buildings need to be heated. If you're having a problem, you can greatly reduce static electricity on the gloves if after donning you briefly dip them into a detergent solution, rinse, and dry with a cotton or paper towel. If you avoid clothing made of synthetics and avoid also carpeted floors, you'll have much less of a problem. >>are all drug cases worked in the hood? how do you deal with weighing problems with the hood turned on? We don't work drug cases in a hood unless there are going to be fumes given off or aerosols generated, or in the case of heavily decomposed plant matter that presents a significant risk of fungal spore exposure. Tablets, capsules, most marijuana, paraphernalia, etc. don't provide much of an inhalation risk. Powders are another matter. If the package can't be emptied for net weight determination without creating aerosols, then do it in a hood; if it can, then you don't need a hood. Better yet, don't manipulate powders if you don't have to. If the net weight isn't important to the charge (i.e., if the weight including packaging remains below the statutory break points for enhanced charges or penalties) then just determine and report the gross weight including the package (being sure to report it as a gross weight), and avoid the problem entirely. You certainly should be able to safely sample the package for analysis, so long as you don't have to empty it. >>is eye protection mandatory when handling 'organic' solvents? Not normally. We don't slosh it around excessively, and we don't use large amounts. Proper pipetting technique eliminates splashes. If it has a high vapor pressure (e.g., chloroform, hexane, carbon disulfide), then it should be handled in the hood with the sash lowered below eye (and more importantly, below nose) level. Inhalation and/or skin contact is the much greater risk. >>are gloves mandatory when handling 'organic' solvents? They should be used in most cases. Many of the organics we use as solvents are known to be toxic, irritants, carcinogens, teratogens, or mutagens. E.g., methanol, chloroform, carbon disulfide, etc. However, this in most labs is at the analyst's discretion. Government safety regulations require PPE to be available and for employees to be trained in its use, and employees without chemistry background needed to evaluate risks should be required to use gloves to protect them from themselves, but professional chemists should normally have discretion to decide how much protection they need in a given instance, within reason of course. At the very least, lab coats should always be worn whenever in the analytical areas where samples or other chemicals are handled, but gloves and eye protection are not always necessary. If one of your analysts is being reckless, then you deprive him/her of that discretion and make use mandatory. >>are MSDS handling requirements conscientiously followed? No, because they're often ridiculous. The guidelines manufacturers put in their MSDSs is often determined by liability concerns, not by realistic health concerns or scientific necessity. Pick up the MSDS for sodium chloride and you'll likely see it calls for gloves, lab coat, eye and face protection. If everyone followed that literally, it would certainly be an interesting sight at the beach and at the dinner table. I've even seen recommendations calling for PPE use on the MSDS for HPLC grade water! MSDS data should always be considered, but use of professional judgment and common sense apply here. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Tue Feb 11 09:54:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1BEs2O00110 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sherlock.holmes.nl (sherlock.holmes.nl [195.169.99.99]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1BEs0600104 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by sherlock.holmes.nl (Postfix, from userid 8) id DA44A12C2; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:54:00 +0100 (CET) Comments: Passed Amavis/Sophos Anti-Virus for Unix (sherlock.holmes.nl) Received: from mailserver.gl.minjus.nl (nfi.minjus.nl [10.1.0.134]) by sherlock.holmes.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D631A12B5 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:53:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by MAILSERVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:52:34 +0100 Message-ID: <6C515CBE2D1FD6119E8900B0D0685C80B9FFD4@MAILSERVER> From: Gerard van der Peyl To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: RE: Paint analysis of motor vehicles Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:52:33 +0100 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: 3017 Prof. Aggrawal, Bob Parsons is totally right in his response. Perhapse I can also refer to the European Paint Group that is part of the European Network Of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). Leader of the Group is John McCullough at the Irish Forensic Science Laboratory in Dublin ( jpmccullough@fsi.gov.ie ). The EPG has built a large car paint database (both physical samples, data on the paints and production/use in cars, measurements) that is physically located at the BKA (BundesKriminalAmt) in Germany and is accessible to all the EPG-partners who also contribute to the database/paint collection. Strategic co-operations have been made, both with the RCMP(/FBI) and the Japanese colleagues so as to be able to use their databases. Yours, Dr Gerard J.Q. van der Peijl, Forensic Scientist, Netherlands Forensic Institute of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, PO Box 3110, 2280 GC Rijswijk, The Netherlands tel +31 70 413 53 53 fax +31 70 413 54 54 e-mail: g.van.der.peyl@nfi.minjus.nl www.forensischinstituut.nl -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Professor Anil Aggrawal [mailto:tarun_84@vsnl.net] Verzonden: dinsdag 28 januari 2003 13:55 Aan: Forensic Newsgroup (main) CC: idin@uclan.ac.uk Onderwerp: Paint analysis of motor vehicles Dear List, I have got the following question from a forensic colleague **************** Hello Sir i wanted to request from you any journals or information regarding paint analysis of motor vehicles!! all your help would off course be appriciated..... From Din ************** His Email is idin@uclan.ac.uk May be somebody would like to help him. Even I would love to have this information. thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Tue Feb 11 10:21:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1BFLRk01245 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:21:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41405.mail.yahoo.com (web41405.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.71]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1BFLQ601239 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:21:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030211152111.83185.qmail@web41405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.104.223.162] by web41405.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:21:11 PST Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:21:11 -0800 (PST) From: L DeShong Subject: Criminal Profiling, Turvey, et al., First Edition To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 326 Does anyone know where I can purchase a copy of the first edition of this book? Thanks, L. DeShong --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 11 19:57:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C0v9x27941 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41007.mail.yahoo.com (web41007.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1C0v7627935 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:57:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030212005653.98606.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.32.109.96] by web41007.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:56:53 PST Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:56:53 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Ethical Dilemma To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <20030211152111.83185.qmail@web41405.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1743 Here's an ethical dilemma: An expert is hired by defense counsel to review and help him understand the technical basis of the state's case against a criminal defendant. The expert, after careful review, determines that the state's case has much merit, that the defendant's story is false, and informs defense counsel that he cannot assist with the defense in any meaningful way--and certainly is unwilling to testify on behalf of the defendant. The prosecutor finds out that the expert has reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is not listed as a defense witness, and issues a subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a witness for the state. What is the appropriate response? Does the expert have an obligation to his original client to maintain confidentiality? Are the expert's opinions protected by: Attorney work product? Attorney client privelege? The defendant's rights under Amendments 5 and 6? It seems to me that if the expert talks with the prosecutor, he runs the risk of being sued for breach of contract. Additionally, if a defendant knew that any expert he hired could be a potential witness against him, this would have a chilling effect on his desire to challenge the state's evidence (not to mention drying up demand for defense experts ;-) What do folks think about this? More importantly, does anyone know of any case law on the subject? ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Feb 11 19:57:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C0vE227961 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from web14703.mail.yahoo.com (web14703.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.120]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1C0vD627955 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:57:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030212005713.74306.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.25.64] by web14703.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:57:13 PST Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:57:13 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germline mutation 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: 856 I'm looking for feedback from anybody who has run into germline mutations in paternity cases. Specifically, in the case of a match to the alleged father at 12 of 13 loci, and a "typical" germline mutation scenario (1 repeat unit change in the male line), how have you handled the statistics? Have you modified the paternity index calculation to take into account the frequency of germline mutations in the prosecution hypothesis? If so, or if you have another approved procedure for handling this, I would be interested in hearing from you, and if possible getting a copy of your procedure. Thanks, Tim Sliter Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas ph 214-920-5834 Fax 214-920-5813 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Feb 11 21:13:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C2DGj29607 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:13:16 -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 h1C2DE629601 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1C2DEGp247597; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:13:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030211174349.00bac360@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:15:10 -0800 To: Tim Sliter From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germline mutation Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <20030212005713.74306.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1972 Yes, I use a modified paternity index calculation for loci that can plausibly be explained as mutations. I have outlined the approach to computing a paternity index at such loci at http://dna-view.com/mutext.htm. I understand from David Gjertson that the AABB plans to implement a recommendation along these lines. If the man's genotypes are consistent with the child's save at one, two, or conceivably three loci, then mutation at the exceptional loci is plausible. In practice you need to make the mutation calculation first, then in retrospect you see whether two or three mutations was plausible. (One mutation will pretty much always be plausible.) The aim of the mutation calculation, just as the aim of any paternity index calculation, is to evaluate how common is the observed set of genotypes among true (i.e. father-child-mother) trios, as compared to among false (nonfather-child-mother) trios. When a mutation is necessary as part of the explanation for true trios, the genotype constellation is typically hundreds of times more common among false trios -- i.e. the paternity index ("PI", =likelihood ratio) is 1/hundreds -- whereas for consistent systems typically 11000), you report it. If it is very small (e.g. < 1/1000, but any figure could be debated), then you report "exclusion." If the value is unsatisfyingly intermediate, then either issue an "inconclusive" report or augment the testing. Regards, Charles Brenner http://dna-view.com At 04:57 PM 2/11/03 -0800, Tim Sliter wrote: >I'm looking for feedback from anybody who has run into >germline mutations in paternity cases. From daemon Tue Feb 11 21:42:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C2gCb00353 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.jobe.net (www.jobe.net [208.18.94.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1C2gB600346 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:42:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.220] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.06) id A4852B4B012E; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:42:13 -0600 Message-ID: <0e8f01c2d240$973ea440$36bf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <20030212005653.98606.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemma Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:43:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2931 Was just in almost that situation, although in a military general court martial and appointed by the court as the defense consultant. Reviewed the case in the first place and told the defense counsel that I wasn't going to be much help because I agreed with the prosecution's expert. Sat in on the defense interview of the prosecution expert and afterwards, in discussion, told DC that the ideal situation would be to keep him off the stand, if at all possible, because he came across as an unbiased scientist with hard facts to testify to. At the conclusion of the government's case, the defense rested. Expert never went on the stand; prosecution witnesses had already described the defendant's version. Junior prosecutor told me after the verdict & sentencing that they were saving their expert as a rebuttal witness to me. IMMENSELY hard to keep a straight face when I heard this. But from one person's viewpoint, I would have no problem telling the prosecutor to pound sand. I think my discussions with either side are attorney's work product as well as attorney client privelege and thus protected from disclosure. (I have discussed cases with both sides in the past, and I don't remember either side trying to drag out the other's strategy.) Not to mention, the only thing I have to sell is my reputation. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:56 PM Subject: Ethical Dilemma Here's an ethical dilemma: An expert is hired by defense counsel to review and help him understand the technical basis of the state's case against a criminal defendant. The expert, after careful review, determines that the state's case has much merit, that the defendant's story is false, and informs defense counsel that he cannot assist with the defense in any meaningful way--and certainly is unwilling to testify on behalf of the defendant. The prosecutor finds out that the expert has reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is not listed as a defense witness, and issues a subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a witness for the state. What is the appropriate response? Does the expert have an obligation to his original client to maintain confidentiality? Are the expert's opinions protected by: Attorney work product? Attorney client privelege? The defendant's rights under Amendments 5 and 6? It seems to me that if the expert talks with the prosecutor, he runs the risk of being sued for breach of contract. Additionally, if a defendant knew that any expert he hired could be a potential witness against him, this would have a chilling effect on his desire to challenge the state's evidence (not to mention drying up demand for defense experts ;-) What do folks think about this? More importantly, does anyone know of any case law on the subject? From daemon Tue Feb 11 22:25:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C3P7a01107 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:25:07 -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 h1C3P4601092 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Wed Feb 12 16:24:55 2003 +1300 Received: by KSCXCHG2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:24:55 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Walsh, Kevan" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, "'johnlentini@yahoo.com'" Subject: RE: Ethical Dilemma Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:24:48 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2859 John Aside from the obvious dilemma you've raised, is there another ethical issue relating to the impartiality of the expert. In particular, the comment that the expert is "certainly unwilling to testify on behalf of the defendant", following on from the establishment that the state's case has much merit and the defendant's story is false. Shouldn't the defence be able to call any expert witness to address a specific topic that may in some way assist the defense's case, without the need for the expert to 'believe' in the defense's case/innocence? > Kevan Walsh > ESR > Private Bag 92021 > Auckland > NEW ZEALAND > Ph #64-9-8153903 > Fax #64-9- 8496046 > email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz > http://www.esr.cri.nz > For images of New Zealand, visit www.purenz.com > > > ---------- > From: John Lentini[SMTP:johnlentini@yahoo.com] > Reply To: johnlentini@yahoo.com > Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2003 1:56 p.m. > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Ethical Dilemma > > > Here's an ethical dilemma: > > An expert is hired by defense counsel to review > and help him understand the technical basis of > the state's case against a criminal defendant. > > The expert, after careful review, determines that > the state's case has much merit, that the > defendant's story is false, and informs defense > counsel that he cannot assist with the defense in > any meaningful way--and certainly is unwilling to > testify on behalf of the defendant. > > The prosecutor finds out that the expert has > reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is > not listed as a defense witness, and issues a > subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a > witness for the state. > > What is the appropriate response? > > Does the expert have an obligation to his > original client to maintain confidentiality? > > Are the expert's opinions protected by: > > Attorney work product? > > Attorney client privelege? > > The defendant's rights under Amendments 5 and 6? > > It seems to me that if the expert talks with the > prosecutor, he runs the risk of being sued for > breach of contract. Additionally, if a defendant > knew that any expert he hired could be a > potential witness against him, this would have a > chilling effect on his desire to challenge the > state's evidence (not to mention drying up demand > for defense experts ;-) > > What do folks think about this? > > More importantly, does anyone know of any case > law on the subject? > > > > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > http://shopping.yahoo.com > From daemon Tue Feb 11 22:50:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C3oHo01602 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1C3oG601596 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from h-66-134-202-85.snvacaid.covad.net ([66.134.202.85] helo=Homey.kruglaw.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18inuZ-0007Y1-00; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:50:15 -0800 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030211193958.00b7aa00@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:50:06 -0800 To: Charles Brenner , Tim Sliter From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germline mutation Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030211174349.00bac360@uclink.berkeley.edu> References: <20030212005713.74306.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1145 At 06:15 PM 2/11/2003 -0800, Charles Brenner wrote: >If the overall PI, with mutation calculations incorporated, is reasonably >large (e.g. >1000), you report it. If it is very small (e.g. < 1/1000, but >any figure could be debated), then you report "exclusion." If the value is >unsatisfyingly intermediate, then either issue an "inconclusive" report or >augment the testing. > >Regards, >Charles Brenner >http://dna-view.com Dagnabit, Charles, where did you come up with the <>1000 threshold for determining that an exclusion somehow gets reported as an inclusion? Do you call this the new "mutational plausibility standard"? If two or three loci, in fact, why not four or even five? Kidding aside, isn't this just an example of making the numbers fit a desired result? BTW, our case in Riverside is still kicking around the system. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 11 23:06:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C46PL02107 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1C46O602101 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from h-66-134-202-85.snvacaid.covad.net ([66.134.202.85] helo=Homey.kruglaw.com) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ioAD-0005N8-00; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:06:25 -0800 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030211193051.01f77910@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:06:19 -0800 To: johnlentini@yahoo.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20030212005653.98606.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030211152111.83185.qmail@web41405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1C46PM02107 Content-Length: 3217 At 04:56 PM 2/11/2003 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >Here's an ethical dilemma: > >An expert is hired by defense counsel to review >and help him understand the technical basis of >the state's case against a criminal defendant. > >The prosecutor finds out that the expert has >reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is >not listed as a defense witness, and issues a >subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a >witness for the state. > >What is the appropriate response? John, This is an issue that has been litigated in California courts and the law is clear. Any communications, including opinions, rendered by an expert retained by the defense are work product and privileged and cannot ethically be disclosed, nor can their disclosure be compelled. In this regard see: County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 647, 654-658 [271 Cal.Rptr. 698] [opposing party cannot retain adversary's former expert witness without violating work-product doctrine]; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 648-649 [151 Cal.Rptr. 399] [work-product doctrine is applicable at trial as well as in pretrial discovery proceedings]; 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 28, 33-35 (1987) [work-product doctrine applies in grand jury proceedings]; accord, In re Grand Jury Proceedings (8th Cir. 1973) 473 F.2d 840, 842-848 [the need for protection of attorney work product outweighs the public interest in the search for the truth at a grand jury proceeding].) County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court was cited with approval in the more recent case of People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 323; 23 P.3d 563. Indeed, in People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528; 2 P.3d 1081 the California Supreme Court held that "the prosecutor violated the work product rule by eliciting on cross-examination of defendant's expert witnesses that other defense experts who examined defendant were not called to testify. Work product encompasses the investigation of a defendant's mental state to assess both the favorable and the unfavorable aspects of the case. It also encompasses counsel's impressions and conclusions regarding witnesses who would be favorable and those who would not be so. It follows that the party's decision not to call an expert who has been consulted is within the rule. The rule applied even though the prosecutor did not seek or learn the identities of the nontestifying experts through discovery." Finally, on the attorney-client privilege issue, the Court also held: "The attorney-client privilege is a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer (Evid. Code, § 954). It encompasses confidential communications between a client and retained experts." Hope this answers some of your questions. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 11 23:24:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C4O4d02584 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1C4O3602578 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from PRGormley@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.134.1af2f8c5 (4238) for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:23:57 -0500 (EST) From: PRGormley@aol.com Message-ID: <134.1af2f8c5.2b7b265c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:23:56 EST Subject: Ethical Dilemma solved To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 743 Well, at first I was going answer by saying the answer to this issue was well resolved by the posting by David Hause and I expound upon the issue of defense counsel and retained agents. Of course, then Kim Kruglick's answer slaughtered any need for me to answer that issue as well. Massachusetts has similar materials supportive of the positions taken by the California courts (though certainly fewer of them!) as well as ethics rules for specific groups (ex: private investigators). Such is the power of this list! Paul Gormley (Defense) Attorney Criminal Justice Faculty, North Shore Community College Salem MA --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 11 23:42:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C4gla03120 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:42:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (dav49.pav3.hotmail.com [64.4.38.153]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1C4gk603114 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:10:37 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [65.128.112.66] From: "Andre Moenssens" To: "Dave Hause" , References: <20030212005653.98606.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> <0e8f01c2d240$973ea440$36bf22d0@dwhause> Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemma Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:06:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2003 04:10:37.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2C46CC0:01C2D24C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4311 On November 19, 2002, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a defense forensic consultant (whose investigation had confirmed the prosecution's theory and who therefore was not going to be called as a defense witness) could not be subpoenaed by the prosecution. Since he had been compelled to testify for the state, and a conviction had resulted, the court reversed and ordered a new trial. The case is State v. Dunn, COA01-487 (N.C.App. Nov. 19, 2002). The court also said that the defense expert's report rendered to the defense was work product and not discoverable. In its opinion, the court cited a number of recent cases from other jurisdictions, holding the same way: United States v. Walker, 910 F.Supp. 861 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) and People v. Spiezer, 735 N.E.2d 1017 (Ill.App. 2000). Older cases cited for the same result included State v. Mingo, 392 A.2d 590 (N.J. 1978) and Hutchinson v. People, 742 P.2d 875 (Colo. 1987). Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law Emeritus University of Missouri - Kansas City AndreMoenssens@forensic-evidence.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Hause" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemma > Was just in almost that situation, although in a military general court > martial and appointed by the court as the defense consultant. Reviewed the > case in the first place and told the defense counsel that I wasn't going to > be much help because I agreed with the prosecution's expert. Sat in on the > defense interview of the prosecution expert and afterwards, in discussion, > told DC that the ideal situation would be to keep him off the stand, if at > all possible, because he came across as an unbiased scientist with hard > facts to testify to. At the conclusion of the government's case, the > defense rested. Expert never went on the stand; prosecution witnesses had > already described the defendant's version. Junior prosecutor told me after > the verdict & sentencing that they were saving their expert as a rebuttal > witness to me. IMMENSELY hard to keep a straight face when I heard this. > > But from one person's viewpoint, I would have no problem telling the > prosecutor to pound sand. I think my discussions with either side are > attorney's work product as well as attorney client privelege and thus > protected from disclosure. (I have discussed cases with both sides in the > past, and I don't remember either side trying to drag out the other's > strategy.) Not to mention, the only thing I have to sell is my reputation. > Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net > Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Lentini" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:56 PM > Subject: Ethical Dilemma > > Here's an ethical dilemma: > > An expert is hired by defense counsel to review > and help him understand the technical basis of > the state's case against a criminal defendant. > > The expert, after careful review, determines that > the state's case has much merit, that the > defendant's story is false, and informs defense > counsel that he cannot assist with the defense in > any meaningful way--and certainly is unwilling to > testify on behalf of the defendant. > > The prosecutor finds out that the expert has > reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is > not listed as a defense witness, and issues a > subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a > witness for the state. > > What is the appropriate response? > > Does the expert have an obligation to his > original client to maintain confidentiality? > > Are the expert's opinions protected by: > > Attorney work product? > > Attorney client privelege? > > The defendant's rights under Amendments 5 and 6? > > It seems to me that if the expert talks with the > prosecutor, he runs the risk of being sued for > breach of contract. Additionally, if a defendant > knew that any expert he hired could be a > potential witness against him, this would have a > chilling effect on his desire to challenge the > state's evidence (not to mention drying up demand > for defense experts ;-) > > What do folks think about this? > > More importantly, does anyone know of any case > law on the subject? > From daemon Tue Feb 11 23:45:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C4j9203383 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:45:09 -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 h1C4iq603377 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:44:53 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Wed Feb 12 17:43:57 2003 +1300 Received: by KSCXCHG2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:43:56 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Tim Sliter '" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu '" Cc: "'triggs@stat.auckland.ac.nz'" , "'tmc@fss.org.uk'" Subject: RE: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germl ine mutation Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:43:46 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 397 From an upcoming book by Gill and Buckleton. This chapter by Clayton and Buckleton bu hopefully to include Triggs. Tim: (I don't think I can feed the whole net) I have a lot of background that I can give on specific mutation rates and the models in general. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/octet-stream --- From daemon Wed Feb 12 00:30:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1C5UiH04447 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1C5Uh604441 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:30:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-203-78-186.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.203.78.186]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h1C5UedT007870 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:30:42 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030211210651.00abac70@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:30:29 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20030212005653.98606.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030211152111.83185.qmail@web41405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3951 Kim Kruglick, Andre Moenssens and others have nicely addressed the legal precedents for maintaining confidentiality of opinions and reports prepared by experts retained by the defense. I would like to address this issue from a policy perspective. After all, law should reflect sound social policy -- not the other way around. Science is based in a process of peer review. As forensic scientists we have an obligation to facilitate and participate in the process of peer review. One aspect of peer review, in the arena of forensic science, involves the defense attorney hiring an expert to review, in one way or another, the work done by experts working for the prosecution. If the work done by the expert retained by the defense would be divulged to the prosecution, and could be used by the prosecution, no defense attorney could run the risk (it would be legal malpractice, it has been argued) of hiring an expert to review the work, or do any independent investigation. It is common practice among lawyers to parse out various aspects of the technical investigation to various experts. The primary reason for doing this is so that they can pick and choose which experts to divulge and which to not divulge. This means, often, that experts are operating on an incomplete set of facts, selected by the lawyer with presumably no technical expertise and with a particular point to prove. Operating in the dark with a set of data defined by someone else without relevant technical background is hardly the preference for any scientist. Is it appropriate for a witness to criticize one aspect of a technical investigation, and at the same time remain silent about other aspects of the investigation with which there is no disagreement? Is it appropriate for a lawyer to present a witness to criticize one aspect of an investigation even though, overall, the investigation led to what appears to be the correct conclusion? How does the peer review process in forensic science work if the results of that process are available to the "other side" of a case? Pete Barnett At 04:56 PM 2/11/03 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >Here's an ethical dilemma: > >An expert is hired by defense counsel to review >and help him understand the technical basis of >the state's case against a criminal defendant. > >The expert, after careful review, determines that >the state's case has much merit, that the >defendant's story is false, and informs defense >counsel that he cannot assist with the defense in >any meaningful way--and certainly is unwilling to >testify on behalf of the defendant. > >The prosecutor finds out that the expert has >reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is >not listed as a defense witness, and issues a >subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a >witness for the state. > >What is the appropriate response? > >Does the expert have an obligation to his >original client to maintain confidentiality? > >Are the expert's opinions protected by: > >Attorney work product? > >Attorney client privelege? > >The defendant's rights under Amendments 5 and 6? > >It seems to me that if the expert talks with the >prosecutor, he runs the risk of being sued for >breach of contract. Additionally, if a defendant >knew that any expert he hired could be a >potential witness against him, this would have a >chilling effect on his desire to challenge the >state's evidence (not to mention drying up demand >for defense experts ;-) > >What do folks think about this? > >More importantly, does anyone know of any case >law on the subject? > > > > > >===== >Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. >John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com >Certified Fire Investigator >Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics >http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day >http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 14:00:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CJ0VK19102 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:00:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41011.mail.yahoo.com (web41011.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1CJ0U619096 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:00:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030212190031.77662.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web41011.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:00:31 PST Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:00:31 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: "Confidential" Data To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 803 While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 14:20:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CJKFJ19799 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imf48bis.bellsouth.net (mail137.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.97]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1CJKE619793 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from davelaptop ([68.18.241.150]) by imf48bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with SMTP id <20030212192214.MZSM1243.imf48bis.bellsouth.net@davelaptop>; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:22:14 -0500 Message-ID: <047d01c2d2cb$c26a84f0$1c7bfea9@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: , References: <20030212190031.77662.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:20:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1485 Unless they are trying to patent or copyright something...I do not see how these data can be feasibly repressed... no patient data, nothing personal, etc...Unless it's just complete BS. In this situation..I find it as fishy as you do...... hmmm Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: "Confidential" Data > While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I > witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited > state laboratory testify to the results of some > ignitable liquid residue testing. > > I had asked for the opportunity to review the > chemist's data prior to the trial, but the > request was refused. > > At the trial, the chemist testified with a > perfectly straight face that the data underlying > the conclusions presented were "confidential." > The charts were not even made available at the > trial. > > Does anyone else see a problem with this lab > policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, > we are only too happy to provide data when > requested. > > John J. Lentini, F-ABC > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 14:39:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CJdw320884 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:39:58 -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 h1CJdv620878 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:39:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1CJdsGp233725; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:39:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030211201918.00ba48f0@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:42:57 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Kim Kruglick From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germline mutation In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20030211193958.00b7aa00@pop.kruglaw.com> References: <4.3.1.2.20030211174349.00bac360@uclink.berkeley.edu> <20030212005713.74306.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2809 The criterion PI>1000 for issuing an inclusion paternity report is roughly industry standard. In principle there should be no problem issuing any true report, even one with a very modest PI such as 20, but since unfortunately the practical limitations of the civil justice system might cause over-reading such a finding, it is better to avoid it. My feeling is that the rules of yore -- so many nominally inconsistent loci ("exclusions" as they are unfortunately called) equals exclusion (this time meaning the expert's decision to exclude paternity) -- are inadequate given STR testing, and unnecessary given the knowledge of a reasonable model of STR mutation from which a reasonably accurate likelihood ratio computation can be made. That computation does, though, lead us into new terrain. Whereas the old rule led to the artificial but convenient assumption that PI=0 (the implication of a decision of exclusion), if you actually calculate the likelihood ratio then you must face the fact that PI is never precisely 0. But the judge is used to hearing that it is -- i.e. to hearing a decision of exclusion. Given that reality, I thought of a threshold symmetrical to the positive standard -- so any PI<1/1000 -- as a level below which the laboratory reports non-paternity. Any such threshold is arbitrary, but what is the alternative? When DNA testing shows the man's paternity is inconsistent in 10 of 13 systems, rather than "exclusion" to report something like PI=10 to the minus 25? That may be logical, but it seems tediously revolutionary. Charles At 07:50 PM 2/11/03 -0800, Kim Kruglick wrote: >At 06:15 PM 2/11/2003 -0800, Charles Brenner wrote: > >>If the overall PI, with mutation calculations incorporated, is reasonably >>large (e.g. >1000), you report it. If it is very small (e.g. < 1/1000, >>but any figure could be debated), then you report "exclusion." If the >>value is unsatisfyingly intermediate, then either issue an "inconclusive" >>report or augment the testing. >> >>Regards, >>Charles Brenner >>http://dna-view.com > > > Dagnabit, Charles, where did you come up with the <>1000 > threshold for determining that an exclusion somehow gets reported as an > inclusion? Do you call this the new "mutational plausibility standard"? > If two or three loci, in fact, why not four or even five? > Kidding aside, isn't this just an example of making the numbers > fit a desired result? BTW, our case in Riverside is still kicking around > the system. > >Best regards, >Kim Kruglick >mailto:kim@kruglaw.com >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Forensic Resource and >Criminal Law Search Site >http://www.kruglaw.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Feb 12 15:10:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CKAUp22057 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:10:30 -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 h1CKAQ622041 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Thu Feb 13 09:09:59 2003 +1300 Received: by KSCXCHG2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:09:59 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Kim Kruglick , "'Charles Brenner'" Subject: RE: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germl ine mutation Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:09:58 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3633 Charles, from Tim's and my chapter. Paternity Index Probability of paternity2000 (N=33)% 2001(N=36)% 100-1000 99-99.9% 24 19 1000-10,000 99.9-99.99% 33 22 10,000-100,000 99.99-99.999% 21 25 >100,000 >99.999% 3 8 Less than a certain number of inconsistencies 9 11 No requirement 9 14 Table 10.4. Requirements for issuing a report with a positive weight for paternity (Hallenberg and Morling 2002) > ---------- > From: Charles Brenner[SMTP:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:42 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Kim Kruglick > Subject: Re: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) > germline mutation > > The criterion PI>1000 for issuing an inclusion paternity report is roughly > > industry standard. In principle there should be no problem issuing any > true > report, even one with a very modest PI such as 20, but since unfortunately > > the practical limitations of the civil justice system might cause > over-reading such a finding, it is better to avoid it. > > My feeling is that the rules of yore -- so many nominally inconsistent > loci > ("exclusions" as they are unfortunately called) equals exclusion (this > time > meaning the expert's decision to exclude paternity) -- are inadequate > given > STR testing, and unnecessary given the knowledge of a reasonable model of > STR mutation from which a reasonably accurate likelihood ratio computation > > can be made. > > That computation does, though, lead us into new terrain. Whereas the old > rule led to the artificial but convenient assumption that PI=0 (the > implication of a decision of exclusion), if you actually calculate the > likelihood ratio then you must face the fact that PI is never precisely 0. > > But the judge is used to hearing that it is -- i.e. to hearing a decision > of exclusion. Given that reality, I thought of a threshold symmetrical to > the positive standard -- so any PI<1/1000 -- as a level below which the > laboratory reports non-paternity. Any such threshold is arbitrary, but > what > is the alternative? When DNA testing shows the man's paternity is > inconsistent in 10 of 13 systems, rather than "exclusion" to report > something like PI=10 to the minus 25? That may be logical, but it seems > tediously revolutionary. > > Charles > > At 07:50 PM 2/11/03 -0800, Kim Kruglick wrote: > >At 06:15 PM 2/11/2003 -0800, Charles Brenner wrote: > > > >>If the overall PI, with mutation calculations incorporated, is > reasonably > >>large (e.g. >1000), you report it. If it is very small (e.g. < 1/1000, > >>but any figure could be debated), then you report "exclusion." If the > >>value is unsatisfyingly intermediate, then either issue an > "inconclusive" > >>report or augment the testing. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Charles Brenner > >>http://dna-view.com > > > > > > Dagnabit, Charles, where did you come up with the <>1000 > > threshold for determining that an exclusion somehow gets reported as an > > inclusion? Do you call this the new "mutational plausibility standard"? > > If two or three loci, in fact, why not four or even five? > > Kidding aside, isn't this just an example of making the numbers > > fit a desired result? BTW, our case in Riverside is still kicking around > > > the system. > > > >Best regards, > >Kim Kruglick > >mailto:kim@kruglaw.com > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >Forensic Resource and > >Criminal Law Search Site > >http://www.kruglaw.com > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Wed Feb 12 15:12:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CKCl022371 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:12:47 -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 h1CKCW622356 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:12:32 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Thu Feb 13 09:11:15 2003 +1300 Received: by KSCXCHG2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:11:15 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Kim Kruglick , "'Charles Brenner'" Subject: Modified paternity statistics in the case of (apparent) germline mutation Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:11:10 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 414 >From an upcoming book by Gill and Buckleton. This chapter by Clayton and Buckleton bu hopefully to include Triggs. Tim: (I don't think I can feed the whole net) I have a lot of background that I can give on specific mutation rates and the models in general. > <> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/msword --- From daemon Wed Feb 12 15:28:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CKS6f23062 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:28:06 -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 h1CKS5623056 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:28:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-33.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.33]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1CKS44r013713; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:28:05 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com Message-Id: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:34:00 -0800 To: johnlentini@yahoo.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data In-Reply-To: <20030212190031.77662.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2334 Did this occur in a jurisdiction that is subject to the laws of the United States, or any of its states? Maybe this is a feature of the Homeland Security Bill that I am not aware of. I suppose if we can detain people, or try them, in secret proceedings, the data that is used to convict people can also be kept secret. But political jousting aside, this is quite shocking. It is not only an affront to the constitutional right to cross examine a witness and confront the evidence against an accused, but it completely eliminates the only real quality control process that exists in any scientific endeavor -- that is the independent peer review process. How can one place any reliance on any secret data, or conclusions based on secret data? I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the data supporting the witness's conclusions are either non-existent, or have such contradictory aspects, that the witness decided it was better to just bluff, knowing that his bluff would not be called. I presume the witness was acting with full knowledge of the prosecutor and the laboratory administration. One does feel good, though, about the operation of the magistrate in protecting the citizens from over-zealous actions of the government. It's a good thing we have judges!! Pete Barnett At 11:00 AM 2/12/2003 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I >witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited >state laboratory testify to the results of some >ignitable liquid residue testing. > >I had asked for the opportunity to review the >chemist's data prior to the trial, but the >request was refused. > >At the trial, the chemist testified with a >perfectly straight face that the data underlying >the conclusions presented were "confidential." >The charts were not even made available at the >trial. > >Does anyone else see a problem with this lab >policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, >we are only too happy to provide data when >requested. > >John J. Lentini, F-ABC > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day >http://shopping.yahoo.com > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 15:41:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CKfOs23825 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:41:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1CKfN623819 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:41:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:39:51 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/12/2003 02:39:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2195 John, I agree, it sounds very suspect, but lets play devil's advocate. Was the chemist asked "Can just anyone have access to your work product?" and the complete answer should have probably been extrapolated to be "My work product is confidential (and it is) but the prosecution and/or case officer can make it available to anyone." My lab is accredited and I can not give out any information, results, or work product to anyone unless cleared to do so by the ADA or Case Officer/Agency. Was a request made to see instrumental data, or did the chemist just not produce any. (Example - we do not bring chains-of-custody to court. We have them of course and we are prepared to produce them if asked in advance, but why complicate things when you don't have to.) Was it really the lab's policy, or a decision by the prosecution that you do not see the data? I find it hard to believe that an accredited state lab even cares if defense wants to see data - data is data and if you did your job right who cares if someone wants to see it. After you get clearance - come on over, I'll even put a pot of coffee on! But, as in my case, that request must come from either of the aforementioned parties - or guess what? You don't see the data. Is my lab's policy appropriate? I think it is. Just throwing ideas around. Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab Baton Rouge, LA While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 15:45:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CKjA524140 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:45:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us ([63.225.16.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1CKj9624132 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:45:09 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FA3A5E9@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLS1UwTNJxpSMVBS0GL2P+m+3HMGAAAg/5A From: "Jeff Baker" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1CKj9624133 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2694 Could it have been an espionage/arson case? Did someone use accelerants to set fire to a building working on national security issues. -Jeff Baker- -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:34 PM To: johnlentini@yahoo.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data Did this occur in a jurisdiction that is subject to the laws of the United States, or any of its states? Maybe this is a feature of the Homeland Security Bill that I am not aware of. I suppose if we can detain people, or try them, in secret proceedings, the data that is used to convict people can also be kept secret. But political jousting aside, this is quite shocking. It is not only an affront to the constitutional right to cross examine a witness and confront the evidence against an accused, but it completely eliminates the only real quality control process that exists in any scientific endeavor -- that is the independent peer review process. How can one place any reliance on any secret data, or conclusions based on secret data? I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the data supporting the witness's conclusions are either non-existent, or have such contradictory aspects, that the witness decided it was better to just bluff, knowing that his bluff would not be called. I presume the witness was acting with full knowledge of the prosecutor and the laboratory administration. One does feel good, though, about the operation of the magistrate in protecting the citizens from over-zealous actions of the government. It's a good thing we have judges!! Pete Barnett At 11:00 AM 2/12/2003 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I >witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited >state laboratory testify to the results of some >ignitable liquid residue testing. > >I had asked for the opportunity to review the >chemist's data prior to the trial, but the >request was refused. > >At the trial, the chemist testified with a >perfectly straight face that the data underlying >the conclusions presented were "confidential." >The charts were not even made available at the >trial. > >Does anyone else see a problem with this lab >policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, >we are only too happy to provide data when >requested. > >John J. Lentini, F-ABC > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day >http://shopping.yahoo.com > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 15:48:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CKmlc24472 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.onr.com (sierra.onr.com [199.1.90.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1CKmk624464 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu (austin1-28.onr.com [64.28.100.28]) by mail.onr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDFC550872 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:47:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:48:59 -0600 Message-ID: <002001c2d2d8$2ae1b880$6401a8c0@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <20030212190031.77662.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3828 It is outrageous to claim that the data underlying a conclusion is "confidential." The judge who permitted the party to withhold the evidence forming the basis of the opinion should get his tail bounced off the bench. In criminal cases, the prosecution often initially volunteers only the conclusory report of the results of analysis. It frequently takes a pair of pliers and six months of cajoling to extract the raw chromatographic data, but this is the first time I have heard of a court supporting the withholding of this critical evidence. In a recent case, the defense expert finally received three chromatograms labeled "sample 1," "Sample 2" and "Gasoline standard." The chromatogram of Sample 2 was a textbook example of unweathered gasoline, but the "standard" and sample 1 were equally obviously not gasoline and not alike. The three chromatograms were slid under the nose of the analyst in deposition, where he happily confirmed his results (samples 1 and 2 positive for gasoline), unable to recognize the fact that he had obviously mislabeled his chromatograms. Horror stories abound concerning unrebutted conclusions by inept arson debris analysis "experts," and I'll bet John knows more stories than I do :) OK, one more example: A poverty-stricken woman was convicted of torching her house with mid-range petroleum distillate as determined by the state using straight chromatography. The defense had not attempted to rebut the arson debris analyst's testimony. The case was overturned based on other considerations and the DA decided not to prosecute a second time. In the ensuing civil case, the insurance company presented their own mass chromatograms from which the analyst had determined and given significance to the presence of traces of toluene and xylene. The latter chromatograms did indeed show the presence of not unexpected minor quantities of BETX, but they also showed larger amounts of typical carpet pyrolizates, a hodge-podge of tri- and tetramethylbenzenes, etc. Through depositions it was determined that the samples taken by the state were collected from the same area as those taken by the insurance investigator and under the latter's supervision. Apparently, the peaks labeled "MPD" by the state were the same pyrolizate peaks ignored by the insurance company. In the end it seems that the state was wrong because they relied on garbage peaks they could not fully identify with simple chromatography and the insurance company analyst was wrong because she was unaware that minor traces of toluene and xylene mean absolutely nothing, especially in a matrix of aromatic pyrolizates. There can be no justice where "trust me" testimony is permitted and Brady is ignored. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:01 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: "Confidential" Data While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 17:27:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CMRs127921 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:27:54 -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 h1CMRr627915 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm9-52.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.52]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1CMRp4r028970 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:27:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302122227.h1CMRp4r028970@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:45:51 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data In-Reply-To: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FA3A5E9@admnts61.co.arapaho e.co.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3086 I guess I am unaware that different constitutional requirements attach to "espionage/arson" cases. I even remember some claims that federal prosecutions could NOT proceed because of the danger of revealing sensitive information should the trial take place. Pete Barnett At 01:45 PM 2/12/2003 -0700, Jeff Baker wrote: >Could it have been an espionage/arson case? Did someone use accelerants to set fire to a building working on national security issues. > >-Jeff Baker- > >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] >Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:34 PM >To: johnlentini@yahoo.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data > > >Did this occur in a jurisdiction that is subject to the laws of the United >States, or any of its states? > >Maybe this is a feature of the Homeland Security Bill that I am not aware >of. I suppose if we can detain people, or try them, in secret proceedings, >the data that is used to convict people can also be kept secret. > >But political jousting aside, this is quite shocking. It is not only an >affront to the constitutional right to cross examine a witness and confront >the evidence against an accused, but it completely eliminates the only real >quality control process that exists in any scientific endeavor -- that is >the independent peer review process. How can one place any reliance on any >secret data, or conclusions based on secret data? > >I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the data supporting the >witness's conclusions are either non-existent, or have such contradictory >aspects, that the witness decided it was better to just bluff, knowing >that his bluff would not be called. I presume the witness was acting with >full knowledge of the prosecutor and the laboratory administration. One >does feel good, though, about the operation of the magistrate in protecting >the citizens from over-zealous actions of the government. It's a good >thing we have judges!! > >Pete Barnett > >At 11:00 AM 2/12/2003 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >>While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I >>witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited >>state laboratory testify to the results of some >>ignitable liquid residue testing. >> >>I had asked for the opportunity to review the >>chemist's data prior to the trial, but the >>request was refused. >> >>At the trial, the chemist testified with a >>perfectly straight face that the data underlying >>the conclusions presented were "confidential." >>The charts were not even made available at the >>trial. >> >>Does anyone else see a problem with this lab >>policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, >>we are only too happy to provide data when >>requested. >> >>John J. Lentini, F-ABC >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day >>http://shopping.yahoo.com >> >Peter D. Barnett >Forensic Science Associates >Richmond CA >510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com >http://www.fsalab.com > From daemon Wed Feb 12 17:55:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1CMtKH28873 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41015.mail.yahoo.com (web41015.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.14]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1CMtJ628867 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:55:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030212225520.66288.qmail@web41015.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web41015.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:55:20 PST Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:55:20 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data-more data To: "Peter D. Barnett" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1734 Defense counsel did request the data. Several times. The LABORATORY, citing LABORATORY POLICY, refused to provide it. The judge denied a motion to exclude the chemist's testimony when asked to do so. The chemist testified that the data was confidential. The chemist had actually correctly identified ignitable liquid residues (kerosene). I did get the samples from the arresting agency, where the lab had returned them. The residue was so weak that I had to use SIM in the Splitless mode to see it, and I was interested to know if the state lab had the same problem. Both the quantity of the residue, and it's apparent age, as indicated by the diminution of the n-alkane peaks became issues. To add insult to injury, the Judge required that I submit MY data to the prosecutor, which, of course, I was glad to do. I showed it to the jury as well. There was a transcript made, but no appeal will be necessary. It was a typical bogus arson case. The kerosene was incidental, and not found at the origin of the fire. The jury brought back a not guilty verdict in under an hour, believing that the fire was most likely accidental. Too bad the suspect had been held without bond for over two years. The suspect's family is now broke, and both the lawyers and I had to contribute a significant amount of time pro bono. An occupational hazard when your client is being railroaded. I'm just wondering how "confidential" science (and by that I mean denying the defendant's expert request to review the data) can take place in an ASCLD accredited institution. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 19:12:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1D0CIY00565 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:12:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1D0CH600559 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-47.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.47]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1D0CFQY013305 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:12:16 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:51:46 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data-more data In-Reply-To: <20030212225520.66288.qmail@web41015.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3064 I wonder why these issues are treated so anonymously - everyone involved in this case, except Lentini, is anonymous. This anonymity not only protects the laboratory from being openly criticized, it implies that this is SOP in ASCLD-LAB accredited labs, which I do not believe to be the case. But I could be wrong. I would have expected a chorus of outrage from ASCLD members that this is NOT ASCLD-LAB approved policy, coupled with a demand to have the laboratory identified so the appropriate sanctions can be sought. After all, the ASCLD Code of Ethics requires that "Laboratory records must be open for reasonable access when legitimate requests are made by officers of the court. When release of information is authorized by management, all employees must avoid misrepresentations and/or obstructions." But, then, maybe the often-alleged independence of ASCLD from ASCLD-LAB means that ASCLD-LAB accreditation standards do not require adherence to the ASCLD Code of Ethics, or adherence to basic requirements of the appropriate practice of science. Pete Barnett At 02:55 PM 2/12/2003 -0800, John Lentini wrote: > >Defense counsel did request the data. Several >times. The LABORATORY, citing LABORATORY POLICY, >refused to provide it. The judge denied a motion >to exclude the chemist's testimony when asked to >do so. The chemist testified that the data was >confidential. > >The chemist had actually correctly identified >ignitable liquid residues (kerosene). I did get >the samples from the arresting agency, where the >lab had returned them. The residue was so weak >that I had to use SIM in the Splitless mode to >see it, and I was interested to know if the state >lab had the same problem. Both the quantity of >the residue, and it's apparent age, as indicated >by the diminution of the n-alkane peaks became >issues. > >To add insult to injury, the Judge required that >I submit MY data to the prosecutor, which, of >course, I was glad to do. I showed it to the >jury as well. > >There was a transcript made, but no appeal will >be necessary. > >It was a typical bogus arson case. The kerosene >was incidental, and not found at the origin of >the fire. The jury brought back a not guilty >verdict in under an hour, believing that the fire >was most likely accidental. Too bad the suspect >had been held without bond for over two years. >The suspect's family is now broke, and both the >lawyers and I had to contribute a significant >amount of time pro bono. An occupational hazard >when your client is being railroaded. > >I'm just wondering how "confidential" science >(and by that I mean denying the defendant's >expert request to review the data) can take place >in an ASCLD accredited institution. > >John J. Lentini, F-ABC > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day >http://shopping.yahoo.com > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Wed Feb 12 21:48:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1D2mY803346 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1D2mX603340 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:48:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data-more data To: johnlentini@yahoo.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:47:00 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/12/2003 08:47:02 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1235 >Defense counsel did request the data. Several times. The LABORATORY, citing LABORATORY POLICY, refused to provide it. WOW! That is strong, IF they were ordered to do so. >I did get the samples from the arresting agency, where the lab had returned them. The residue was so weak that I >had to use SIM in the Splitless mode to see it, and I was interested to know if the state lab had the same problem. Did you have a sample of the lab's extraction with the original evidence or did you just have the original, greatly aged, evidence (can?) >I showed it to the jury as well. Bet they understood that! :-) John, I too would like to know how this happened. But, in my case, if the prosecution and originating agency refuse to give permission for me to release data, and if the courts do not order it, I CAN NOT. I would be in direct violation of our policy; and yes, it is ASCLD-LAB 'approved' policy. No matter how much it may appear unethical or not scientifically proper. (I don't think it is.) Now, it becomes a different matter entirely, at least the way I think, if they were ordered to do so by either prosecutor, court order, or originating agency. Were they??? If they were, there is a problem! Adam Becnel, D-ABC From daemon Wed Feb 12 22:06:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1D364203835 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1D363603829 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:06:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fire Debris Evidence To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:04:29 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/12/2003 09:04:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 831 While we are on the subject of fire debris evidence... What is the consensus of opinion, and practice, of taking and storing a duplicate extraction sample. We currently take a double extraction on every sample and freeze these indefinitely - for now. The purpose, obviously, is to have a back-up for re-analysis, either by us or defense. I will need to address this 'storage' situation before too long. Therefore, my questions are: Does your lab take these duplicate extractions? Are they treated as evidence, and if so how? Does your lab retain these samples indefinitely? Does your lab return these samples with the original evidence to the originating agency? To take a duplicate extraction is not at issue, but rather how to better handle them. Thanks in advance. Adam Becnel, D-ABC Louisiana State Police Crime Lab From daemon Wed Feb 12 22:46:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1D3kHP04651 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1D3kG604645 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from c345114a (12-252-188-87.client.attbi.com[12.252.188.87]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003021303461500100g1tcve>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:46:17 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c2d312$7444c050$6401a8c0@c345114a> From: "Jamie" To: , "Forens-L" References: Subject: Re: Fire Debris Evidence Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:45:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1694 When I was still with CBI we would split the extracted sample, seal half of it in a GC vial and then return it with the evidence to the submitting agency along with the orginal evidence. That way the defense had the same oppertunity to analyze the same "exact" sample that we did if they wanted too. We never split the evidence, just the extract. I think that is still waht they are doing. James (Jamie) Crippin Director - WFLETC Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (719) 544-1011 ph (719) 546-8841 pg (719) 544-0037 fx (719) 251-9215 cell "I would rather be irresponsible and right, than responsible and wrong" Winston Churchill ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:04 PM Subject: Fire Debris Evidence > While we are on the subject of fire debris evidence... > > What is the consensus of opinion, and practice, of taking and storing a > duplicate extraction sample. We currently take a double extraction on every > sample and freeze these indefinitely - for now. The purpose, obviously, is > to have a back-up for re-analysis, either by us or defense. I will need to > address this 'storage' situation before too long. Therefore, my questions > are: > > Does your lab take these duplicate extractions? > Are they treated as evidence, and if so how? > Does your lab retain these samples indefinitely? > Does your lab return these samples with the original evidence to the > originating agency? > > To take a duplicate extraction is not at issue, but rather how to better > handle them. > > Thanks in advance. > > Adam Becnel, D-ABC > Louisiana State Police Crime Lab > > > > > From daemon Wed Feb 12 22:51:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1D3pWi04911 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1D3pV604905 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from c345114a (12-252-188-87.client.attbi.com[12.252.188.87]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <2003021303513100300qkitqe>; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:51:32 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c2d313$302b0400$6401a8c0@c345114a> From: "Jamie" To: , "Forens-L" References: <20030212225520.66288.qmail@web41015.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data-more data Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:51:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2706 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: "Peter D. Barnett" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data-more data This whole sounds pretty scary, but sometimes the lawers take a win at any cost attitude and don't seem to care much for due process or the truth. They just want to win. A couple of quick questions John if I may. > > Defense counsel did request the data. Several > times. The LABORATORY, citing LABORATORY POLICY, > refused to provide it. The judge denied a motion > to exclude the chemist's testimony when asked to > do so. The chemist testified that the data was > confidential. > Was the court ever asked to require the lab to release the info or require the chemist to explain "his" results? What kind of questions was the defense allowed to ask John? > The chemist had actually correctly identified > ignitable liquid residues (kerosene). I did get > the samples from the arresting agency, where the > lab had returned them. The residue was so weak > that I had to use SIM in the Splitless mode to > see it, and I was interested to know if the state > lab had the same problem. Both the quantity of > the residue, and it's apparent age, as indicated > by the diminution of the n-alkane peaks became > issues. > > To add insult to injury, the Judge required that > I submit MY data to the prosecutor, which, of > course, I was glad to do. I showed it to the > jury as well. > > There was a transcript made, but no appeal will > be necessary. > > It was a typical bogus arson case. The kerosene > was incidental, and not found at the origin of > the fire. The jury brought back a not guilty > verdict in under an hour, believing that the fire > was most likely accidental. Too bad the suspect > had been held without bond for over two years. > The suspect's family is now broke, and both the > lawyers and I had to contribute a significant > amount of time pro bono. An occupational hazard > when your client is being railroaded. > > I'm just wondering how "confidential" science > (and by that I mean denying the defendant's > expert request to review the data) can take place > in an ASCLD accredited institution. > > John J. Lentini, F-ABC > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > http://shopping.yahoo.com James (Jamie) Crippin Director - WFLETC Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (719) 544-1011 ph (719) 546-8841 pg (719) 544-0037 fx (719) 251-9215 cell "I would rather be irresponsible and right, than responsible and wrong" Winston Churchill From daemon Thu Feb 13 10:51:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DFpHt16014 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:51:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1DFpG616007 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0445A4817 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:51:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) with SMTP; 13 Feb 2003 15:41:47 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Thu Feb 13 07:51:24 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:54:09 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:53:34 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: Fire Debris Evidence Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1DFpG616008 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 485 Adam, We do not make duplicate extractions in our laboratory. The initial extract is kept in a Target DP bial sealed in Kapak that is sealed with the evidence and returned to the submitting agency. The only thing we retain is the data and report for five years, unless it is a homicide. these we retain indefinitely. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Thu Feb 13 11:33:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DGX4c17804 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:33:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from AD01 ([204.133.44.147]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1DGX3617798 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:33:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CENTDOMAIN-Message_Server by AD01 with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:36:03 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:35:52 -0700 From: "LARRY Pederson" To: Subject: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1DGX3617799 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1646 It appears there is a misunderstanding of what ASCLD/LAB accreditation means for a lab. If a lab had a policy of "data confidentiality" without a court order, then ASCLD/LAB inspectors would see if that policy is enforced when there was no court order. If it wasn't being enforced and analysts in the lab were volunteering data routinely, the lab would be found in violation of that policy and get dinged by the inspectors. The lab would then have to enforce the policy or change the policy to reflect the reality. If a judge orders that the data be produced, it's my understanding that overrides lab policy. The lab's policy is likely in place to minimize frivolous requests for data, which are a fact of life for any crime lab. The presiding judge in a specific case then becomes the "gatekeeper." It appears in Lentini's case that the "blame" lies with the judge in the case he described. Since the defense expert's basic conclusion, ignoring the old vs. fresh question, was the same as the prosecution's, maybe the judge felt the prosecution data wasn't needed. Who knows? Maybe he stated his reasoning and that hasn't been communicated in this discussion. Maybe the defense was ineffective in it's arguments. Maybe when the judge ordered the defense to produce data he was confused by that time about which side was the prosecution and which was the defense ??? ; ] The comments on this group often reflect a basic misunderstanding of what lab accreditation means, and attribute some kind of indignation to "lab accreditation." Maybe this helps claify things in this instance. Larry Pederson Greeley/Weld Co Forensic Lab Greeley, CO From daemon Thu Feb 13 12:14:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DHEmR19251 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from scsh2 (scsh2.jjay.cuny.edu [209.2.54.242]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1DHEl619245 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:14:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from conversion-daemon.scms2.jjay.cuny.edu by scms2.jjay.cuny.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002)) id <0HA900001AT096@scms2.jjay.cuny.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from jjay.cuny.edu (scms2 [10.3.253.245]) by scms2.jjay.cuny.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HA900LZEBO2CG@scms2.jjay.cuny.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.2.44.153] by scms2.jjay.cuny.edu (mshttpd); Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:09:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:09:38 -0500 From: kmcdonal@jjay.cuny.edu Subject: Fire Debris Analysis Techniques To: Forens-L Message-id: <8255184fca.84fca82551@jjay.cuny.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002) Content-language: en Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 663 Dear List Members, I would like to conduct a very informal survey: Which technique does your lab use to capture volatiles from fire debris: passive headspace, dynamic headspace, steam distillation, or solvent extraction? If your lab uses more than one technique, what is the rough percentage of use of each? Please send replies to: kmcdonal@jjay.cuny.edu and indicate which lab you work in (just so I can weed out duplicate answers). The specific results of this survey will not be published anywhere, this is for my own information. Thank you! -Kristin McDonald --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Thu Feb 13 13:52:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DIqja22342 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:52:45 -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 h1DIqh622336 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-10.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.10]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1DIqdSt024299 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:52:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302131852.h1DIqdSt024299@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:43:05 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1455 At 09:35 AM 2/13/2003 -0700, LARRY Pederson wrote: >The comments on this group often reflect a basic misunderstanding of what lab accreditation means, and attribute some kind of indignation to "lab accreditation." Maybe this helps claify things in this instance. What is the point of accrediting a corrupt policy? IF laboratories have a policy that states that their conclusions are arrived at by a Ouija board (and can document that, in fact, they do use the Ouija board), does the lab get accredited? I do not even believe it is true that all ASCLD-LAB accreditation does in to insure that lab policy, whatever it is, is being followed. Labs have come under fire by ASCLD-LAB, for example, for using microcrystal tests to identify drugs, or for failing to maintain records or secure evidence in ways that satisfy ASCLD-LAB requirements. So one can assume that ASCLD-LAB inspections are more than simply rubber-stamping of procedures. One can assume that a procedure that is followed by an ASCLD-LAB accredited lab is endorsed by ASCLD-LAB -- unless, of course, ASCLD-LAB publicly finds the laboratory in violation of ASCLD-LAB accreditation requirements (or, perhaps, explains that the circumstances do not fall under the purview of the ASCLD-LAB accreditation process). Pete Barnett 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 13 14:59:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DJxMo25342 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:59:22 -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 h1DJxJ625336 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Fri Feb 14 08:59:00 2003 +1300 Received: by KSCXCHG2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:59:00 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Walsh, Kevan" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, "'Peter D. Barnett'" Subject: RE: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:58:58 +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: 4024 Hi Peter I'd like to support Larry Pederson's comments. Without detailed knowledge of exactly what the laboratory procedure was and how it is to be implemented, it would be unfair to apportion some degree of blame to the accreditation process. The labs that have 'come under fire' for the use of microcrystal tests, would have done so by the requirement that ensures that ".. the procedures used [are] generally accepted in the field or supported by data gathered and recorded in a scientific manner". The ouija board would be questioned in relation to the same requirement. Although ASCLD-LAB has not explicitly stated that casenotes be made available, accreditation requires that "...the examiners and...the laboratory maintain[s], in a case record, all the notes, worksheets, photographs, spectra, printouts, charts and other data or records used by examiners to support their conclusions" In the general discussion relating to this, the ASCLD-LAB manual states that the documentation must be "such that in the absence of the examiner, another competent examiner....could evaluate what was done and interpret the data". Further, it is stated that "since case notes and records ....are subject to subpoena or discovery, they must be of a permanent nature..." Clearly it is expected that appropriate others should gain access to the notes. Is it possible that the misunderstanding relates to either a misunderstanding or misapplication of a lab procedure? For example, our laboratory doesn't allow open-slather access to our casefiles, but we actively support access to our files by defence counsel or experts (at considerable cost to our organisation - but thats another matter). Our procedures reflect the view that disclosure is an obligation on the prosecution. Therefore all requests are effectively vetted by prosecution for approval. The actual effect of this is that all defence requests are in fact satisfied and we don't have to ascertain that the person making the request actually has a right to the information, when we are not the best agency to determine that. > Kevan Walsh > ESR > Private Bag 92021 > Auckland > NEW ZEALAND > Ph #64-9-8153903 > Fax #64-9- 8496046 > email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz > http://www.esr.cri.nz > For images of New Zealand, visit www.purenz.com > > ---------- > From: Peter D. Barnett[SMTP:pbarnett@fsalab.com] > Sent: Friday, 14 February 2003 7:43 a.m. > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding > > At 09:35 AM 2/13/2003 -0700, LARRY Pederson wrote: > > >The comments on this group often reflect a basic misunderstanding of what > lab accreditation means, and attribute some kind of indignation to "lab > accreditation." Maybe this helps claify things in this instance. > > What is the point of accrediting a corrupt policy? IF laboratories have a > policy that states that their conclusions are arrived at by a Ouija board > (and can document that, in fact, they do use the Ouija board), does the > lab > get accredited? > > I do not even believe it is true that all ASCLD-LAB accreditation does in > to insure that lab policy, whatever it is, is being followed. Labs have > come under fire by ASCLD-LAB, for example, for using microcrystal tests to > identify drugs, or for failing to maintain records or secure evidence in > ways that satisfy ASCLD-LAB requirements. So one can assume that > ASCLD-LAB > inspections are more than simply rubber-stamping of procedures. One can > assume that a procedure that is followed by an ASCLD-LAB accredited lab is > endorsed by ASCLD-LAB -- unless, of course, ASCLD-LAB publicly finds the > laboratory in violation of ASCLD-LAB accreditation requirements (or, > perhaps, explains that the circumstances do not fall under the purview of > the ASCLD-LAB accreditation process). > > Pete Barnett > > > > > 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 13 15:05:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DK5u025766 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1DK5s625758 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:05:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h1DJt7SO007784 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:02:00 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:01:55 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:58:27 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12552632153339-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1DK5u625761 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4670 Pete, ASCLD-LAB accreditation is primarily about seeing that labs follow the labs own written procedures. There are of course some minimums that ASCLD-LAB requires within those procedures. I would hope that if ASCLD-LAB interpreted "confidential" to mean hidden from legitimate review it would not approve the procedure. This business of "confidential records" is a bit cryptic to me. Is it the labs policy to keep material "confidential from those the courts say should see it" or the interpretation of the individual analyst of the meaning of the term "confidential" that is not in sink with the Labs? Does the ASCLD-LAB inspector understand it to mean what the analyst thought? What an inspector reads and understands to be the case my be interpreted by a lab employee in a different manor. that is why they conduct interviews with questions about lab policy, to find out what the employees think the material means. There is a limit to how well the inspectors can dig in the limit time they have (damn it bothers me to defend ASCLD-LAB). When I worked for Illinois state police the records were "confidential" in that state law prohibited them from distribution beyond the attorney's of record in a criminal case without a subpoena. This did not mean that defense could not get lab data, defense council was an attorney of record in the criminal case. In the lab I am now in all records must be supplied to defense through the DA's office so that proof that they were supplied exists (discovery pages are numbered by the DA's office prior to defense being handed the material) full sets of notes and data are supplied on request as part of discovery. This doesn't make the "confidential" material unavailable to defense, on the contrary it is designed to prove they were given it to satisfy Cal. state law. An inspector seeing "coincidental" may not interpret this to mean with-held from those with a right to them (all legitimate parties to the criminal action). The reason for the Illinois state law (which may no longer exist with freedom of information act issues, I don't know) was to protect the suspects named in the lab documents from public disclosure of the material, not to hinder their attorneys. Lantini's original post left me wondering if he had any official status in the case. "While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused." Before more posts came out I was tempted to ask what his status in the case was and why he thought he should be allowed to see the material. If he was that casual in his contact with the lab the analyst may have wondered who this guy was (not everyone will recognize "John Lantini") and why he thought he had a right to see anything. As the posts developed it becomes clearer that material was hidden from the defense not just some casual observer. This is of course a problem. I find it hard to believe the judge didn't insist on full discovery of the notes and data. I have on the other hand seen cases where the material (all notes, data, etc.) was supplied, and defense kept asking for more work, more this, more that; until the judge said "no" and the subsequent story from defense was that the judge wouldn't give them anything when they asked. Sometimes it is very interesting to hear both sides of these things. My point is that there are some reasons for the concept of "confidentiality of records" and a way an inspector might not understand that was an attempt by the lab to hide material from the defense. Which I, like you, would hope would fail ASCLD-LAB standards. Jim Roberts >>> "John Lentini" 02/12/03 11:00AM >>> While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Thu Feb 13 18:12:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1DNCte00305 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1DNCs600297 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.f.a051292 (3924) for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:12:49 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:12:49 EST Subject: Paul Malaski To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 324 List I am attempting to locate Paul Malaski (sp?) a fingerprint examiner possibly from North Carolina but at least from the Southeast US. Anyone got any information on his location. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 13 22:33:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1E3XuL05439 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from la.znet.com (la.znet.com [207.167.96.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1E3Xs605433 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from Rob-Keisters-Computer.local. (lats02-59.znet.net [207.167.96.59]) by la.znet.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/le1-la) with ESMTP id h1E3Xp0B000646 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:33:52 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:35:06 -0800 Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) From: Rob Keister To: Forensic In-Reply-To: <200302131852.h1DIqdSt024299@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> Message-Id: <4F8B2593-3FCD-11D7-A8EA-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1780 Only NIST traceable Ouija boards are permitted. rob keister orange county, ca. On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > At 09:35 AM 2/13/2003 -0700, LARRY Pederson wrote: > >> The comments on this group often reflect a basic misunderstanding of >> what > lab accreditation means, and attribute some kind of indignation to "lab > accreditation." Maybe this helps claify things in this instance. > > What is the point of accrediting a corrupt policy? IF laboratories > have a > policy that states that their conclusions are arrived at by a Ouija > board > (and can document that, in fact, they do use the Ouija board), does > the lab > get accredited? > > I do not even believe it is true that all ASCLD-LAB accreditation does > in > to insure that lab policy, whatever it is, is being followed. Labs > have > come under fire by ASCLD-LAB, for example, for using microcrystal > tests to > identify drugs, or for failing to maintain records or secure evidence > in > ways that satisfy ASCLD-LAB requirements. So one can assume that > ASCLD-LAB > inspections are more than simply rubber-stamping of procedures. One > can > assume that a procedure that is followed by an ASCLD-LAB accredited > lab is > endorsed by ASCLD-LAB -- unless, of course, ASCLD-LAB publicly finds > the > laboratory in violation of ASCLD-LAB accreditation requirements (or, > perhaps, explains that the circumstances do not fall under the purview > of > the ASCLD-LAB accreditation process). > > Pete Barnett > > > > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > http://www.fsalab.com > > Bumper Sticker: We have enough youth, how about a Fountain of Smart? From daemon Thu Feb 13 23:51:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1E4peG06592 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20510.mail.yahoo.com (web20510.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.145]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1E4pd606586 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:51:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030214045138.33017.qmail@web20510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [67.218.91.186] by web20510.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:51:38 PST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:51:38 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding To: Rob Keister , Forensic In-Reply-To: <4F8B2593-3FCD-11D7-A8EA-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 344 And to further Rob's statement regarding the use of only NIST traceable Oujia boards - They must be calibrated at least annually using a certified psychic/soothsayer. Tom Abercrombie OPD Crime Lab __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Feb 14 03:49:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1E8nYa09768 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1E8nX609762 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from h7f5w7 (12-246-228-108.client.attbi.com[12.246.228.108]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003021408493300200309ave>; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:49:33 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c2d406$9d5ff8c0$6ce4f60c@attbi.com> From: "John Bowden" To: "Forensic" References: <20030214045138.33017.qmail@web20510.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:53:58 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 822 But Tom don't they need a back up exorcism protocol just in case the Ouija board/operator interface malfunctions? Anything to get away for homework for a while. John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: "Rob Keister" ; "Forensic" Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:51 PM Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding > And to further Rob's statement regarding the use of > only NIST traceable Oujia boards - > > They must be calibrated at least annually using a > certified psychic/soothsayer. > > Tom Abercrombie > OPD Crime Lab > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Feb 14 09:02:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1EE2Ek14397 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:02:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from troopers.state.ny.us ([161.11.133.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1EE2D614379 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:02:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from NYSPGATE-Message_Server by troopers.state.ny.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:02:12 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:01:58 -0500 From: "Mark Lewis" To: James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: FBI technique on trace metals in bullets Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1EE2D614384 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 896 Thank you, James, for this notification. I suggest that it is an important read for all of us in Forensic Science. Thanks, again. ~ m Mark B. Lewis, DABFT Forensic Scientist/ Chief Information & Training Officer NYSP Forensic Investigation Center 1220 Washington Avenue - Bldg # 30 Albany, New York 12226 Tel: 518.457.1208 Fax: 518.457.2477 Email: MLewis@troopers.state.ny.us MarkBLewis@aol.com >>> "James Roberts" 02/03 7:02 PM >>> The FBI technique on bullet lead elemental analysis has a big (negative) article on page 1, section A below the fold, of today's (Mon. 2-3-03) L.A. Times. You may want to pick up a copy on your way home tonight (it is available on their web sight for those of you out of the L.A. area http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-bullets3feb03,0,2097243.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines). Jim Roberts From daemon Fri Feb 14 10:53:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1EFrNR17939 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:53:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.ccra-adrc.gc.ca (smtp1.ccra-adrc.gc.ca [198.103.184.17]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1EFrM617933 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from sd07m014.rc.gc.ca (mailer27 [7.29.124.27]) by smtp1.ccra-adrc.gc.ca (Switch-2.1.4/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id h1EFogh20526 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail.intranet.rc.gc.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:49:24 -0500 Message-ID: <10D833613386D6118D2600065B3CD8D7350E45@S011Y290> From: "Adams, Jillian" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Contact Information Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:40:11 -0500 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: 432 I am looking to contact two former students from John Jay College of Criminal Justice: Opritsa Tudoriu and Jennifer Espinosa. If anyone could help me I would really appreciate it. I apologize for using this list for contact purposes. Thanks Jillian Jillian Adams Chemist Laboratory & Scientific Services Directorate Canada Customs & Revenue Agency 79 Bentley Avenue, Ottawa, ON K2E 6T7 Tel: (613) 954-2421 Fax: (613) 952-7825 From daemon Fri Feb 14 12:49:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1EHnjs20932 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1EHni620926 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1EHniPQ008630 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:49:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:49:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Mailing list question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1005 Sorry to use the general forum, but I have misplaced the forens-l admin note. Many of the mailing lists that I read prepend an identifier to mailing list messages, e.g. the line Subject: How to evaluate bloodstain patterns becomes Subject: [Forens-L] How to evaluate bloodstain patterns. These prepended identifiers are extraordinarily useful to those of us who get lots of messages a day. It allows mailing software to filter and move mail to predetermined folders to be read at leisure. For instance, one mailing list I belong to (Mandrake Linux Cooker), generates around 300 messages a day. Since each subject line has the string [cooker], my mailing software automatically puts them in a folder, and I can browse them at my discretion rather than having to plow through them when I am looking for more pressing email. Would it be hard to tweak the forens-l mailing list software to do this? If not, it would be of tremendous benefit to some of us, or to me, at any rate. Thanks, billo From daemon Fri Feb 14 13:02:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1EI2an21459 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41005.mail.yahoo.com (web41005.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1EI2Z621453 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:02:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030214180236.82854.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web41005.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:02:36 PST Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:02:36 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Mailing list question To: Bill Oliver , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1601 Billo's suggestion, like many of his suggestions, is a good one. I would like to see that happen too. --- Bill Oliver wrote: > > > Sorry to use the general forum, but I have > misplaced > the forens-l admin note. > > Many of the mailing lists that I read prepend > an > identifier to mailing list messages, e.g. the > line > > Subject: How to evaluate bloodstain patterns > > becomes > > Subject: [Forens-L] How to evaluate bloodstain > patterns. > > > These prepended identifiers are extraordinarily > useful to those of us who get lots of messages > a > day. It allows mailing software to filter and > move mail to predetermined folders to be read > at > leisure. For instance, one mailing list I > belong > to (Mandrake Linux Cooker), generates around > 300 > messages a day. Since each subject line has > the string [cooker], my mailing software > automatically > puts them in a folder, and I can browse them > at my discretion rather than having to plow > through them when I am looking for more > pressing > email. > > Would it be hard to tweak the forens-l mailing > list > software to do this? If not, it would be of > tremendous benefit to some of us, or to me, at > any rate. > > Thanks, > > billo > ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Feb 14 15:33:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1EKXvh25443 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:33:57 -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 h1EKXu625437 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from BPD_WEB-Message_Server by mail.baltimorepolice.org with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:33:33 -0500 From: "Pamela Shaw" To: Subject: Subject Line Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1EKXvi25443 Content-Length: 219 I concur, it would be of great assistance. Pamela K. Shaw Phone - 410.396.2668 Fax - 410.783.5194 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/x-vcard --- From daemon Fri Feb 14 16:22:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ELMxr26696 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from grunt23.ihug.com.au (grunt23.ihug.com.au [203.109.249.143]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ELMv626690 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:22:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from p25-max14.syd.ihug.com.au (tamsin) [203.173.154.25] by grunt23.ihug.com.au with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18jnIL-0003Pm-00; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:22:54 +1100 From: "Tamsin Kelly" To: "'Bill Oliver'" , Subject: RE: Mailing list question Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:29:10 +1100 Message-ID: <000b01c2d470$1ea6aaa0$199aadcb@tamsin> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-reply-to: <20030214180236.82854.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2410 Hi Bill and others, If you look in your From: field for each Forens-L email you should see that aside from the user who sent the email there is also an address corresponding to forens-L (as you can see below under Original Message it has owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu). You should be able to use this information to filter by "from field" the Forens-L emails into a different folder with your emailing program. This may be an alternative to placing [Forens-L] in the subject line. Hope this helps, Cheers, Tamsin -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2003 5:03 AM To: Bill Oliver; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Mailing list question Billo's suggestion, like many of his suggestions, is a good one. I would like to see that happen too. --- Bill Oliver wrote: > > > Sorry to use the general forum, but I have > misplaced > the forens-l admin note. > > Many of the mailing lists that I read prepend > an > identifier to mailing list messages, e.g. the > line > > Subject: How to evaluate bloodstain patterns > > becomes > > Subject: [Forens-L] How to evaluate bloodstain > patterns. > > > These prepended identifiers are extraordinarily > useful to those of us who get lots of messages > a > day. It allows mailing software to filter and > move mail to predetermined folders to be read > at > leisure. For instance, one mailing list I > belong > to (Mandrake Linux Cooker), generates around > 300 > messages a day. Since each subject line has > the string [cooker], my mailing software > automatically > puts them in a folder, and I can browse them > at my discretion rather than having to plow > through them when I am looking for more > pressing > email. > > Would it be hard to tweak the forens-l mailing > list > software to do this? If not, it would be of > tremendous benefit to some of us, or to me, at > any rate. > > Thanks, > > billo > ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Feb 14 16:37:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ELbmJ27259 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ELbl627253 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1ELbjPQ011221; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:37:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:37:45 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Tamsin Kelly cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Mailing list question In-Reply-To: <000b01c2d470$1ea6aaa0$199aadcb@tamsin> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1315 On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Tamsin Kelly wrote: > From: Tamsin Kelly > > Hi Bill and others, > > If you look in your From: field for each Forens-L email you should see > that aside from the user who sent the email there is also an address > corresponding to forens-L (as you can see below under Original Message > it has owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu). You should be able > to use this information to filter by "from field" the Forens-L emails > into a different folder with your emailing program. > > This may be an alternative to placing [Forens-L] in the subject line. > > Hope this helps, > > Cheers, > > Tamsin > Thanks. Actually, that's what I do. The difference is in coverage. Using a To: line filter gets about 75% of the email, but not all of it -- because some of it is a direct reply, some of it is Cc'd rather than To'd, etc. So far, I have been four responses to my post -- three filtered into my forens-l folder, and one did not. It's a matter of taste. Some people might prefer to get direct email into to direct inbox even if it is mailing-list related, rather than shuttled to a mailing list folder. I read by "subject" and so would prefer to get all of my forens-l related correspondence, even direct replies, forwarded to the forens-l folder. billo From daemon Fri Feb 14 21:20:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1F2KsE01360 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:20:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41001.mail.yahoo.com (web41001.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.0]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1F2Kr601354 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:20:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030215022053.57807.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.32.120.83] by web41001.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:20:53 PST Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:20:53 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Fire Debris Evidence To: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2134 In case you might be intewrested in how a private lab handles samples and strips, I offer the following: We leave the C-strip in its 2 ml septum seal vial, and refrigerate it for two years, after which we continue to store it at room temp. We save the vials from all cases in which there is at least one positive sample. We offer clients the following choices for sample storage: We send them all back for $10 per case We send back only the cases with positives. We destroy all negative cases after 30 days. We can store all samples from a case with at least one positive for a year for $100. We do not send back any c-strips, nor do we make duplicates, unless the case is a re-analysis. If someone requests the strip, we send them half. We treat the strips as evidence, but do not charge to store them, as we do with the samples. --- CBecnel@dps.state.la.us wrote: > While we are on the subject of fire debris > evidence... > > What is the consensus of opinion, and practice, > of taking and storing a > duplicate extraction sample. We currently take > a double extraction on every > sample and freeze these indefinitely - for now. > The purpose, obviously, is > to have a back-up for re-analysis, either by us > or defense. I will need to > address this 'storage' situation before too > long. Therefore, my questions > are: > > Does your lab take these duplicate extractions? > Are they treated as evidence, and if so how? > Does your lab retain these samples > indefinitely? > Does your lab return these samples with the > original evidence to the > originating agency? > > To take a duplicate extraction is not at issue, > but rather how to better > handle them. > > Thanks in advance. > > Adam Becnel, D-ABC > Louisiana State Police Crime Lab > > > > > ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Feb 14 22:34:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1F3YDB02798 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1F3YDY02792 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:34:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:34:13 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Greenspan, Allen" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5215 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:18:57 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Greenspan, Allen" ] >From forens-owner Tue Feb 11 11:18:56 2003 Received: from mail_gw_svr.sheriff.bso (pop.sheriff.org [205.152.254.142] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1BGIu602763 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by pop.sheriff.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1JQDJ0QL>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:18:57 -0500 Message-ID: <546CCB5E14FF2944B798FBCA36E9F6C208958A@mail_4_svr.sheriff.bso> From: "Greenspan, Allen" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Position for DNA analyst (Sunny South Florida!!!) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:17:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" The following is being posted for our DNA section, please any questions or concerns to George_Duncan@sheriff.org <<...OLE_Obj...>> BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Job Opportunity CRIMINALIST DNA The establishment of this list will facilitate anticipated vacancies in BSO for the duration of this list. The list established from this recruitment will be combined with active applications from the previous posting. Individuals with current active applications for this position NEED NOT REAPPLY during this recruitment period. SALARY $37,413 - $60,642 (UNR1/ Grade 107) Additional opportunities based on experience include: Criminalist II $42,030 - $69,117 (UNR2/Grade109) Criminalist III $46,315 - $75,443 (UNR2/Grade111) Requires ABC Certification HOURS 9:00am - 5:00pm, Monday through Friday NATURE OF WORK The purpose of the position is to prepare and analyze biological and evidentiary samples in criminal identification and investigations in the Crime Laboratory of the Sheriff's Office. Employees assigned to the DNA Unit perform specialized technical and scientific work in the application of advanced laboratory techniques in DNA analysis. Position is responsible for the formal reporting of and testifying to the findings of such analyses. Performs related work as directed. Tasks involve the ability to exert light physical effort in sedentary to light work, but which may involve some lifting, carrying, pushing and/or pulling of objects and materials of light weight (5-10 pounds). Tasks may involve extended periods of time at a keyboard or workstation. Tasks are performed in a laboratory/forensics analysis environment where proper provisions are in place in terms of employee security and protection. Due to the nature and location of the work environment, tasks include potential for intermittent exposure to disagreeable elements consistent with routine conditions in a laboratory/forensics analysis environment. REQUIREMENTS 1. Bachelor's degree in the natural or physical sciences. A degree in biology is preferred. 2. Advanced course work in molecular biology, genetics, or related field is preferred. 3. Two (2) years of experience in DNA fingerprinting preferred, to include experience in the area of PCR related DNA testing. Experience with P&E 310, 3100 or 377 preferred. 4. Qualified applicants must have received credit for college level courses in genetics, biochemistry, statistics, 1 year of organic chemistry and molecular biology (molecular genetics, recombinant DNA technology). WORK LOCATION Department of Law Enforcement/Criminal Investigations/Crime Laboratory 201 S.E. 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 CLOSING DATE Friday, March 7, 2003, 5:30 p.m. HOW TO APPLY Applications may be obtained in the main lobby of the Ron Cochran Public Safety Complex, 2601 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, Monday-Friday until 5:30 p.m. and Saturday-Sunday until 6:00 p.m. Completed applications must be received in Human Resources Bureau by the closing date and no later than 5:30 P.M. A resume may accompany a complete application. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Job Line: (888) 276-7827. Web Site: www.sheriff.org Applicants who qualify will be subject to an extensive selection process and screening program, which may include, but not be limited to evaluation of training and experience; typing or data entry test; written test; interview; polygraph examination; psychological evaluation; employment record, fingerprint and background check; medical examination; and drug screen. BSO is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of age, citizenship status, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Veterans' preference per Florida law Post Date: 02/10/03 List# 03243a (BB) H:\APPINT\POSTINGS\POSTINGS.03\Criminalist 03-243_a.DOC Allen B. Greenspan Criminalist III Broward Co. Sheriff's Office Crime Laboratory 201 SE 6th St. North Wing Rm 1799 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.831.5816 Fax: 954.831.6413 From daemon Fri Feb 14 22:37:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1F3b6t03196 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:37:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1F3b5U03190 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:37:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:37:05 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [efon3705 ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1762 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:51:17 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [efon3705 ] >From forens-owner Thu Feb 13 10:51:16 2003 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 h1DFpF616000 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.32]) by pete.uri.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DFpGP16158 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:51:16 -0500 Received: from TOP1S46 (WEBMAIL.uri.edu [131.128.172.39]) by terms.uri.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1DFpGL30312 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:51:16 -0500 X-WebMail-UserID: efon3705 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:37:15 -0500 Sender: efon3705 From: efon3705 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002288 Subject: casting material Message-ID: <3E5A7AAD@TOP1S46> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" My name is Elizabeth Fontaine and I am currently testing a new possible casting material, POLYUROCK, under the supervision of Mr. Dennis Hilliard and the Rhode Island State Crime Lab. While doing research and tests on casting material I was wondering if Paraffin wax has ever been used as a casting material. If you could email me back with some feedback I'd really appreciate it. Thanks for all of your help. Elizabeth Fontaine efon3705@postoffice.uri.edu From daemon Sat Feb 15 21:27:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1G2R8G17981 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1G2R6617975 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342EE411F4 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:56:23 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.226.176]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:56:23 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E4EF639.74D68119@vsnl.net> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:53:53 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: McNaghten Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1669 Dear List, I was doing some research about Daniel McNaghten, who was responsible for generating the famed Mcnaghten rules. After the trial, he was declared insane and was committed to Broadmoor (presumably in 1843) when the trial ended. Can somebody tell me when he died? Did he die in the same hospital. Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Mon Feb 17 17:02:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1HM2vr21142 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:02:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1HM2u621136 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:02:57 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:02:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLSyoxVm/y6+HyKRJWEdkMaGOFsfwAHI8Ig From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1HM2v621137 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5340 John, I assume by "data" that what is meant is the analytical lab data, not other investigative data produced by the investigation rather than by the lab's analysis. Case information in an open, ongoing law enforcement investigation (usually defined as any case that has not reached adjudication) is usually considered "confidential" and often is by statute specifically excluded from public document/freedom of information laws, and that can include lab data. However, most of this information (including lab data) should still be subject to legal discovery requirements and should therefore be routinely provided to officers of the court whenever requested by them. That obviously includes counsel for the defense. If your request to review the data came through the defense attorney, then I don't see how they could legally (let alone ethically) refuse. The defense has a right to examine the data upon which the state's witness based his/her conclusions, and as a retained consultant you are acting as the defense attorney's proxy. In Florida, they would have been compelled to produce the documents for review in deposition, if subpoenaed to do so by the defense, and at the very least you would have had the right to examine them then and there. I'm completely mystified as to how they could refuse to show the data in court, unless they are simply in the habit of not bringing it with them. Both counsels have a right to see anything a witness brings with them to the stand for reference in testifying. If they don't usually bring case files to court then the defense should have also subpoenaed them as a hostile witness, and used a subpoena duces tecum to compel them to bring the documents to court, rather than simply cross-examining them. If your prior request to review the data had come from you personally, I'm fairly certain they would have been within their legal rights to refuse, but if they knew you were consulting for the defense then I find their position ethically questionable even if legally permissible. I could understand their refusal if you made the request as a private citizen, but not as a consultant for counsel. Granted there may very well be regulations in place which prohibit them from giving you COPIES of the data, but if they know you're a retained consultant for the defense they should at least be willing to let you review it at a place under their control and supervision. Again, here in Florida production would be compelled by court order upon motion from the defense, if the lab didn't allow it willingly. We don't allow just anyone to view open case files either, but we've always provided lab reports on simple request, and have always allowed the defense to examine the case file itself in deposition (I don't think we could refuse if we wanted to, but we've never wanted to - why would anyone?). We do require a court order before copying entire case files, but only because doing that routinely in every case would quickly become prohibitively burdensome. If they show they have a specific interest (rather than a routine request) by getting the order, then we have no problem. Once the case is closed, then it's even more open because the file then becomes a public document fully subject to our public disclosure laws, and any member of the public has the right to see and copy it (so long as they pay the cost of copying) at a reasonable time and place. Bottom line, I find it shocking and reprehensible for a lab to allow the defense no access whatsoever to it's analytical data. I could understand and support a refusal to share investigatory information that would reveal the identity of confidential informants, juvenile victims, undercover agents, intelligence sources, etc., as these are specifically protected by law in many jurisdictions (and for good reason). However, I can't see any potential threat to anyone in the release of laboratory analytical data except, that is, to people producing shoddy or biased analytical work product. How do they justify the necessity of holding this information "confidential," and how can they get away with it in the courts? It's beyond my understanding, but maybe there's another side to the story I don't know about. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Lentini [mailto:johnlentini@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 14:01 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: "Confidential" Data While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Mon Feb 17 17:05:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1HM58W21323 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1HM57621317 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:07 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:05:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLS2EmB/Hp3HIoAStaLi428CEHsqQAESzNQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1HM57621318 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4819 Adam, I'm curious. Why do you need the permission of the prosecution or LE agency? Discovery issues are the court's decision, not the prosecutor's or police investigator's, so I don't see how their opinion matters. I could agree that they should be notified if they might have a legal right to challenge the disclosure, but I don't see why they should be the controlling authority, or how they could be, really. If the defense obtains a court order, then it's irrelevant whether or not the ADA or the agency approves, isn't it? Even if your lab were a subdivision of one of their offices, they surely couldn't tell you to refuse a court order. We don't ask our State Attorney's Office or our submitting agencies for their permission to release lab results to defense counsel, or to discuss those results with them. As long as we know the defense attorneys are officers of the court in a specific case, they have a right to know and understand the results for that case. We send them copies of our reports routinely upon request (we don't even require a subpoena, just an official request) and we will discuss the results freely with them unless there is some legal dispute about it presently before the court. Now if they request to see the whole file, then we'll first consult with the SAO and the submitting agency to make sure there's no sensitive, legally privileged information in the documents submitted to us along with the evidence (because that info would also be in the file), but the analytical data we produced ourselves belongs to our lab and we don't normally need anyone's permission to share it. Of course, we don't release open case information to just anybody for obvious reasons, but defense counsel are officers of the court and so have a right to see it. If we receive nothing more than a defense attorney's subpoena to provide the whole file to the them, then we'll notify the SAO because they have a right to challenge the subpoena for cause (if any), but once you receive a court order signed by a judge, then that's that - you have to comply and send them the whole file, regardless of what anyone else wants. Personally, I can't see why anyone would want to limit disclosure of lab work product, except to protect legitimately sensitive and legally privileged information. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us [mailto:CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 15:40 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data John, I agree, it sounds very suspect, but lets play devil's advocate. Was the chemist asked "Can just anyone have access to your work product?" and the complete answer should have probably been extrapolated to be "My work product is confidential (and it is) but the prosecution and/or case officer can make it available to anyone." My lab is accredited and I can not give out any information, results, or work product to anyone unless cleared to do so by the ADA or Case Officer/Agency. Was a request made to see instrumental data, or did the chemist just not produce any. (Example - we do not bring chains-of-custody to court. We have them of course and we are prepared to produce them if asked in advance, but why complicate things when you don't have to.) Was it really the lab's policy, or a decision by the prosecution that you do not see the data? I find it hard to believe that an accredited state lab even cares if defense wants to see data - data is data and if you did your job right who cares if someone wants to see it. After you get clearance - come on over, I'll even put a pot of coffee on! But, as in my case, that request must come from either of the aforementioned parties - or guess what? You don't see the data. Is my lab's policy appropriate? I think it is. Just throwing ideas around. Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab Baton Rouge, LA While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Mon Feb 17 17:07:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1HM7sY21854 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1HM7r621846 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:07:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:07:53 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data-more data Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:07:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data-more data Thread-Index: AcLS6wW2BIFLbKkKR4iJDzb+0eyI5QACB95w From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1HM7r621847 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2936 >>I'm just wondering how "confidential" science (and by that I mean denying the defendant's expert request to review the data) can take place in an ASCLD accredited institution.<< I don't see how it can take place under the discovery laws of this country, "ASCLD accredited institution" or not. It can't happen in my state, at least, nor I think in the Federal courts, not without bucking clear judicial precedent. I guess some states have less stringent rules of discovery, and that's very disturbing. The only argument that could hold any water is in relation to classified information, and that certainly doesn't apply here. "Sensitive" intelligence sources and the protection of innocents are other POSSIBLE arguments, but I can't see those applying in this case either. Again, very disturbing, at least without further explanation of the reasoning behind the refusal. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Lentini [mailto:johnlentini@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 17:55 To: Peter D. Barnett; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data-more data Defense counsel did request the data. Several times. The LABORATORY, citing LABORATORY POLICY, refused to provide it. The judge denied a motion to exclude the chemist's testimony when asked to do so. The chemist testified that the data was confidential. The chemist had actually correctly identified ignitable liquid residues (kerosene). I did get the samples from the arresting agency, where the lab had returned them. The residue was so weak that I had to use SIM in the Splitless mode to see it, and I was interested to know if the state lab had the same problem. Both the quantity of the residue, and it's apparent age, as indicated by the diminution of the n-alkane peaks became issues. To add insult to injury, the Judge required that I submit MY data to the prosecutor, which, of course, I was glad to do. I showed it to the jury as well. There was a transcript made, but no appeal will be necessary. It was a typical bogus arson case. The kerosene was incidental, and not found at the origin of the fire. The jury brought back a not guilty verdict in under an hour, believing that the fire was most likely accidental. Too bad the suspect had been held without bond for over two years. The suspect's family is now broke, and both the lawyers and I had to contribute a significant amount of time pro bono. An occupational hazard when your client is being railroaded. I'm just wondering how "confidential" science (and by that I mean denying the defendant's expert request to review the data) can take place in an ASCLD accredited institution. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Mon Feb 17 17:12:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1HMCct22255 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:12:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1HMCb622249 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:12:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:12:37 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:12:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding Thread-Index: AcLTfuIM0t7BYTBeRLKMwoRrJpyUFAADsPRA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1HMCb622250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2721 If all ASCLD-LAB did was enforce the lab's own (possibly inadequate) standards, accreditation wouldn't mean much. ASLCD-LAB doesn't just enforce the lab's own internal policies, it sets numerous standards of its own (categorized as Essential, Important, or Desirable) and enforces them. The whole point of lab accreditation is to set national minimum standards that all labs seeking accreditation must live up to, regardless of what their internal procedures have been in the past. As far as I know, however, there is no ASCLD-LAB accreditation standard addressing the release of laboratory data, only the recording and preservation of it. There are, however, several forensic science organizations which address the issue of disclosure in their Codes of Ethics/Conduct. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: LARRY Pederson [mailto:LPEDERSON@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:36 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: ASCLD/LAB misunderstanding It appears there is a misunderstanding of what ASCLD/LAB accreditation means for a lab. If a lab had a policy of "data confidentiality" without a court order, then ASCLD/LAB inspectors would see if that policy is enforced when there was no court order. If it wasn't being enforced and analysts in the lab were volunteering data routinely, the lab would be found in violation of that policy and get dinged by the inspectors. The lab would then have to enforce the policy or change the policy to reflect the reality. If a judge orders that the data be produced, it's my understanding that overrides lab policy. The lab's policy is likely in place to minimize frivolous requests for data, which are a fact of life for any crime lab. The presiding judge in a specific case then becomes the "gatekeeper." It appears in Lentini's case that the "blame" lies with the judge in the case he described. Since the defense expert's basic conclusion, ignoring the old vs. fresh question, was the same as the prosecution's, maybe the judge felt the prosecution data wasn't needed. Who knows? Maybe he stated his reasoning and that hasn't been communicated in this discussion. Maybe the defense was ineffective in it's arguments. Maybe when the judge ordered the defense to produce data he was confused by that time about which side was the prosecution and which was the defense ??? ; ] The comments on this group often reflect a basic misunderstanding of what lab accreditation means, and attribute some kind of indignation to "lab accreditation." Maybe this helps claify things in this instance. Larry Pederson Greeley/Weld Co Forensic Lab Greeley, CO From daemon Tue Feb 18 04:51:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1I9pY503151 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 04:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1I9pX603145 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 04:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from borer.demon.co.uk ([62.49.31.251]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18l4PW-000GNI-0W for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:51:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:49:26 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: KBC Subject: Blood photos MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M () Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 428 Here at Keith Borer Consultants we are putting together a training manual of blood splash patterns for our forensic scientists. We would appreciate it if people could send us some photos of blood splash patterns which they found interesting. In particular we would like some pictures of expirated blood. If you could annotate the pictures to say how the patterns were formed that would be great. Thank you. Orla. -- KBC From daemon Tue Feb 18 09:19:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1IEJs707390 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:19:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1IEJr607384 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from borer.demon.co.uk ([62.49.31.251]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18l8bA-000LJK-0Y; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:19:53 +0000 Message-ID: <+1En8zADDkU+UAUW@borer.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:18:43 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, forens-l@acc.fau.edu From: KBC Subject: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Courses MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M () Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 780 Keith Borer Consultants are co-presenting 2 bloodstain pattern analysis courses. These will be held in Newcastle, England. Course 1 is a Basic bloodstain pattern analysis course which will be held from 18th - 22nd August 2003. It is a 40 hour course designed to provide a basic and fundamental knowledge in the field of bloodstain pattern interpretation. Course 2 is an Advanced bloodstain pattern analysis course which will be held from 25th - 29th August 2003. This course is also a 40 hour course involving practical and theory learning. The course offers the opportunity to complete scene reconstructions as well as complex 3-D determinations. For further information contact Alison Dubery at Keith Borer Consultants. Phone Number: + 44 191 3866107 -- KBC From daemon Tue Feb 18 13:42:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1IIgf613807 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:42:41 -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 h1IIge613800 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:42:40 -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 KAA02329 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bi492@localhost) by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA02140; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:44:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:44:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302181844.KAA02140@scn.org> From: bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: UK forensic list Reply-To: bi492@scn.org Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 475 Listmates, I had been subscribed to a forensic list from the UK, Forensic_Science-UK, but have not recedived anything from that list for quite a while. Posted today to find out if anyone would be at the AAFS meeting and got the posting back as no such list. Does anyone know what happened? Is it still alive in another location? Or is it adios? Chesterene Cwiklik -- Cwiklik & Associates 2400 6th Avenue South #257 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 From daemon Tue Feb 18 14:56:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1IJuoY15795 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:56:50 -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 h1IJun615789 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:56:49 -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 LAA21176 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bi492@localhost) by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA20720; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:58:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:58:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302181958.LAA20720@scn.org> From: bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Mysteryt mail from WSP sender Reply-To: bi492@scn.org Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 359 Hi, someone from the WSP just sent me an email responding to my posting, but it came in just as I was forwarding mail to another address. So it got lost, except for the note that it cam e int. Care to try again? Thank you whoever responded. Chesterene -- Cwiklik & Associates 2400 6th Avenue South #257 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)623-3637 FAX (206)623-4384 From daemon Tue Feb 18 16:15:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ILFYZ18276 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:15:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from boron.cix.co.uk (boron.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.155]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ILFX618270 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:15:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from cix.co.uk (pc1-lich2-3-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [80.7.10.88]) by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id h1ILDQa11532; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:13:26 GMT X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: UK forensic list To: bi492@scn.org CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: <200302181844.KAA02140@scn.org> Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.53.2014, Windows 98 4.10.1998 ( ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 879 "Forensic Science Society (e)Mailing List Hosted by JISC.AC.UK and purely for members of the Forensic Science Society, California Association of Criminalists and those genuinely "working" within the industry, this LIST hopes to take up where others have left off because of `noise' on the line from forensic science wannabees. To join the list point your browser at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/forensic-science-uk.HTML and follow the instructions" A forlorn hope. The majority of working forensic scientists in the UK probably feel prohibited from discussing forensic science in open fora, especially anything controversial. Those working for government agencies who feel this way are probably right; a scientist wanting to comment would probably have to obtain "press branch" approval. Its death is unremarkable. Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk From daemon Wed Feb 19 04:14:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1J9EiB00696 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:14:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub1.shef.ac.uk (mailhub1.shef.ac.uk [143.167.1.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1J9Eh600684 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:14:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from swineshaw.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.107.251]) by mailhub1.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #4) id 18lQJF-000129-00; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:14:33 +0000 Received: from SWINESHAW/SpoolDir by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 19 Feb 03 09:14:33 +0000 Received: from SpoolDir by SWINESHAW (Mercury 1.48); 19 Feb 03 09:14:30 +0000 Received: from swineshaw (143.167.157.128) by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 19 Feb 03 09:14:21 +0000 From: "Robert Forrest" To: , Cc: , "Forensic list UK" Subject: RE: UK forensic list Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:14:21 -0000 Message-ID: <003d01c2d7f7$49a5ece0$809da78f@shef.ac.uk.shef.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1819 As the list owner for the UK Forensic list I suspect that Mark Webster may have a point. The UKlist hasn't taken off, and part of the reason may be the overmanagement of working forensic scientists in the UK. I've added more people to it this morning as a result of the little burst of publicity initiated by Chesterene than I have in the last year. I hope we get some activity in the UK list now and activity that isn't just a clone of the US list. There are some specific UK issues that need to be talked about. How about the overmanagement of forensic scientists for a start? Robert Forrest > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Mark > Webster > Sent: 18 February 2003 21:14 > To: bi492@scn.org > Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Webster@forensic-science.co.uk > Subject: Re: UK forensic list > > > "Forensic Science Society (e)Mailing List Hosted by JISC.AC.UK and purely > for members of the Forensic Science Society, California Association of > Criminalists and those genuinely "working" within the industry, this LIST > hopes to take up where others have left off because of `noise' on > the line > from forensic science wannabees. To join the list point your browser at > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/forensic-science-uk.HTML and follow the > instructions" > > A forlorn hope. > > The majority of working forensic scientists in the UK probably feel > prohibited from discussing forensic science in open fora, especially > anything controversial. > > Those working for government agencies who feel this way are probably > right; a scientist wanting to comment would probably have to > obtain "press > branch" approval. > > Its death is unremarkable. > > Mark Webster > www.forensic-science.co.uk > From daemon Wed Feb 19 08:12:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1JDCWl03843 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:12:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [205.141.32.43]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1JDCU603837 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:12:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by H3-EXCH3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:12:32 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Cc: "Dinkins, Keith" , "Rivera, Valencia" , "Foushee, Paul" Subject: black tar heroin Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:12:27 -0500 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: 568 I'm looking for info on the 'typical' components found in "black tar heroin"( produced when the raw opium is acetylated). We are having OD deaths in our area and the heroin content is apx 50% (=/- 10 % ) . In addition , about 27 % is insoluable in CH2CL2/MeOH (90/10). I suspect that the total opium alkaloid concentration/identities may be more importatnt than just the heroin conc. Has there ever been any cultures done on tar heroins to see what the biological environment might be. ( I know it would vary from case to case, but any study would be of interest.) From daemon Wed Feb 19 10:50:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1JFoEA07761 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:50:14 -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 h1JFoD607755 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1JFo5H06974; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:50:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:50:02 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: "Aldridge, Michael" cc: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" , "Dinkins, Keith" , "Rivera, Valencia" , "Foushee, Paul" Subject: Re: black tar heroin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1938 The following is taken from 'Criminalistics - Introduction to Controlled Substances' by Joseph P. Bono, Drug Enforcement Administration, Special Testing and Research Laboratory, McClean, VA. Black Tar Heroin usually comes from Mexico and Guatamala, and can range from a dark brown powder to a black tar, and is not as high quality as SEA Heroin. The most commonly encountered adulterants in black tar heroin are amorphous materials and sugars. The dark color of Mexican heroin is attributed to processing by-products, and the purity varies from batch to batch. Alkaloidal impurities and processing by-products include monoacetylmorphines, morphine, codeine, acetylcodeine, papaverine, noscapine, thebaine, meconine, thebaol, acetylthebaol, norlaudanosine, reticuline, and codamine, which depend upon the processing methodologies. Some of the residue impurities found in heroin depend upon the acetylating agent in the production process, and in clandestine labs, modifications to hasten and shortcut the processes will also add to the degree of impurity. Distribution of black tar Heroin in the US is primarily from the Mexican States of Durango, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon, and Sinaloa. Perhaps if you contact Mr. Bono directly, he will be able to provide more pertinent information. Carol Define MD On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Aldridge, Michael wrote: > I'm looking for info on the 'typical' components found in "black tar > heroin"( produced when the raw opium is acetylated). We are having OD deaths > in our area and the heroin content is apx 50% (=/- 10 % ) . In addition , > about 27 % is insoluable in CH2CL2/MeOH (90/10). I suspect that the total > opium alkaloid concentration/identities may be more importatnt than just the > heroin conc. > > Has there ever been any cultures done on tar heroins to see what the > biological environment might be. ( I know it would vary from case to case, > but any study would be of interest.) > From daemon Wed Feb 19 11:03:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1JG33r08705 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1JG33b08699 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:03:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:03:03 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: beak evidence [forward from "Cat" ] Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1601 Remember: replies go to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu -Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thought you all might appreciate this... Cat Hero Bird's Evidence Lands Murderer Behind Bars DALLAS (Reuters) - A hero cockatoo slain trying to protect its master from knife-wielding assailants proved the star witness in the trial of one of its owner's killers. Daniel Torres was found guilty on Tuesday of murdering Kevin Butler. Prosecutors have said DNA evidence extracted from the bird's beak as well as blood trails caused when the bird violently pecked the assailants were key pieces of evidence that led to the conviction. According to evidence presented in court, Torres and another suspect, who has yet to stand trial, broke into Butler's home. During a struggle in Butler's living room, the white-crested cockatoo named Bird after basketball great Larry Bird, swooped down on the attackers, clawed at their skin and pecked at their heads, said prosecutor George West. West has said blood found in Bird's beak and at the scene of the crime linked Torres to the murder. Bird may have wounded Torres, but the protective parrot-relative paid the price for trying to take on two armed foes. Bird has its leg cut off and was found dead in the kitchen of Butler's home -- apparently stabbed to death by a fork in the back. It took a Dallas jury less than an hour to find Torres guilty. He was sentenced to life in prison. A white-crested cockatoo stands about 18 inches to 20 inches (46 cm to 51 cm) tall and has a beak powerful enough to snap thin tree branches, according to pet dealers. From daemon Wed Feb 19 19:28:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1K0SFd20542 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1K0SD620536 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:28:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:28:14 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: Ethical Dilemma Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:28:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ethical Dilemma Thread-Index: AcLSWSjbsnh7E9TmRRGMS/em3zPY6gAnVXXQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1K0SE620537 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6339 I think precedent is very clear about compelling testimony of defense experts who are not being called by the defense, exactly as has been said. Regarding their reports, however, it's far less so. We had a discussion about this a few years ago on this list, and Jerry us pointed to an excellent analysis by a leading legal expert on the matter named Botsford. Citing numerous rulings, Botsford concluded that while compelling production of reports could conceivably be challenged by a variety of stratagems (and encouraging defense attorneys to do so) there was no clear precedent in Federal law that provided routine privilege to defense experts' reports. None of the arguments John mentions below were clearly supported by precedent, including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or the right against self-incrimination, and the issue of breach of contract was equally murky. There were narrowly defined cases that extended privilege under narrowly defined criteria, but no blanket protections, and even these rulings were based on the Federal Rules of Evidence (which are not binding on State courts) not on Constitutional grounds. Therefore, Botsford concluded that defense expert reports were not necessarily protected even in Federal court, and as far as State courts were concerned, there was widespread variation depending on local state law. His analysis was done in 1996, so things may have changed. Unfortunately, the link Jerry provided (http://www.tcdla.com/voice1996/julyaug/expert.html) is no longer active, and I couldn't find the article on that web site. Does anyone have a working link to Botsford's 22-page article, or an update to it? If not, interested parties can read my two and a half page summary of it (and further discussion of this topic) by browsing posts in this list's archives for December, 1998. That's the legal side of it. The ethical side is another matter entirely, and we beat that horse to death back in 1998 as well so I'm not going to do it all over again. See the archives, it's an interesting read whatever your position. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 00:30 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ethical Dilemma Kim Kruglick, Andre Moenssens and others have nicely addressed the legal precedents for maintaining confidentiality of opinions and reports prepared by experts retained by the defense. I would like to address this issue from a policy perspective. After all, law should reflect sound social policy -- not the other way around. Science is based in a process of peer review. As forensic scientists we have an obligation to facilitate and participate in the process of peer review. One aspect of peer review, in the arena of forensic science, involves the defense attorney hiring an expert to review, in one way or another, the work done by experts working for the prosecution. If the work done by the expert retained by the defense would be divulged to the prosecution, and could be used by the prosecution, no defense attorney could run the risk (it would be legal malpractice, it has been argued) of hiring an expert to review the work, or do any independent investigation. It is common practice among lawyers to parse out various aspects of the technical investigation to various experts. The primary reason for doing this is so that they can pick and choose which experts to divulge and which to not divulge. This means, often, that experts are operating on an incomplete set of facts, selected by the lawyer with presumably no technical expertise and with a particular point to prove. Operating in the dark with a set of data defined by someone else without relevant technical background is hardly the preference for any scientist. Is it appropriate for a witness to criticize one aspect of a technical investigation, and at the same time remain silent about other aspects of the investigation with which there is no disagreement? Is it appropriate for a lawyer to present a witness to criticize one aspect of an investigation even though, overall, the investigation led to what appears to be the correct conclusion? How does the peer review process in forensic science work if the results of that process are available to the "other side" of a case? Pete Barnett At 04:56 PM 2/11/03 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >Here's an ethical dilemma: > >An expert is hired by defense counsel to review >and help him understand the technical basis of >the state's case against a criminal defendant. > >The expert, after careful review, determines that >the state's case has much merit, that the >defendant's story is false, and informs defense >counsel that he cannot assist with the defense in >any meaningful way--and certainly is unwilling to >testify on behalf of the defendant. > >The prosecutor finds out that the expert has >reviewed the evidence, notices that the expert is >not listed as a defense witness, and issues a >subpoena to the expert, hoping to use him as a >witness for the state. > >What is the appropriate response? > >Does the expert have an obligation to his >original client to maintain confidentiality? > >Are the expert's opinions protected by: > >Attorney work product? > >Attorney client privelege? > >The defendant's rights under Amendments 5 and 6? > >It seems to me that if the expert talks with the >prosecutor, he runs the risk of being sued for >breach of contract. Additionally, if a defendant >knew that any expert he hired could be a >potential witness against him, this would have a >chilling effect on his desire to challenge the >state's evidence (not to mention drying up demand >for defense experts ;-) > >What do folks think about this? > >More importantly, does anyone know of any case >law on the subject? > > > > > >===== >Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. >John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com >Certified Fire Investigator >Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics >http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day >http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 19 19:29:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1K0TLN20667 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1K0TK620655 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:29:20 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: Fire Debris Evidence Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:29:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Fire Debris Evidence Thread-Index: AcLTDnl2l6JgUsOcQcuWh/H8P31VFAAXGNWQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1K0TK620656 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2143 We don't take duplicate samples, nor do we preserve the samples we do take. The charcoal strip method removes so little sample from the container that there should be plenty left for recovery if reanalysis is desired. If there's so little ignitable residue present that a single charcoal strip would remove it all, we probably wouldn't call it in the first place. If you want to preserve an extracted sample, why not simply place the strip you eluted back into the sample vial with the eluted sample? The CS2 will eventually evaporate (even in a closed vial) and the heavier ignitable residue will readsorb back onto the strip. We used to do this and then freeze the vials, but as you allude to, storage space became a problem and we finally decided there was no point to it. Arson cases in our area never go to trial anyway (I think we've given maybe 2 or 3 testimonies in the 21 years I've been here), and no one's ever asked to reexamine the samples, so for us it was a waste of time and effort. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us [mailto:CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 22:04 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fire Debris Evidence While we are on the subject of fire debris evidence... What is the consensus of opinion, and practice, of taking and storing a duplicate extraction sample. We currently take a double extraction on every sample and freeze these indefinitely - for now. The purpose, obviously, is to have a back-up for re-analysis, either by us or defense. I will need to address this 'storage' situation before too long. Therefore, my questions are: Does your lab take these duplicate extractions? Are they treated as evidence, and if so how? Does your lab retain these samples indefinitely? Does your lab return these samples with the original evidence to the originating agency? To take a duplicate extraction is not at issue, but rather how to better handle them. Thanks in advance. Adam Becnel, D-ABC Louisiana State Police Crime Lab From daemon Wed Feb 19 19:30:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1K0UI421049 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:30:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1K0UH621043 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:30:18 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: Mailing list question Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:30:18 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Mailing list question Thread-Index: AcLUcG8gsvEnI3i/R/+ZkUWZwRLDSgAAC1Xw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1K0UH621044 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3283 Not in my Outlook program. Your message was forwarded by the forens listserv, but the "from" field lists only "Tasmin Kelly," it makes no mention of the listserv address. Likewise, John's and Billo's original messages were identified only as "John Lentini" and "Bill Oliver" in my "From" field. To see anything more, I either have to open the message, or add a "To" field to my view (the listserv address does show up there, but I don't like to turn that field on because it crowds my view of the "From" and "Subject" fields, which are more important to me). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Tamsin Kelly [mailto:Tamsin.Kelly@uts.edu.au] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 16:29 To: 'Bill Oliver'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Mailing list question Hi Bill and others, If you look in your From: field for each Forens-L email you should see that aside from the user who sent the email there is also an address corresponding to forens-L (as you can see below under Original Message it has owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu). You should be able to use this information to filter by "from field" the Forens-L emails into a different folder with your emailing program. This may be an alternative to placing [Forens-L] in the subject line. Hope this helps, Cheers, Tamsin -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2003 5:03 AM To: Bill Oliver; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Mailing list question Billo's suggestion, like many of his suggestions, is a good one. I would like to see that happen too. --- Bill Oliver wrote: > > > Sorry to use the general forum, but I have > misplaced > the forens-l admin note. > > Many of the mailing lists that I read prepend > an > identifier to mailing list messages, e.g. the > line > > Subject: How to evaluate bloodstain patterns > > becomes > > Subject: [Forens-L] How to evaluate bloodstain > patterns. > > > These prepended identifiers are extraordinarily > useful to those of us who get lots of messages > a > day. It allows mailing software to filter and > move mail to predetermined folders to be read > at > leisure. For instance, one mailing list I > belong > to (Mandrake Linux Cooker), generates around > 300 > messages a day. Since each subject line has > the string [cooker], my mailing software > automatically > puts them in a folder, and I can browse them > at my discretion rather than having to plow > through them when I am looking for more > pressing > email. > > Would it be hard to tweak the forens-l mailing > list > software to do this? If not, it would be of > tremendous benefit to some of us, or to me, at > any rate. > > Thanks, > > billo > ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Feb 19 19:33:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1K0XIl21448 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1K0XH621442 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:33:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:33:18 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: Fire Debris Analysis Techniques Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:33:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Fire Debris Analysis Techniques Thread-Index: AcLThKNT35/L1hPHT/+Ha58tagLj8gACMi6A From: "Robert Parsons" To: , "Forens-L" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1K0XH621443 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1052 Passive (heated) headspace, via charcoal strip (i.e., adsorption/elution), virtually 100%. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: kmcdonal@jjay.cuny.edu [mailto:kmcdonal@jjay.cuny.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:10 To: Forens-L Subject: Fire Debris Analysis Techniques Dear List Members, I would like to conduct a very informal survey: Which technique does your lab use to capture volatiles from fire debris: passive headspace, dynamic headspace, steam distillation, or solvent extraction? If your lab uses more than one technique, what is the rough percentage of use of each? Please send replies to: kmcdonal@jjay.cuny.edu and indicate which lab you work in (just so I can weed out duplicate answers). The specific results of this survey will not be published anywhere, this is for my own information. Thank you! -Kristin McDonald --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Fri Feb 21 15:35:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1LKZgG08373 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:35:42 -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 h1LKZf608367 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:35:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1LKZKv24191 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:35:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:35:15 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Cannabis by catalog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 232 Today I received a catalog from an oriental herbal company in California which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the pound) among their products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal companies get away with it? Carol Define MD From daemon Fri Feb 21 16:46:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1LLkcc09686 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:46:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20511.mail.yahoo.com (web20511.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.150]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1LLkb609680 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:46:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030221214637.70484.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20511.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:46:37 PST Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:46:37 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog To: Carol Define MD Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1571 Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling bulk irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done in the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" seeds, I've generally found that at least a few germinate . . . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a violation of statute?? Interesting question - 1:10, 1:30, 1:100?? Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California - though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or Postal Authorities or both) would frown on this practice and would jump on it instaneously. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental herbal > company in California > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > pound) among their > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > companies get away with it? > > Carol Define MD > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Fri Feb 21 17:26:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1LMQPq11035 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:26:25 -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 h1LMQO611029 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:26:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1LMQNH08215; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:26:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:26:22 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: Tom Abercrombie cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog In-Reply-To: <20030221214637.70484.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20030221214637.70484.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2228 Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't the most potent part of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed out...but then why would anyone want to buy it, especially for medicinal purposes? However, I understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and cookies, and can give a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I was thinking...that it would be a federal offense (if it really is marijuana) because the seller is in California, and the buyer might reside in another state. Carol Define MD Baltimore On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling bulk > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done in > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" seeds, > I've generally found that at least a few germinate . . > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > violation of statute?? Interesting question - 1:10, > 1:30, 1:100?? > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California - > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or Postal > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice and > would jump on it instaneously. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental herbal > > company in California > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > pound) among their > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > companies get away with it? > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > From daemon Fri Feb 21 18:00:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1LN0dg11974 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20509.mail.yahoo.com (web20509.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1LN0c611968 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:00:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030221230038.31536.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20509.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:00:38 PST Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:00:38 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog To: Carol Define MD Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3833 Actually, the amount of active THC in seeds is quite small - and those little beggars are hard as hell and would break your tooth if you bit into one in a brownie (those are generally made with ground up leaf material, and due to digestive issues, the "high" can last for a substantial period of time versus smoking). I guess my age is showing, since I thought everyone knew about magic brownies. However, there's generally enough THC in seeds to give a chemical test (Duquenois-Levine), and they have a definite and characteristic micro-morphological appearance. Now, as to why to buy it - - if you've ever bought bird seed, it generally contains some mj seeds, but I doubt that's the case. Who knows. I mean, the obvious reason would be to get high, but maybe there's some "beneficial" herbal issue dealing with the use of ground up non-viable mj seeds in conjunction w/ St. John's Wort and kava - - - a "natural" euphoric and/or stimulant and/or laxitive all in one!!! Helluva combo . . . And if the company doesn't have some type of small-print disclaimer about the seeds being non-viable, then Caveat Emptor. If they are viable, they're in violation of a bunch of Federal and state drug statutes. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't > the most potent part > of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed > out...but then why > would anyone want to buy it, especially for > medicinal purposes? However, I > understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and > cookies, and can give > a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I > was thinking...that > it would be a federal offense (if it really is > marijuana) because the > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside > in another state. > > Carol Define MD > Baltimore > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some > outfits > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does > look > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any > type of > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT > mj. > > > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling > bulk > > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done > in > > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" > seeds, > > I've generally found that at least a few germinate > . . > > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > > violation of statute?? Interesting question - > 1:10, > > 1:30, 1:100?? > > > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California > - > > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or > Postal > > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice > and > > would jump on it instaneously. > > > > Tom Abercrombie > > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental > herbal > > > company in California > > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > > pound) among their > > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > > companies get away with it? > > > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Fri Feb 21 18:41:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1LNf9Z12882 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:41:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1LNf8612876 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:41:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:41:09 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLZ+XDVx2BTntouRqaNqIVK/1a6MAACGc3A From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1LNf8612877 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4328 Carol, Actually, the production, sale or possession of marijuana in ANY amount is a federal offense, even in California. Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under Federal statutes, regardless of what California law says. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution establishes that Federal law trumps State law every time when there is a contradiction. But the Feds don't have the resources to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for small amounts of marijuana, so the so-called "medicinal" (what a joke) marijuana laws in a few states effectively make people there safe from prosecution, so long as they don't get greedy. In this case "by the pound" would, I think, constitute "greedy" in that it would likely eventually draw the attention of Federal authorities and result in a Federal prosecution. If the seed is viable, then it's illegal (under Federal law) but a lucrative illicit retail product, because buyers would use it to grow their own pot. I don't know about other places, but here in Florida if a single seed can be germinated and the plant then identified as marijuana (you can't conclusively identify the seed without germination), that's enough to prosecute. If the seed isn't viable, then it's a legal product - people might buy it for it's oil (various uses, e.g., in artistic painting, as an emollient substitute for linseed oil, etc.) or for it's flavor in cooking. There's actually relatively little THC in the seeds - you'd have to ingest a very large amount or a highly concentrated extract to get high on it. Marijuana brownies and cookies are usually made using chopped up flower tops, which contain high concentrations of THC and other Cannabinoids, not with seeds, although some seeds from the flowers might wind up in the batter. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 17:26 To: Tom Abercrombie Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't the most potent part of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed out...but then why would anyone want to buy it, especially for medicinal purposes? However, I understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and cookies, and can give a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I was thinking...that it would be a federal offense (if it really is marijuana) because the seller is in California, and the buyer might reside in another state. Carol Define MD Baltimore On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling bulk > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done in > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" seeds, > I've generally found that at least a few germinate . . > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > violation of statute?? Interesting question - 1:10, > 1:30, 1:100?? > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California - > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or Postal > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice and > would jump on it instaneously. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental herbal > > company in California > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > pound) among their > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > companies get away with it? > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > From daemon Fri Feb 21 19:08:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M08Mk13472 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1M08K613466 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:08:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:08:21 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Subject: FW: Cannabis by catalog Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:08:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLZ+XDVx2BTntouRqaNqIVK/1a6MAACGc3AAACeHCA= From: "Robert Parsons" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1M08Ml13472 Content-Length: 6258 I should clarify that the sterile seed is legal under Federal law (and possibly under some states' laws), but not under Florida law. Our legislature closed that loophole many years ago and made all parts of the marijuana plant illegal, viable or not. Ironically, since there's no way to conclusively identify the seed without germination, there's no way to conclusively identify the sterile seed, so sterile seed is unlikely to be prosecuted by itself. However, I've never seen a substantial amount of seed (as opposed to a single seed or two) that didn't have at least some tiny flower and leaf fragments mixed in with it, and these ARE identifiable. That's bad news for the seed possessor, because under our "mixture" laws the entire amount of sample (including the seeds) is prosecutable, and so the entire weight can be used to determine the penalty. I remember a case a few years ago where a local convenience store was selling "marijuana pens" (a pen barrel with only a very short ink tube and otherwise filled with seeds) as a novelty item. They thought the pens were legal because the seed was advertised as being sterile and the laws in many states allow sterile seed. Unfortunately for them our laws had changed many years before to ban the seeds regardless of viability, and to make matters worse, in each pen there were also some leaf and flower fragments, so the product was completely illegal any way you looked at it. I think the store owners got off lightly, but the people who made and sold the "pot pens" did not. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 18:41 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog Carol, Actually, the production, sale or possession of marijuana in ANY amount is a federal offense, even in California. Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under Federal statutes, regardless of what California law says. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution establishes that Federal law trumps State law every time when there is a contradiction. But the Feds don't have the resources to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for small amounts of marijuana, so the so-called "medicinal" (what a joke) marijuana laws in a few states effectively make people there safe from prosecution, so long as they don't get greedy. In this case "by the pound" would, I think, constitute "greedy" in that it would likely eventually draw the attention of Federal authorities and result in a Federal prosecution. If the seed is viable, then it's illegal (under Federal law) but a lucrative illicit retail product, because buyers would use it to grow their own pot. I don't know about other places, but here in Florida if a single seed can be germinated and the plant then identified as marijuana (you can't conclusively identify the seed without germination), that's enough to prosecute. If the seed isn't viable, then it's a legal product - people might buy it for it's oil (various uses, e.g., in artistic painting, as an emollient substitute for linseed oil, etc.) or for it's flavor in cooking. There's actually relatively little THC in the seeds - you'd have to ingest a very large amount or a highly concentrated extract to get high on it. Marijuana brownies and cookies are usually made using chopped up flower tops, which contain high concentrations of THC and other Cannabinoids, not with seeds, although some seeds from the flowers might wind up in the batter. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 17:26 To: Tom Abercrombie Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't the most potent part of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed out...but then why would anyone want to buy it, especially for medicinal purposes? However, I understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and cookies, and can give a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I was thinking...that it would be a federal offense (if it really is marijuana) because the seller is in California, and the buyer might reside in another state. Carol Define MD Baltimore On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling bulk > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done in > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" seeds, > I've generally found that at least a few germinate . . > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > violation of statute?? Interesting question - 1:10, > 1:30, 1:100?? > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California - > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or Postal > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice and > would jump on it instaneously. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental herbal > > company in California > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > pound) among their > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > companies get away with it? > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef --- From daemon Fri Feb 21 19:18:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M0ISW13863 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20507.mail.yahoo.com (web20507.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.142]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1M0IR613848 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:18:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030222001827.68729.qmail@web20507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20507.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:18:27 PST Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:18:27 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog To: Robert Parsons , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3619 --- Robert Parsons wrote: "I don't know about other places, but here in Florida if a single seed can be germinated and the plant then identified as marijuana (you can't conclusively identify the seed without germination), that's enough to prosecute.: Interesting. During the late 70's when I was being trained as a controlled substances analyst, my mentor purchased a two-pound bag of 'Wild Bird" seed, and had me go through it and pick out the marijuana seeds (in previous training, I had successfully grown mj from seeds). The next step was a viability test on the seeds I found (germination), and if I recall correctly, out of close to 50 seeds, at least a couple (but less than five) germinated and later grew to be identifiably mj. So I guess there's a lot of folks out there who, if they lived in good ol' Florida, would or should be in the joint!? --- Robert Parsons wrote: "If the seed isn't viable, then it's a legal product - people might buy it for it's oil (various uses, e.g., in artistic painting, as an emollient substitute for linseed oil, etc.) or for it's flavor in cooking." Amazing. After working in drug analysis for close to 25 years and being involved in some huge and really arcane mj cases (from species issues to medicinal uses), I honestly cannot recall anyone saying that they were keeping the seeds for their oil to use in painting or cooking. --- Robert Parsons wrote: "Marijuana brownies and cookies are usually made using chopped up flower tops, which contain high concentrations of THC and other Cannabinoids, not with seeds, although some seeds from the flowers might wind up in the batter." I absolutely agree about the flowering tops containing a high amount of resinous THC. However, back in the "old days", flowering tops were essentially unavailable, and the common practice was to utilize the culled leaf material that had been finely ground. Another factor that I think takes away from using flowering tops (and weed in general)is the cost - - most folks would not be disposed to make brownies or cookies with them. My experience has shown the flowering tops or any portion of the plant that contains a large amount of THC to be utilized solely as smoking material. And now, for something completely different - - Even after being in this business as long as I have, I understand and appreciate comments about the use (or abuse) of medicinal marijuana. However, a friend of mine who was researcher in this area at UCLA a number of years ago showed me a treasure trove of work that empirically validated the use of mj (or it's active ingredients) in long-term analgesia, anti-nausea, etc. - - and that was back in the mid-80's. And even more work has been done since then to show that it works for some folks who are suffering from various types of chronic illnesses. True, many (if not most) people may be able to get a sympathetic doctor to sign some bogus scrip that "allows" them to buy mj, but after watching a close friend battle their way through the agony of chemo-therapy and seeing them actually improve their quality of life via the use of some medicinally prescribed weed has mollified my position in this area somewhat. Do I think that mj is a dangerous drug? Yes - it truly fits the definition of "threshold" drug. But it also can have an undoubted beneficial affect on those who truly need it. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Fri Feb 21 20:05:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M15Iq14650 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1M15I614644 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from johnp (12-246-228-108.client.attbi.com[12.246.228.108]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <20030222010518001002nmake>; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:05:19 +0000 Message-ID: <004301c2da0f$22c07cc0$6ce4f60c@Bowden.attbi.com> From: "John Bowden" To: "Forensic Science Mailing List" References: <20030221230038.31536.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:10:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5186 Just a couple of small notes: The seeds of marijuana, whether viable or not, often give a positive, but weak D-L test. They do not contain any cannabinoids, but in the plant they are covered with bracts which normally contain the highest level of cannabinoids of any part of the plant. There are some who would say that the seeds have a characteristic appearance. Therefore there would be no need to germinate them into plants. Would one need to germinate a coconut to identify it? I'll leave that up to the botanists. Some also say that a qualified examiner can confirm viability by microscopic examination of the embryo, but again that's for the botanists. MJ brownies were not all that bad to examine, usually one could find intact leaf fragments. The LSD-laced cupcakes were the big problem. Have you ever tried to extract chocolate frosting? John Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: "Carol Define MD" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > Actually, the amount of active THC in seeds is quite > small - and those little beggars are hard as hell and > would break your tooth if you bit into one in a > brownie (those are generally made with ground up leaf > material, and due to digestive issues, the "high" can > last for a substantial period of time versus smoking). > I guess my age is showing, since I thought everyone > knew about magic brownies. However, there's generally > enough THC in seeds to give a chemical test > (Duquenois-Levine), and they have a definite and > characteristic micro-morphological appearance. > > Now, as to why to buy it - - if you've ever bought > bird seed, it generally contains some mj seeds, but I > doubt that's the case. Who knows. I mean, the > obvious reason would be to get high, but maybe there's > some "beneficial" herbal issue dealing with the use of > ground up non-viable mj seeds in conjunction w/ St. > John's Wort and kava - - - a "natural" euphoric and/or > stimulant and/or laxitive all in one!!! Helluva combo > . . . > > And if the company doesn't have some type of > small-print disclaimer about the seeds being > non-viable, then Caveat Emptor. If they are viable, > they're in violation of a bunch of Federal and state > drug statutes. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't > > the most potent part > > of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed > > out...but then why > > would anyone want to buy it, especially for > > medicinal purposes? However, I > > understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and > > cookies, and can give > > a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I > > was thinking...that > > it would be a federal offense (if it really is > > marijuana) because the > > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside > > in another state. > > > > Carol Define MD > > Baltimore > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some > > outfits > > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does > > look > > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any > > type of > > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT > > mj. > > > > > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling > > bulk > > > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > > > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done > > in > > > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" > > seeds, > > > I've generally found that at least a few germinate > > . . > > > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > > > violation of statute?? Interesting question - > > 1:10, > > > 1:30, 1:100?? > > > > > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > > > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California > > - > > > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > > > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > > > > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > > > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or > > Postal > > > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice > > and > > > would jump on it instaneously. > > > > > > Tom Abercrombie > > > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > > > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental > > herbal > > > > company in California > > > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > > > pound) among their > > > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > > > companies get away with it? > > > > > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Fri Feb 21 20:18:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M1IdG15056 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.79]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1M1Id615050 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:18:39 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Carol Define MD" , "Tom Abercrombie" Cc: References: <20030221214637.70484.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:25:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2003 01:18:39.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[54F83600:01C2DA10] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1062 Carol and List: I'm sure it's just my perspective, but it sure seems like whatever it is the rest of the country is doing, California has to do the opposite. It can only be a matter of time before Jack Kerouac and Jerry Lewis are named 'national' heros. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Define MD" To: "Tom Abercrombie" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog snip........ > But, that's what I was thinking...that > it would be a federal offense (if it really is marijuana) because the > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside in another state. > > Carol Define MD > Baltimore > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. > > From daemon Fri Feb 21 21:08:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M28kd15941 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1M28j615935 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from johnp (12-246-228-108.client.attbi.com[12.246.228.108]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <20030222020846001004h8qme>; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:08:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c2da18$004b4b80$6ce4f60c@Bowden.attbi.com> From: "John Bowden" To: "Forensic Science Mailing List" References: <20030221214637.70484.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:13:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2386 Shaun, et al. Not to excuse the actions of my fellow Californians, but there are probably a few (thousand) kids with Muscular Dystrophy who already consider Jerry Lewis to be a hero. His Labor Day Marathon has raised $1.6 billion for the MD Association. Among many other things this has allowed the MDA to work on other neuromuscular disorders such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), for which there is now an FDA approved medication. We are much closer to understanding MD than ever before. Mr. Lewis has already received very significant honors, such as the French Legion of Honor, the American Medical Association Lifetime Achievement Award, and the U.S. DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides that Jerry has brought humor to millions of people world wide. Even though he was born in Newark NJ, we native Californians are happy to welcome him to our state. Happy Friday! John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Carol Define MD" ; "Tom Abercrombie" Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 9:25 AM Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > Carol and List: > > > I'm sure it's just my perspective, but it sure seems like whatever it is the > rest of the country is doing, California has to do the opposite. It can only > be a matter of time before Jack Kerouac and Jerry Lewis are named 'national' > heros. > > > Shaun > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carol Define MD" > To: "Tom Abercrombie" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:26 PM > Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > > snip........ > > > > > But, that's what I was thinking...that > > it would be a federal offense (if it really is marijuana) because the > > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside in another state. > > > > Carol Define MD > > Baltimore > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits > > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look > > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of > > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. > > > From daemon Sat Feb 22 01:20:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M6K8F19040 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net (fed1mtao02.cox.net [68.6.19.243]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1M6K7619034 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:20:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from TheBreyers ([68.4.168.242]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030222062006.BUY2396.fed1mtao02.cox.net@TheBreyers> for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:20:06 -0500 From: "chris breyer" To: "'Forensic Science Mailing List'" Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:09:42 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c2da38$fd6d07c0$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <004301c2da0f$22c07cc0$6ce4f60c@Bowden.attbi.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5845 Quoting John Bowden (full text below): There are some who would say that the seeds have a characteristic appearance. Therefore there would be no need to germinate them into plants. Would one need to germinate a coconut to identify it? I'll leave that up to the botanists. ***** Perhaps we could leave it up to SWG-BOT? I'd love to see them try to inject a coconut into a GC-MS! Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of John Bowden Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:10 PM To: Forensic Science Mailing List Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Just a couple of small notes: The seeds of marijuana, whether viable or not, often give a positive, but weak D-L test. They do not contain any cannabinoids, but in the plant they are covered with bracts which normally contain the highest level of cannabinoids of any part of the plant. There are some who would say that the seeds have a characteristic appearance. Therefore there would be no need to germinate them into plants. Would one need to germinate a coconut to identify it? I'll leave that up to the botanists. Some also say that a qualified examiner can confirm viability by microscopic examination of the embryo, but again that's for the botanists. MJ brownies were not all that bad to examine, usually one could find intact leaf fragments. The LSD-laced cupcakes were the big problem. Have you ever tried to extract chocolate frosting? John Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: "Carol Define MD" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > Actually, the amount of active THC in seeds is quite > small - and those little beggars are hard as hell and > would break your tooth if you bit into one in a > brownie (those are generally made with ground up leaf > material, and due to digestive issues, the "high" can > last for a substantial period of time versus smoking). > I guess my age is showing, since I thought everyone > knew about magic brownies. However, there's generally > enough THC in seeds to give a chemical test > (Duquenois-Levine), and they have a definite and > characteristic micro-morphological appearance. > > Now, as to why to buy it - - if you've ever bought > bird seed, it generally contains some mj seeds, but I > doubt that's the case. Who knows. I mean, the > obvious reason would be to get high, but maybe there's > some "beneficial" herbal issue dealing with the use of > ground up non-viable mj seeds in conjunction w/ St. > John's Wort and kava - - - a "natural" euphoric and/or > stimulant and/or laxitive all in one!!! Helluva combo > . . . > > And if the company doesn't have some type of > small-print disclaimer about the seeds being > non-viable, then Caveat Emptor. If they are viable, > they're in violation of a bunch of Federal and state > drug statutes. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't > > the most potent part > > of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed > > out...but then why > > would anyone want to buy it, especially for > > medicinal purposes? However, I > > understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and > > cookies, and can give > > a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I > > was thinking...that > > it would be a federal offense (if it really is > > marijuana) because the > > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside > > in another state. > > > > Carol Define MD > > Baltimore > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some > > outfits > > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does > > look > > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any > > type of > > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT > > mj. > > > > > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling > > bulk > > > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > > > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done > > in > > > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" > > seeds, > > > I've generally found that at least a few germinate > > . . > > > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > > > violation of statute?? Interesting question - > > 1:10, > > > 1:30, 1:100?? > > > > > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > > > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California > > - > > > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > > > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > > > > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > > > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or > > Postal > > > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice > > and > > > would jump on it instaneously. > > > > > > Tom Abercrombie > > > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > > > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental > > herbal > > > > company in California > > > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > > > pound) among their > > > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > > > companies get away with it? > > > > > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Sat Feb 22 02:06:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1M76vb19789 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1M76v619783 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.a9.39f58ea9 (4012) for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:06:55 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 02:06:54 EST Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10632 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3279 In a message dated 2/21/2003 3:43:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > The Supremacy clause of the Constitution establishes that Federal law trumps > State law every time when there is a contradiction. But the Feds don't > have the resources to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for small > amounts of marijuana, so the so-called "medicinal" (what a joke) Okay, Bob, your bating me aren't you? You miss our debates and your trying to incite me into a rebuttal reply. I know your sneaky tactics and I refuse to bite. Well, maybe just a nibble. The Supremacy clause was not intended to give the feds an absolute trump power over the states. What it does provide for is the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws enacted "in pursuance" of the articles and amendments of the Constitution as well as any treaty entered into by the US. It can be argued that every federal law is assumed to be enacted under the authority of the Constitution and therefore in pursuance of it, but, having experienced first hand the abuses that follow from a central government with the power to dismiss the laws enacted by local governments, the several states insisted on placing a limitation the power of the feds over the states. Thus we have the Tenth Amendment Reservation of Powers of States and People. If any and every law passed by the feds trumps state laws then there would be no power not delegated to the US government by the Constitution. This would make the Tenth Amendment mute where it proclaims "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". If Article Six grants the federal government all power, then there is no power that is not delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment is a frivolous waist of words. The fact that Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (along with others) is commonly perverted to the point that anything and everything that the feds want to control can be justified as having an effect on "Commerce . . . among the several States", does not make that perversion right. I will admit that the feds have the power to trump state law. But that absolute power is derived, not from the Constitution, but by the might to do what it pleases regardless of will of the people and States or intent of the Constitution. Hay, I have to admit that I missed our exchanges. Thanks for luring me out from my lurking. But I'm going to go back into my cave now and leave the list to forensic issues. BTW Anyone ever wonder why there is a special seed mix for canaries as opposed to, say, budgie food? Take a close look at canary mix and you will see why it helps to encourage the little avians to sing. It blew me away the first time I saw those distinctive little seeds in canary food. I looked at the list of seeds on the label but it was not listed. The only seed name that was unfamiliar to me was niger seed so I assumed this was a way of disguising what it really was. Does anyone know if niger seed is another name for cannabis seed? Regards to all, Bill Holden --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Feb 22 05:09:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1MA9eU21887 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:09:40 -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 h1MA9d621881 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:09:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1MA9eP10163; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:09:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:09:40 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: LEGALEYE1@aol.com cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4640 This is the same way with the HIPAA regs...federal law pre-empts except where state laws are MORE stringent. So, if California decided it wanted to out-law birdseed because of marijuana seed content, then the state law would prevail, even though federal law would allow it. That's where states get to have their say. Someone submitted a parakeet/cockatoo story to the list a few days back, where the bird got stiffed with a fork in the back after attacking intruders.....gotta wonder what kinda seed it was 'on'? Well, here's scoop on marijuana: From: Section 102 (15), Public Law 91-513 "Legally, marijuana is defined as all parts of the plant, Cannabis sativa L. (and any of its varieties) whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt derivative, mixture, preparation of such plant; its seeds and resins. Such terms do not include the mature stalk of the plants, any other compound, manufacture, salt derivative, mixture or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake, pressed seed, or the sterilized seed which is incapable of germination." Now, back to my brownies! Kinda crunchy! Carol On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 LEGALEYE1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/21/2003 3:43:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, > rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > > > > The Supremacy clause of the Constitution establishes that Federal law trumps > > State law every time when there is a contradiction. But the Feds don't > > have the resources to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for small > > amounts of marijuana, so the so-called "medicinal" (what a joke) > > Okay, Bob, your bating me aren't you? You miss our debates and your trying > to incite me into a rebuttal reply. I know your sneaky tactics and I refuse > to bite. Well, maybe just a nibble. The Supremacy clause was not intended > to give the feds an absolute trump power over the states. What it does > provide for is the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws enacted "in > pursuance" of the articles and amendments of the Constitution as well as any > treaty entered into by the US. It can be argued that every federal law is > assumed to be enacted under the authority of the Constitution and therefore > in pursuance of it, but, having experienced first hand the abuses that follow > from a central government with the power to dismiss the laws enacted by local > governments, the several states insisted on placing a limitation the power of > the feds over the states. Thus we have the Tenth Amendment Reservation of > Powers of States and People. If any and every law passed by the feds trumps > state laws then there would be no power not delegated to the US government by > the Constitution. This would make the Tenth Amendment mute where it > proclaims "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution > . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". If Article > Six grants the federal government all power, then there is no power that is > not delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment is a frivolous waist of words. > The fact that Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (along with others) is > commonly perverted to the point that anything and everything that the feds > want to control can be justified as having an effect on "Commerce . . . among > the several States", does not make that perversion right. I will admit that > the feds have the power to trump state law. But that absolute power is > derived, not from the Constitution, but by the might to do what it pleases > regardless of will of the people and States or intent of the Constitution. > > Hay, I have to admit that I missed our exchanges. Thanks for luring me out > from my lurking. But I'm going to go back into my cave now and leave the > list to forensic issues. > > BTW Anyone ever wonder why there is a special seed mix for canaries as > opposed to, say, budgie food? Take a close look at canary mix and you will > see why it helps to encourage the little avians to sing. It blew me away the > first time I saw those distinctive little seeds in canary food. I looked at > the list of seeds on the label but it was not listed. The only seed name > that was unfamiliar to me was niger seed so I assumed this was a way of > disguising what it really was. Does anyone know if niger seed is another > name for cannabis seed? > > > Regards to all, > > Bill Holden > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Sat Feb 22 13:15:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1MIFVE27844 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:15:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20514.mail.yahoo.com (web20514.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.246]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1MIFU627838 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:15:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030222181531.62004.qmail@web20514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [67.218.91.173] by web20514.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:15:31 PST Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:15:31 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog To: chris breyer , "'Forensic Science Mailing List'" In-Reply-To: <000001c2da38$fd6d07c0$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 817 --- chris breyer wrote: > Perhaps we could leave it up to SWG-BOT? > > I'd love to see them try to inject a coconut into a > GC-MS! Chris - - After laughing at your response, I then thought about it, got concerned and drew a deep breath, since I'm sure that someone at the FBI is now looking at this (SWG-BOT) and thinking, "Damn, that would work - another SWG! Why didn't we think of this before?!" Man, stop giving those folks more ideas. However, I'll throw out the penultimate idea - - the SWGSWG, which would need to be preceded by the TWGSWGSWG - that should keep some 'scientific' bureaucrats happy for an extended period of time. Tom __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Sat Feb 22 18:16:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1MNGSM01715 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from la.znet.com (la.znet.com [207.167.96.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1MNGQ601709 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:16:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from Rob-Keisters-Computer.local. (lats03-113.znet.net [207.167.96.113]) by la.znet.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/le1-la) with ESMTP id h1MNG60B022407 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 15:16:21 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 15:18:28 -0800 Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) From: Rob Keister To: Forensic In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1854 > I think I saw the SWG-BOT on television the other night battling with > the other Bots. > It would lure another Bot in close with its benign appearance, > and then drop a 50 pound validation manual on top of its opponent. > BOOM. It was awesome. > > But seriously, my own experience with SWGDAM (formerly a TWG) was that > it was valuable in > bringing together people with forensic experience to the new area of > applying dna testing > to forensic evidence. The earliest dna testing labs had great dna > expertise, but little > forensic experience (with the notable exception of Ed Blake). And > with the admissibility > challenges to "new and novel" dna testing, the cooperation through > TWGDAM was vital. > > Rob Keister > Orange Co. CA > > > > On Saturday, February 22, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > >> >> --- chris breyer wrote: >> >>> Perhaps we could leave it up to SWG-BOT? >>> >>> I'd love to see them try to inject a coconut into a >>> GC-MS! >> >> >> Chris - - >> >> After laughing at your response, I then thought about >> it, got concerned and drew a deep breath, since I'm >> sure that someone at the FBI is now looking at this >> (SWG-BOT) and thinking, "Damn, that would work - >> another SWG! Why didn't we think of this before?!" >> >> Man, stop giving those folks more ideas. However, >> I'll throw out the penultimate idea - - the SWGSWG, >> which would need to be preceded by the TWGSWGSWG - >> that should keep some 'scientific' bureaucrats happy >> for an extended period of time. >> >> Tom >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more >> http://taxes.yahoo.com/ >> >> > "You can't always get what you want. (But if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.)" - Jagger/Richard From daemon Mon Feb 24 08:38:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1ODcKU26956 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1ODcJ626950 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:38:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:36:52 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/24/2003 07:36:09 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7439 Bob, (sorry about the delay - I was at AAFS) Since we work for the State and work on cases around the State it is often hard to personally know defense counsel when they call. If someone were to call saying they were defense for Joe Blow would you just give them a copy of your results, status, work product? What we do is get a verbal from the DA's office in these cases. Often times the defense has already gotten it cleared by the prosecutor and they tell us that, but we still verify it. I think to not do so would be remiss. A suspect may own a piece of evidence currently at the lab but we really can't give that person the time of day if he were to call other than telling him to contact the submitting agency and they can make a request to us for info. Afterwhich info flows freely. It is a kind of checks and balance system. Yes, our work product is our own, HOWEVER, we kind of view it as a direct result of a request from the submitting agency. Because of high-profile cases in the past, and present, our protocol has evolved into clearing any release of any info with either the submitting agency or prosecutor. Of course, a court order supersedes both of those. I think what we have here is policy and protocol accomplishing roughly the same thing through different means. Adam Becnel |---------+-------------------------------------------> | | "Robert Parsons" | | | | | | Sent by: | | | owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statg| | | en.ncsu.edu | | | | | | | | | 02/17/2003 04:05 PM | | | | |---------+-------------------------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: | | cc: | | Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Adam, I'm curious. Why do you need the permission of the prosecution or LE agency? Discovery issues are the court's decision, not the prosecutor's or police investigator's, so I don't see how their opinion matters. I could agree that they should be notified if they might have a legal right to challenge the disclosure, but I don't see why they should be the controlling authority, or how they could be, really. If the defense obtains a court order, then it's irrelevant whether or not the ADA or the agency approves, isn't it? Even if your lab were a subdivision of one of their offices, they surely couldn't tell you to refuse a court order. We don't ask our State Attorney's Office or our submitting agencies for their permission to release lab results to defense counsel, or to discuss those results with them. As long as we know the defense attorneys are officers of the court in a specific case, they have a right to know and understand the results for that case. We send them copies of our reports routinely upon request (we don't even require a subpoena, just an official request) and we will discuss the results freely with them unless there is some legal dispute about it presently before the court. Now if they request to see the whole file, then we'll first consult with the SAO and the submitting agency to make sure there's no sensitive, legally privileged information in the documents submitted to us along with the evidence (because that info would also be in the file), but the analytical data we produced ourselves belongs to our lab and we don't normally need anyone's permission to share it. Of course, we don! 't release open case information to just anybody for obvious reasons, but defense counsel are officers of the court and so have a right to see it. If we receive nothing more than a defense attorney's subpoena to provide the whole file to the them, then we'll notify the SAO because they have a right to challenge the subpoena for cause (if any), but once you receive a court order signed by a judge, then that's that - you have to comply and send them the whole file, regardless of what anyone else wants. Personally, I can't see why anyone would want to limit disclosure of lab work product, except to protect legitimately sensitive and legally privileged information. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us [mailto:CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 15:40 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data John, I agree, it sounds very suspect, but lets play devil's advocate. Was the chemist asked "Can just anyone have access to your work product?" and the complete answer should have probably been extrapolated to be "My work product is confidential (and it is) but the prosecution and/or case officer can make it available to anyone." My lab is accredited and I can not give out any information, results, or work product to anyone unless cleared to do so by the ADA or Case Officer/Agency. Was a request made to see instrumental data, or did the chemist just not produce any. (Example - we do not bring chains-of-custody to court. We have them of course and we are prepared to produce them if asked in advance, but why complicate things when you don't have to.) Was it really the lab's policy, or a decision by the prosecution that you do not see the data? I find it hard to believe that an accredited state lab even cares if defense wants to see data - data is data and if you did your job right who cares if someone wants to see it. After you get clearance - come on over, I'll even put a pot of coffee on! But, as in my case, that request must come from either of the aforementioned parties - or guess what? You don't see the data. Is my lab's policy appropriate? I think it is. Just throwing ideas around. Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab Baton Rouge, LA While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Mon Feb 24 09:15:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1OEFap28429 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (nn1.excitenetwork.com [207.159.120.55]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1OEFZ628420 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id EC42FB719; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:15:33 -0500 (EST) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Received: from [198.103.172.9] by xprdmailfe20.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:15:33 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 8799842baaa8be05314547ca136d2366 Reply-To: jessicabrinkworth@excite.com From: "Jessica Brinkworth" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jessicabrinkworth@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Cc: Message-Id: <20030224141533.EC42FB719@xmxpita.excite.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:15:33 -0500 (EST) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2787 I've just gone through the messages for this discussion. I may have missed it, but did anyone list the name of this catalogue? I would be interested to know if the catalogue is distributed in Canada. It may be of interest to various health authorities and law enforcement agencies here.--- On Sat 02/22, Rob Keister < rkeister@zippnet.net > wrote: From: Rob Keister [mailto: rkeister@zippnet.net]To: forens@statgen.ncsu.eduDate: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 15:18:28 -0800Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog> I think I saw the SWG-BOT on television the other night battling with > the other Bots.> It would lure another Bot in close with its benign appearance,> and then drop a 50 pound validation manual on top of its opponent.> BOOM. It was awesome.>> But seriously, my own experience with SWGDAM (formerly a TWG) was that > it was valuable in> bringing together people with forensic experience to the new area of > applying dna testing> to forensic evidence. The earliest dna testing labs had great dna > expertise, but little> forensic experience (with the notable exception of Ed Blake). And > with the admissibility> challenges to "new and novel" dna testing, the cooperation through > TWGDAM was vital.>> Rob Keister> Orange Co. CA>>>> On Saturday, February 22, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Tom Abercrombie wrote:>>>>> --- chris breyer wrote:>>>>> Perhaps we could leave it up to SWG-BOT?>>>>>> I'd love to see them try to inject a coconut into a>>> GC-MS!>>>>>> Chris - ->>>> After laughing at your response, I then thought about>> it, got concerned and drew a deep breath, since I'm>> sure that someone at the FBI is now looking at this>> (SWG-BOT) and thinking, "Damn, that would work ->> another SWG! Why didn't we think of this before?!">>>> Man, stop giving those folks more ideas. However,>> I'll throw out the penultimate idea - - the SWGSWG,>> which would need to be preceded by the TWGSWGSWG ->> that should keep some 'scientific' bureaucrats happy>> for an extended period of time.>>>> Tom>>>> __________________________________________________>> Do you Yahoo!?>> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more>> http://taxes.yahoo.com/>>>>>"You can't always get what you want. (But if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.)" - Jagger/Richard _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Feb 24 10:14:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1OFELg00246 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:21 -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 h1OFEK600239 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1OFEGb13708; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:15 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: Jessica Brinkworth cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog In-Reply-To: <20030224141533.EC42FB719@xmxpita.excite.com> Message-ID: References: <20030224141533.EC42FB719@xmxpita.excite.com> X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 670 Hi Jessica, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to release the name and information about the company on a 'List'. If you think they would be interested, have the 'various health authorities and LE agencies' contact me directly. By the way, isn't Canada more liberal regarding Cannabis use than the USA? Carol On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Jessica Brinkworth wrote: > I've just gone through the messages for this discussion. I may have > missed it, but did anyone list the name of this catalogue? I would be > interested to know if the catalogue is distributed in Canada. It may be > of interest to various health authorities and law enforcement agencies > here.--- From daemon Mon Feb 24 20:16:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1P1GnY16557 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:16:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1P1Gm616551 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from 66-44-124-34.c3-0.gth-ubr1.lnh-gth.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.124.34] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 18nTiD-0001Ak-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:16:49 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030224195817.00bb7350@pop.rcn.com> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:16:51 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog In-Reply-To: References: <20030224141533.EC42FB719@xmxpita.excite.com> <20030224141533.EC42FB719@xmxpita.excite.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1875 For what it is worth, the DEA already scans the Internet for potential drug distribution violations. There are thousands of offers being made every day, probably most of them scams. But hey, one more lead won't hurt. Also, even though the DEA tried to ban importation of marijuana seed laden buns and muffins, they have failed, at least temporarily, and it is perfectly legal today -- upsetting to some folks, but legal. My understanding is the Canadians confronted the US ban through NAFTA. See this site for some really interesting history. http://www.hemp.co.uk/html/nafta0802.html Also, attempts have been made to find marijuana without success in urine after consumption of said foods in ample quantities. Poppy seed laden foods, on the other hand, send off rockets at 300ng/ml. This why the cutoff was raised to 2000ng/ml a couple of years ago. It might seem strange to some people that poppy seeds, with a known reactivity to ordinary tests, don't disturb the DEA, while marijuana seeds, that show no indication of presence, bother the bejesus out of them. I don't think it is strange, but that is just my opinion. John French At 10:14 AM 2/24/2003, you wrote: >Hi Jessica, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to release the name and >information about the company on a 'List'. If you think they would be >interested, have the 'various health authorities and LE agencies' contact >me directly. By the way, isn't Canada more liberal regarding Cannabis use >than the USA? > >Carol > >On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Jessica Brinkworth wrote: > > > I've just gone through the messages for this discussion. I may have > > missed it, but did anyone list the name of this catalogue? I would be > > interested to know if the catalogue is distributed in Canada. It may be > > of interest to various health authorities and law enforcement agencies > > here.--- From daemon Tue Feb 25 01:42:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1P6gFA21365 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1P6gD621359 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-133-82.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.133.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h1P6gAwv015843 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:42:12 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030224224011.00adb630@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:42:06 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1545 From another thread on forens: >The majority of working forensic scientists in the UK probably feel >prohibited from discussing forensic science in open fora, especially >anything controversial. > >Those working for government agencies who feel this way are probably >right; a scientist wanting to comment would probably have to obtain "press >branch" approval. If, and I repeat IF, this is true, it is indeed a shame. But it goes along with the earlier discussion about release/confidentiality of laboratory data. I cannot imagine any enterprise that more deserves to be public than forensic science and its discussion. With the possible redaction of names in cases where divulging those names would be inappropriate, I can think of no reason why anything that goes on in a forensic science lab should not be publicly available upon request. After all, it is science (a public business by definition -- peer review), deals with the legal system (I recall that star chambers, kangaroo courts, and inquisitions have been mostly banned -- with all due respect to John Ashcroft), and is funded by the tax payers who have every right to know what they are paying for. Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that restricts the free exchange and discussion of forensic science cases and issues simply decreases the credibility of forensic science as a method of getting at the truth. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue Feb 25 08:49:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PDnfF27333 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41004.mail.yahoo.com (web41004.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1PDne627327 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:49:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030225134939.43316.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web41004.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:49:39 PST Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:49:39 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data To: "Peter D. Barnett" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030224224011.00adb630@pop.nothingbutnet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1125 --- "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that > restricts the free exchange > and discussion of forensic science cases and > issues simply decreases the > credibility of forensic science as a method of > getting at the truth. > Peter: You seem to believe that anyone really cares what is true. Truth is academic, and what forensic science is about is "justice," or putting bad guys in jail. Viewed from that perspective, any policy that promotes the right to effective assistance of counsel defeats the purpose of taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations. Most labs work for the police, not for the courts. Unless and until that changes, obtaining convictions will take a back seat to finding the truth. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Tue Feb 25 09:02:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PE28l27994 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from boron.cix.co.uk (boron.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.155]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PE26627986 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from cix.co.uk (pc1-lich2-3-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [80.7.10.88]) by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id h1PE0AM29034; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:00:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data To: pbarnett@fsalab.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030224224011.00adb630@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.53.2014, Windows 98 4.10.1998 ( ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 826 > If, and I repeat IF, this is true, it is indeed a shame. I don't see a vast number of UK forensic scientists rushing to correct me. > But it goes along with the earlier discussion about > release/confidentiality of laboratory data. In the majority of cases, such problems don't arise in the UK. However, just occasionally we do have serious problems; for example, refusal to disclose validation studies on DNA profiling procedures. The UK now has a Freedom of Information law. This comes into full force in 2005. I doubt this will provide the same freedom of access to information that you have the USA. Here's an example of the FSS's idea of the sort of information the public are yearning to see: http://www.forensic.gov.uk/forensic/foi/foi_docs/Qualityprinciples2.pdf Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk From daemon Tue Feb 25 09:18:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PEIkM28785 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mn.us (state.mn.us [156.99.125.109]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1PEIj628779 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us by mail.state.mn.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:18:39 -0600 Received: by dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:15:45 -0600 Message-Id: <384D84AED5DB0E47A62C04FC4CF719746ABC3B@dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us> From: "Grunwald, Eric" To: "'Forens'" Subject: Reporting of Khat Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:15:40 -0600 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: 1631 Hello All, Got a question for those in the drug labs. Our lab has seen a recent increase in submissions of Khat (Catha edulis), and I need some advice. We normally receive what we consider to be rather large submissions (kg quantities) consisting of several bundles of the plant material wrapped in banana leaves. Sometimes the total number of these bundles is in the hundreds. In the past we had gone under the assumption that using 1 bundle for analysis was sufficient, assuming all the other bundles had the same wrappings, appearance, etc. Does this sound acceptable, and is this how others do it? Our logic was that these submissions are much like marijuana, in that they are visually distinct. Additionally, because of the lengthy extraction process, more than one analysis would be more labor intensive. Recently, we have had attorney's ask us to do things differently. They are requesting that we actually analyze enough individual bundles so that the weight of those bundles meets or exceeds the maximum statutory weight limit (assuming the submission is large enough). This means we have to analyze at least 500 grams of plant material, and since our typical bundles average about 100 grams, this means at least 5 extractions. This is obviously more work, but do people out there think we should have been doing it this way all the long? Any other sampling methods out there that people want to share? By the way, we are working on a new, shorter extraction process. Thanks in advance, Eric Eric Grunwald, Forensic Scientist MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 1246 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 From daemon Tue Feb 25 09:20:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PEKA929088 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:20:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PEK9629082 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:20:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Truth is academic? To: johnlentini@yahoo.com, pbarnett@fsalab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:18:40 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/25/2003 08:17:55 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2198 John and Peter, Yes the majority of Forensic Science is financed, made possible, and supported by law enforcement, government, big brother, etc. Maybe I live in a fantasy world and am not seeing reality, but it sounds like you are both implying that if one work for the government then truth will be squashed. I would tend to think the opposite. Private labs are where I see the opportunity for alterior motives entering the equation. Nevertheless, I can't find one example of a Forensic Scientist employed in the public sector, or private, that has ever changed his findings, not reported the truth or misrepresented the facts at the bequest of the prosecutor, cop, mother, sister, etc. who would not have done these things anyway. The people that do these things will do them regardless of where they work and for whom they work for. What makes one think that just anyone has a right to information pertaining to a criminal investigation unless cleared by the responsible parties? That information is very justifiably held until it is time for court. That is the mechanism in which this Country has deemed appropriate to find, or try, truth. Not academics, not private labs, not morning roll call, not government labs, not the DA offices, but the Court. Truth is academic? - Hogwash!!! Adam Becnel D-ABC --- "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that > restricts the free exchange > and discussion of forensic science cases and > issues simply decreases the > credibility of forensic science as a method of > getting at the truth. > Peter: You seem to believe that anyone really cares what is true. Truth is academic, and what forensic science is about is "justice," or putting bad guys in jail. Viewed from that perspective, any policy that promotes the right to effective assistance of counsel defeats the purpose of taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations. Most labs work for the police, not for the courts. Unless and until that changes, obtaining convictions will take a back seat to finding the truth. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics From daemon Tue Feb 25 09:38:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PEcHG00024 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from fourier.sag.gwu.edu (fourier.sag.gwu.edu [128.164.127.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PEcG600018 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from fuchs.sag.gwu.edu (fuchs.sag.gwu.edu [192.168.61.126]) by fourier.sag.gwu.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0HAV000LUCNLYK@fourier.sag.gwu.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:38:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from fermi.nit.gwu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fuchs.sag.gwu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PEYIf19192 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from acad1 (acad.gwu.edu [128.164.127.128]) by fermi.nit.gwu.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h1PEbsBI004819 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:37:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:38:08 -0500 (EST) From: Alexis Turner Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1141 Perhaps I've misread the thread (entirely possible, as I've tried to cram through them all in the last day since returning from the AAFS conference), but it seems like somewhere along the line it got weirdly off-track. Am I not mistaken, or is the basic gist of what -everyone- is saying "Gee, whiz, Wally, I can't believe those fellows didn't give the court their data when directly asked to!"? As far as the rather heated sub-topics about truth being academic, or whether all information should be completely free, or America having a bounty of available information for anyone (it doesn't, by the way), or whether it is or is not okay for labs to have policies prohibiting the disclosure of all information....it seems like these are questions not unique to forensic science and they are brought up regularly in many other fields. Which would suggest to me that a pretty good argument could be given for either side, and there is probably very little area for a black and white discussion on the subject, in which one party is wrong and the other right. .... But maybe that's just me. --- Alexis Turner George Washington University From daemon Tue Feb 25 09:52:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PEqqS00785 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PEqo600779 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:52:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Fire Debris Evidence To: "Robert Parsons" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:21 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/25/2003 08:50:36 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2164 Bob, It's true that passive headspace extraction doesn't take much sample, but you do theoretically loose sample everytime you open the can. If you don't take duplicate samples and don't preserve the samples that you do take, what is defense to do in 6 months when the can is entirely rusted. They no longer have the opportunity to test that exhibit! "Arson cases in our area never go to trial anyway" Imagine this scenario, A person sets fire to a seemingly abandoned house, thus killing all 7 people inside. Do you think one would be testifying in this case? I understand that it may seen like a waste of time to do duplicate extractions, but IMHO I think to not do them would be border-line illegal, or at least malfeasance. You can not destroy evidence, even through in-action, and deprive the right for someone else to test it. Arson samples will disappear in a very short time! Maybe you could talk to your prosecutor and ask him/her. I think it would be worth checking into. Adam Becnel, D-ABC Louisiana State Police Crime Lab We don't take duplicate samples, nor do we preserve the samples we do take. The charcoal strip method removes so little sample from the container that there should be plenty left for recovery if reanalysis is desired. If there's so little ignitable residue present that a single charcoal strip would remove it all, we probably wouldn't call it in the first place. If you want to preserve an extracted sample, why not simply place the strip you eluted back into the sample vial with the eluted sample? The CS2 will eventually evaporate (even in a closed vial) and the heavier ignitable residue will readsorb back onto the strip. We used to do this and then freeze the vials, but as you allude to, storage space became a problem and we finally decided there was no point to it. Arson cases in our area never go to trial anyway (I think we've given maybe 2 or 3 testimonies in the 21 years I've been here), and no one's ever asked to reexamine the samples, so for us it was a waste of time and effort. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Tue Feb 25 10:55:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PFtQ602625 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:55:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao05.cox.net (fed1mtao05.cox.net [68.6.19.126]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PFtP602619 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from hppav ([68.4.38.207]) by fed1mtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030225155521.ZMKZ22316.fed1mtao05.cox.net@hppav>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:55:21 -0500 Message-ID: <001601c2dce6$624568e0$cf260444@pv.oc.cox.net> From: "Cox SMTP west" To: , , , References: Subject: Re: Truth is academic? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:55:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3367 I don't know where you get your philosophy that forensic science is not the pursuit of truth. I don't know what the policy is at your labs, but where I work, we value the truth. If we can not positively identify someone, we don't. Pure and simple. I have said routinely, "I would rather let the bad guy go, then put an innocent person in jail". I have testified in court in ways that may or may not benefit the prosecution. It depends on who is asking the questions and how they are asked. My goal is to tell the truth. If the prosecutor or investigtator can not make the case based on the evidence on hand..oh, well. A guilty person may go free, much to the chagrin of the community. But on the other hand, an innocent person may also stay free. Our lab has both indicted the guilty and freed the innocent. Donna Brandelli Los Angeles County fyreatr@cox.net That is what forensic science is. Anyone who says differently is not a true practitioner of forensic science. Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:18 AM Subject: Truth is academic? > > > John and Peter, > > Yes the majority of Forensic Science is financed, made possible, and > supported by law enforcement, government, big brother, etc. > > Maybe I live in a fantasy world and am not seeing reality, but it sounds > like you are both implying that if one work for the government then truth > will be squashed. I would tend to think the opposite. Private labs are > where I see the opportunity for alterior motives entering the equation. > Nevertheless, I can't find one example of a Forensic Scientist employed in > the public sector, or private, that has ever changed his findings, not > reported the truth or misrepresented the facts at the bequest of the > prosecutor, cop, mother, sister, etc. who would not have done these things > anyway. The people that do these things will do them regardless of where > they work and for whom they work for. > > What makes one think that just anyone has a right to information pertaining > to a criminal investigation unless cleared by the responsible parties? That > information is very justifiably held until it is time for court. That is > the mechanism in which this Country has deemed appropriate to find, or try, > truth. Not academics, not private labs, not morning roll call, not > government labs, not the DA offices, but the Court. > > Truth is academic? - Hogwash!!! > > Adam Becnel > D-ABC > > --- "Peter D. Barnett" > wrote: > > Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that > > restricts the free exchange > > and discussion of forensic science cases and > > issues simply decreases the > > credibility of forensic science as a method of > > getting at the truth. > > > Peter: > > You seem to believe that anyone really cares what > is true. Truth is academic, and what forensic > science is about is "justice," or putting bad > guys in jail. Viewed from that perspective, any > policy that promotes the right to effective > assistance of counsel defeats the purpose of > taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations. > Most labs work for the police, not for the > courts. Unless and until that changes, obtaining > convictions will take a back seat to finding the > truth. > > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > > > > > > > > From daemon Tue Feb 25 11:02:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PG2KG03154 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:02:20 -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 h1PG2I603148 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-5.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.5]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1PG2F51020231 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:02:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302251602.h1PG2F51020231@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:56:55 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Truth is academic? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3189 At 08:18 AM 2/25/2003 -0600, CBecnel@dps.state.la.us wrote: I can't find one example of a Forensic Scientist employed in >the public sector, or private, that has ever changed his findings, not >reported the truth or misrepresented the facts at the bequest of the >prosecutor, cop, mother, sister, etc. who would not have done these things >anyway. The people that do these things will do them regardless of where >they work and for whom they work for. I think this is true - no one just misrepresents things for no reason. What those reasons are are probably different for every person who makes such misrepresentations. And it is important to remember that the process of peer review, which is why "data" (in the broadest sense of the term) should be readily available is not solely to prevent misrepresentation. The process of peer review is the way science gets at the truth. That process may, at times, discover misrepresentation, but it more often than not simply promotes progress. That is, a closer approximation of the truth. >What makes one think that just anyone has a right to information pertaining >to a criminal investigation unless cleared by the responsible parties? That >information is very justifiably held until it is time for court. What is the justification? That is >the mechanism in which this Country has deemed appropriate to find, or try, >truth. Not academics, not private labs, not morning roll call, not >government labs, not the DA offices, but the Court. There are many paradigms for discovering the truth. Two such competing paradigms are the legal method and the science method. The legal method emphasizes an adversarial process where each sides brings arguments before some impartial arbitrator. The legal system protects the rhetorical assets of the adversaries by allowing their arguments and their evidence to remain private until they are presented to the arbitrator. The science method does not have an arbitrator. Scientists present their views, along with the reasons for them and the methods by which they were arrived at, in an open forum for the review of anyone who is interested. The truth, or at least the current understanding of it, is arrived at in a collegial process. The advantage of the legal system is that it does allow for a decision to be made, whereas the science system does not require any decision to be made by any deadline. The trick here is to find methods that combine the practical advantage of the legal method with what I believe is a better method of getting at the truth using the science method. I just don't see why protecting scientific data as a private asset is necessary. The assumption should be that all such data is public, unless there is some overriding concern to keep it private. In actual practice, off course, it is just the opposite - data is private unless here is some reason to make it available (and never "public" - but, at best, available to those few who have some special right to the information). Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue Feb 25 11:09:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PG9qf03833 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:09:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PG9p603827 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:09:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: "Cox SMTP west" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:07:32 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/25/2003 10:07:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4562 Very well said Donna, and I agree 100%. Adam Becnel, D-ABC Louisiana State Police Crime lab "Cox SMTP west" To: , , , 02/25/2003 09:55 cc: AM Subject: Re: Truth is academic? I don't know where you get your philosophy that forensic science is not the pursuit of truth. I don't know what the policy is at your labs, but where I work, we value the truth. If we can not positively identify someone, we don't. Pure and simple. I have said routinely, "I would rather let the bad guy go, then put an innocent person in jail". I have testified in court in ways that may or may not benefit the prosecution. It depends on who is asking the questions and how they are asked. My goal is to tell the truth. If the prosecutor or investigtator can not make the case based on the evidence on hand..oh, well. A guilty person may go free, much to the chagrin of the community. But on the other hand, an innocent person may also stay free. Our lab has both indicted the guilty and freed the innocent. Donna Brandelli Los Angeles County fyreatr@cox.net That is what forensic science is. Anyone who says differently is not a true practitioner of forensic science. Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:18 AM Subject: Truth is academic? > > > John and Peter, > > Yes the majority of Forensic Science is financed, made possible, and > supported by law enforcement, government, big brother, etc. > > Maybe I live in a fantasy world and am not seeing reality, but it sounds > like you are both implying that if one work for the government then truth > will be squashed. I would tend to think the opposite. Private labs are > where I see the opportunity for alterior motives entering the equation. > Nevertheless, I can't find one example of a Forensic Scientist employed in > the public sector, or private, that has ever changed his findings, not > reported the truth or misrepresented the facts at the bequest of the > prosecutor, cop, mother, sister, etc. who would not have done these things > anyway. The people that do these things will do them regardless of where > they work and for whom they work for. > > What makes one think that just anyone has a right to information pertaining > to a criminal investigation unless cleared by the responsible parties? That > information is very justifiably held until it is time for court. That is > the mechanism in which this Country has deemed appropriate to find, or try, > truth. Not academics, not private labs, not morning roll call, not > government labs, not the DA offices, but the Court. > > Truth is academic? - Hogwash!!! > > Adam Becnel > D-ABC > > --- "Peter D. Barnett" > wrote: > > Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that > > restricts the free exchange > > and discussion of forensic science cases and > > issues simply decreases the > > credibility of forensic science as a method of > > getting at the truth. > > > Peter: > > You seem to believe that anyone really cares what > is true. Truth is academic, and what forensic > science is about is "justice," or putting bad > guys in jail. Viewed from that perspective, any > policy that promotes the right to effective > assistance of counsel defeats the purpose of > taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations. > Most labs work for the police, not for the > courts. Unless and until that changes, obtaining > convictions will take a back seat to finding the > truth. > > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > > > > > > > > From daemon Tue Feb 25 11:20:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PGKkx04467 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:46 -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 h1PGKj604461 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-5.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.5]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1PGKh4x022533 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:20:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302251620.h1PGKh4x022533@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:10:23 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Truth is academic? In-Reply-To: <001601c2dce6$624568e0$cf260444@pv.oc.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1040 At 07:55 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, Cox SMTP west wrote: >I don't know where you get your philosophy that forensic science is not the >pursuit of truth. I don't know what the policy is at your labs, but where I >work, we value the truth. If we can not positively identify someone, we >don't. Pure and simple. I have said routinely, "I would rather let the bad >guy go, then put an innocent person in jail". I have testified in court >in ways that may or may not benefit the prosecution. It depends on who is >asking the questions and how they are asked. So the truth is dependent on "who is asking the questions and how they are asked"? And the function of the inquiry is far more than to "identify someone." It is also necessary to determine what that someone did - a far more difficult task, most of the time. And it is here where the problems normally arise. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue Feb 25 12:10:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PHA4S06386 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net (fed1mtao02.cox.net [68.6.19.243]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PHA2606369 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from hppav ([68.4.38.207]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030225171003.KLJ2396.fed1mtao02.cox.net@hppav>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:10:03 -0500 Message-ID: <001101c2dcf0$d2438fa0$cf260444@pv.oc.cox.net> From: "Cox SMTP west" To: "Peter D. Barnett" , References: <200302251620.h1PGKh4x022533@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> Subject: Re: Truth is academic? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:10:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3930 If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best of my ability based on my experience, education and training. Truthfully. You seem to have a hard time with the truth portion of the forensic science. You feel it is something that can be adjusted according to the circumstances. Does it? Could it? Of course, but that goes to the integretity, ethics and the morality of the practitioner. Forensic science, as with any profession, is only as good as the person making the analysis. There are untruthful, immoral, and unethical doctors, lawyers, bankers, judges, police, etc. This list is as exhaustive as the list of career fields. However, in any profession, the MAJORITY of the people will be honest. The adversarial system that is used within this country may not be the best system and may not always be the most fair system. It is certainly flawed. But, in comparison to many countries, it is far superior. Obviously each state, county and city is different in terms of their rules of practice and their laws. I am currently writing the procedural policies for the Identification section of our lab, and it explicitly allows private attorneys and public defenders to look at our evidence and records, with a court order. It also allows them to stand by and watch us analyze the evidence. Under certain circumstances, the judge has even allowed them to remove the evidence, prior to our processing the evidence. We may not like all the rules that are put forth. But we abide by them and we try to do the best job possible. If you routinely come up against someone that is unethical, impractical, or working illegally, that is something you need to take up with your local authorities. To broadly impune the field of forensic science and the practitioners is unfair and biased. There are a great deal of hard working, educated and well trained people working within the field. They chose this field for a variety of reasons. But I would venture to say that many chose this field to study the truth and learn from other with both the same perspective as well as differing perspectives. I routinely send myself to training that is given by someone other than our agency. I do this because I want to learn other points of views, other techniques, and other perspectives. I want to see if there is a better way to perform an analysis. The truth is the truth. No matter who asks the questions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D. Barnett" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:10 AM Subject: Re: Truth is academic? > At 07:55 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, Cox SMTP west wrote: > >I don't know where you get your philosophy that forensic science is not the > >pursuit of truth. I don't know what the policy is at your labs, but where I > >work, we value the truth. If we can not positively identify someone, we > >don't. Pure and simple. I have said routinely, "I would rather let the bad > >guy go, then put an innocent person in jail". I have testified in court > >in ways that may or may not benefit the prosecution. It depends on who is > >asking the questions and how they are asked. > > So the truth is dependent on "who is asking the questions and how they are > asked"? And the function of the inquiry is far more than to "identify > someone." It is also necessary to determine what that someone did - a far > more difficult task, most of the time. And it is here where the problems > normally arise. > > Pete Barnett > > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > http://www.fsalab.com > From daemon Tue Feb 25 12:35:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PHZoF07558 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net (fed1mtao02.cox.net [68.6.19.243]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PHZm607550 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from hppav ([68.4.38.207]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030225173549.QFO2396.fed1mtao02.cox.net@hppav>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:35:49 -0500 Message-ID: <004b01c2dcf4$6bc68b20$cf260444@pv.oc.cox.net> From: "Cox SMTP west" To: "Cox SMTP west" , "Peter D. Barnett" , Subject: Re: Truth is academic? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:36:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4323 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cox SMTP west" To: "Peter D. Barnett" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Truth is academic? > If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in > court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in > and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to > the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best of > my ability based on my experience, education and training. Truthfully. > > You seem to have a hard time with the truth portion of the forensic science. > You feel it is something that can be adjusted according to the > circumstances. Does it? Could it? Of course, but that goes to the > integretity, ethics and the morality of the practitioner. Forensic science, > as with any profession, is only as good as the person making the analysis. > > There are untruthful, immoral, and unethical doctors, lawyers, bankers, > judges, police, etc. This list is as exhaustive as the list of career > fields. However, in any profession, the MAJORITY of the people will be > honest. > > The adversarial system that is used within this country may not be the best > system and may not always be the most fair system. It is certainly flawed. > But, in comparison to many countries, it is far superior. > > Obviously each state, county and city is different in terms of their rules > of practice and their laws. I am currently writing the procedural policies > for the Identification section of our lab, and it explicitly allows private > attorneys and public defenders to look at our evidence and records, with a > court order. It also allows them to stand by and watch us analyze the > evidence. Under certain circumstances, the judge has even allowed them to > remove the evidence, prior to our processing the evidence. > > We may not like all the rules that are put forth. But we abide by them and > we try to do the best job possible. > > If you routinely come up against someone that is unethical, impractical, or > working illegally, that is something you need to take up with your local > authorities. To broadly impune the field of forensic science and the > practitioners is unfair and biased. There are a great deal of hard working, > educated and well trained people working within the field. They chose this > field for a variety of reasons. But I would venture to say that many chose > this field to study the truth and learn from other with both the same > perspective as well as differing perspectives. > > I routinely send myself to training that is given by someone other than > our agency. I do this because I want to learn other points of views, other > techniques, and other perspectives. I want to see if there is a better way > to perform an analysis. > > The truth is the truth. No matter who asks the questions. Donna Brandelli > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter D. Barnett" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:10 AM > Subject: Re: Truth is academic? > > > > At 07:55 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, Cox SMTP west wrote: > > >I don't know where you get your philosophy that forensic science is not > the > > >pursuit of truth. I don't know what the policy is at your labs, but > where I > > >work, we value the truth. If we can not positively identify someone, we > > >don't. Pure and simple. I have said routinely, "I would rather let the > bad > > >guy go, then put an innocent person in jail". I have testified in > court > > >in ways that may or may not benefit the prosecution. It depends on who > is > > >asking the questions and how they are asked. > > > > So the truth is dependent on "who is asking the questions and how they are > > asked"? And the function of the inquiry is far more than to "identify > > someone." It is also necessary to determine what that someone did - a far > > more difficult task, most of the time. And it is here where the problems > > normally arise. > > > > Pete Barnett > > > > > > Peter D. Barnett > > Forensic Science Associates > > Richmond CA > > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > > http://www.fsalab.com > > > From daemon Tue Feb 25 12:44:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PHiek08136 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41410.mail.yahoo.com (web41410.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.76]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1PHid608130 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030225174439.65224.qmail@web41410.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.104.223.162] by web41410.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:44:39 PST Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:44:39 -0800 (PST) From: L DeShong Subject: HLA-DQ Alpha Population Database To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 392 Dear List, Is there a publically available, Internet database which provides population statistics for HLA-DQ Alpha? Thanks, L. DeShong (Civilian List Member) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 25 12:52:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PHqCP08767 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:12 -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 h1PHqB608761 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.7/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1PHqANV190522; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:52:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030225095516.00bc9510@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:55:40 -0800 To: L DeShong From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: HLA-DQ Alpha Population Database Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <20030225174439.65224.qmail@web41410.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 214 http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/WWW/MedFak/Serology/hla.html At 09:44 AM 2/25/03 -0800, L DeShong wrote: >Is there a publically available, Internet database which provides >population statistics for HLA-DQ Alpha? From daemon Tue Feb 25 13:18:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PII7209990 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:18:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PII6609984 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:18:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200302251818.h1PII6609984@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from mtiwebc18 (mtiwebc18.worldnet.att.net[204.127.135.57]) by mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <2003022518175611200oa477e>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:17:57 +0000 Received: from [12.87.59.169] by mtiwebc18; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:17:56 +0000 From: susan.baird@att.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Truth is academic? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:17:56 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Nov 25 2002) X-Authenticated-Sender: c3VzYW4uYmFpcmRAYXR0Lm5ldA== Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 280 Since there are no innocent persons convicted in this nation, due to false, misleading 'expert' testimony, etc. What is there to discuss? All are ethical, Truth is always sought, the indigent are never shortchanged. The System needs no attention. -- Susan.Baird@att.net From daemon Tue Feb 25 14:26:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PJQZR12343 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:26:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao04.cox.net (fed1mtao04.cox.net [68.6.19.241]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PJQX612337 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from hppav ([68.4.38.207]) by fed1mtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030225192630.VKC11616.fed1mtao04.cox.net@hppav>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:26:30 -0500 Message-ID: <001501c2dd03$e13236c0$cf260444@pv.oc.cox.net> From: "Cox SMTP west" To: Cc: References: <200302251818.h1PII6609984@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: Re: Truth is academic? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:27:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1395 I guess you missed the part about unethical people in every profession and that the system is not always perfect...which system is? We've all seen innocent convicted and guilty people freed. We've also seen people that have been cheated and misled by their mechanice and their doctors, their bankers, their lawyers, their realtors and their priests. Anyone with specialized knowledge or education can always mislead, cheat or lie. No matter your education or economic level. There will always be someone to corrupt some aspect of a job, profession, career or system. I guess it all boils down as to how good your safeguards are and how good a person you have ensuring that the safeguards work. Call me naive, call me optimistic, regardless of the hatred, animosity and viciousness of the acts I have seen, I still would like to believe that a majority of the people doing any type of job, would like to do a job well. Donna Brandelli I----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:17 AM Subject: Truth is academic? > > Since there are no innocent persons convicted in this nation, due to false, > misleading 'expert' testimony, etc. What is there to discuss? All are ethical, > Truth is always sought, the indigent are never shortchanged. The System needs > no attention. > > -- > Susan.Baird@att.net > From daemon Tue Feb 25 14:29:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PJTxA12673 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PJTw612667 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1d7.3a5599b (4380) for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:29:22 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1d7.3a5599b.2b8d1e12@aol.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:29:22 EST Subject: Tainted Money To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 327 Looking for the citation for that study involving the drug contamination of the money population. Drugs on bills. Seem to remember such a study done in Florida back in the early 90's. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 25 14:57:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PJvko13866 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch011.westchestergov.com (Cow.westchestergov.com [163.151.0.253]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PJvj613860 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by exch011.westchestergov.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1KKBRKLK>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:57:22 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Tainted Money Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:57:21 -0500 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: 891 Fred: In fact I remember that DEA also had done a pretty extensive study in the late 80's and published it in the Microgram. As a result of that study they had recommended riffling the corrency stack in a new plastic bag ( not washing the currency ) , washing the plastic bag, concentrating the wash, and testing the concentrare. Another new plastic bag was used as a control. Bharat Lakhkar -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:29 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tainted Money Looking for the citation for that study involving the drug contamination of the money population. Drugs on bills. Seem to remember such a study done in Florida back in the early 90's. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 25 15:11:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PKBQG14550 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PKBP614544 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:11:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from SaBrInY14@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.91.2af83729 (30950) for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:11:22 -0500 (EST) From: SaBrInY14@aol.com Message-ID: <91.2af83729.2b8d27e9@aol.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:11:21 EST Subject: Term Paper To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 821 Hello everyone, My name is Sabrina, I'm a senior in high school, and excited to be attending the University of New Haven in Connecticut next fall to study forensics. I am now looking for topics that I could write my senior term paper on, something I can take a side of an arguement on. I was hoping someone could help me by directing me toward a topic in the forensic field. Is there any new things within the field that I could attempt to write about? I figure if i'm going to write 10 pages on 1 topic, it might as well be something which interests me, and maybe even further my study into the field. I would appreciate any feedback! Thank You, Sabrina --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 25 15:39:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PKdqU15795 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:39:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PKdpP15789 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:39:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:39:51 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2547 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:30:16 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] >From forens-owner Tue Feb 25 09:30:15 2003 Received: from som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us (hide-117.state.me.us [198.182.163.117]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PEUF629685 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by som-isa1asemhi2.w2k.state.me.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:30:15 -0500 Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C01C60B30@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'CBecnel@dps.state.la.us'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Fire Debris Evidence Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:29:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain Adam, We do a duplicate extraction that we preserve for defense testing. We save the tested and untested strips for potential further testing. They are stored in a walk in freezer for 6 years (the statute of limitations for arson in this state). Both samples are entered into our LIMS system and tracked as other evidence. They are stored with crimp tops in a sealed vial box. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us [mailto:CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fire Debris Evidence While we are on the subject of fire debris evidence... What is the consensus of opinion, and practice, of taking and storing a duplicate extraction sample. We currently take a double extraction on every sample and freeze these indefinitely - for now. The purpose, obviously, is to have a back-up for re-analysis, either by us or defense. I will need to address this 'storage' situation before too long. Therefore, my questions are: Does your lab take these duplicate extractions? Are they treated as evidence, and if so how? Does your lab retain these samples indefinitely? Does your lab return these samples with the original evidence to the originating agency? To take a duplicate extraction is not at issue, but rather how to better handle them. Thanks in advance. Adam Becnel, D-ABC Louisiana State Police Crime Lab From daemon Tue Feb 25 16:10:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PLAhP16702 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from espr1srvg.state.sd.local (espr1srvg.state.sd.us [164.154.9.109]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1PLAg616696 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by espr1srv2.state.sd.local with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1XMCDWAQ>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:10:35 -0600 Message-ID: From: Kristie.Trudeau@state.sd.us To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Tainted Money Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:09:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1015 Fred, Brazil, J, and S. Barry. 1992. You may be drug free but is your money? Cocaine is found on the money of 8 non-users. Orlando Sentinal, June 15, p A6. I found the citation within: Mesloh, C, Henych, M, and R. Wolf. 2002. Sniff test: Utilization of the law enforcement canine in the seizure of paper currency. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(6). 704-724. The authors included an appendix of 'Contaminated Money Studies' which should be very helpful finding articles on tainted money. Kristie Trudeau -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:29 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tainted Money Looking for the citation for that study involving the drug contamination of the money population. Drugs on bills. Seem to remember such a study done in Florida back in the early 90's. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 25 16:30:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PLUh117323 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:30:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from boron.cix.co.uk (boron.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.155]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PLUg617315 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from cix.co.uk (pc1-lich2-3-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [80.7.10.88]) by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id h1PLQbM20549; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:26:37 GMT X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: fyreatr@cox.net CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: <001101c2dcf0$d2438fa0$cf260444@pv.oc.cox.net> Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.53.2014, Windows 98 4.10.1998 ( ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 711 "If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best of my ability based on my experience, education and training. Truthfully." After giving answers to questions, would a forensic scientist in the USA ever turn to the judge and say, "there's something I want to add ... ". This happens over here. I've done it, and I've seen other forensic scientists do it. Surely a requirement of swearing to tell the whole truth? Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk From daemon Tue Feb 25 17:10:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PMA6O18758 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us ([63.225.16.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PMA5618752 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:05 -0500 (EST) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Truth is academic? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:10:06 -0700 Message-ID: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE40303@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Truth is academic? Thread-Index: AcLdFT68rU/cdQxESiKZgOpFuxMT1gAAXqXQ From: "Jeff Baker" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1PMA5618753 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3114 I have never heard of a witness asking a judge to allow them to present additional unsolicited testimony in the U.S. I believe the judge would instruct the witness to only answer the questions put to them. But if it happened, it may be a signal for the attorney conducting the direct examination (either prosecution or defense) to ask for a recess and find out what the witness wanted to say. The last time I testified in court, a fairly inexperienced attorney (prosecution) asked me about my collection of evidence in a homicide. I had responded to the hospital where one of the victims (who lived) was being treated. Upon my arrival, I met with an officer who released custody of some packaged clothing items that the medical staff had removed from the victim in the emergency room which the officer collected. I secured the items and went inside the hospital to wait for the victim to emerge from surgery. When the victim came out, I took custody from medical staff of two additional items of evidence (clothing and a bullet.) I then exposed photos of the victim and did a gunshot residue kit.) In my mind, I had collected two (or even three) separate groups of evidence. In court, the attorney asked me if I had collected evidence from officer "Jones" at the hospital. I answered "Yes." He asked me to describe the items I collected. I listed the first group of items and paused. Then, instead of asking me about the second group of evidence as I thought he would, he went on to ask about the photos and gunshot residue kit which I was introducing. I always thought he would eventually return to the clothing and bullet I got from the medics, but he never did. When I was excused from the witness stand, I was rather upset, thinking that I should have ignored his questions and continued to talk about the second group of evidence. Hindsight is 20-20. I was not being used to "introduce" these forgotten items to the jury, simply to testify to their chain of custody. The Officer and the medical staff were introducing them. I never heard about it from the attorneys one way or the other. The defendant was convicted. -Jeff Baker- -----Original Message----- From: Mark Webster [mailto:Webster@forensic-science.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:27 PM To: fyreatr@cox.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Subject: Re: Truth is academic? "If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best of my ability based on my experience, education and training. Truthfully." After giving answers to questions, would a forensic scientist in the USA ever turn to the judge and say, "there's something I want to add ... ". This happens over here. I've done it, and I've seen other forensic scientists do it. Surely a requirement of swearing to tell the whole truth? Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk From daemon Tue Feb 25 18:23:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1PNN2j20245 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PNN0620239 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm9-55.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.55]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1PNMva3004937 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:22:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302252322.h1PNMva3004937@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:53:42 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Truth is academic? In-Reply-To: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE40303@admnts61.co.arapaho e.co.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4566 When one testifies in court it is usual in the oath ("to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth") for the court to solicit testimony. Especially and expert who is giving opinion testimony should always be sure to give all of the tstimony that is solicited by the oath that is taken. It is certainly common in my experience for the expert witness to ask the court forpermission to explain an answer, correct what appears to be misunderstanding or misstatement, or otherwise speak up in order to tell the whole truth. In the situation Jeff describes below, I would suggest as a matter of courtesy to volunteer the information about the rest of the evidence collected would be appropriate. But one might want to consider whether or not the evidence has been suppressed or for some other reason is not going to be presented. I recently testified in a complicated case in which I worked on two separate types of evidence, one related to one event that was part of the case and the other related to a different event that was another part of the case. I was only asked about one of those pieces of evidence, and did not feel obligated to talk about the other. Should I have? Pete Barnett At 03:10 PM 2/25/2003 -0700, Jeff Baker wrote: >I have never heard of a witness asking a judge to allow them to present additional unsolicited testimony in the U.S. I believe the judge would instruct the witness to only answer the questions put to them. But if it happened, it may be a signal for the attorney conducting the direct examination (either prosecution or defense) to ask for a recess and find out what the witness wanted to say. > >The last time I testified in court, a fairly inexperienced attorney (prosecution) asked me about my collection of evidence in a homicide. I had responded to the hospital where one of the victims (who lived) was being treated. Upon my arrival, I met with an officer who released custody of some packaged clothing items that the medical staff had removed from the victim in the emergency room which the officer collected. I secured the items and went inside the hospital to wait for the victim to emerge from surgery. When the victim came out, I took custody from medical staff of two additional items of evidence (clothing and a bullet.) I then exposed photos of the victim and did a gunshot residue kit.) In my mind, I had collected two (or even three) separate groups of evidence. > >In court, the attorney asked me if I had collected evidence from officer "Jones" at the hospital. I answered "Yes." He asked me to describe the items I collected. I listed the first group of items and paused. Then, instead of asking me about the second group of evidence as I thought he would, he went on to ask about the photos and gunshot residue kit which I was introducing. I always thought he would eventually return to the clothing and bullet I got from the medics, but he never did. When I was excused from the witness stand, I was rather upset, thinking that I should have ignored his questions and continued to talk about the second group of evidence. Hindsight is 20-20. >I was not being used to "introduce" these forgotten items to the jury, simply to testify to their chain of custody. The Officer and the medical staff were introducing them. > >I never heard about it from the attorneys one way or the other. The defendant was convicted. > >-Jeff Baker- > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Webster [mailto:Webster@forensic-science.co.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:27 PM >To: fyreatr@cox.net >Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Webster@forensic-science.co.uk >Subject: Re: Truth is academic? > > >"If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in >court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in >and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to >the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best >of my ability based on my experience, education and training. >Truthfully." > >After giving answers to questions, would a forensic scientist in the USA >ever turn to the judge and say, "there's something I want to add ... ". > >This happens over here. I've done it, and I've seen other forensic >scientists do it. Surely a requirement of swearing to tell the whole >truth? > >Mark Webster >www.forensic-science.co.uk > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue Feb 25 19:09:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1Q09gq21192 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1Q09f621186 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-2ini9cc.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.37.140] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18np8i-0000eG-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:09:39 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225160127.02191660@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:08:08 -0800 To: From: John Houde Subject: Expert testimony-explaining my answer In-Reply-To: <200302252322.h1PNMva3004937@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> References: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE40303@admnts61.co.arapaho e.co.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1393 >At 03:10 PM 2/25/2003 -0700, Jeff Baker wrote: > >I have never heard of a witness asking a judge to allow them to present >additional unsolicited testimony in the U.S. I believe the judge would >instruct the witness to only answer the questions put to them. But if it >happened, it may be a signal for the attorney conducting the direct >examination (either prosecution or defense) to ask for a recess and find >out what the witness wanted to say. ============= More than once I have asked the judge if I could explain my answer. I can't recall having been refused. Imagine the intense curiosity aroused in the jury when a witness requested to explain and was refused! Also, more than once in my career, I have thought about a previous answer and asked if I could re-address myself to a previous question to more fully explain. Again I can't recall having been refused. The judge has complete discretion in allowing these "irregularities" but if the real purpose of a prosecution is a "search for the truth" then I can't see any legal reason why he or she would refuse to allow an expert to explain an answer more fully. In addition, I have had jury members pass written questions to the baliff, who gives them to the judge to pose to me. I really enjoy that, as it indicates a jury that's paying attention. If only more juries realized how much power they had! John Houde From daemon Tue Feb 25 19:57:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1Q0vjM22117 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:57:45 -0500 (EST) 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 h1Q0vi622111 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:57:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HAW5HF00.GZ7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:00:51 -0800 Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-MTA by SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:57:23 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:56:55 -0800 From: "Joel Duncan" To: Subject: RE: Truth is academic? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Guinevere: 1.1.14 ; Department of Justic X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7714 Pete, you should feel obligated, and no you should not have spoken on the other evidence unless it is directly related to the questions you are answering. Keep in mind the "search for the truth" (bench, prosecution, and defense) and a witness' oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" are a bit at odds. Presumably if you know the "whole truth" then you were indeed present for whatever events transpired and had simultaneous knowledge of the thoughts and motivations of all involved parties and at this point are obviously the only necessary witness so we can all go home. Unfortunately it's extremely likely that nobody knows the "whole truth" and that all of us have perspective which makes one's testimony, the truth "as I see it". Example: you and I stand on opposite sides of the street and an car painted blue on the driver side and green on the passenger side with a white top passes between us, neither of us is likely to describe the car as "the parts of the car I could see were blue and white". Point being, one will say "blue" the other will say "green", both have told the whole truth as they saw it and neither has been less than honest, yet both are correct. In answer to volunteering information not queried, you're right on about evidence not being presented for a reason (suppressed, strategic, or otherwise). The presentation in court would be great if every related piece of evidence and information could be presented, understood, and evaluated by the jury but instead it gets left to the attorneys to do the dance of "beyond a reasonable doubt", "clear and convincing evidence", and so on. In Jeff's scenario he was asked if he had collected evidence from an officer at the hospital and subsequently to elaborate on that evidence. If the question had been more generally about evidence collected from the victim that would obviously include the items received through the medical staff. In Pete's delimma the evidence is from a separate event, so unless it's related to the question why bring it up? On the other hand, I realize the obligation felt to share "everything I know about the case", but in the courtroom I will leave it up to the attorney's to ask about it. Certainly whoever has called you to testify deserves to know what you believe to be vital to the case, but if you've made that clear and it's discounted, I wouldn't take it as a personal offense. Joel Duncan >>> "Peter D. Barnett" 02/25/03 02:53PM >>> When one testifies in court it is usual in the oath ("to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth") for the court to solicit testimony. Especially and expert who is giving opinion testimony should always be sure to give all of the tstimony that is solicited by the oath that is taken. It is certainly common in my experience for the expert witness to ask the court forpermission to explain an answer, correct what appears to be misunderstanding or misstatement, or otherwise speak up in order to tell the whole truth. In the situation Jeff describes below, I would suggest as a matter of courtesy to volunteer the information about the rest of the evidence collected would be appropriate. But one might want to consider whether or not the evidence has been suppressed or for some other reason is not going to be presented. I recently testified in a complicated case in which I worked on two separate types of evidence, one related to one event that was part of the case and the other related to a different event that was another part of the case. I was only asked about one of those pieces of evidence, and did not feel obligated to talk about the other. Should I have? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com At 03:10 PM 2/25/2003 -0700, Jeff Baker wrote: >I have never heard of a witness asking a judge to allow them to present additional unsolicited testimony in the U.S. I believe the judge would instruct the witness to only answer the questions put to them. But if it happened, it may be a signal for the attorney conducting the direct examination (either prosecution or defense) to ask for a recess and find out what the witness wanted to say. > >The last time I testified in court, a fairly inexperienced attorney (prosecution) asked me about my collection of evidence in a homicide. I had responded to the hospital where one of the victims (who lived) was being treated. Upon my arrival, I met with an officer who released custody of some packaged clothing items that the medical staff had removed from the victim in the emergency room which the officer collected. I secured the items and went inside the hospital to wait for the victim to emerge from surgery. When the victim came out, I took custody from medical staff of two additional items of evidence (clothing and a bullet.) I then exposed photos of the victim and did a gunshot residue kit.) In my mind, I had collected two (or even three) separate groups of evidence. > >In court, the attorney asked me if I had collected evidence from officer "Jones" at the hospital. I answered "Yes." He asked me to describe the items I collected. I listed the first group of items and paused. Then, instead of asking me about the second group of evidence as I thought he would, he went on to ask about the photos and gunshot residue kit which I was introducing. I always thought he would eventually return to the clothing and bullet I got from the medics, but he never did. When I was excused from the witness stand, I was rather upset, thinking that I should have ignored his questions and continued to talk about the second group of evidence. Hindsight is 20-20. >I was not being used to "introduce" these forgotten items to the jury, simply to testify to their chain of custody. The Officer and the medical staff were introducing them. > >I never heard about it from the attorneys one way or the other. The defendant was convicted. > >-Jeff Baker- > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Webster [mailto:Webster@forensic-science.co.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:27 PM >To: fyreatr@cox.net >Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Webster@forensic-science.co.uk >Subject: Re: Truth is academic? > > >"If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in >court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in >and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to >the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best >of my ability based on my experience, education and training. >Truthfully." > >After giving answers to questions, would a forensic scientist in the USA >ever turn to the judge and say, "there's something I want to add ... ". > >This happens over here. I've done it, and I've seen other forensic >scientists do it. Surely a requirement of swearing to tell the whole >truth? > >Mark Webster >www.forensic-science.co.uk > ******************************************************************* 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. ******************************************************************* --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Feb 25 21:43:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1Q2hUh24208 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:43:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41007.mail.yahoo.com (web41007.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1Q2hT624202 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:43:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030226024330.45470.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.175.75.63] by web41007.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:43:30 PST Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:43:30 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Truth is academic? To: "Peter D. Barnett" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <200302252322.h1PNMva3004937@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2890 Pete Barnett wrote: > I recently testified in a complicated case in > which I worked on two > separate types of evidence, one related to one > event that was part of the > case and the other related to a different event > that was another part of > the case. I was only asked about one of those > pieces of evidence, and did > not feel obligated to talk about the other. > Should I have? > Apparently not, as you surely thought about it and decided that not addressing that topic would not cause the jury to be misled. That's my acid test. If the answere elicited by counsel's question requires an explanation so that the jury is not misled, I will ask the court for permission to explain (though most lawyers know it's best not to require that, and just let me explain). What I worry about is being called to answer a series of questions about a small part of a case, where I might have a disagreement with a small part of the another expert's methodology, or with one of several hypotheses, BUT generally agree that the other expert got it right. Some would argue that it's up to adverse counsel to bring the "agreeing" opinions out on cross-examination, but I usually don't trust those guys to be that smart, nor do I trust the jury to get it right given incomplete information. I usually manage to avoid testifying altogether in such situations, and just provide counsel with grist for cross-examination. I once had a written policy that stated that if a chemist used a ouija board and determined that a fire debris sample contained gasoline, and I retested the sample using GC/MS and found gasoline, I would help counsel cross-examine the witness on the efficacy of ouija boards, but I would not be a testifying witness. On the subject of telling the "whole" truth, I can find no better source than the American Board of Criminalistics Rules of Professional Conduct, which state, among other things, that criminalists must: 10. Testify in a clear, straightforward manner and refuse to extend themselves beyond their field of competence, phrasing their testimony in such a manner so that the results are not misinterpreted. 11. Not exaggerate, embellish or otherwise misrepresent qualifications, when testifying. 12. Consent to, if it is requested and allowed, interviews with counsel for both sides prior to trial. 13. Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed to the court. Interesting discussion. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Tue Feb 25 23:05:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1Q45J025443 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp809.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp809.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.188]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1Q45I625437 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.156.103.29.dial1.orlando1.level3.net (HELO Main) (cchasteen@prodigy.net@64.156.103.29 with login) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 04:05:18 -0000 Message-ID: <004101c2dd4c$59a51800$60629c40@Main> From: "cchasteen" To: References: <20030225134939.43316.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:05:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3114 John's query and several of the comments in this and related threads raise an interesting point upon which I have sometimes mused. In the interest of true justice, should forensic laboratories be placed under the administration of the judicial branch? Not under the prosecutor or public defender, but under the justices who are there to interpret the laws. This should provide a greater detached objectivity than in the perceived (and sometimes actual) bias toward the "police view" that public laboratories are often accused. Would such a move and philosophical shift reduce the need for private laboratories since the public laboratories would now be working directly for the "triers of fact" and "gatekeepers"? Currently it is doubtful that such a move would ever occur. The executive branch of government is where law enforcement resides. Even if the laboratories were under the judicial branch, their primary submitters (customers) would still be from law enforcement and a bias would still be possible if not probable. The only respite is to encourage the administrative separation of the laboratory from the investigative unit and the inculcation of a philosophy of objectivity in the forensic laboratories. Are there any examples of public forensic laboratories that are either completly divorced from the investigative units or working under the justices? Do they still suffer from the perception that they are only interested in aiding the prosecution of a case or are they viewed more as the truthful "men of science" that Brouardel encouraged us to be? Carl Chasteen The above are the personal opinions of the writer and do not represent the agency for which he is employed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: "Peter D. Barnett" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:49 AM Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data > --- "Peter D. Barnett" > wrote: > > Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that > > restricts the free exchange > > and discussion of forensic science cases and > > issues simply decreases the > > credibility of forensic science as a method of > > getting at the truth. > > > Peter: > > You seem to believe that anyone really cares what > is true. Truth is academic, and what forensic > science is about is "justice," or putting bad > guys in jail. Viewed from that perspective, any > policy that promotes the right to effective > assistance of counsel defeats the purpose of > taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations. > Most labs work for the police, not for the > courts. Unless and until that changes, obtaining > convictions will take a back seat to finding the > truth. > > > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Tue Feb 25 23:55:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1Q4t7Y26100 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1Q4t5626088 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-203-78-142.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.203.78.142]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h1Q4t2a5020415 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:55:04 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030225203422.00ac73b0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:50:49 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Another test Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 699 An death row inmate is asking for a new trial after his conviction for murdering another inmate. The evidence against him is the testimony of a guard, and the recanted testimony of three other inmates. The court should rule based on: 1. The testimony of the correctional officer 2. The recanted testimony of the other inmates. 3. Neither of the above. The trial is over and the execution should proceed. References that provide the answer to this question to all those who select one of the above answers and post their choice to the list. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Wed Feb 26 00:26:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1Q5Qfx26668 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1Q5Qe626662 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:26:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200302260526.h1Q5Qe626662@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from mtiwebc37 (unknown[204.127.135.76]) by mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <2003022605264011100lmince>; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:26:40 +0000 Received: from [12.87.58.99] by mtiwebc37; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:26:39 +0000 From: susan.baird@att.net To: Subject: Re: Truth is academic? (fwd) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:26:39 +0000 X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Nov 25 2002) X-Authenticated-Sender: c3VzYW4uYmFpcmRAYXR0Lm5ldA== Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 25 -- Susan.Baird@att.net From daemon Wed Feb 26 08:22:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QDMnj02671 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1QDMnS02665 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:22:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:22:49 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [KEMIC ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2057 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:50:28 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [KEMIC ] >From forens-owner Tue Feb 25 15:50:27 2003 Received: from mx2.eastlink.ca (nx.eastlink.ca [24.222.0.30]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1PKoR616318 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from kemic.com ([24.222.230.117]) by mx2.eastlink.ca (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.05 (built Nov 6 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0HAV007V7TMZ4J@mx2.eastlink.ca> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:45:00 -0400 (AST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:42:58 +0000 From: KEMIC Subject: Re: Tainted Money To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3E5B9D12.5080803@kemic.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 References: <1d7.3a5599b.2b8d1e12@aol.com> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Hi Fred, One reference that I am aware of is: Hudson, J.C., Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 22, 203 (1989). Best regards, Peter Peter W. Mullen, PhD, FCSFS KEMIC BIORESEARCH Kentville Nova Scotia, B4N 4H8 Canada Tel.: 902-678-8195 Fax: 902-678-2839 Email: pmullen@kemic.com Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: >Looking for the citation for that study involving the drug contamination of >the money population. Drugs on bills. Seem to remember such a study done in >Florida back in the early 90's. >Fred Whitehurst > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Feb 26 11:51:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QGpI909096 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from web14706.mail.yahoo.com (web14706.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.123]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1QGpG609090 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:51:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030226165116.29538.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.20.205] by web14706.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:51:16 PST Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:51:16 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1247 Mark Webster wrote: >After giving answers to questions, would >a forensic scientist in the USA >ever turn to the judge and say, "there's >something I want to add ... ". The guidelines I give to folks in my lab are: 1) Answer the question that was asked. 2) Then provide anything additional or qualifying that would answer the question that a competent attorney should have asked. 3) Do this equally for both the prosecution and the defense. 4) Continue to do this until the judge limits you. Probably like most labs, we have very few cases where the defense gets its own expert. Whether they do or not, our obligation in trial testimony is to present not only our results and our conclusions, but also the limits of those results and conclusions. On this same line, we have a case going to trial next week where an analyst in my lab is testifying as a prosecution witness, and I've been supoenaed as a defense expert witness. This is the first time this has happened for us that I know of. Does this sort of thing happen elsewhere? Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Wed Feb 26 13:20:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QIKQh11593 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1QIKP611587 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-36.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.36]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1QIKNQB028396; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:20:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302261820.h1QIKNQB028396@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:36:54 -0800 To: Tim Sliter , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Truth is academic? In-Reply-To: <20030226165116.29538.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1537 At 08:51 AM 2/26/2003 -0800, Tim Sliter wrote: >The guidelines I give to folks in my lab are: > >1) Answer the question that was asked. >2) Then provide anything additional or qualifying that >would answer the question that a competent attorney >should have asked. >3) Do this equally for both the prosecution and the >defense. >4) Continue to do this until the judge limits you. Pretty good advice, I think. >On this same line, we have a case going to trial next >week where an analyst in my lab is testifying as a >prosecution witness, and I've been supoenaed as a >defense expert witness. This is the first time this >has happened for us that I know of. Does this sort of >thing happen elsewhere? I assume you are being called because you did some work on the case that the prosecution has chosen not to present and the defense wants to present. This is not unusual. But consider the situation where the evidence you have, which is presumably favorable to the defense, is not divulged to the defense. (Perhaps the policy is to provide discovery thorugh the prosecutor and the prosecutor does not feel an obligation to reveal the evidence to the defense.) Would you have an affirmative obligation to make the information available to the defense? Does your view on this matter trump the prosecutor's view? If so, how, in practice, do you play the card? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Wed Feb 26 15:54:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QKs2k16229 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from web14709.mail.yahoo.com (web14709.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.225.233]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1QKs1616223 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:54:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030226205400.1215.qmail@web14709.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.21.154] by web14709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:54:00 PST Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:54:00 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: "Peter D. Barnett" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <200302261820.h1QIKNQB028396@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2380 --- "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > I assume you are being called because you did some > work on the case that > the prosecution has chosen not to present and the > defense wants to present. > This is not unusual. But consider the situation > where the evidence you > have, which is presumably favorable to the defense, > is not divulged to the > defense. (Perhaps the policy is to provide discovery > thorugh the prosecutor > and the prosecutor does not feel an obligation to > reveal the evidence to > the defense.) Would you have an affirmative > obligation to make the > information available to the defense? Does your > view on this matter trump > the prosecutor's view? If so, how, in practice, do > you play the card? In this case I did no work on the case. I'm being called to interpret the serology/DNA results in a sexual assault case where the prosecution is arguing a rape occurred 12 hrs before the victim arrived for the medical exam, and the defense is arguing the victim and defendant (estranged spouses) had consensual relations 2-3 days before the medical exam. Vaginal swabs were negative for acid phosphatase, but the corresponding smears were positive for spermatozoa at a low level. DNA matched the defendant. My testimony will be the same as the analyst's - the results could be consistent with either story. In a case where there was clear exculpatory test results, a report describing those results would be issued, to the investigating agency and the prosecution (if a prosecutor had been assigned). It would then be the prosecutor's responsibility to give the defense a copy of the report. (In Texas prosecutors have to do this.) If the defense called me, and I knew s/he was who s/he claimed to be, then I would talk as freely as I would to the prosecution, making sure to emphasis those points about the results that would be to the benefit of the defense - alternative interpretations, limits on interpretation, poor statistics on mixtures, etc. I would also advise the defense to get their own expert and have the samples retested. I would also let the prosecutor know that I had spoken with the defense counsel. Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Wed Feb 26 17:00:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QM0DC18180 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1QM0C618174 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:00:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from WMorris400@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.d0.3574d59a (4568) for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:00:09 -0500 (EST) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:00:09 EST Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 845 It may be that the evidence was suppressed by the Court. While it is okay to ask to explain an answer, it is risky to try to offer a comment about something that was unasked. It could result in a mistrial. It is okay to ask to reply anew to a previously asked question for clarification of an answer or to further add something just recalled. I have been refused the chance to explain an answer on cross-examination by judges but the judge would then state that if the defense wants to ask me to explain he can. I have also been instructed to answer the question and then ask to attorney if I may explain. Sometimes I am to explain and other times I am not. The attorney that retained my services always may request the explanation later. Not always deemed necessary by the attorney. Wayne Morris Morris-Kopec Forensics, Inc From daemon Wed Feb 26 17:20:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QMKgt18898 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from boron.cix.co.uk (boron.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.155]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1QMKf618892 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from cix.co.uk (pc1-lich2-3-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [80.7.10.88]) by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id h1QMGqM19875; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:16:53 GMT X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: tjs75208@yahoo.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: <20030226165116.29538.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.53.2014, Windows 98 4.10.1998 ( ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1881 Tim Sliter wrote: > 4) Continue to do this until the judge limits you. Hmm ... Do judges *own* the judicial process? The judge didn't take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We did. > On this same line, we have a case going to trial next > week where an analyst in my lab is testifying as a > prosecution witness, and I've been supoenaed as a > defense expert witness. This is the first time this > has happened for us that I know of. Does this sort of > thing happen elsewhere? It happened to me once when I worked for the Forensic Science Service in the UK. The defence lawyers sent a private investigator to the lab with a court order and an offer of "conduct money" - my fare to pay for travel to the court. I was also been involved in a case where the prosecution issued a witness order on a defence expert. This was an incest rape paternity investigated using DNA. I gave evidence for the prosecution. A Cellmark scientist investigated for the defence. The prosecution were aware of the involvement of a defence scientist because the Cellmark scientist asked me for DNA samples from the mother and child. No statement was disclosed from the defence scientist. Prosecuting counsel discussed this with me. I explained that the Cellmark scientist's methods were better than the FSS's. She would have stronger evidence than me. He issued a witness order. There was an argument. The judge ruled that whilst it wasn't fair that a the defence should be required to disclose evidence that incriminated the defendant, it also wasn't fair to deprive the jury of the information. The Cellmark scientist was called, gave her evidence and the defendant was convicted. An appeal followed. The Appeal Court judges ruled there is no ownership of an expert witness. That's the law in the UK as I understand it. Mark Webster From daemon Thu Feb 27 00:55:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1R5tGu25855 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f146.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.146]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1R5tF625849 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:55:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:55:14 -0800 Received: from 205.165.118.125 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 05:55:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.165.118.125] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: tjs75208@yahoo.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Truth is academic? Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:55:14 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2003 05:55:14.0954 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC6ADEA0:01C2DE24] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3522 The best advise I have been given and now teach, is that for those questions that attempt to narrow your answer, such as 'just answer yes or no', is to turn to the judge and state 'your honor to answer only yes or no would be misleading to the court'. This usually gets the judge's attention and rarely, if ever, have I been limited in my response. Lonnette Kendoll Criminalist Police Dept., Richardson, TX >From: Tim Sliter >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Truth is academic? >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:51:16 -0800 (PST) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc5-f30.law1.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.37]) by >mc5-s13.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 26 Feb >2003 08:52:34 -0800 >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by >mc5-f30.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 26 Feb >2003 08:52:24 -0800 >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id >h1QGpsY09137;Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:51:54 -0500 (EST) >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 26 >Feb 2003 11:51:18 -0500 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1QGpI909096for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 >11:51:18 -0500 (EST) >Received: from web14706.mail.yahoo.com (web14706.mail.yahoo.com >[216.136.224.123])by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) >with SMTP id h1QGpG609090for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 >11:51:16 -0500 (EST) >Received: from [207.136.20.205] by web14706.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, >26 Feb 2003 08:51:16 PST >X-Message-Info: dHZMQeBBv44lPE7o4B5bAg== >Message-ID: <20030226165116.29538.qmail@web14706.mail.yahoo.com> >In-Reply-To: >Sender: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >Return-Path: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2003 16:52:24.0694 (UTC) >FILETIME=[6FF5F960:01C2DDB7] > >Mark Webster wrote: > > >After giving answers to questions, would > >a forensic scientist in the USA > >ever turn to the judge and say, "there's > >something I want to add ... ". > >The guidelines I give to folks in my lab are: > >1) Answer the question that was asked. >2) Then provide anything additional or qualifying that >would answer the question that a competent attorney >should have asked. >3) Do this equally for both the prosecution and the >defense. >4) Continue to do this until the judge limits you. > >Probably like most labs, we have very few cases where >the defense gets its own expert. Whether they do or >not, our obligation in trial testimony is to present >not only our results and our conclusions, but also the >limits of those results and conclusions. > >On this same line, we have a case going to trial next >week where an analyst in my lab is testifying as a >prosecution witness, and I've been supoenaed as a >defense expert witness. This is the first time this >has happened for us that I know of. Does this sort of >thing happen elsewhere? > >Tim Sliter >Institute of Forensic Sciences >Dallas, Texas > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more >http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From daemon Thu Feb 27 06:49:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RBnGw01115 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.kyol.net (mail.kyol.net [209.215.186.15]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RBnF601109 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from yourus67pi6luv (65-245-68-228.kyol.net [65.245.68.228]) by www.kyol.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) with SMTP id h1RBlWc13357 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:47:33 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01c2de56$3cee5040$e444f541@yourus67pi6luv> From: "The Wise and Wonderful Me!!" To: Subject: question re: education Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:49:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1RBnGx01115 Content-Length: 259 If a high school student wants to plan a futrue in forensics which classes should that student focus on to be best prepared for college? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 27 08:35:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RDZuD02966 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:35:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from boron.cix.co.uk (boron.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.155]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RDZt602960 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:35:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from cix.co.uk (pc1-lich2-3-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [80.7.10.88]) by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id h1RDYLI25783; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:34:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: Truth is academic? To: lonniekendoll@hotmail.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.53.2014, Windows 98 4.10.1998 ( ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1260 Judges can be a problem! I had such a problem a few weeks ago, when I wanted to discuss the likelihood of fibres transferring to and persisting on a smooth outdoor surface. I cited a scientific paper that gave an example of a relatively large number of fibres being transferred, but I wanted to balance this by noting that the authors suggested the fibres would be lost relatively quickly. Before I could finish my answer, the judge stopped me. He said he couldn't see the relevance of this work to the case under consideration and I wasn't to complete my answer. I asked to complete my answer (because I thought it was important for the jury and everyone else to know I was not suggesting that a large number of fibres are going to persist on such a surface, and also because I didn't want to be accused of selectively quoting from the paper). The judge refused. He refused to look at the passage I wanted to refer to so that he could see it was innocuous and added balance. He refused to allow me explain why I wanted to say more, with or without the presence of the jury. I wanted to spend the night in my own bed, rather than in the court cells charged with contempt, so I withdrew gracefully (but the judge was wrong.) Mark Webster From daemon Thu Feb 27 09:17:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1REHeE04531 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub1.shef.ac.uk (mailhub1.shef.ac.uk [143.167.1.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1REHc604519 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from swineshaw.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.107.251]) by mailhub1.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #4) id 18oOqt-0001Yf-02; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:17:35 +0000 Received: from SWINESHAW/SpoolDir by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 27 Feb 03 14:17:35 +0000 Received: from SpoolDir by SWINESHAW (Mercury 1.48); 27 Feb 03 14:17:31 +0000 Received: from swineshaw (143.167.157.128) by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 27 Feb 03 14:17:24 +0000 From: "Robert Forrest" To: "Jeff Baker" , Subject: RE: Truth is academic? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:12:49 -0000 Message-ID: <02ba01c2de6a$4eedc460$809da78f@shef.ac.uk.shef.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE40303@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2085 In the UK the expert's duty is to the Court, not to the advocates: Civil Procedure Rules EXPERTS -- OVERRIDING DUTY TO THE COURT 35.3 (1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise. (2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid And Lord Auld's report into the Criminal Justice System: "In my view, this consensus should be given the same formal recognition in new Criminal Procedure Rules as it has been given in the civil jurisdiction by Civil Procedure Rules, Part 35.3, which reads: "(1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise. (2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid". It would also be a useful reminder to all expert witnesses about to give evidence - and to their clients - to require them to include a declaration to like effect at the start of their witness statements or reports. I recommend that: the new Criminal Procedure Rules that I recommend should contain a rule in the same or similar terms to that in Part 35.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules that an expert witness's overriding duty is to the court; and any witness statement or report prepared by an expert witness for the assistance of the court any witness statement or report prepared by an expert witness for the assistance of the court should contain at its head a signed declaration to that effect." Robert Forrest A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, Professor of Forensic Toxicology University Dept of Forensic Pathology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK   > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jeff > Baker > Sent: 25 February 2003 22:10 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: Truth is academic? > > > I have never heard of a witness asking a judge to allow them to > present additional unsolicited testimony in the U.S. Snip... From daemon Thu Feb 27 09:17:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1REHea04535 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub1.shef.ac.uk (mailhub1.shef.ac.uk [143.167.1.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1REHc604520 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from swineshaw.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.107.251]) by mailhub1.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #4) id 18oOqt-0001Yf-01; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:17:35 +0000 Received: from SWINESHAW/SpoolDir by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 27 Feb 03 14:17:35 +0000 Received: from SpoolDir by SWINESHAW (Mercury 1.48); 27 Feb 03 14:17:31 +0000 Received: from swineshaw (143.167.157.128) by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 27 Feb 03 14:17:23 +0000 From: "Robert Forrest" To: , Cc: Subject: RE: Truth is academic? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:12:48 -0000 Message-ID: <02b901c2de6a$4eb24200$809da78f@shef.ac.uk.shef.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1734 Me too. At the end of my re-examination, I remained standing in the witness box. The Judge told my I could leave. I said there was an important point I hadn't been asked about and I was concerned because without being asked about it I would not have fulfilled my promise to tell the whole truth. Judge sent Jury out, and asked me what I wanted to say. I was then sent out of court whilst Judge & Counsel discussed it. I was then called back and re-examined in chief and on cross examination on the point Robert Forrest A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, Professor of Forensic Toxicology University Dept of Forensic Pathology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Mark > Webster > Sent: 25 February 2003 21:27 > To: fyreatr@cox.net > Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Webster@forensic-science.co.uk > Subject: Re: Truth is academic? > > > "If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in > court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in > and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to > the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best > of my ability based on my experience, education and training. > Truthfully." > > After giving answers to questions, would a forensic scientist in the USA > ever turn to the judge and say, "there's something I want to add ... ". > > This happens over here. I've done it, and I've seen other forensic > scientists do it. Surely a requirement of swearing to tell the whole > truth? > > Mark Webster > www.forensic-science.co.uk > From daemon Thu Feb 27 12:02:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RH2o510065 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from surfer.sbm.temple.edu (surfer.sbm.temple.edu [155.247.185.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RH2n610059 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (alan@localhost) by surfer.sbm.temple.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RH2Y1747582; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:02:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:02:32 -0500 From: Alan Izenman To: cc: Alan Izenman Subject: British & European drug laws Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 930 I am writing an article for an international journal on the differences between the U.S. and British/European laws and practice regarding the determination of drug quantity, usually by scientific sampling. In the U.S., drug quantity is a major determinant of the sentence imposed upon a defendant convicted of illicit drug possession or trafficking. I know that that is not true in Britain, whose courts only worry about intent. I have no information about the corresponding practice in European courts. Can anyone on this mailing list give me some advice or places or references to check for such information? Particularly relevant court cases would be great. I would appreciate such information very much, and I will acknowledge significant contributions in my article. Thanks for your attention. Alan J. Izenman Professor of Statistics Department of Statistics Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122 alan@temple.edu From daemon Thu Feb 27 12:37:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RHbSh11618 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RHbQ611606 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:37:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h1RFsROs015042 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:37:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:37:23 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:37:22 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:33:52 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: rkgruber@kyol.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: question re: education MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12409359682055-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1RHbR611613 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3301 Science and math are the primary tools. If you do not enjoy these subjects think about whether a life that requires their constant use is for you. It is surprising to me how many people want to go into the field after watching CSI, but don't want to do the kind of work we really do. An ability to speak and write clearly is important, which means you can not ignore English classes. If you do not have good skills in science, math or communication try to strengthen them. A good understanding of the system will help as well, so history and government are a good idea. College will require a generalized education in your first couple of years, prepare for that. In short there is not excuse to slack off in any of your classes, when you get to college you can start to specialize a bit. A well rounded college prep. program will give you a good balance, and prepare you for the rigors of a science major in college. I often tell college students who ask a similar question that a major in any of the Sciences such as Chemistry, Biology, Physics, etc., will get them in the lab door and give them a good background to be trained. As good as a B.S. in forensic science or criminalistics really as a good understanding of the scientific method is a good cornerstone to build from. Most analysts receive their training in the areas they will work in after starting in a lab. I don't know of a college or university forensic science program (including masters and Ph.D. programs) that turns out someone who is ready to go to work on the bench without additional training. It will also give you a good "out" if you find forensic science is not what you want to do. Many people start in a forensic science lab and find out that it is not what they like after all. The TV shows give a very poor picture of what life in a forensic science lab is like. The way our fellow citizens treat one another can bother some quite a bit when you have to work with the results. People seldom know how they will react to this until they are actually dealing with it. It gets to everyone, in some way, at some time. Those with a very specialized degree in Forensic Science don't have as easy a way of finding a new career if forensic science isn't for them. The masters level is soon enough to specialize to that level. I was lucky that I really liked the work (my degree is in criminalistics). I would have had to go back to college to finish a couple more chemistry classes to get that degree or hope that industry would look at the classes I'd taken, not the degree I had. It is a great field if it is for you and it is not one to stay in if not. I've enjoyed it for the 28 years I've been in the field but I've seen co-workers that were miserable and really wanted out. Hope this helps, Jim James L. Roberts Firearm & Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA. 93009 (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "The Wise and Wonderful Me!!" 02/27/03 03:49AM >>> If a high school student wants to plan a futrue in forensics which classes should that student focus on to be best prepared for college? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 27 13:33:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RIXjL13647 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:33:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RIXh613641 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0108040BCA for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:03:09 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.253.26]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:03:10 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E5E5869.15B0540A@vsnl.net> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:56:49 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Some definitions Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1998 Dear list, I am looking for definitions of mass murders, serial murders and spree murders. I have deduced the following from various sources. Would you please let me know if I am right: (a) Mass murder: Multiple murders -usually more than 3 - at roughly the same time and location. (b) Spree murder: Multiple murders -usually more than 3 - at roughly the same time but different locations. (c) Serial murder: Multiple murders -usually more than 3 - at different times and different/same locations. Thanks. Also I am told that there are official FBI definitions for these three types of murders. Can somebody let me know those? Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Thu Feb 27 13:47:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RIllm14347 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lnmail02.dps.state.la.us (dpsprx.dps.state.la.us [170.145.0.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RIlk614341 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:47:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Some definitions To: dr_anil@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:45:21 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LNMAIL02/LADPS/us(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 02/27/2003 12:45:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3648 I think the FBI def for Serial murder is 2 or more. I'm not sure about spree or mass murder. I know a Mass FATALITY is defined by DMORT as more deaths than the local authorities can adequately handle. Hope it helps somewhat. Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab |---------+-------------------------------------------> | | Professor Anil Aggrawal | | | | | | Sent by: | | | owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statg| | | en.ncsu.edu | | | | | | | | | 02/27/2003 12:26 PM | | | Please respond to dr_anil | | | | |---------+-------------------------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" | | cc: | | Subject: Some definitions | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Dear list, I am looking for definitions of mass murders, serial murders and spree murders. I have deduced the following from various sources. Would you please let me know if I am right: (a) Mass murder: Multiple murders -usually more than 3 - at roughly the same time and location. (b) Spree murder: Multiple murders -usually more than 3 - at roughly the same time but different locations. (c) Serial murder: Multiple murders -usually more than 3 - at different times and different/same locations. Thanks. Also I am told that there are official FBI definitions for these three types of murders. Can somebody let me know those? Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From daemon Thu Feb 27 14:13:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RJDce15472 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:13:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RJDb615466 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.135.1bd65f68 (4380) for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:13:34 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <135.1bd65f68.2b8fbd5e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:13:34 EST Subject: GC in BAC To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 267 What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 27 14:37:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RJbAS16342 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RJb9616336 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:37:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from johnp (12-246-228-108.client.attbi.com[12.246.228.108]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with SMTP id <2003022719371000200e2kaqe>; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:37:10 +0000 Message-ID: <005801c2de98$527e4f40$6ce4f60c@Bowden.attbi.com> From: "John Bowden" To: References: <135.1bd65f68.2b8fbd5e@aol.com> Subject: Re: GC in BAC Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:42:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 683 Actually, Fred, it is bad chemistry. Coupled with the assumption that a similar level of any other volatile eluting at the same time would be toxic to a living organism (e.g. a drunk driver). John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: GC in BAC > What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > Fred Whitehurst > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Thu Feb 27 14:37:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RJbfn16428 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20508.mail.yahoo.com (web20508.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.143]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h1RJbe616422 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:37:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030227193741.42757.qmail@web20508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20508.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:37:41 PST Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:37:41 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: GC in BAC To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <135.1bd65f68.2b8fbd5e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1193 Generally speaking, it's a reasonably safe assumption when one is dealing with a biological sample (blood, urine or even exhaled breath) from a walking/talking human being who's just been arrested behind the wheel of a vehicle they were seen driving. Analytically speaking, the column should offer sufficient discrimination to separate common alcohols (MeOH, IsOH, n-prop, EtOH, etc.) as well other materials (acetone, acetaldehyde, etc.) that could be seen in urine or blood - and their are numerous columns that are expressly designed for this type of analysis. Use of this technology for blood or urine samples (either by direct injection or heated headspace) has been around for 20-30 years (it started in the old packed column days), so it's pretty much stood the test of time (general acceptance, etc.). Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab --- Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the > analyte we are > measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID > detection? > Fred Whitehurst > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Thu Feb 27 14:57:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RJvrg17387 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:57:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from papa.uncp.edu (papa.uncp.edu [152.21.1.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RJvq617381 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from e500.uncp.edu (152.21.1.66) by papa.uncp.edu (MX V5.1-X AnCc) with SMTP for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:57:41 -0500 Received: from phy3.uncp.edu(152.21.2.123) by e500.uncp.edu via csmap id 20641; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:56:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Paul Flowers" To: Subject: RE: GC in BAC Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:57:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <005801c2de98$527e4f40$6ce4f60c@Bowden.attbi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1714 ...if i understand Fred's question: the basis for assuming the analyte determined is ethanol is its retention time under the conditions of the chromatographic analysis...typically, an ethanol standard will be analyzed under identical conditions to identify this retention time, and these experimental conditions have typically been optimized to minimize the chance of another likely-present inteferant eluting at this same time...based on the nature of the sample (blood, breath, etc), the analysis requirements (sample component must be volatile under analysis conditions), and the experimental conditions (type of chromatographic column, temp, etc), chances of interference are minimal per my knowledge of relevant literature... regards, paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Bowden Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Actually, Fred, it is bad chemistry. Coupled with the assumption that a similar level of any other volatile eluting at the same time would be toxic to a living organism (e.g. a drunk driver). John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: GC in BAC > What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > Fred Whitehurst > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Thu Feb 27 15:15:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RKFEm18178 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:15:14 -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 h1RKFD618172 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:15:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-49.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.49]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1RKF9M8004327; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:15:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302272015.h1RKF9M8004327@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:23:03 -0800 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: GC in BAC In-Reply-To: <135.1bd65f68.2b8fbd5e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 234 At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: >What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are >measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? >Fred Whitehurst Retention time. Pete Barnett From daemon Thu Feb 27 16:07:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RL7AF19736 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:07:10 -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 h1RL78619730 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.7/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1RL749x131180; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:07:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030225093424.00b12180@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:10:35 -0800 To: "Grunwald, Eric" From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: Reporting of Khat Cc: "'Forens'" In-Reply-To: <384D84AED5DB0E47A62C04FC4CF719746ABC3B@dps-mail1.dps.state .mn.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3835 At 08:15 AM 2/25/03 -0600, Eric Grunwald raised the issue of how many drug packets need to be tested in order to press a conviction. There are various versions of this question and some learned literature on the subject, about which I emphatically do not profess to be an expert. However, the version of the question raised by Eric seems to me to have a clear answer, namely that you bow to the prosecutor (not to say that you cannot first argue and negotiate, of course). The problem, as I understand it, is that a large number -- let's say 100 -- of bundles of possible contraband have been seized, and the prosecution hopes to persuade a jury that at least 5 of those bundles are Khat. If the lab analyzes bundles until 5 have been found that are illegal, then the prosecution has an easy case to present. If only a few confirmed analyses are given to the prosecution, the prosecutor needs to make extra arguments. Suppose for example that the lab analyzes only 2 bundles, and finds both to be Khat. There is an obvious calculation to make: If four or fewer bundles are actually Khat, the probability to find two of them in two random tries is an unlikely 1 in 400, but the argument still has a long way to go before it will follow that the unlikely didn't happen, or even probably didn't happen. Is the analyst's selection of bundles to test really random, or might it have been aided by smell or other senses? Is it perhaps typical that shipments of Khat consist of 4 real bundles camouflaged with 96 fake bundles? If so, then the unlikely sampling accident must have happened. Of course these possible defenses might sound feeble as I have presented them, but the prosecution might reasonably fear that the actual defense attorney will be a better lawyer than I am. In any case, the prosecutors need to weigh the extra cost of a thorough analysis against the extra burden of proof, based solely on their personal estimate of the tradeoff. However, I look forward to other points of view. Charles Brenner >Hello All, > >Got a question for those in the drug labs. > >Our lab has seen a recent increase in submissions of Khat (Catha edulis), >and I need some advice. We normally receive what we consider to be rather >large submissions (kg quantities) consisting of several bundles of the plant >material wrapped in banana leaves. Sometimes the total number of these >bundles is in the hundreds. > >In the past we had gone under the assumption that using 1 bundle for >analysis was sufficient, assuming all the other bundles had the same >wrappings, appearance, etc. Does this sound acceptable, and is this how >others do it? Our logic was that these submissions are much like marijuana, >in that they are visually distinct. Additionally, because of the lengthy >extraction process, more than one analysis would be more labor intensive. > >Recently, we have had attorney's ask us to do things differently. They are >requesting that we actually analyze enough individual bundles so that the >weight of those bundles meets or exceeds the maximum statutory weight limit >(assuming the submission is large enough). This means we have to analyze at >least 500 grams of plant material, and since our typical bundles average >about 100 grams, this means at least 5 extractions. This is obviously more >work, but do people out there think we should have been doing it this way >all the long? Any other sampling methods out there that people want to >share? > >By the way, we are working on a new, shorter extraction process. > >Thanks in advance, > >Eric > > >Eric Grunwald, Forensic Scientist >MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension >1246 University Avenue >St. Paul, MN 55104 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 27 18:14:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RNEFE23102 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:14:15 -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 h1RNEE623096 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:14:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.32]) by pete.uri.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RNEFP27840 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:14:15 -0500 Received: from DIRECTOR ([131.128.32.152]) by terms.uri.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id h1RNEFB29864 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:14:15 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20030227181427.00e1eb10@postoffice.uri.edu> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:14:27 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Dennis Hilliard Subject: Re: GC in BAC In-Reply-To: <200302272015.h1RKF9M8004327@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> References: <135.1bd65f68.2b8fbd5e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1608 At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? >>Fred Whitehurst > >Retention time. > >Pete Barnett You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory as a Chemist. I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject matter, is asking such a simple question. He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, etc. What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. Director - RI State Crime Laboratory Adjunct Assistant Professor - BioMedical Sciences 220 Fogarty Hall - URI 41 Lower College Road Kingston, RI 02881-0809 Tel: 401-874-2893 Fax: 401-874-2181 email: dch@uri.edu From daemon Thu Feb 27 18:51:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1RNpng23975 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RNpn623969 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:51:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:51:49 -0500 Subject: RE: GC in BAC Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:51:48 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Thread-Index: AcLelZqLDrhS4AecQQKOqTntf09B0AAAmzAg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1RNpn623970 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3633 Hi, Fred - It is not an assumption. The conclusion of a qualitative identification is based upon raw retention time (RT), relative retention time (RRT), or Kovats Retention Index (RI). Most labs use relative retention time (using an internal standard as the reference peak). Columns and temperature/pressure programs are optimized for baseline resolution of all the blood volatiles likely to be found at detectable levels in living subjects. This effectively consists of a very limited number of things, principally ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, acetaldehyde and acetone. The analytical method must be able to distinguish between each of these substances, and also the internal standard, which is usually n-propanol. Even primitive packed columns are easily capable of resolving these compounds, and the modern capillary columns used in headspace analysis with their much higher separation efficiencies are all the more capable. Capillary columns are able to resolve hundreds of compounds, far more than are reasonably likely to be found at ethanol-like levels in the blood of living subjects. Concerns for things like inhaled solvents are pretty much a non-issue due to rapid clearance rates (i.e., they will only be found in the blood if the blood is sampled within minutes of exposure - well within 20 minutes, detectible levels of inhaled solvents drop to zero), and other volatile organic chemicals are likewise of little concern due to low physiological tolerance for the toxicities of these substances (i.e., if you had enough in your blood to be detected, much less show up at the levels seen with ethanol, you wouldn't be capable of driving a car - you'd be lying in a hospital or a morgue). Ethanol is a toxic substance that is remarkably tolerated by the human body, at levels far exceeding any other organic toxin. Even if it were reasonably likely (and it's not) for detectible levels of these other things to be present in the blood of a living subject at the time of sampling, they would still be highly unlikely to coelute with ethanol on a column (especially a capillary column) designed for BAC analysis and an instrument optimized for it. The resolution of modern systems is that good. As an additional check, many labs today run dual channel simultaneous analysis, using two different columns with different retention profiles for blood volatiles, producing two independent sets of retention time data for each injected sample. This provides a cross-verification of qualitative (and quantitative, if both columns are calibrated) results. Because the number of possible analytes detectible by the method in the venous blood of living subjects is quite limited, conclusive identification can be achieved by chromatographic analysis alone. The degree of certainty is extremely high. Add to this the high performance of modern methods and instrumentation and there is virtually no possibility of error, provided of course that the system is properly operated, calibrated and maintained, and that the analysis performed by a competent professional. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 14:14 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: GC in BAC What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 27 19:05:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1S05YQ24471 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1S05X624465 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:05:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id 6.a7.2f012d74 (4380); Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:05:26 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:05:26 EST Subject: Re: GC in BAC To: dch@uri.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6642 Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Feb 27 19:15:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1S0FFs24896 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:15:15 -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 h1S0FD624890 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-12.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.12]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h1S0FB31014338; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:15:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302280015.h1S0FB31014338@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:10:58 -0800 To: Dennis Hilliard , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: GC in BAC In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20030227181427.00e1eb10@postoffice.uri.edu> References: <200302272015.h1RKF9M8004327@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> <135.1bd65f68.2b8fbd5e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1079 At 06:14 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Dennis Hilliard wrote: >At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: >>At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: >>>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are >>>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? >>>Fred Whitehurst >> >>Retention time. >> >>Pete Barnett >He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that >has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on >a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what >we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an >ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the >ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, >etc. > >What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? I didn't understand that he wanted to know how to cofirm the presence of ethanol. I'd just check the pH, but, of course, I am NOT a Ph.D. analytical chemist so what do I know. Pete Barnett From daemon Fri Feb 28 00:32:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1S5Wae29636 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.jobe.net (www.jobe.net [208.18.94.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1S5WZ629630 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.136] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.06) id A47755400FA; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:32:39 -0600 Message-ID: <01fe01c2deeb$2d83fa20$88bf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: GC in BAC Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:35:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 300 Ohhh! Fred! I'm sure I speak for many of your friends who are sorry to hear about your descent to the Dark Side. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. From daemon Fri Feb 28 10:58:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SFwhW09285 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:58:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SFwh609279 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:58:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id 9.5a.18919611 (3980); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:58:38 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <5a.18919611.2b90e12e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:58:38 EST Subject: Re: GC in BAC To: dwhause@jobe.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1454 In a message dated 2/28/2003 12:34:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, dwhause@jobe.net writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/28/2003 12:34:15 AM Eastern Standard Time > From:dwhause@jobe.net > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > Ohhh! Fred! I'm sure I speak for many of your friends who are sorry to > hear about your descent to the Dark Side. > Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net > Ft. Well Dave It is encouraging to know I have many friends left. As for the Dark Side. That is interesting. See, I got tired of watching cross examinations where counsel would be on the right track in trying to flesh out the real truth behind slanted testimony and then get ambushed by bullshit. You can help an attorney only so much from the sidelines. And I find myself too often as an expert on the stand facing the echo of Mike Bromwich's politically correct statement that I lack common sense and good judgement which he published in that DOJ IG report. When I ask the questions it doesn't matter what Mike said. It's irrelevant. And Dave, can you imagine where I could have gotten a job in the free world after reporting significant corruption within the FBI Crime Lab? Good hearing from you. :-) Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 16:28:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SLSEY20043 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SLSDf20037 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:28:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:28:13 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Richard Hoyle ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3653 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:28:59 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Richard Hoyle ] >From forens-owner Thu Feb 27 08:28:58 2003 Received: from anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.80]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RDSw602676 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from borer.demon.co.uk ([62.49.31.251]) by anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18oO5r-0003bS-0d for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:59 +0000 Message-ID: <$dVzdjBHKhX+gBX8@borer.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:39 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Richard Hoyle Reply-To: Richard Hoyle Subject: Truth is academic? MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M () Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed Dear list members As a Yorkshireman I am a great advocate of honesty, plain straight talking and getting to the truth with as little fuss as possible. In my experience the UK and Eire adversarial legal systems can be really frustrating. I have left many court rooms having given evidence with the feeling that all that needed to be said hadn't, because the lawyers were pussy footing around continuously asking the same reworded closed questions. However, most Judges in the UK do seem quite willing to allow you to carry on, provided that the additional information you are imparting is relevant and important for the whole court to consider. This has sometimes led to creating many red faced barristers on both sides, but my duty is to the court not them! It is my view that all the playacting poncing around by the lawyers/wordsmiths, the time wasted with tactical disclosure and the frustration of expert witnesses who are occasionally unable to tell "the whole truth" due to the rules of the court, could be phased out by introducing an inquisitorial system like some European countries have in place. Instead of keeping some information undisclosed for tactical reasons the whole lot from both sides should be dumped into the court, pre-trial. With the help of the experts the court can then disseminate the irrelevant crap and concentrate on the critical factors in the case and to prevent surprise disclosures. At least by using this method the court and both sides have seen all of the evidence and the cloaks and daggers approach to justice should be eliminated along with many miscarriages of justice. I can hear the screams of the adversarial lawyers now, as many of them rely upon their ability to produce copious quantities of bureaucratic and verbal tripe whilst getting paid handsomely for it. An inquisitorial system would put many of wigged wordsmiths on the scrap heap but think of the cost savings! I say keep the acting and poncing around for the stage not the court and disclose the job lot of evidence. I shall now step down from my soapbox and bid you all good day. --Richard Hoyle Richard.Hoyle@borer.demon.co.uk ================================================================== Keith Borer Consultants - Forensic Scientists Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR, England tel: + 44 191 386 6107 fax: + 44 191 383 0686 Lat. 54 34.24 N Long. 1 20.17 W http://www.borer.demon.co.uk ================================================================== From daemon Fri Feb 28 17:43:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SMhrY21842 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SMhq621836 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:43:53 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: GC in BAC X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:43:52 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC Thread-Index: AcLelZqLDrhS4AecQQKOqTntf09B0AAAmzAg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SMhq621837 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3165 Hi, Fred - It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. The conclusion of a qualitative identification is based upon raw retention time (RT), relative retention time (RRT), or Kovats Retention Index (RI). Most labs use relative retention time (using an internal standard as the reference peak). Columns and temperature/pressure programs are optimized for baseline resolution of all the blood volatiles likely to be found at detectable levels in living subjects. This effectively consists of a very limited number of things, principally ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, acetaldehyde and acetone, and perhaps a few much rarer things. The analytical method must be able to distinguish between each of these substances, and also the internal standard, which is usually n-propanol. Even primitive packed columns are easily capable of resolving these compounds, and dozens more, far more than are reasonably likely to be found at ethanol-like levels in the blood of living subjects. The modern capillary columns used in headspace analysis with their much higher separation efficiencies are all the more capable, being able to resolve hundreds of compounds. Concern for things like inhaled solvents are pretty much a non-issue due to rapid clearance rates (i.e., they will only be found in the blood if the blood is sampled within minutes of exposure - well within 20 minutes, detectible levels of inhaled solvents drop to zero); and other volatile organic chemicals are likewise of little concern due to low physiological tolerance for the toxicities of these substances (i.e., if you had enough in your blood to be detected, much less show up at the levels seen with ethanol, you wouldn't be capable of driving a car - you'd be lying in a hospital or a morgue). Even if it were reasonably likely for detectible levels of these other things to be present in the blood at the time of sampling (and it's not), they would still be unlikely to coelute with ethanol on a capillary column designed for BAC analysis and an instrument optimized for it. The resolution of modern GC systems is that good. Because the number of possible analytes detectible by the method in the venous blood of living subjects is quite limited, conclusive identification can be achieved by chromatographic analysis alone, and the degree of certainty is extremely high. Add to this the high performance of modern methods and instrumentation, and there is virtually no possibility of error remaining, provided of course that the system is properly operated, calibrated, and maintained, and the analysis performed by a competent professional. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 14:14 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: GC in BAC What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 17:46:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SMkse22140 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:46:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SMks622134 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:46:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.a6.34b19e11 (4012) for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:46:33 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:46:33 EST Subject: BAC by GC To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 857 List So now if I am understanding this, we have narrowed down the universe of compounds that might elute from that blood extract introduced into that GC from the whole universe of compounds to just those that might be in blood. And only ethanol in blood elutes at the same time as ethanol, nothing else? How many compounds are in blood? What are they? And who says so? And how do we know that any of those don't coelute with ethanol? Sort of like, when I was in college and we said something, we didn't get to declare it so, we had to prove it so. Or we had to see the paper from the scientific literature that established it. Can anyone give me the cite or even maybe possibly a copy of that paper. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 17:53:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SMrMN22599 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SMrL622593 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:53:22 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:53:21 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLaEL3MWHjy3a3cTc2Sn1Dtl5+GbACB9vyg From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forensic Science Mailing List" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SMrL622594 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5818 The problem of course that is that it's standard in this field to require two different tests for confirmation of identity. With the naked seed or the embryo, all you have is the micro exam. Without the presence of bracts & glandular trichomes, the Duquenois test on seed alone will usually be negative, and so will instrumental tests. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Bowden [mailto:jbowden45@attbi.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 20:10 To: Forensic Science Mailing List Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Just a couple of small notes: The seeds of marijuana, whether viable or not, often give a positive, but weak D-L test. They do not contain any cannabinoids, but in the plant they are covered with bracts which normally contain the highest level of cannabinoids of any part of the plant. There are some who would say that the seeds have a characteristic appearance. Therefore there would be no need to germinate them into plants. Would one need to germinate a coconut to identify it? I'll leave that up to the botanists. Some also say that a qualified examiner can confirm viability by microscopic examination of the embryo, but again that's for the botanists. MJ brownies were not all that bad to examine, usually one could find intact leaf fragments. The LSD-laced cupcakes were the big problem. Have you ever tried to extract chocolate frosting? John Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: "Carol Define MD" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > Actually, the amount of active THC in seeds is quite > small - and those little beggars are hard as hell and > would break your tooth if you bit into one in a > brownie (those are generally made with ground up leaf > material, and due to digestive issues, the "high" can > last for a substantial period of time versus smoking). > I guess my age is showing, since I thought everyone > knew about magic brownies. However, there's generally > enough THC in seeds to give a chemical test > (Duquenois-Levine), and they have a definite and > characteristic micro-morphological appearance. > > Now, as to why to buy it - - if you've ever bought > bird seed, it generally contains some mj seeds, but I > doubt that's the case. Who knows. I mean, the > obvious reason would be to get high, but maybe there's > some "beneficial" herbal issue dealing with the use of > ground up non-viable mj seeds in conjunction w/ St. > John's Wort and kava - - - a "natural" euphoric and/or > stimulant and/or laxitive all in one!!! Helluva combo > . . . > > And if the company doesn't have some type of > small-print disclaimer about the seeds being > non-viable, then Caveat Emptor. If they are viable, > they're in violation of a bunch of Federal and state > drug statutes. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > Yes, the product was seed, and I guess seeds aren't > > the most potent part > > of the plant; perhaps the THC can be processed > > out...but then why > > would anyone want to buy it, especially for > > medicinal purposes? However, I > > understand this form of MJ is used for brownies and > > cookies, and can give > > a buzz for hours when ingested. But, that's what I > > was thinking...that > > it would be a federal offense (if it really is > > marijuana) because the > > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside > > in another state. > > > > Carol Define MD > > Baltimore > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some > > outfits > > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does > > look > > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any > > type of > > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT > > mj. > > > > > > Rather than bulk plant material, are they selling > > bulk > > > irradiated seeds? As long as they're not viable, > > > those are "legal" - but in the testing I've done > > in > > > the past, when given an amount of "non-viable" > > seeds, > > > I've generally found that at least a few germinate > > . . > > > . but how many is enough to make it "illegal" or a > > > violation of statute?? Interesting question - > > 1:10, > > > 1:30, 1:100?? > > > > > > Also, it's important to keep in mind the Medical > > > Marijuana Initiative that is now law in California > > - > > > though selling a pound via mail would be (IMHO) > > > stretching the term of "personal medicinal use". > > > > > > Regardless of California laws, if this outfit was > > > really selling weed, I;m sure the Feds (DEA or > > Postal > > > Authorities or both) would frown on this practice > > and > > > would jump on it instaneously. > > > > > > Tom Abercrombie > > > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > Oakland (Medical Marijuana Capital), California > > > > > > --- Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > > > > > Today I received a catalog from an oriental > > herbal > > > > company in California > > > > which listed bulk cannabis sativa (sold by the > > > > pound) among their > > > > products. Isn't this illegal? Or can herbal > > > > companies get away with it? > > > > > > > > Carol Define MD > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Fri Feb 28 17:59:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SMxj322997 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SMxi622991 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:45 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:44 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLcC34EIETU1rBhQ1SYw/7JfTFLqwAEZSNQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SMxi622992 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 9084 No problem Adam - wish I could have been there, too. No, we wouldn't release info to just anyone, as I said below. I was talking about requests from attorneys you already know to be representing the defendant, or otherwise acting as officers of the court in the specific case. One of the advantages of being a local lab is that we know most of the experienced prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. If we get a request from an attorney we don't know (or don't trust) then we require proof that they are an attorney of record in the case, just as you do, at least while the case is still open. Proof can be a subpoena in the case listing them by name, corroboration by the prosecution or clerk of the court, etc. If we know the attorney, then all we require for a report is a request on their official letterhead identifying themselves as an attorney of record in the case. For the work product, they still need a specific court order. Once the case is closed, then it's public record and anyone can see it by law. I have no problem with checking out these things with the prosecution or the submitting agency to determine what's what, it's the idea of needing their approval or permission ("clearance") that concerns me. We ask them for corroborating information, not for their "OK," and we offer them notification, not "veto" authority. They can make requests of us (which we'll do our best to grant if feasible and proper), but not demands. We answer to the courts when it comes to casework, not to them. I'm sure it's the same with you, it's just the choice of words that troubled me I guess. Sorry if I read too much into it. I'm probably overly wary about it due to all the false accusations of bias in favor of police/prosecution that forensic scientists have been slandered with on this list and elsewhere, as well as being acutely aware of the rare but well-publicized instances where real bias was present. We strictly deal with attorneys, though. We won't talk to a defendant about his case unless he's acting as his own attorney or is accompanied by his attorney. This is to protect his rights as much as the case information - we don't want to improperly compromise the state's case, but we also don't want him compromising his own case by saying anything to us he shouldn't without advise of counsel. We don't want to be (or seem to be) obstructionist in any way, but we have to be careful. As we've both said, the court is the final arbiter and we both ultimately respond as required by law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us [mailto:CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 08:37 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data Bob, (sorry about the delay - I was at AAFS) Since we work for the State and work on cases around the State it is often hard to personally know defense counsel when they call. If someone were to call saying they were defense for Joe Blow would you just give them a copy of your results, status, work product? What we do is get a verbal from the DA's office in these cases. Often times the defense has already gotten it cleared by the prosecutor and they tell us that, but we still verify it. I think to not do so would be remiss. A suspect may own a piece of evidence currently at the lab but we really can't give that person the time of day if he were to call other than telling him to contact the submitting agency and they can make a request to us for info. Afterwhich info flows freely. It is a kind of checks and balance system. Yes, our work product is our own, HOWEVER, we kind of view it as a direct result of a request from the submitting agency. Because of high-profile cases in the past, and present, our protocol has evolved into clearing any release of any info with either the submitting agency or prosecutor. Of course, a court order supersedes both of those. I think what we have here is policy and protocol accomplishing roughly the same thing through different means. Adam Becnel >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Adam, I'm curious. Why do you need the permission of the prosecution or LE agency? Discovery issues are the court's decision, not the prosecutor's or police investigator's, so I don't see how their opinion matters. I could agree that they should be notified if they might have a legal right to challenge the disclosure, but I don't see why they should be the controlling authority, or how they could be, really. If the defense obtains a court order, then it's irrelevant whether or not the ADA or the agency approves, isn't it? Even if your lab were a subdivision of one of their offices, they surely couldn't tell you to refuse a court order. We don't ask our State Attorney's Office or our submitting agencies for their permission to release lab results to defense counsel, or to discuss those results with them. As long as we know the defense attorneys are officers of the court in a specific case, they have a right to know and understand the results for that case. We send them copies of our reports routinely upon request (we don't even require a subpoena, just an official request) and we will discuss the results freely with them unless there is some legal dispute about it presently before the court. Now if they request to see the whole file, then we'll first consult with the SAO and the submitting agency to make sure there's no sensitive, legally privileged information in the documents submitted to us along with the evidence (because that info would also be in the file), but the analytical data we produced ourselves belongs to our lab and we don't normally need anyone's permission to share it. Of course, we don! 't release open case information to just anybody for obvious reasons, but defense counsel are officers of the court and so have a right to see it. If we receive nothing more than a defense attorney's subpoena to provide the whole file to the them, then we'll notify the SAO because they have a right to challenge the subpoena for cause (if any), but once you receive a court order signed by a judge, then that's that - you have to comply and send them the whole file, regardless of what anyone else wants. Personally, I can't see why anyone would want to limit disclosure of lab work product, except to protect legitimately sensitive and legally privileged information. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: CBecnel@dps.state.la.us [mailto:CBecnel@dps.state.la.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 15:40 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Confidential" Data John, I agree, it sounds very suspect, but lets play devil's advocate. Was the chemist asked "Can just anyone have access to your work product?" and the complete answer should have probably been extrapolated to be "My work product is confidential (and it is) but the prosecution and/or case officer can make it available to anyone." My lab is accredited and I can not give out any information, results, or work product to anyone unless cleared to do so by the ADA or Case Officer/Agency. Was a request made to see instrumental data, or did the chemist just not produce any. (Example - we do not bring chains-of-custody to court. We have them of course and we are prepared to produce them if asked in advance, but why complicate things when you don't have to.) Was it really the lab's policy, or a decision by the prosecution that you do not see the data? I find it hard to believe that an accredited state lab even cares if defense wants to see data - data is data and if you did your job right who cares if someone wants to see it. After you get clearance - come on over, I'll even put a pot of coffee on! But, as in my case, that request must come from either of the aforementioned parties - or guess what? You don't see the data. Is my lab's policy appropriate? I think it is. Just throwing ideas around. Adam Becnel Louisiana State Police Crime Lab Baton Rouge, LA While attending a murder trial two weeks ago, I witnessed a chemist from an ASCLD-LAB accredited state laboratory testify to the results of some ignitable liquid residue testing. I had asked for the opportunity to review the chemist's data prior to the trial, but the request was refused. At the trial, the chemist testified with a perfectly straight face that the data underlying the conclusions presented were "confidential." The charts were not even made available at the trial. Does anyone else see a problem with this lab policy, or is it just me? In the case of my lab, we are only too happy to provide data when requested. John J. Lentini, F-ABC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:00:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SN0K123227 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:00:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SN0J623218 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:00:20 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:00:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLcbPjE1fzyzam9TPGcNaqS7T8+UQAewoZw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SN0K623222 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2642 John, it's true that sterile seeds are legal under Federal law, but states are free to adopt more stringent guidelines. While I can't speak for other states, I can assure you that marijuana seeds remain illegal in Florida, "by catalog" or otherwise. The prohibition remains in the most recent printing (2002) of Florida Statutes and there have been no rulings I know of that have overturned state law in that regard. I doubt we're alone among the states in that regard. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John French [mailto:johnfrench@starpower.net] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 20:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog For what it is worth, the DEA already scans the Internet for potential drug distribution violations. There are thousands of offers being made every day, probably most of them scams. But hey, one more lead won't hurt. Also, even though the DEA tried to ban importation of marijuana seed laden buns and muffins, they have failed, at least temporarily, and it is perfectly legal today -- upsetting to some folks, but legal. My understanding is the Canadians confronted the US ban through NAFTA. See this site for some really interesting history. http://www.hemp.co.uk/html/nafta0802.html Also, attempts have been made to find marijuana without success in urine after consumption of said foods in ample quantities. Poppy seed laden foods, on the other hand, send off rockets at 300ng/ml. This why the cutoff was raised to 2000ng/ml a couple of years ago. It might seem strange to some people that poppy seeds, with a known reactivity to ordinary tests, don't disturb the DEA, while marijuana seeds, that show no indication of presence, bother the bejesus out of them. I don't think it is strange, but that is just my opinion. John French At 10:14 AM 2/24/2003, you wrote: >Hi Jessica, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to release the name and >information about the company on a 'List'. If you think they would be >interested, have the 'various health authorities and LE agencies' contact >me directly. By the way, isn't Canada more liberal regarding Cannabis use >than the USA? > >Carol > >On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Jessica Brinkworth wrote: > > > I've just gone through the messages for this discussion. I may have > > missed it, but did anyone list the name of this catalogue? I would be > > interested to know if the catalogue is distributed in Canada. It may be > > of interest to various health authorities and law enforcement agencies > > here.--- From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:01:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SN1EG23545 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:01:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SN1D623539 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:01:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:01:14 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:01:14 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLcmr0AjYvQAziOTr263A1FNhIzdAATrHCA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SN1D623540 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1837 Pete barnett wrote: "I cannot imagine any enterprise that more deserves to be public than forensic science and its discussion. With the possible redaction of names in cases where divulging those names would be inappropriate, I can think of no reason why anything that goes on in a forensic science lab should not be publicly available upon request. After all, it is science (a public business by definition -- peer review), deals with the legal system (I recall that star chambers, kangaroo courts, and inquisitions have been mostly banned -- with all due respect to John Ashcroft), and is funded by the tax payers who have every right to know what they are paying for. Any law, regulation, policy, or practice that restricts the free exchange and discussion of forensic science cases and issues simply decreases the credibility of forensic science as a method of getting at the truth." Pete, I agree in principle, but there are other things besides people's names that are by law exempted from disclosure during an "open" criminal investigation. This generally includes any and all "criminal investigative information." One may debate the merits of some or all of these exemptions, but labs are generally bound to comply with them whether we agree with them or not. As you know and have said, we don't just deal with science in forensic labs - we also must deal with the legal system and the Law does provide for limitations on public disclosure and "openness" when the Law deems it necessary and appropriate. Most of those limitations don't apply to formal discovery by the defense, but some others do regulate even that. In all cases, we must comply with the laws of the jurisdiction we function within. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:02:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SN2b023921 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SN2Z623913 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h1SMElMa007080 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:02:12 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:02:09 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:58:37 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Richard Hoyle >> Basten 02/28/03 01:28PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:28:59 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Richard Hoyle ] >From forens-owner Thu Feb 27 08:28:58 2003 Received: from anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.80]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1RDSw602676 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from borer.demon.co.uk ([62.49.31.251]) by anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18oO5r-0003bS-0d for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:59 +0000 Message-ID: <$dVzdjBHKhX+gBX8@borer.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:39 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Richard Hoyle Reply-To: Richard Hoyle Subject: Truth is academic? MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M () Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed Dear list members As a Yorkshireman I am a great advocate of honesty, plain straight talking and getting to the truth with as little fuss as possible. In my experience the UK and Eire adversarial legal systems can be really frustrating. I have left many court rooms having given evidence with the feeling that all that needed to be said hadn't, because the lawyers were pussy footing around continuously asking the same reworded closed questions. However, most Judges in the UK do seem quite willing to allow you to carry on, provided that the additional information you are imparting is relevant and important for the whole court to consider. This has sometimes led to creating many red faced barristers on both sides, but my duty is to the court not them! It is my view that all the playacting poncing around by the lawyers/wordsmiths, the time wasted with tactical disclosure and the frustration of expert witnesses who are occasionally unable to tell "the whole truth" due to the rules of the court, could be phased out by introducing an inquisitorial system like some European countries have in place. Instead of keeping some information undisclosed for tactical reasons the whole lot from both sides should be dumped into the court, pre-trial. With the help of the experts the court can then disseminate the irrelevant crap and concentrate on the critical factors in the case and to prevent surprise disclosures. At least by using this method the court and both sides have seen all of the evidence and the cloaks and daggers approach to justice should be eliminated along with many miscarriages of justice. I can hear the screams of the adversarial lawyers now, as many of them rely upon their ability to produce copious quantities of bureaucratic and verbal tripe whilst getting paid handsomely for it. An inquisitorial system would put many of wigged wordsmiths on the scrap heap but think of the cost savings! I say keep the acting and poncing around for the stage not the court and disclose the job lot of evidence. I shall now step down from my soapbox and bid you all good day. --Richard Hoyle Richard.Hoyle@borer.demon.co.uk ================================================================== Keith Borer Consultants - Forensic Scientists Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR, England tel: + 44 191 386 6107 fax: + 44 191 383 0686 Lat. 54 34.24 N Long. 1 20.17 W http://www.borer.demon.co.uk ================================================================== From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:03:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SN3V324322 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SN3U624316 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:03:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:03:31 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:03:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLc1i+LtEzxQmuYSZSjPO5YUO9TJgAFPWRg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SN3U624317 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1834 John Lantini wrote: "Peter: You seem to believe that anyone really cares what is true. Truth is academic, and what forensic science is about is "justice," or putting bad guys in jail. Viewed from that perspective, any policy that promotes the right to effective assistance of counsel defeats the purpose of taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations. Most labs work for the police, not for the courts. Unless and until that changes, obtaining convictions will take a back seat to finding the truth." That's a bit much don't you think, John? Forensic science is about determining facts, and "justice" is about determining responsibility and levying appropriate sanctions, which includes exonerating the innocent as well as convicting and punishing the guilty. Public forensic labs are funded to assist in the investigation of crimes and determine scientifically provable facts, not to win convictions. Most forensic scientists don't care whether the bad guy goes to jail or not (nor should we) - it's not our job or our role to determine that. Ours is only to determine the scientific facts, present them to the investigators, judges, and juries for their use, and let them take it from there. We provide information, it's up to the legal system to use that to determine who does and doesn't go to jail. Therefore anything which promotes effective assistance to EITHER counsel serves both justice and the "purpose of taxpayer-funded forensic science organizations." There may be individuals and entire labs that deserve your condemnation, but chastise those labs and organizations who deserve it, please, don't mischaracterize the entire public forensic science community with a sweeping generalization. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:08:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SN8QY24837 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SN8P624831 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:08:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:08:26 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:08:25 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Reporting of Khat Thread-Index: AcLc2gVWGuo4y0JdRUuLX8pgeTPyoAAFMsyA From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forens" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SN8P624832 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5982 Eric, If you are performing some kind of botanical identification of the Khat through physical appearance (e.g., microscopic morphology, as done with marijuana), then it may be appropriate to treat the khat as you would hundreds of seized MJ plants from a "grow" operation. If not, if all you're doing is essentially saying "yeah, this one proved to be khat, and the rest look like khat too," then I don't see how you can say the rest is in _fact_ Khat. It may seem like a logical conclusion (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck), but without some analytical (botanical or chemical) basis, it's really just an assumption based on gross appearance - it isn't a scientific conclusion. However, much depends on your local laws and rulings governing sampling techniques. In Florida, to satisfy the law with regard to charges or penalties based on specific weights or numbers of exhibits, we must prove that we have ANALYZED and identified that weight or number of items as controlled substances. The law recognizes a single package of apparently like material to effectively all be the same thing, since mixtures of controlled substances and other substances are treated the same as pure substances under our law (e.g., 28g of 10% cocaine and 90% lactose is treated the same as 28g of 100% cocaine), but each individual package must be tested if it is to be included in aggregate weights reported for charge determination. If the charge is possession of over 50 pounds of marijuana, then we have to analyze enough plants, bags, bricks, or bales to prove that over 50 pounds were analyzed and identified (proven to be) marijuana. It's not enough to ID one and say "all the others look the same," nor can we empty multiple packages together, homogenize, and sample once. We have to analyze enough individual packages (and prove the identity of each) in order to meet the charge. So in your example, if our statute had a break point for Khat of 500g, and if each bundle was around 100g, then we'd have to analyze 5 or 6 bundles to prove that more than 500g of Khat was actually present. >From a purely scientific standpoint, if we only analyzed one bundle then all we could justifiably say is that we had identified 100g of Khat and that all the other exhibits appeared to be Khat as well. We would not be justified in saying the others WERE Khat if we hadn't analyzed them and so hadn't proven it scientifically. If that's good enough under your laws to establish the charge, or if your laws allow an inference of identification through statistically based random sampling of multiple packages and you've done the required sampling, then you've met your jurisdiction's standards; but it wouldn't be good enough here. We would have to analyze multiple bundles to establish the statutory weight, and personally I think that's as it should be. How else can you be certain, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty (as opposed to legal "reasonable doubt") that all the bundles really are khat? Logical inference isn't necessarily scientific proof. If the law states that one 100g bundle of khat allows the assumption that all other bundles seized with it are khat, then you only need do one bundle because you're not making a scientific conclusion that more than one is factually khat. But if the law requires that 500g of khat be identified, then the only way to make a scientific conclusion that more than 500g is present is to analyze more than 500 grams. If the law allows each bundle to be treated as one congregate item (e.g., "mixture" laws), then you do 5 or 6 bundles to meet both legal and scientific requirements. If there is neither a mixture law nor a statistical inference law, then I think you'd have to analyze each individual plant in order to justifiably state that you had _identified_ over 500g of khat, even if the case law doesn't specifically require that. If the requirements of science (i.e. to reach a scientific conclusion) exceed the legal requirements, then I think we're obligated to follow the requirements of science. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Grunwald, Eric [mailto:Eric.Grunwald@state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 09:16 To: 'Forens' Subject: Reporting of Khat Hello All, Got a question for those in the drug labs. Our lab has seen a recent increase in submissions of Khat (Catha edulis), and I need some advice. We normally receive what we consider to be rather large submissions (kg quantities) consisting of several bundles of the plant material wrapped in banana leaves. Sometimes the total number of these bundles is in the hundreds. In the past we had gone under the assumption that using 1 bundle for analysis was sufficient, assuming all the other bundles had the same wrappings, appearance, etc. Does this sound acceptable, and is this how others do it? Our logic was that these submissions are much like marijuana, in that they are visually distinct. Additionally, because of the lengthy extraction process, more than one analysis would be more labor intensive. Recently, we have had attorney's ask us to do things differently. They are requesting that we actually analyze enough individual bundles so that the weight of those bundles meets or exceeds the maximum statutory weight limit (assuming the submission is large enough). This means we have to analyze at least 500 grams of plant material, and since our typical bundles average about 100 grams, this means at least 5 extractions. This is obviously more work, but do people out there think we should have been doing it this way all the long? Any other sampling methods out there that people want to share? By the way, we are working on a new, shorter extraction process. Thanks in advance, Eric Eric Grunwald, Forensic Scientist MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 1246 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:14:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SNEDr25342 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:14:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SNEC625336 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:14:13 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Fire Debris Evidence X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:14:12 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Fire Debris Evidence Thread-Index: AcLc3ZceRzxE6YbyRwC9lWKUIpa9qgAHXO3g From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SNEC625337 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4818 Adam, >It's true that passive headspace extraction doesn't take much sample, but >you do theoretically loose sample everytime you open the can. If you don't >take duplicate samples and don't preserve the samples that you do take, >what is defense to do in 6 months when the can is entirely rusted. They no >longer have the opportunity to test that exhibit! There is minimal sample loss in the two short times the can is opened to insert and retrieve the charcoal strip. We're not often talking about traces of flammables here - in our cases, at least, there are usually "tons" of it or there are none. So there's usually lots left over for reanalysis. I agree if the analysis showed only minute traces, so that there is justified concern for no additional sample recovery being probable, then that might be reason to preserve/split/duplicate the sample for future defense examination and I believe our fire debris analyst does that. We would also do that if requested or if such a request was anticipated, but routinely we would not because it has never been an issue; and if you know there's plenty of sample left, I don't see the point of doing it routinely. The possible compromise and loss of sample due to rusting of cans stored for long periods could be a concern, but they're returned to the submitting agency in good condition and it's up to them to properly store them. Our results and data would still be available for examination by a defense expert in any event. >"Arson cases in our area never go to trial anyway" Imagine this scenario, >person sets fire to a seemingly abandoned house, thus killing all 7 people >inside. Do you think one would be testifying in this case? In our area, very unlikely. Have we had arsons and homicides involving arsons in our area? Certainly, but again, in over 21 years with this lab I believe our fire debris examiner has testified only a couple of times, and his identification was not contested in any way. In most cases, proving the fire was arson isn't the key issue, proving who committed the arson is - and that's something our identification of a flammable liquid can't help the police with. In cases where they can't prove who did it, our identification of flammables in the debris becomes irrelevant. In those cases where they can prove who did it, almost without exception the defendant pleads out, and our analysis again becomes irrelevant to the final adjudication. That's how it is here, anyway - our analysis effectively is needed for investigative purposes, to help the investigators decide whether or not they should be looking for an arsonist, rather than for trial or determining guilt. If the presence of a flammable was actually an issue for prosecution, we might do things differently, but given things as they are it's hard to justify doing it. >I understand >that it may seen like a waste of time to do duplicate extractions, but IMHO >I think to not do them would be border-line illegal, or at least >malfeasance. You can not destroy evidence, even through in-action, and >deprive the right for someone else to test it. Arson samples will disappear >in a very short time! They disappear only if the seal of the container is compromised. BTW I think you mean misfeasance (error or omission), not malfeasance (willful misconduct with malicious intent), but there is no legal obligation for us to collect samples for any purpose other than our own analysis, at least in this state. As I said, the original containers almost always have plenty of sample left in our cases, and we are careful so reseal them tightly, so we have preserved the original sample rather than our extract and the defense is free and able to recover their own samples should they so desire. They've never asked to do so as far as I know (these aren't my cases). If it's a trace amount present that would be a different story, I agree. Again, we do of course always preserve our instrumental data for review. >Maybe you could talk to your prosecutor and ask him/her. I think it would >be worth checking into. Could be, but since these cases almost never go to trial and defense reanalysis has never been an issue, I'm pretty sure neither the prosecutors nor the defense attorneys care one way or another. Most attorneys if pressed will say "yes, do everything and save everything under the sun" (for CYA purposes), but you have to do what's practical and necessary. So far, there's been no necessity or practical reason to cause us to do dual extractions or to save our single ones (that's why we stopped saving them years ago). I think you'll find ours is not an uncommon situation, as several other responses have so far indicated. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:17:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SNHfc25771 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:17:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SNHe625765 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:17:41 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Truth is academic? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:17:41 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Truth is academic? Thread-Index: AcLdFlzJ/0SjtnLTQrqHJ3iFmcat5AAAaefQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SNHe625766 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3814 I agree, "whole truth" answers are part of our responsibility as witnesses, and particularly as expert witnesses. It's a rare thing, but I too have done what you describe a few times because I felt the questioning failed to reveal the crux of the matter I was testifying about. The judge always allowed it. It's rarely necessary, though, because in the USA (or at least in my state) an expert witness cannot be limited to a yes or no answer - we have the right to explain every answer we give that is related to our expert opinion. "Ordinary fact" witnesses (i.e., lay witnesses) do not have this privilege. So for us, inadequate questioning can usually be handled by responding: "Yes, BUT..." or "No, BUT..." or "It's not that simple, you have to consider...." or "...[blah, blah, blah]. However, you must also keep in mind that [blah, blah, blah]..." or some other such amplification of your answers. This almost always remedies the situation, but on rare occasion you might be expecting a follow-on question that then fails to materialize, and that would be the occasion to speak up. I would simply state you have something to add - if no one stops you with an objection, you proceed. If you're on direct examination, the attorney who called you will probably invite you to proceed; if you're on cross examination, the opposing attorney may object or try to cut you off - that's when you address the judge. There's nothing improper about doing any of this, but if one of the attorneys objects (as is their right), then you of course would wait until the judge rules on the objection. Some agencies train their people to never volunteer information, to only answer the exact question asked, but I strongly disagree with that approach. Attorneys for either side can easily control the impression (or misimpression) our testimony makes on the jury through carefully selected and phrased questions, and you can't rely on the opposing attorney to "rehabilitate" your testimony with further follow-up questioning (there's often a mismatch between the knowledge, skill, and experience levels of the two counsels). If we as professionals and expert witnesses don't take the initiative to ensure we're accurately heard by the judge and jury while on the stand, we may never be; and in my opinion, we would then be failing in both our duty as forensic scientists and our oath as witnesses. However, one has to be very careful regarding evidence that hasn't been asked about by either side - there may be a good reason, as Pete Barnett pointed out. It may have been ruled inadmissible or is otherwise not pertinent to the issues being adjudicated, and speaking up in these cases might not only be inappropriate, it could cause a mistrial. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Mark Webster [mailto:Webster@forensic-science.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 16:27 To: fyreatr@cox.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Subject: Re: Truth is academic? "If you routinely work within the field of forensic science and testify in court as a result of your analysis, then you know that you can not walk in and choose which questions you ask/answer. I don't give the questions to the prosecution or the defense. I answer them. I answer them to the best of my ability based on my experience, education and training. Truthfully." After giving answers to questions, would a forensic scientist in the USA ever turn to the judge and say, "there's something I want to add ... ". This happens over here. I've done it, and I've seen other forensic scientists do it. Surely a requirement of swearing to tell the whole truth? Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:22:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SNMSp26330 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:22:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SNMQ626304 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:22:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:22:27 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:22:27 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLaQjSOiBC0IothQB++NISkBNKUnQC6HrHw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SNMR626321 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5852 Hi Bill, how's it going? Nah, as much as I did enjoy our sparring, no wiggly worms, chopped mollusks, or other fish lures were being dangled with your name on them. ;-) Regarding the Supremacy Clause, I agree it's crystal clear that any power not granted to the Feds is reserved to the states - that's a basic constitutional principle and is spelled out explicitly in the Bill of Rights. I was referring to powers which the Constitution has granted (or has been ruled to grant) to the Federal government. In such cases when state law conflicts with Federal law, Federal law reigns supreme. The Supreme Court made the effect of the Supremacy Clause abundantly clear when they ruled last year that these state medicinal marijuana laws did not provide any bar to Federal prosecution (I believe the decision was unanimous, if memory serves). In fact they even declared one set of state laws allowing mass production and distribution of marijuana to be null and void due to conflict with Federal law. The power to trump state law is certainly not absolute, only when state law conflicts with federal law that the Constitution authorizes the Feds to make in the first place. One can debate which powers are or are not rightly granted to the Feds by the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has consistently supported Federal drug control laws for around 100 years now; and they are the final arbiter of what is "constitutional intent." According to their rulings, the power to regulate drugs IS rightly derived from the Constitution (at least until such time, if any, that they change their opinion about it). You of course are free to disagree with them but their opinion, not yours or mine, is controlling, and the Constitution itself grants them and them alone the power to make legally binding interpretations of Constitutional content and intent. Hey, I disagree with some of their rulings too, but I'm not in charge of interpreting the Constitution - they are. BTW, if my "what a joke" sidebar about medicinal marijuana laws irked you and was what you resisted responding to, you probably misunderstood my intent - see my reply to Tom Abercrombie. Good hearing from you. Don't lurk so much - you've always had worthwhile things to say whenever you've spoken up. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [mailto:LEGALEYE1@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 02:07 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog In a message dated 2/21/2003 3:43:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > The Supremacy clause of the Constitution establishes that Federal law trumps > State law every time when there is a contradiction. But the Feds don't > have the resources to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for small > amounts of marijuana, so the so-called "medicinal" (what a joke) Okay, Bob, your bating me aren't you? You miss our debates and your trying to incite me into a rebuttal reply. I know your sneaky tactics and I refuse to bite. Well, maybe just a nibble. The Supremacy clause was not intended to give the feds an absolute trump power over the states. What it does provide for is the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws enacted "in pursuance" of the articles and amendments of the Constitution as well as any treaty entered into by the US. It can be argued that every federal law is assumed to be enacted under the authority of the Constitution and therefore in pursuance of it, but, having experienced first hand the abuses that follow from a central government with the power to dismiss the laws enacted by local governments, the several states insisted on placing a limitation the power of the feds over the states. Thus we have the Tenth Amendment Reservation of Powers of States and People. If any and every law passed by the feds trumps state laws then there would be no power not delegated to the US government by the Constitution. This would make the Tenth Amendment mute where it proclaims "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". If Article Six grants the federal government all power, then there is no power that is not delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment is a frivolous waist of words. The fact that Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (along with others) is commonly perverted to the point that anything and everything that the feds want to control can be justified as having an effect on "Commerce . . . among the several States", does not make that perversion right. I will admit that the feds have the power to trump state law. But that absolute power is derived, not from the Constitution, but by the might to do what it pleases regardless of will of the people and States or intent of the Constitution. Hay, I have to admit that I missed our exchanges. Thanks for luring me out from my lurking. But I'm going to go back into my cave now and leave the list to forensic issues. BTW Anyone ever wonder why there is a special seed mix for canaries as opposed to, say, budgie food? Take a close look at canary mix and you will see why it helps to encourage the little avians to sing. It blew me away the first time I saw those distinctive little seeds in canary food. I looked at the list of seeds on the label but it was not listed. The only seed name that was unfamiliar to me was niger seed so I assumed this was a way of disguising what it really was. Does anyone know if niger seed is another name for cannabis seed? Regards to all, Bill Holden --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:33:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SNX7i27331 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SNX5627325 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:33:06 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:33:05 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLaB++zZx5bhdAKQNm+kJOFosmsYQCEDJSw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SNX6627326 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8117 Tom Abercrombie wrote: "Interesting. During the late 70's when I was being trained as a controlled substances analyst, my mentor purchased a two-pound bag of 'Wild Bird" seed, and had me go through it and pick out the marijuana seeds (in previous training, I had successfully grown mj from seeds). The next step was a viability test on the seeds I found (germination), and if I recall correctly, out of close to 50 seeds, at least a couple (but less than five) germinated and later grew to be identifiably mj. So I guess there's a lot of folks out there who, if they lived in good ol' Florida, would or should be in the joint!?" I've seen MJ seeds in birdseed too, in fact I remember them being part of the mix I used to feed to wild birds in my backyard as a kid. Of course, I didn't realize those seeds were MJ until I became a forensic chemist (no, I never used pot and would never have recognized it without my training - although I was familiar with the smell of burning pot due to exposure to other kids who were users). On the "single seed" issue, I agree that's a concern. The MJ seed in bird seed was supposed to be sterile even back then, but no doubt it was not 100% so. I don't think there is any MJ in birdseed today, since commercial hemp cannot be grown here legally anymore, but your concern is still a legitimate one. I don't know if anyone has ever been charged based on simple possession of a few seeds alone, but it is in fact illegal in my state. I do recall a few cases where germinated seeds were key to proving charges of cultivation or paraphernalia - in each case there was other evidence but no identifiable plant matter other than the seeds. In those cases I think using the seeds for prosecution was entirely appropriate, but I agree wholeheartedly that an overzealous enforcement (in the absence of other corroborative evidence) could easily result in an innocent being wrongly prosecuted. Hopefully, this is an area where police and judicial discretion makes up for insufficiently astute lawmaking. In my experience, it has. I've seen very few cases based on seed alone, and never without other evidence of drug possession. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of cases where the exhibit was a large amount of seeds with residual particles of leaf and flower mixed in. Call me cynical, but I would find it hard to believe that possession of a 1 pound bag of entirely MJ seed was intended for bird feeding or any other innocent use. Tom also wrote: "Amazing. After working in drug analysis for close to 25 years and being involved in some huge and really arcane mj cases (from species issues to medicinal uses), I honestly cannot recall anyone saying that they were keeping the seeds for their oil to use in painting or cooking." Oh, I didn't mean I'd experienced those claims in a case (I have not, and I've been doing this work for 21 years), but those are in fact historical legitimate uses for the oil. Check out any of a variety of drug abuse references, e.g. Karch's "Drug Abuse Handbook." Then Tom wrote: "I absolutely agree about the flowering tops containing a high amount of resinous THC. However, back in the "old days", flowering tops were essentially unavailable, and the common practice was to utilize the culled leaf material that had been finely ground. Another factor that I think takes away from using flowering tops (and weed in general)is the cost - - most folks would not be disposed to make brownies or cookies with them. My experience has shown the flowering tops or any portion of the plant that contains a large amount of THC to be utilized solely as smoking material." I agree. Ground up leaf material is/was used. This might include some flowering tops in "home grown situations," as any live plants grown to maturity will eventually produce flowers. The point I was trying to make was that while it was possible for a few seeds to wind up in the brownies, seeds were certainly not the main ingredient, contrary to what another list member had thought. Finally Tom wrote: "And now, for something completely different - - Even after being in this business as long as I have, I understand and appreciate comments about the use (or abuse) of medicinal marijuana. However, a friend of mine who was researcher in this area at UCLA a number of years ago showed me a treasure trove of work that empirically validated the use of mj (or it's active ingredients) in long-term analgesia, anti-nausea, etc. - - and that was back in the mid-80's. And even more work has been done since then to show that it works for some folks who are suffering from various types of chronic illnesses. True, many (if not most) people may be able to get a sympathetic doctor to sign some bogus scrip that "allows" them to buy mj, but after watching a close friend battle their way through the agony of chemo-therapy and seeing them actually improve their quality of life via the use of some medicinally prescribed weed has mollified my position in this area somewhat. Do I think that mj is a dangerous drug? Yes - it truly fits the definition of "threshold" drug. But it also can have an undoubted beneficial affect on those who truly need it." I again agree completely that THC and possibly other Cannabinoids have potential medicinal uses, some of which have already been well established. The problem of course is in the delivery mechanism for the drugs. The AMA and the vast majority of researchers in the field agree that smoking is neither an appropriate nor a safe delivery means, due to the adverse general health effects of smoking, the concurrent delivery of other unwanted substances in the plant, the inducement of a "high," and the unregulated, widely varying potency of the desired components in the plant material being produced by "patients" and suppliers. It is the "medicinal marijuana" laws in place, not the true medicinal potential of the plant, that I find "a joke" (and why I put the word "patients" in quotes). The majority of people using marijuana under the guise of these laws have no legitimate reason to do so, and are simply taking advantage of the poorly written laws. These laws allow virtually anyone to get and use pot for recreational reasons under the false pretense of medicinal purposes, and the proponents of these laws worked hard to intentionally make them so loosely worded, specifically to allow such recreational use (in that light, perhaps the laws were skillfully written after all). The proponents of recreational drug abuse couldn't get marijuana "legalized" for recreational use, so this was the way to make it happen under the cloak of "medicine." It's widely known that the "smoking clubs" that sprung up after passage of these laws (ostensibly to allow patients to receive their medication) are in many and perhaps most cases sham institutions created for the specific purpose of recreational drug abuse, and that abuse and illicit sale by "patients" growing their so-called "medicine" at home is rampant. It all reminds me of the booze bottles that alcoholics keep handy "for medicinal purposes." This is why in all but a few states the vast majority of the American public (including medical professionals) oppose legalizing "medicinal marijuana." "Medicinal cannabinoids," delivered by tablets, inhalers, skin patches, or other legitimate, regulated medical devices I can and do support - but smoked "medicinal marijuana" I cannot and do not support. It's a shame that the drug abusers have co-opted the legitimate need of some desperately ill people for their own purposes, and it's a greater shame that a handful of legislatures have either been duped into being, or have willingly conspired to be, complicit with their scheme. "Medicinal marijuana" is not the answer to the legitimate need; continued research into isolation of the specific beneficial cannabinoids and the production of an effective, abuse-resistant cannabinoid delivery mechanism is the answer. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:34:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SNY3727587 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:34:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h1SNY2627581 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:34:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:34:03 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Truth is academic? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:34:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Truth is academic? Thread-Index: AcLdxRNR3balI2utTeKRPUoFRKgQhgAAdKaA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h1SNY3627582 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2525 Pete, In Florida, I believe all lab reports by public crime labs are discoverable whether the prosecution intends to use the lab results or not. Since we ALWAYS report lab results in written reports, they'd have to give the defense a copy when they turn over other discovery materials. If they tried to hide the report, all the defense would have to do is request the report from us directly and prove they were the defense attorney of record in the case. We'd then routinely give them report without even asking the prosecution about it. Unless there was a pending legal objection filed with the court about it, we'd give it to them even if the prosecution asked us not to. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:37 To: Tim Sliter; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Truth is academic? At 08:51 AM 2/26/2003 -0800, Tim Sliter wrote: >The guidelines I give to folks in my lab are: > >1) Answer the question that was asked. >2) Then provide anything additional or qualifying that >would answer the question that a competent attorney >should have asked. >3) Do this equally for both the prosecution and the >defense. >4) Continue to do this until the judge limits you. Pretty good advice, I think. >On this same line, we have a case going to trial next >week where an analyst in my lab is testifying as a >prosecution witness, and I've been supoenaed as a >defense expert witness. This is the first time this >has happened for us that I know of. Does this sort of >thing happen elsewhere? I assume you are being called because you did some work on the case that the prosecution has chosen not to present and the defense wants to present. This is not unusual. But consider the situation where the evidence you have, which is presumably favorable to the defense, is not divulged to the defense. (Perhaps the policy is to provide discovery thorugh the prosecutor and the prosecutor does not feel an obligation to reveal the evidence to the defense.) Would you have an affirmative obligation to make the information available to the defense? Does your view on this matter trump the prosecutor's view? If so, how, in practice, do you play the card? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Feb 28 18:39:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h1SNdYZ28032 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:39:34 -0500 (EST) 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 h1SNdX628026 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HB1LV800.873 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:42:44 -0800 Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-MTA by SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:39:16 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:38:55 -0800 From: "Josh Spatola" To: Subject: Re: BAC by GC Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Guinevere: 1.1.14 ; Department of Justic X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3433 Fred Whitehurst wrote: >>List So now if I am understanding this, we have narrowed down the universe of compounds that might elute from that blood extract introduced into that GC from the whole universe of compounds to just those that might be in blood. And only ethanol in blood elutes at the same time as ethanol, nothing else? How many compounds are in blood? What are they? And who says so? And how do we know that any of those don't coelute with ethanol? << Personally, I'm at the beginning of my Blood Alcohol training, but am I wrong in thinking that: 1. We have not narrowed down "the whole universe of compounds," but simply "the whole universe of VOLATILE compounds at a temperature specific to your method or below" since we are discussing a headspace procedure via the GC/FID? i.e. no extraction into a solvent, no direct injection of blood. (Ow, my column!) 2. How do we know that the universe of compounds in blood don't coelute w/ ethanol? I believe by repeatedly running (via this same method) blood known to contain absolutely no ethyl alcohol (aka Negative control aka blank) and seeing nothing at the retention time for ethyl alcohol (more accurately, Relative Retention Time w/ internal standard) shows this experimentally. Is there a case where someone has INEXPLICABLY seen a peak at the retention time of ethanol in their blank? Well, maybe there's an argument that a compound exists in blood (or at least in the headspace of that specific sample) that coelutes with ethanol. And the case against something in the atmosphere of the lab that could co-elute w/ ethanol is also nixed by this same blank. RP's discussion of resolving power was an excellent case against coelution of similar substances (methanol/n-propanol/ethanol), but I guess there's an off chance dissimilar volatiles may coelute. The discussion of inhalation and elimination rates was also excellent in this regard. Now there is the narrow possibility that everyone's blood has a different makeup of naturally occurring volatile compounds (at a your method's temp. and below) and unless you have blank blood from every individual you test (for some individuals this may take days of ethanol elimination), only then can you be sure of no co-eluting factors. I'm not sure this holds up if I think about how many blanks have been run in the history of this procedure. Like I said, I'm new to Blood Alcohol analysis and perhaps I'm not thinking of the question properly. Thanks for reading this far. Josh (Note: This message was typed under heavy caffeination and low sleep levels. My employer does not necessarily endorse or support any of these comments - however accurate or inaccurate. I came up with them all on my own and of my own free will. Hooray for me.) ******************************************************************* 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. ******************************************************************* --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 19:01:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2101Xs29146 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2101W629138 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:01:33 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Truth is academic? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Truth is academic? Thread-Index: AcLduN1HX5gSYxX3SiS8Ttx+M3TXvAADb2Iw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2101W629141 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5307 It's hard to fathom what they have to gain in calling you testify, unless they think your opinion is going to be different from the other analyst's or that you will provide information that will cast doubt on the analyst, your lab, or it's results. Something similar was once tried with me, but it was for a case the lab had no other involvement in, and they were trying to cast doubt on the police. The private defense attorney subpoenaed me to evaluate the police's breath alcohol exam and testify about it (and against their technician). If we had had some other involvement in the case (i.e., if it had been a lab case), there would have been no problem, since a lab case is a lab case and we testify for whoever calls us. Likewise, if it had been a public defender asking me to testify there would have been no problem because I would still have been serving a public agency. But since we are publicly funded we can only serve public agencies, and since neither I nor the lab had anything to do with the case other than the defense attorney's desire to have my testimony, I had to decline. He then asked me to testify for him as a private consultant, but I'm not allowed to work privately for the defense in our own jurisdiction in a criminal case because it could be viewed by some as a conflict of interest (e.g., if I analyzed the case for the defense and my results wound up supporting the prosecution's case, there would be suspicion that I biased my results for the prosecution because we're a public lab). In public service, it's important to not only avoid actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. I tried to refer the attorney to another expert he could hire privately, but he insisted that I had been subpoenaed and had to testify. When I continued to decline he went to the court to try to enforce his first subpoena and have me held in contempt. The judge ruled that an expert witnesses with no prior knowledge of or involvement in a case can't be forced to become involved just because an attorney wants them to. Only material witnesses - people already involved in the case, already with first hand knowledge of the case (without being told anything by the attorney) - can be forced to testify against their will. Based on that logic, I would think that since you're not involved in the analysis of the case, then unless you have some other information material to the case you can't be called either. But I can imagine a myriad of things he might want to ask you about (QA/QC, training requirements, SOPs, etc.) that could be considered material to his case even if you had no personal involvement with the evidence, so I'm betting that you will have to testify. BTW, I think your advice to your people about testifying is right on the money except that there may be occasions when I would not allow even the judge to limit my testimony if that limitation would be misleading. For example, if the judge erroneously supported an attorney's insistence that I limit my answer to yes or no (erroneously because expert witnesses normally have the legal privilege of explaining their answers to questions that relate to their expert opinion), and if a simple yes or no would be misleading, then I would respectfully decline to do that and tell the court that the question can't be accurately or truthfully answered with a simple yes or no. If pressed, I might mention that doing so would violate my oath to tell the whole truth. I would insist on explaining my answer or I would give no answer. Yes, I know I'd risk being held in contempt of court, but we have to be willing to stand up for our professional principles or we have no right to call ourselves professionals. Except for such a case, your advice is perfect. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Tim Sliter [mailto:tjs75208@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:51 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Truth is academic? Mark Webster wrote: >After giving answers to questions, would >a forensic scientist in the USA >ever turn to the judge and say, "there's >something I want to add ... ". The guidelines I give to folks in my lab are: 1) Answer the question that was asked. 2) Then provide anything additional or qualifying that would answer the question that a competent attorney should have asked. 3) Do this equally for both the prosecution and the defense. 4) Continue to do this until the judge limits you. Probably like most labs, we have very few cases where the defense gets its own expert. Whether they do or not, our obligation in trial testimony is to present not only our results and our conclusions, but also the limits of those results and conclusions. On this same line, we have a case going to trial next week where an analyst in my lab is testifying as a prosecution witness, and I've been supoenaed as a defense expert witness. This is the first time this has happened for us that I know of. Does this sort of thing happen elsewhere? Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From daemon Fri Feb 28 19:08:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h21081I29598 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2107x629592 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:08:00 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: question re: education X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:07:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: question re: education Thread-Index: AcLeV5QSSMvXHVgUTdOgmRcz0povpwAMkRPA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h21080629593 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4748 Here's what I've told others in the past who asked the same question: "For high school, take the standard college preparatory program, and add as many science and math electives as you can, but don't neglect the liberal arts, extra-curricular activities, and community service. Study hard and get good grades, but have some fun too. The best colleges are highly competitive, but they want well-rounded students. For college coursework, it depends on your goals. If you are interested in traditional crime lab analytical work, then what you need to get started is a four-year degree (Bachelor of Science) in a physical or natural science, preferably in chemistry, biology, or forensic science. Advanced degrees are helpful but not required, with one or two exceptions. If you are interested in forensic DNA work then an advanced degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) or at least some graduate credits in molecular biology and/or population genetics would be very helpful. Graduate credit would make you more competitive, and is required for DNA supervisors by the Federal guidelines most labs follow. Most labs won't actually require a full graduate degree, but most will prefer it for DNA work. If toxicology is your interest, then an advanced degree in toxicology would again be helpful and preferred, though probably not required. For all other forensic lab specialties, a B.S. is really all you need, but advanced degrees will still be useful and make you more competitive. In other forensic specialties found outside the crime lab, advanced degrees are often required: for forensic pathology, you will need a Medical Doctor degree (plus the usual medical residency); for forensic dentistry, a D.M.D. or D.D.S. is needed; for forensic anthropology, a Ph.D.; for forensic entomology, at least an M.S.; etc., etc. Board certification is highly desirable in all cases, and may be required for some (like pathology). On the other hand if you are interested in less science-intensive fields, like crime scene technology, accident reconstruction, and other peripherally forensics-associated jobs with police agencies (rather than crime labs), or perhaps in technical support jobs in crime labs (like evidence technician or lab technician), then a two-year degree may suffice - but it will limit your career advancement unless you resume further schooling later, which can be difficult once you are holding down a job and raising a family. My advice is to get all the degrees you intend to get while still a full-time student, before starting your career. As much as you can, tailor your undergrad electives to the field you're interested in (i.e., analytical chemistry and instrumental analysis for drug analysis or trace evidence work; molecular biology, genetics, and statistics for forensic biology/DNA; biochemistry and pharmacology for toxicology; etc.). If crime lab work is your aim, try to obtain an internship at a working crime lab in your senior year. Take a few criminal justice classes (only a few - you don't need much) if you can squeeze them in; e.g., Rules of Evidence would be a good one. Don't forget to also take a healthy number of humanities courses and some phys ed as well - employers demand technical mastery of your major subject area, but they are also interested in healthy applicants who possess well-rounded educations, not in sickly or overly technically-focused geeks who can't relate to or work well with other people. Develop a serious and disciplined mind, but don't lose your sense of humor or joie de vivre (Do you watch Enterprise on TV? Be a Doctor Phlox, not a Subcommander T'Pol). Keep your nose clean and stay out of trouble with the law (e.g., no drunk driving or underage drinking, no illicit drug use, etc.) - a single criminal incident, even a minor one, may bar employment in most places, depending on the circumstances. Study hard, have fun, and best of luck to you!" For a quick overview of the forensic science profession, check out the American Academy of Forensic Science's "So You Want to be a Forensic Scientist?" page here: http://www.aafs.org/employ/brochure1.htm" I hope this provides the guidance you seek. Good luck! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: The Wise and Wonderful Me!! [mailto:rkgruber@kyol.net] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 06:49 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: question re: education If a high school student wants to plan a futrue in forensics which classes should that student focus on to be best prepared for college? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 19:08:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2108m229872 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2108k629859 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:08:47 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: GC in BAC X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:08:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC Thread-Index: AcLev7YDE0QWmn4yRGW3EjsoLMynawAhfeGA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2108l629860 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 11229 Fred, When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools that don't prove anything beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the matrix). As analysts, we need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i compound possible considering the nature of the sample. BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with something that gives the same retention times but could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other types of exams. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 19:40:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h210e1300935 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h210e1600929 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:02 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BAC by GC X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:01 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BAC by GC Thread-Index: AcLffYvNA0BYAux+RRucj5g11LawtQABrnpQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h210e1600930 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3113 Fred, First, "how many compounds are in blood" isn't the proper question. The proper question is "how many volatile compounds that pass through a polar GC column and are detectible by FID can be in ante mortem blood in similar quantities to that found for ethanol without being fatal or at least acutely toxic?" To find the answer, all you have to do is look at the levels we're talking about - tenths, or at minimum, hundredths of a per cent (parts per thousand or parts per ten thousand), extremely high levels in a living creature - and begin comparing those levels to the levels at which other volatiles naturally found in the blood exist; then compare them to the sustained systemic levels at which other organic solvents become fatal or acutely toxic. You'll quickly begin to realize that there are few other possibilities. As a chromatographer, you'll also conclude that modern chromatographic methods should have no difficulty resolving those few things. Try it, as an academic exercise. You ask to see a paper that proves all this is so. As you know, no research can "prove" there are no exceptions to a stated principle, but I've seen a wealth of studies over the course of my career that support the contention that there are no realistic exceptions to this one. If I have time over the next week or two during my lunch hours I'll dig some up for you. In the meantime, why not see if you can prove the opposite? See if you can find data indicating it is NOT so; try to find a single paper that presents an analytical interferent in ante mortem BAC determination that realistic conditions and modern analytical methods cannot account for. Try searching the issue in PubMed for a start - that will keep you busy for days. In the end you'll find there has been plenty of research and that all the things which "could" reasonably interfere are eliminated by modern techniques, proper procedures, and the normal passage of time between exposure and sampling. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 17:47 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BAC by GC List So now if I am understanding this, we have narrowed down the universe of compounds that might elute from that blood extract introduced into that GC from the whole universe of compounds to just those that might be in blood. And only ethanol in blood elutes at the same time as ethanol, nothing else? How many compounds are in blood? What are they? And who says so? And how do we know that any of those don't coelute with ethanol? Sort of like, when I was in college and we said something, we didn't get to declare it so, we had to prove it so. Or we had to see the paper from the scientific literature that established it. Can anyone give me the cite or even maybe possibly a copy of that paper. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Feb 28 19:41:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h210fBU01217 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h210fA601211 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:41:11 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BAC by GC X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:41:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: BAC by GC Thread-Index: AcLfiw3KzAKc1UsNEdeHQgABA+kqaA== From: "Robert Parsons" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h210fBV01217 Content-Length: 655 My apologies folks - somehow in my first response in this thread (which begins: "It's not an assumption"), I managed to accidentally send an earlier rough draft to the list a day ahead of my completed one. Please disregard the first one you received (dated 2/27) and read the second one (dated 2/28). The differences are minor, but I had not yet completed my thoughts in the rough draft. Sorry for any confusion. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef ---