From forens-owner Thu Jan 1 09:53:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i01Erww0007619 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:53:58 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <00cb01c3cfeb$a6a1ed80$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Subject: Re: Re:[forens] Education Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:56:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jan 2004 14:53:52.0244 (UTC) FILETIME=[1240FB40:01C3D077] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:15 PM Subject: RE: Re:[forens] Education > Shaun, I'm afraid you've strayed WAY off base here. You don't have to > understand physics at all (much less fluid dynamics or vector analysis) > to learn to fly an airplane, just as you don't have to know the physics > of road friction or how an internal combustion engine works in order to > learn how to drive a car and keep it on the road. Indeed, I've taken scores of fascinated folk up for their first 'flying' lesson, turned them loose at a few thousand feet AGL and they do make great pilots. I suppose where we differ is I always have this expectation that the number of landings I log will equal the number of takeoffs. My son and some of his friends think I am unreasonably harsh in this expectation, but they like bailing out with a parachute so I think there may be a valid scientific issue that underlies our difference of opinion. I suppose I should have not presumed that my words would be taken so literally. For the record, anybody that can walk or chew gum, though not necessarily at the same time, can almost certainly 'fly'. Landings will generally prove more difficult. Flight will also be more difficult if you plan on leaving the instructor on the ground when weather is less than ideal, the aircraft is more complex or other unforeseen situations develop, as sometimes proves to be the case. > I'm sure you learned something about drag and lift in relation to aerodynamics, but that's a > world away from what is needed to properly do spatter analysis or the > other kinds of bloodstain pattern analysis. I'm sure you must be right, but one of the things I've noticed over the years is the apparent higher fatality rate for MDs who decide to do their own flying. Even after I exclude recency of experience, it would seem that their years of premed or other scientific training don't translate into a lower accident rate. Care to share any theories as to why? > I roomed with a flight > major when I was in college, and while he was a bright guy and became an > expert pilot, let me assure you that I saw his text books, and the math > and "physics" he learned did not begin to compare with those I had to > learn as a biology major. The science majors didn't call the 2-year > pilot program students "prop heads" because they didn't like or respect > them, but rather because their course of study was a piece of cake > compared to real science studies. A pilot depends on the laws of > physics, but he doesn't "apply" them (much less have a masterful > knowledge of them) - the aeronautical scientists and engineers who > design the planes the pilot flies do that. Couple of observations, Bob. I've been to a few wrecks over the years. One of the things I noticed about many of them is that they had pilots would have agreed with you, presuming they all lived (some did not), that believed they didn't need to actually apply those laws of physics. A pretty good example was a single engine airplane, I think it was a Cherokee 140, that took off from a little airport east of Petersen AFB. The pilot had a couple hundred hours under his wings and had been taught how to do the basics, stuff like density altitude, takeoff and landing distance, weight and balance and center of gravity, in fact he passed a written exam that demonstrated he had at least a working knowledge in each of those areas. The weather was quite hot that day, I think in the nineties, he had a full load of gas and three passengers (all that the aircraft would hold) along with some baggage. As you suggest, he didn't bother calculating density altitude, takeoff and landing distances (these actually come from nomographs developed from test flights, not from wind tunnels, scientists or engineers with a slide rule). He also didn't bother to read the published Airport/Facility Directory (a requirement) before his departure. If he had, he would have read the notation that said: "Departures will be to the south unless prevailing winds are from the north at greater than 15 knots" Since the application of laws of physics wasn't very important for him, other than the one that says you should always take off into the wind, he lined up midfield and took off to the north. While in ground effect he managed to clear two sets of wires, a rather remarkable feat, before he finally stalled and thus, destroyed his aircraft (with a full load of gas) but thankfully did not kill any of his passengers or himself. Is it possible to fly for thousands of hours without an accident while ignoring little things like obstacles, rate of climb, takeoff and landing distance, engine performance, weight and balance, center of gravity limits? I suppose it is, I've certainly seen more than a few well educated pilots slop around the pattern in decent aircraft without killing themselves or others in the process. But I'm not going to kid you about it, that boils down to luck, not planning and certainly not skill. It isn't until you're inbound on the backcourse in a thunderstorm with windshear, a stuck RMI, your left seat reminding you what he had for lunch, with enough fuel to be legal but not so much you have to leave baggage or cargo on the ramp and you're trying to make the gate time that you find out who's a pilot and who isn't. > > Yes, I'm aware that some crime scene technicians with high school > educations learn how to interpret blood spatter, but they are basing > their judgments on generalizations learned through experience, not on an > understanding of the underlying science involved. Well if you read the post I sent out in re: the Simpson case and the Sam Sheppard case I don't think quite addresses the issues. It's clear to me that the question required a more difficult answer than my good friend Jeff could manage in a post to the list. When Gregg O. McCrary authored his opinion in the Sam Sheppard Case he had an undergraduate degree and a masters in psychology. He had training from the FBI in analyzing bloodstains and in crime scene reconstruction. When Ms. Montgomery testified in the Simpson case her testimony was that she had a week long course in crime scene reconstruction and makes no mention of her training in analyzing bloodstains. She had an undergraduate degree in environmental toxicology. My questions, Bob, are as follows: Is an undergraduate degree in something like psychology, or say history, an adequate foundation such that when coupled with 'short courses' as taught by the FBI that it is inadequate, as Jerry Chisum suggests? What about two years of graduate school coupled with a psychology or history degree, how does that stack up? Is two years of non-specific training enough? Is an undergraduate degree in the more complex field of environmental toxicology sufficient that it can suffice with a one week course in crime scene reconstruction, and if so, why? I have every confidence that Ms. Montgomery is probably judicious in limiting her opinion to her particular areas of expertise, but I question how four years of any kind of science redacts the amount of training by ANYBODY such that a week is more than adequate. It is really that simple. Frankly, I can't see why Jeff can't give a direct answer to the question unless he feels uncomfortable with where it might lead. Don't get me wrong here. I don't think trial and error is the way to go, in the cockpit or where forensic science is concerned. But that really isn't the issue now, is it? >It's like cops who > learn to operate a breathalyzer to determine breath alcohol level, and > how to use average figures and rule-of-thumb charts to give gross (and > inaccurate) estimates of "typical" alcohol consumption and > elimination. I think you're putting the cart ahead of the horse here, Bob. Probable cause isn't established by having somebody blow, it's established first by observation, then by administration of the NHTSA-SFTS. The accuracy of the battery of tests in combination is 81 percent. I can live with that even if it isn't 100 percent. It isn't the final word and it's only used to establish probable cause for an apprehension, not for a conviction. Every error I've seen was in favor of the defendant and I can sleep okay at night with that. Is it admissible at trial? Darn, you'd sure have me if you brought that up, it sure is. But it's admissibility isn't unqualified opinion, per se, it is qualified opinion based on the extensive NHTSA studies that validated the results. Take a look at the supposed standards of admissibility for 'scientific and expert' testimony as described in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Review Daubert, Kumho or Frye. Anytime you'd like to explain to me that the trained and qualified observations have less merit, when conducted by a police officer at the time of apprehension, have less merit than those used by the NHTSA, why I'll be delighted to hear about it. I'm not naive enough to suggest that some of the crap that's been used in the past as a field sobriety check wasn't just that, crap. But you can't really believe that what is passing for science in court these days is that much different, not if you look at the thorough vetting that the NHTSA went through for their battery of tests. >They don't know how to make those estimates accurate and > specific to an individual by applying all the factors of toxicological > significance, or how to construct and use the advanced equations > involved in doing that, much less understand the derivation of those > practices and equations, and the underlying science of it all. The court, not the police officer, is charged with deciding what is or is not qualified expert testimony and what is accurate and what is not. Even if you and I both agree that the court makes frequent errors in this regard (and we probably do agree), the reality is that they have adopted a position of expedience in favor of public safety even if it is not completely accurate to your's or my satisfaction. Does that about sum it up? >It takes a trained alcohol toxicologist to do that, and you don't become one in > few 40-hour courses. Great, so I can expect your unqualified support for a multi-billion dollar program to begin introducing toxicologists (to prove the results) and neurologists (to establish the requisite probable cause to actually stop the motorist, you know, all those awful 4th amendment issues?) and dispose of all these unqualified and unscientific gendarmes we have running around, willy-nilly? I mean, I don't see how anybody can possibly object. The american public is ignorant enough to remain silent while this current administration squanders billions on an airline safety program that can't even deter an undergrad student, much less dangerous and highly trained foreign subversives from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. How could they possibly oppose our initiative to improve the science relating to DUIs? Heck, I'll even bet John Ashcroft will endorse our program as heartily as he does using the Patriot Act to prosecute adult entertainment facilities in Las Vegas or methamphetamine manufacturers (aka, purveyors of "Weapons of Mass Destruction") in the Carolinas! Yeah, it's possible that the wave of hysteria that's swept over the country regarding terrorism may have ebbed, but maybe we can sell it as a way to avoid BSE or something and still get our funding? Personally I think we should start it in California. I say this because they clearly have a huge advantage in both training and funding if they can teach a course in a week that probably should take at least a year (presuming the math you and Jeff are using is any indication). >Likewise, the actual science involved in > understanding the construction of the equations used in bloodstain > pattern analysis, properly applying them in complex situations, and in > making alterations to those equations when necessary, involves some > advanced knowledge of physics, fluid dynamics, and math - you can't even > begin to learn that in a few short courses. Darn, I'm sure you must be right. Henry Ford was an ignoramus, according to the Chicago Tribune, but he managed to design an internal combustion engine and even sold a bunch of cars. The Wright Brothers couldn't explain the math of their first airplane, but their airplane flew, not only that, but they started building and selling them to the government (always on the cutting edge of science, unless of course it's Quantico). I suppose in the larger scheme of things they were all flukes, just like Thomas Edison. I don't recall that Edison ever made it through four years of college, but he sure looks like one hell of a scientist to me. I guess like Ford and the Wright Brothers, he just didn't understand that he wasn't supposed to succeed. Perhaps their collective failures were that they didn't have enough forensic scientists at the time to provide the proper scientific explanation as to why they never achieved success? >Yes, you can gain a basic > (and very simplistic) understanding of blood spatter analysis in a short > course, but to become a true expert in it takes years of training and > on-the-job experience as an apprentice to a true expert, including an > academic education in the science involved. The Wright Flyer, flew. The Model A, drove. The light bulb, illuminated. The Edison Machine, recorded. Bob, you're a pretty intelligent guy, but explain to me why a successful result is still a failure because they guy who came up with it can't explain all of the reasons why? I'm told that the difference between a law and a theory has much to do with exhausting all other reasonable explanations. I suppose by adopting that standard, all of them were abject failures even if they were commercially successful. Also adopting that standard, nothing short of a scientific law probably has any business in a courtroom, does it? > > One of the greatest problems in crime scene processing and other law > enforcement functions that touch on forensic science is this: > non-scientist police officers who think they know a lot more than they > do, and who therefore have an overblown confidence in the accuracy of > what they do and the reliability of their opinions about what they do - > all because they lack the forensic science education to know better. > The truly expert ones know the limits of their own knowledge, and when > they have reached those limits and need the services of a real forensic > scientist. Bob, when the facts of a case support a particular conclusion to the exclusion of all other plausible theories, and time and again a supposed scientist, relying on.....well....what was it I said earlier about laws and theories? I guess they can't possibly be scientific laws, otherwise how could somebody reach a different conclusion on the basis of the same facts with such alarming regularity? Bear in mind that we are talking about faith, you and I. You can't reasonably expect uneducated cops, without three years (per field by the standards you and Jeff are adopting) of specialized scientific training (not to mention their failure to at least get an undegraduate degree) to understand that it isn't really double talk that their hearing in court, no, it's only a difference of scientific opinion, based on theory, about some cosmic and incomprehensible issue of emerging science. And after all, if they were better trained and educated, they would understand all this. So instead, based on faith rather than training and education, they should after all, realize their limitations. Perhaps if more forensic scientists adopted an aggressive posture in exposing fraud in their ranks the attitudes might change a bit? That's probably a utopian view of how things ought to be, but when the folks with all this high dollar education can't even agree on how long is an appropriate length of training for something as obviously simple as crime scene reconstruction, why fault a 'dumb cop' for his unscientific view that he can't rely on them? Shaun > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 1 11:24:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i01GOvUH009336 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031231155623.024ec968@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Subject: Re: [forens] Education Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:27:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jan 2004 16:24:50.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7EA4C60:01C3D083] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D. Barnett" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Education snip... > > A scientist's work is judged by other scientists using techniques that > science has evolved to make those judgements. Replication, peer review, > hypothesis testing, "does it make sense", and a number of other tools and > techniques are available to scientists to judge the work of other > scientists. But Pete, this can't be right. With all these checks in place, how is the previously alleged conspiracy between those dangerous prosecuting attorneys and their wanton cohort forensic scientists possible where the playing field is quite obviously level for both sides? Is it possible that forensic scientist who expressed that opinion is mistaken? > The paper on the walls of their laboratory, or the initials > after their names, are pretty much irrelevant to the process of evaluation > of the scientist's work. I'm glad you mentioned that. I was getting ready to hit the send button to invest my life savings in a cold fusion company started by some graduate out at Cal-Tech. I guess I'll wait until somebody else validates his research. > > The issue of what constitutes adequate training is primarily a matter of > economics. We are willing to pay doctors a lot of money for their time, so > they can invest a lot of time in their education. Surely, 95% of what a > doctor does should not require 12 years of training and education (and in > many places of the world does not). ....and so we return to the original theme that has been lost, how does anybody justify the money? Maybe all forensic scientists come from wealthy families so it isn't a big deal to spent a couple hundred grand on an education? Perhaps there is some secret oath of poverty, and that's why Jeff wants to explain his answer on the telephone instead of here? That must be it, he's just trying to spare me further humiliation by explaining on the phone what is some tacit understanding among the cognoscenti? That was rather generous of him, wasn't it? He is much too kind. >In the three years to train a blood spatter expert, one could train a pretty good school teacher. As a > taxpayer, I think a school teacher is a lot better investment than a blood spatter expert. I think you're being far to conservative, Pete. Remember, Jeff insisted that the three years was on top of undergraduate work. Seems to me we're well past just being a school teacher and well on our way to a well renumerated position at a university. > How much is a blood spatter expert worth? Probably quite a bit, that's why Jeff would prefer to tell me on the phone rather than just post it to the list. He's just being modest. Either that or he's trying to corner the market, which isn't a very bad business decision either. > How many people have paid for their own training for three years, then been able to earn a > living doing what they have been trained to do? Not any, I suspect. Apparently Jeff has, why else would he be suggesting that everybody else should? Shaun [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 1 13:13:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i01IDqe6011557 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:13:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF462F8.4026DE98@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:42:08 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rparsons@ircc.edu CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] International copyright law Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Respected Dr. Parsons, Let me take this opportunity to wish you and the whole list a very happy and prosperous new year. May you get everything in life you have ever desired for. Many thanks for your kind inputs. They definitely make very interesting reading. Let us take it this way. I have always believed that knowledge should be shared among all professionals (to be sure, even among general public), with no holds barred. That way we would be doing a favour to the cause to science. And science would flourish. Perhaps that is why Madame Curie chose not to patent her major discovery Radium, which actually took her life ultimately. I am a very insignificant person - perhaps the most insignificant - in the whole list, but I have been living up to this cause with all my might. We are running a very modest journal of forensic medicine at http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html This journal has been in operation since five years now, and has some of the best quality papers in it. All papers are peer reviewed, and we have the best talent in the field among its editorial panel. One may visit the editorial panel at http://anil298.tripod.com/sundry/editors/editors_index.html The journal CD is now being subscribed to by several libraries around the world, not the least important of which is the National Library of Medicine at Bethesda, Maryland. Anyone can see this journal being listed at their official site at www.locatorplus.gov. Yet I have made the contents of this journal availalble to all free of cost. There have been suggestions to keep a small cost to this journal, at least to cover the cost of the web, but I have resisted all such suggestions. I spend from my own pocket and make the contents available free of cost to everyone. But that is perhaps why I never became rich. But still I am perhaps among the happiest persons in the world, Kind regards, Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 1 19:30:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i020UV59017562 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:30:31 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <28.421a1359.2d26159b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:30:19 EST Subject: [forens] Who is Rich? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dr. Aggrawal: You say that you are not rich. I disagree. The many folks whom you have never met but with whom you have corresponded on this list have benefited from your ideas, your dedication and your work. You are rich indeed. Thank you for all you do. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 1 22:39:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i023dd1F020794 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:39:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:42:48 +1100 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3FF4E8B8.7D9DF2D3@vifm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lynn Coceani, I have to say I am somewhat confused about the courses you are doing . Could you please clarify what degrees you will obtain and from what universities in Australia? Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 1 23:55:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i024tvNk022132 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:55:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:55:53 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031231155623.024ec968@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter; I was called by a colleague last year regarding the work of a particular forensic analyst. The discussion focused on how to evaluate qualifications. It boiled down to this: education is a good foundation for determining that the basics have been covered so long as it is relevant, but at the end of the day you known a professional by the quality of their work. In other words, they don't hide behind their education, training, experience, or agency when giving findings. Consider these issues: 1. Did they write a report? 2. Are the conclusions in the report supported by the facts or do they simply dangle out there on their own? 3. Were the facts established by the evidence, selectively included (excluding contradictory facts), or assumed altogether (where did they get their info)? 4. Do their conclusions contradict or fail to account for the known facts? 5. Do their conclusions exceed the limits of what can be known or established? 5. How hard did they work to falsify their conclusions? If these few thresholds are passed, you are probably dealing with someone who knows what they are doing; if not, then they are probably masking their incompetence with a shield of experience or the like. John Thornton has put it best in his work regarding the evaluation of forensic credentials and opinions - Thornton, John I., "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," for David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, & Joseph Sanders, Editors, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2, (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1997): "? 20-5.5 Substitution of Intuition or Experience for Defensible Scientific Fact Virtually everyone agrees that an expert's bare opinion, unsupported by factual evidence, should be inadmissible in a court of law. And yet, precisely that sort of testimony is allowed every day in courts throughout the country by judges who believe that every statement uttered by a person with a scientific degree or employed by an agent, called "scientific" is therefore a scientific opinion.4 Courts permit expert testimony from those with specialized knowledge. But how is a court to gauge such knowledge? The answer generally lies in the education and experience of the prospective witness.5 A convenient means is to look for a measure of scientific education, and a university degree in a scientific discipline will ordinarily meet that test. With an educational requirement satisfied, a court will then look at experience. But experience is very difficult to evaluate. The more experience the better, but rarely is there any effort exerted to distinguish between 10 years of experience and 1 month of experience repeated 120 times, or 1 month of experience spread out over 10 years.6 Furthermore, some experts exploit situations where intuition or mere suspicions can be voiced under the guise of experience. When an expert testifies to an opinion, and bases that opinion on "years of experience," the practical result is that the witness is immunized against effective cross-examination. When the witness testifies that "I have never seen another similar instance in my 26 years of experience ...," no real scrutiny of the opinion is possible. No practical means exists for the questioner to delve into the extent and quality of that experience. Many witnesses have learned to invoke experience as a means of circumventing the responsibility of supporting an opinion with hard facts. For the witness, it eases cross-examination. But it also removes the scientific basis for the opinion. Testimony of this sort distances the witness from science and the scientific method. And if the science is removed from the witness, then that witness has no legitimate role to play in the courtroom, and no business being there. If there is no science, there can be no forensic science. EXPERIENCE IS NEITHER A LIABILITY NOR AN ENEMY OF THE TRUTH; IT IS A VALUABLE COMMODITY, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A MASK TO DEFLECT LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY, THE SORT OF SCRUTINY THAT CUSTOMARILY IS LEVELED AT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ALL SORTS. TO DO SO IS PROFESSIONALLY BANKRUPT AND DEVOID OF SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY, AND COURTS WOULD DO WELL TO DISALLOW TESTIMONY OF THIS SORT. EXPERIENCE OUGHT TO BE USED TO ENABLE THE EXPERT TO REMEMBER THE WHEN AND THE HOW, WHY, WHO, AND WHAT. EXPERIENCE SHOULD NOT MAKE THE EXPERT LESS RESPONSIBLE, BUT RATHER MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR JUSTIFYING AN OPINION WITH DEFENSIBLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS [EMPHASIS ADDED]. fn4. Courts frequently disallow testimony by an expert concerning some experiment specifically conducted to answer an issue raised in a particular case because the experiment did not faithfully duplicate all of the conditions of the incident in question, e.g., the temperature or humidity isn't known, or the origin of the test materials may not be identical in all respects to the original evidence. The same court may, however, allow another expert to testify to some vague generalizations based on experience, with none of the conditions specified or even enunciated. fn5. One of the many myths that is promulgated by the legal system is that voir dire and cross-examination, together with judicial discretion, will cull out the scientifically lame and halt. Certainly that does occur. More often, however, the court will not know whether the expert witness received superior grades in relevant courses at a flagship university, or had a "C" average on a football scholarship at some institution that no one in the courtroom has ever heard of. How often is a curriculum vitae checked in the course of a trial? How often is a perjury charge leveled at expert witnesses who puff up their credentials? fn6. A knowledgeable, well-prepared attorney could probably smoke out this point, although whether he would win points with a jury is debatable. The fact that forensic scientists get away with this unjustified reliance on experience as often as they do may be a sad reflection on just how few knowledgeable, well-prepared attorneys there are." Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:36 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education It seems to me that all of this debate about what constitutes adequate training is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or - perhaps more relevantly - arguing about how much marijuana is sufficient to support a charge of having marijuana for sale. The work of a scientist is not judged by the nature of his or her training and education, the accreditation status of the laboratory where the scientist works, or the type of professional certification the scientist has, or even whether or not the scientist followed some established protocol is doing the work. If that was the case, we'd still be living on a flat earth that the rest of the universe revolves around, and believe we were created in one day by some supreme being. A scientist's work is judged by other scientists using techniques that science has evolved to make those judgements. Replication, peer review, hypothesis testing, "does it make sense", and a number of other tools and techniques are available to scientists to judge the work of other scientists. The paper on the walls of their laboratory, or the initials after their names, are pretty much irrelevant to the process of evaluation of the scientist's work. The issue of what constitutes adequate training is primarily a matter of economics. We are willing to pay doctors a lot of money for their time, so they can invest a lot of time in their education. Surely, 95% of what a doctor does should not require 12 years of training and education (and in many places of the world does not). In the three years to train a blood spatter expert, one could train a pretty good school teacher. As a taxpayer, I think a school teacher is a lot better investment than a blood spatter expert. How much is a blood spatter expert worth? How many people have paid for their own training for three years, then been able to earn a living doing what they have been trained to do? Not any, I suspect. Let's be realistic. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 2 00:05:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0255vER022820 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:05:57 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:05:03 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <3FF4E8B8.7D9DF2D3@vifm.org> Thread-Index: AcPQ4hKdFSoRm9k5QxWc1JoKfAlHFAAC0HDA Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu YOU think it's confusing? How do you think we cope! Sorry! I am doing and completing my Bachelors degree in Criminology/Criminal Justice Administration and Forensics from RMIT (Royal Melbourne Insitute of Technology University) in Melbourne. I have three subjects to go in criminal justice which I will complete this year and graduate in December. If you are still confused, let me know and I'll try to make it clearer for you. I started out studying criminology and criminal justice but decided I'd rather do forensics. Then they added forensics to the degree course, combining all three fields. Regards, Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bentley Atchison Sent: Friday, 2 January 2004 2:43 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Education Lynn Coceani, I have to say I am somewhat confused about the courses you are doing . Could you please clarify what degrees you will obtain and from what universities in Australia? Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 2 20:01:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0311SUk009088 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:01:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Cc: Subject: [forens] RE: International copyright law Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:04:55 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <016001c3d195$99a426b0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <3FF462F8.4026DE98@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2004 01:01:22.0693 (UTC) FILETIME=[1AD3DB50:01C3D195] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dr. Agrawal, It's just "Mr.", not "Dr.," and in any event, I prefer to be addressed as "Bob" on discussion lists. I was never much for titles, and prefer more informal interaction with peers and non-peers alike. Let me say that I have the utmost respect for you and your motives, and hope you did not think otherwise. I meant no offense. I have visited your site and perused your journal. Both are very worthy efforts in my opinion, and I regret that time constraints did not allow me to accept your invitation some time ago to serve as an editorial reviewer. You have done, and are continuing to do, a great service to the forensic science community. I thank you and congratulate you for your efforts. There is in fact a movement within the scientific community as a whole to do exactly what you advocate (i.e., make journal content freely available with no copyright restrictions), and I both support and applaud that effort. There are a small but growing number of journals that are freely available on the Internet, just as yours is. Unfortunately, most publishers do not yet support this movement, and journals are after all the legal property of their publishers, so they have the right to make the rules about how they are used under copyright. Unlike you, most publishers engage in publishing as a business run for the purposes of making a profit. Most apparently feel that if their journal content were made freely available, the number of people willing to buy paid subscriptions to their journals would be inadequate to support continued publication. If they can be convinced that they can relinquish their lawful copyright restrictions and still turn a reasonable profit, we will be well on our way to establishing a utopia of scientific exchange. Until then, we must abide by the law and respect their copyrights. While inconvenient, this is not as onerous as it seems. Copyright royalties are a bit expensive, it is true (in the USA, $25-30 per paper, or several dollars per page), but most papers can be legally obtained for free by requesting a copy directly from the corresponding author. I make such requests regularly, and have about a 90% rate of return. Most authors are only too happy to share their work with you and feel complimented by your interest in it. Contact information for the corresponding authors is provided by most abstract services, many of which are accessible on-line. For example, my lab subscribes to "CA Selects - Forensic Chemistry" from the Chemical Abstracts Service, which provides summaries and contact information for just about every published article of interest to a forensic scientist. We feel the subscription cost is well worth the money, and it is less than the cost of subscription to a single one of the pricier journals. Alternatively, if you're looking for a paper on a specific subject, free search engines are available (e.g., PubMed, provided by the US National Institutes of Medicine) which can provide the same information, and which often have direct links to reprint purchase sources if you need the paper immediately and can't wait for a response from the author. I hope this helps. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Professor Anil Aggrawal [mailto:dr_anil@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 1:12 PM To: rparsons@ircc.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: International copyright law Respected Dr. Parsons, Let me take this opportunity to wish you and the whole list a very happy and prosperous new year. May you get everything in life you have ever desired for. Many thanks for your kind inputs. They definitely make very interesting reading. Let us take it this way. I have always believed that knowledge should be shared among all professionals (to be sure, even among general public), with no holds barred. That way we would be doing a favour to the cause to science. And science would flourish. Perhaps that is why Madame Curie chose not to patent her major discovery Radium, which actually took her life ultimately. I am a very insignificant person - perhaps the most insignificant - in the whole list, but I have been living up to this cause with all my might. We are running a very modest journal of forensic medicine at http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html This journal has been in operation since five years now, and has some of the best quality papers in it. All papers are peer reviewed, and we have the best talent in the field among its editorial panel. One may visit the editorial panel at http://anil298.tripod.com/sundry/editors/editors_index.html The journal CD is now being subscribed to by several libraries around the world, not the least important of which is the National Library of Medicine at Bethesda, Maryland. Anyone can see this journal being listed at their official site at www.locatorplus.gov. Yet I have made the contents of this journal availalble to all free of cost. There have been suggestions to keep a small cost to this journal, at least to cover the cost of the web, but I have resisted all such suggestions. I spend from my own pocket and make the contents available free of cost to everyone. But that is perhaps why I never became rich. But still I am perhaps among the happiest persons in the world, Kind regards, Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 2 20:06:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0316re8009525 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:06:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] RE: international copyright law Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:10:22 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <016101c3d196$5c786700$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <8a.7fe721.2d24d319@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2004 01:06:49.0536 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDA42400:01C3D195] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Generally, "fair use" includes only IN-HOUSE use, not copies sent outside your own institution. In other words, you can make a copy for your co-worker in the next room, or a copy for yourself, so that you can have the paper handy without having to retrieve the journal itself from your library; but you can't make a copy for a colleague in another lab somewhere else - that violates copyright restrictions and goes beyond "fair use" because it prevents the copyright holder from collecting a royalty from the other person (or his lab) for a reprint. Copyright holders are entitled to collect that royalty, and as shown in my examples, they reserve the right to do so in the copyright notices published in all journals. I think everyone recognizes that it is not "fair use" to make a copy of a chapter or two from the latest best selling novel to give to a friend, but somehow people don't understand that making a copy of a journal paper is just as much a violation of copyright as copying a novel would be. Publishers make their living selling copies of their journals. If people routinely make copies of journal articles to "share" with others, those others don't have to buy their own copy of the journal and this obviously reduces the number of copies the publisher will be able to sell, at least in theory. The general principle, in a nutshell, is this: If you've already PAID for a licensed copy of a copyrighted work, you can make limited copies of it FOR YOUR OWN INTERNAL USE (which includes co-workers, students you teach, etc.) because you have already bought a copy; but you can NOT make a copy for someone in another country, state, or institution because that person is supposed to pay for their own licensed copy and has done so. If you give them an unlicensed copy, they don't have to buy it themselves, and that cheats the copyright holder of revenue they are entitled to receive for use of their work. It's exactly the same as making a copy of a music CD or a movie DVD or VHS tape - it you've already bought one, you can make a copy of it for your own use (in your car, boat, vacation home, etc.), but you can't legally make a copy to give to your neighbor because that preempts the copyright owner from making a sale to your neighbor. Your neighbor is expected to buy their own copy, just as you did. In some cases even if your copy is for internal use under the "fair use" doctrine, you're still supposed to pay a royalty fee to the Copyright Clearance Center in the US (or an equivalent institution in other countries). Again, there are exceptions. Some journals may very well allow a limited amount a copying for sharing with other institutions; but most do not, and all of those that do (that I have seen, at least) require the copier to pay a royalty fee for the copy. Many libraries have the regulations for photocopying under the "fair use" doctrine posted next to copying machines. Your local librarians can provide further guidance as to what constitutes "fair use" and what goes beyond it. When in doubt, ask them. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Gismort@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:34 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: international copyright law Wouldn't the "fair use doctrine" apply in this situation? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gismort@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 2 20:07:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0317IQM009683 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:07:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Who is Rich? Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:10:48 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <016201c3d196$6c41d860$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <28.421a1359.2d26159b@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2004 01:07:16.0036 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED6FB840:01C3D195] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well said, Carla. "I second that emotion." Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 7:30 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Who is Rich? Dr. Aggrawal: You say that you are not rich. I disagree. The many folks whom you have never met but with whom you have corresponded on this list have benefited from your ideas, your dedication and your work. You are rich indeed. Thank you for all you do. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 3 06:20:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i03BKA5c016808 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:20:10 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031231155623.024ec968@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Subject: Re: [forens] Education Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:18:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2004 02:16:39.0008 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EC2D600:01C3D19F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jeff: I appreciate your kind offer to discuss things on the phone, but it would appear that I'm not the only person who is curious about the reasons for your strong opinions. Besides, your answers here may develop that groundswell of support you'll need to convince others to adopt three year training standards about which you feel so strongly. For your benefit, this is what Pete Barnett wrote earlier: " It has always been the case that the SWGs have prescribed unrealistic training and practice requirements that can not generally be met, causing laboratories to not do examinations that they had done in the past. That activity continues." Your earlier post made mention of your participation in SWGSTAIN, IAI Bloodstain Sub-committee Co-chair, IAI Bloodstain Pattern Certification Board Member in addition to your membership in IABPA and your status as an FBI instructor. In addition to this you have also described yourself as a qualified latent prints examiner. With the exception of IABPA membership and latent prints qualification, the balance are what I would view as leadership roles in which a significant amount of experience and training should be the baseline. Your participation in a certification board as well as the influence in a working group that is intended to standardize training requirements in a science are of particular note and thus, I have a few questions that might allay some of Pete's objections and some of the lingering doubts that I'm left with. What better forum than this, given the incredible interest that you have already generated? I agree with you, 40 hours may not be enough training. Perhaps the three years of supervised experience/training ought to be the standard. Bob Parsons suggests that even with that, the foundation must be an undergraduate degree in a real science due to the complex mathematics and physics involved with blood which far outstrip the capabilities of other less scientific backgrounds, you concurred with him in that regard. Since it all begins with the first four years, what science did you get your undergraduate degree in? I'm told you went to graduate school as well, a remarkable feat given the amount of time it must have taken you to complete the requisite training for both latent prints and bloodstain analysis that you suggest others adopt. What area of science did you get your master's degree in? Presuming that Pete is wrong, that the training standards you propose are no different than what you have completed yourself, I would think that you must certainly have worked at a laboratory at some time or another in order to complete the requisite three years. It would follow that whoever supervised your training would also be qualified in an identical manner or at least have the same amount of supervised training prior to teaching others (as a minimum). At what lab did you complete your three year training for bloodstain analysis and/or latent print examination, or was there more than one? Was your supervisor certified as a bloodstain analyst, as a latent print examiner, or both? If so, did they have at least three years of training and/or experience prior to training you? Were you paid a wage during the three years, a portion of the three years or not at all? Were you attending school at the same time you were working in this supervised capacity? Finally, once somebody completes a four year degree in a real science, coupled with the three years of paid/unpaid supervised internship or whatever it is they pay unqualified assistants until their eventual certification, I would presume it would follow that publishing some sort of professional papers, along with the lessons learned, for the advancement of science and the edification of your peers would be the last step. I'm confident that you've published papers in a peer reviewed journal somewhere. Some of the folks who read them have probably checked their own results to see if you were on to something that might help them too, particularly in light of the lax training requirements you've identified. You've probably even qualified as an expert in court in both bloodstain analysis and in latent prints. What is unusual is that despite the number of NIPCL cases that do appear in appellate decisions, your name does not appear in even a single one in either bloodstain analysis or as a latent print examiner. The earliest of these dated back as far as the early nineties, and the most recent was only a few months ago. A search of courts in the 7th US Circuit also reveals a dearth of citations that bear your name, in fact I couldn't find one. Because I make every effort to exercise reasonable diligence, I had a paralegal dig through both public and subscription services throughout Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Michigan, both in state and federal court and she rendered an identical result to mine. It would be of tremendous help if you could narrow to at least a year or and perhaps a jurisdiction where it is you have testified in perhaps a handful of cases so I can take a look at what has influenced your opinion about the sad state of affairs in bloodstain analysis. I am confident that you have probably encountered all kinds of fabrication and quackery, as I have seen myself, and thus the possibility exists that we differ only by degrees. Thanks in advance, as I'm sure all will benefit from your observations and answers. Shaun [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 4 10:02:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i04F2xeF005280 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 10:02:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF82AF8.7B100BD3@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:32:16 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: [forens] Anthrax as a biological weapon Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 4 January 2004 Dear List, Lately I have been reading about the bioterrorist attack with anthrax spores after September 11. 1. Can someone please let me know the date when the first case of anthrax was reported after September 11 attacks? The date of the last attack? These two dates are not clear to me from any account. What are the official CDC statistics. Thanks. 2. How many people were affected (officially), and how many perished? Can someone let me know please? Thanks. What are the official figures according to CDC data? Many thanks for your time. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 4 21:00:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0520OoM017332 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:00:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:00:12 -0500 From: KLevenson@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Re: Anthrax data from CDC MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6B2E6F4C.4A9B1546.02389161@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 66.234.198.181 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0520Nkg017327 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Dr. Anil:Here is the information from the CDC re the 2001 anthrax contamination.Best regards, Kathryn LevensonScience InstructorMaybeck High SchoolBerkeley CA USAklevenson@aol.com Update: Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax and Adverse Events from Antimicrobial ProphylaxisCDC and state and local public health authorities continue to investigate cases of bioterrorism-related anthrax. As of November 7, a total of 22 cases of anthrax have been identified according to the CDC surveillance case definition; 10 were confirmed inhalational anthrax cases and 12 cases (seven confirmed and five suspected) were cutaneous anthrax (Table 1). The majority of cases have occurred in persons working at postal facilities in New Jersey (NJ) and the District of Columbia (DC) in which letters contaminated with anthrax were handled or processed using high-speed sorting machines, or at media companies in New York City (NYC) or Florida (FL) where letters, either confirmed or presumed to be contaminated with anthrax, were opened or handled. The probable exposures for a case of cutaneous anthrax in NJ and a case of inhalational anthrax in NYC remain unknown. Epidemiologic investigations of these cases and surveillance to detect new cases of bioterrorism-associated anthrax continue. This report updates the investigation of these cases and describes adverse events associated with antimicrobial prophylaxis. Since the last report (1), one additional case of confirmed cutaneous anthrax has been identified in a 38-year-old man who worked at a media company in NYC. This is the third case of cutaneous anthrax reported among employees at the media company and is probably associated with a contaminated letter postmarked September 18 that was handled during October 12--15. On October 23, the patient noted a small nonerythematous, nonpruritic, and painless lesion on his forehead. On October 28, a physician evaluated the patient and described a lesion 1.4 cm in diameter, the center of which was depressed and dark gray; the same day, he was started on ciprofloxacin. A biopsy was positive for Bacillus anthracis by culture and immunohistochemical staining. No other new cases have been identified from investigations in FL, DC, NJ, NYC, or other areas. Recommendations for antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent inhalational anthrax have been directed by epidemiologic and laboratory findings. Approximately 300 postal and other facilities have been tested for B. anthracis spores and approximately 32,000 persons have initiated antimicrobial prophylaxis following potential exposure to B. anthracis at workplaces in FL, DC, NJ, and NYC. Clean-up at contaminated sites and surveillance for new anthrax cases are ongoing. Adverse Events from Antimicrobial Prophylaxis During October 8--10, a total of 1,132 persons from company A in Boca Raton, Florida, received initial antimicrobial prophylaxis for presumed exposure to B. anthracis; 970 (86%) persons received ciprofloxacin. After 14 days of prophylaxis, of 1,000 persons for whom information was available, 797 (80%) were still taking antibiotics. A questionnaire was administered on approximately day 7 or day 14 of prophylaxis to assess adverse events in 490 (62%) persons who reported taking antibiotics. Of 490 persons, 95 (19%) reported one or more of the following symptoms: itching; breathing problems; swelling of face, neck, or throat; or seeking medical attention for any adverse events related to taking the antibiotic. Clinic record review and telephone interviews of the 95 indicated that six persons reported seeking medical attention and did not continue taking their original medication, possibly because of adverse events. A detailed questionnaire was administered to these six persons to determine the temporal association between initiation of antimicrobial prophylaxis and symptom onset, medical care received, and underlying illnesses. Two persons had been seen by a physician as outpatients, two had been seen in emergency departments, and two had been hospitalized. None of the persons had documented objective findings or clinical history attributable to adverse events, including anaphylaxis (2). Similar screening for adherence to and adverse events associated with antimicrobial prophylaxis has been initiated in DC, NJ, and NYC. Public Health Response CDC and local health departments continue to respond to public concern and bioterrorism threats. During October 8--31, CDC's Emergency Operations Center received 8,860 telephone inquiries from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and 22 foreign countries. Of these, 590 (6.7%) calls were thought to represent a potential threat as defined by a report of exposure to a substance possibly associated with bioterrorism or symptoms consistent with an illness associated with bioterrorism. The 590 calls regarding potential threats were from physicians or other health-care workers (40%); local or state health departments (14%); private citizens (14%); and police, fire, or emergency response departments (7%). In response to the calls, CDC has provided information; referred to appropriate local, state, or federal agencies; assisted with clinical diagnosis or management; or initiated additional epidemiologic investigations of illnesses compatible with bioterrorism. State and local public health agencies also are addressing public concerns and investigating potential bioterrorist threats. CDC has established a secured web-based system for states to report weekly summaries of their bioterrorism-related activities. For the week of October 21--27, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming reported 2,817 bioterrorism-related calls (mean per state: 313; range: 23--800) and approximately 25 investigations of bioterrorism threats in each state. From eight to 30 full-time personnel are engaged in these responses in each state. For the same period, public health laboratories in 46 states participating in the Laboratory Response Network reported receiving approximately 7,500 specimens and isolates for B. anthracis testing. These specimens were primarily from environmental samples and nasal swabs. Reported by: J Malecki, MD, Palm Beach County Health Dept, Palm Beach; S Wiersma, MD, State Epidemiologist, Florida Dept of Health. R Labinson, MD, L Kamal, MD, St. Clare's Hospital and Health Center, New York, New York; New York City Dept of Health. E Bresnitz, MD, State Epidemiologist, G DiFerdinando, MD, New Jersey Dept of Health and Senior Svcs. P Lurie, MD, K Nalluswami, MD, Pennsylvania Dept of Health. L Hathcock, PhD, State Epidemiologist, Delaware Div of Public Health. L Siegel, MD, S Adams, I Walks, MD, J Davies-Coles, PhD, M Richardson, MD, District of Columbia Dept of Health. R Brechner, State Epidemiologist, Maryland Dept of Health and Hygiene. R Stroube, MD, State Epidemiologist, Virginia Dept of Health. US Dept of Defense. EIS officers, CDC. Editorial Note:Since the last report, one new case of confirmed cutaneous anthrax has been identified in a media company employee resulting from exposure to a previously known contaminated letter. The probable source of exposure for two cases reported last week (one cutaneous and one inhalational) has yet to be determined. Although these two cases ultimately might be attributed to letter handling, the lack of a discernable link to previous cases or workplaces raises the possibility of new routes of exposure or new target populations. Since October 8, approximately 32,000 persons with potential exposure to B. anthracis in FL, NJ, NYC, and DC have initiated antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent anthrax infection, and for approximately 5,000 persons, a 60-day course of antibiotics has been recommended. The Code of Federal Regulations* defines a serious adverse event associated with using a biologic product in humans as any of the following: death, life-threatening adverse event, inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of an existing hospitalization, persistent or substantial disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or an important medical event that requires medical or surgical intervention to avert one of these outcomes. Although two persons were hospitalized in FL, their illnesses were not associated with antimicrobial prophylaxis. Efforts to contact persons who have not yet received followup are ongoing. Adverse events associated with ciprofloxacin and doxycycline have been well-described among patients taking these medications for short-term treatment of bacterial infections. Anaphylactoid reactions caused by drug reaction have been reported rarely (3). However, few data exist regarding the use of these antimicrobials for longer periods. Because many persons are receiving antimicrobial prophylaxis, enhanced surveillance programs are essential to detect and monitor adverse events associated with these medications. Moreover, these programs will monitor adherence to the full 60-day regimen, enabling the design of better programs to promote completion of recommended prophylactic regimens. CDC and state and local public health agencies are continuing epidemiologic and laboratory investigations of bioterrorism-related anthrax. Even without confirmed cases of anthrax, state and local health departments have responded to public concerns and have applied substantial personnel and laboratory resources to address anthrax issues in recent weeks. Recent cases of anthrax are attributed to intentional infection of persons and represent criminal acts that are being investigated by federal law enforcement agencies. Because new cases of anthrax may occur, public health authorities and clinicians should remain vigilant. ReferencesCDC. Update: investigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax and interim guidelines for clinical evaluation of persons with possible anthrax. MMWR 2001;50:941--8. Neugut AI, Ghatak AT, Miller RL. Anaphylaxis in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:15--21. Davis H, McGoodwin E, Reed TG. Anaphylactoid reactions reported after treatment with ciprofloxacin. Ann Int Med 1989;111:1041--3. * 21 CFR 600.80. [EndPost by KLevenson@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 5 11:16:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i05GGuoI004963 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:16:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040105081109.02044020@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:14:47 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: [forens] Sorry, sorry, sorry Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Friends, I'm so sorry for my earlier post from MoveOn.org. I was sending it to the person who is in my address book just below the entry for this Group. I apologize, for the inconvenience, the use of bandwidth, and if anyone was offended. It was fully unintentional and just underscores the need for regular proficiency tests in all areas of life. Again, sorry. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Kim Kruglick ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 5 13:15:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i05IFXwb009104 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:15:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20040105131531.00e979a0@postoffice.uri.edu> X-Sender: dhi0251u@postoffice.uri.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:15:31 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Dennis Hilliard Subject: [forens] Dr. Carl Selavka Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Good Day Everyone, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I thought the many friends and acquaintances of Carl Selevka should know as soon as possible, and this is the fastest means of getting news out to a lot of people at once. Carl was involved in a motor vehicle collision last Friday morning, January 2nd, on his way to work. His car apparently slid through a red light intersection and was t-boned by a pick-up truck on the driver's side. Carl was transported by ambulance to the Worcester Medical Center at St. Vincent's Hospital: Saint Vincent Hospital Address: 20 Worcester Center Blvd, Worcester, MA 01608 Phone: (508) 363-5000 http://www.stvincenthospital.com/CWSContent/stvincenthospital/contactus.aspx I am told that on the way, he coded, but was revived and once at the Hospital was placed on life support. Over the weekend he had recovered sufficiently to remove the life support equipment. They have run and continue to run many tests on him. I am told that there are no broken bones and no apparent trauma to his skull, neck or spinal cord. He is in a semi-comatose condition with limited response to verbal commands. I know many of you on this list know Carl personally or professionally and of his work in the forensic community. I hope you will keep Carl in your thoughts and prayers as his recovery continues. I am also told that a website is being put up by his brother to allow his friends to get updates. The address is: www.drselavka.com It is being constructed now and should be in place later today or tomorrow at the lastest. His close friends and family can call the hospital or the Massachusetts State Lab for more information. I wish Carl a speedy and full recovery and the rest of you a Happy, Healthy and Safe New Year. Respectfully your, Dennis C. Hilliard RI State Crime Laboratory [EndPost by Dennis Hilliard ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 18:44:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i06Nislh015879 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:44:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:48:22 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00a601c3d4af$91a74650$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031228162558.0247e8e8@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2004 23:44:47.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[113DBD50:01C3D4AF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete, I understand what you're saying, but I think you go a little too far. There is not a legitimate crime lab in the nation that would allow a new graduate with no experience to just begin casework without first completing a training program. Even the shortest training programs for the most qualified candidates last a half year or more. An academic degree doesn't prepare anyone to immediately do a job - it only prepares them with the foundational knowledge needed to learn a job, and that's true in ANY career field, but especially in a scientific or technical one. Even when an experienced person is hired, they still need to complete an abbreviated training program to learn the new employer's specific equipment, processes, and procedures, followed by a competency assessment, before they are allowed to begin casework. This is as it should be. Would you go to a doctor or dentist who had not completed a residency or internship (their own form of on-the-job training program)? Of course you wouldn't, because until they complete their "real-world" training they are not qualified to treat patients on their own. They can't even be licensed for independent practice until they complete that training. The medical or dental degree isn't enough by itself. The same is true in forensic science. While I don't agree with every portion of every standard produced thus far, I support the idea of SWGS (along with other standard-producing bodies, like ASTM) as part of standardization, the third leg of the "quality triangle," just as I support the ideas of lab accreditation and individual certification (the other two legs). I believe that peer-produced standards need to be established for training in, and application of, every forensic science discipline, just as there are in medicine, environmental science, or any other technical profession. Without standards, there is no uniform means to measure the capabilities of the people we train and employ, and each organization is free to do what they please (whether what they please is good enough to rely on or not). Life is full of standards we must meet, set by those who came before us and were qualified to set them - academic standards, legal standards, occupational standards, etc. SWGS are no different - they fulfill a functional need to establish a minimum level of acceptable performance, and hopefully to improve that level over time. I will continue to debate the contents of these standards with my peers as they are developed and revised, but I have no reservations about the necessity for their establishment or for the existence of the groups that produce them. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 7:58 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education >This is what prompted my idea for the >creation of SWGSTAIN which is the scientific working group on bloodstain >pattern analysis. SWGSTAIN? All this business needs is another SWG. Before long this Balkanization of forensic science will mean that it will be impossible for any organization to have a staff can that meet every SWG's requirements for proficiency testing, training, etc., etc. Are we going to have SWGSWIPE, SWGTRANSFER, SWGWIPE, and do we have to repeat all of these for every type of thing that might be stains, swipes, wipes, or transfers. If we expect to have forensic science make any kind of a significant impact on the criminal justice system we need to be realistic. Driving to work, or a crime scene, is probably the most demanding task that most forensic scientists have to do - and there is virtually no training requirement and, at best, a rudimentary proficiency testing requirement. Who would go to college, get a job in a forensic laboratory, then be told they have to go through a three year period of training before they can do even one type of case work? That's not a job - it's a sentence. If these kinds of training requirements become widely accepted we should give the jobs to inmates - at least we can be sure that after the training program they will stick around for a while. It seems to me the answer to this dilemma (of the need for training) is to support education. That is different than training, although the recent trend to turn the profession of education into the business of training has largely eradicated the distinction between education and training. But forensic science is a perfect example of why education is important - it gives people the background and tools necessary to understand the questions, devise the means for answering the questions, and implementing the process which leads to the answer (that's also called an "experiment"). Education should allow forensic scientists to understand that the examination of a bloodstain, a fingerprint, or a fired bullet involves essentially similar concepts which, once understood, can be applied after some instruction in the use of the magnifying glass, comparison microscopic, protractor, or CE analyzer. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 18:49:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i06NnnFP016316 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:49:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:53:21 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00a801c3d4b0$43fe0780$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2004 23:49:46.0216 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3947E80:01C3D4AF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'm impressed Lynn - tackling two baccalaureate degree courses at two different universities simultaneously is quite a challenge (even if one of the two is "only" criminology/CJA). That's a big slice of pie to chew on all at once. I wish you luck with it. I'm unclear about the content of your "forensics" program, though. By "forensics" do you mean forensic science or crime scene technology/investigation? I had assumed forensic science, because of the amount of science coursework you indicated you had taken, but I question how any single degree program can adequately cover both forensic science and criminal justice, except as a double major with consequentially increased amounts of coursework. In any case, if you find the program somewhat lacking, then I congratulate you for seeking to supplement it with additional coursework at that university and elsewhere. My advice again is to concentrate on science studies as well as the scene-specific courses (like bloodstain pattern analysis), because that strategy will help you become a better scene technician. Also, you should plan to work on developing self control in court if that is a potential problem for you. As a scene technician you'll be in court a LOT, testifying about your work. You'll be attacked and provoked by opposing counsel in every way imaginable. They'll try to question your competence, your memory, your integrity, your impartiality - you name it - and to maintain your credibility it will be absolutely essential that you take it all in stride, keeping your cool and answering every question calmly and professionally. You can't let even the most abusive cross examination tactics get under your skin or your effectiveness as a witness will be compromised severely. In this regard, a class or two on courtroom demeanor and expert testimony, to include practice in mock trials, is a good thing to include in your ongoing studies. Keep plugging at it and you shall succeed. Best of luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 8:10 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Can't argue with you there, Bob. I did forensics at a different University NOT at the one where I'm completing criminology/CJA. As I said, I thought these were interesting subjects until I "got a whiff" of forensics so I attended another University to do forensics. And they cover all aspect of forensics, ie document handling, tyremarks, (or tire marks to you!) but for some reason don't concentrate on blood stain pattern analysis. So I've found my own course. When I first decided to return to Uni, I thought "Hmm, criminology/ CJA sounds like my type of thing" but all that crim theory and statutes of law, criminal law, police studies, management etc nearly drove me crazy but I was determined not to pull out just because it wasn't what I thought it would be. I just applied at another Uni to do forensics. We now have forensics included on the Ba for Criminology/CJA and FORENSICS at my original Uni. It's not the best course in the world so I have sought others who are more than willing to devote their time to teaching me what I need. No names will be mentioned but my teacher is very well known in the field of blood stain pattern analysis and is going out of his/her way to help me. I wish I could say that about Australian so-called experts, they don't even offer to help. Can you imagine what I thought then! Sociology, management, research methods and variious boring topics wasn't what I had in mind but I stuck through them and have averaged a high distinction so far. But it's not for me but I'll finish it. With any luck, I may be accepted into the LA PD CSU as an intern in 2005 - I can only hope and after visiting there earlier in the year whilst in LA, I would be absolutely flabbergasted to be accepted. I hadn't realised that criminology/CJA were more "court related" courses - and I definitely am not your court going person - I'd be up on contempt so many times it wouldn't be funny! If I hear one more word about being able to learn all about blood stain in 40 hours, I'll scream. I think it's a personal thing and if I want to take 12 months or 3 years, it's my concern and not the concern of one particular person on this listing (not you, Bob). I believe in doing things properly and not CLAIMING to be an expert! Regards to you, Bob and various others Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 10:57 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Lynn, If your goal was to become a criminalist/forensic scientist, I would have severe reservations about your course of study because while it does seem to cover some of the sciences it "wastes" considerable time on largely irrelevant non-science coursework (CJ and criminology) that is more suitable for a police detective than for a forensic scientist, relegating the science coursework to what seems to be no more than a minor status within the larger major. Aspiring forensic scientists are expected to major in science and obtain a BS, rather than a BA with a science "component" or "emphasis." Now that I realize your aim is to become a crime scene technician I am less concerned, although I still say the majority of CJ and criminology classes you are taking have little or nothing to do with the job of a crime scene technician. These classes won't be of any use to you on the job, and won't help you get a job as a civilian scene technician. However, since the majority of agencies still use police officers as scene technicians, those classes may be useful in helping you become a police officer, and later obtain assignment to the crime scene unit. Given the science content you previously described, you are in what seems to be a superior program compared to the education usually possessed by crime scene personnel. Take advantage of that and concentrate on getting as much science instruction under your belt as possible (if you have electives, take more science rather than more CJ). Then when you graduate, you will have a far better science background than 90% of the other crime scene technicians who will become your peers, and this will definitely be an advantage to you in your future work. Best of luck! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:32 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Hi Bob, I know what you are saying but the course is for a BA in Criminology, CJA and Forensics so I thought I might as well do the lot! Believe me I know what you're saying and thanks for taking the time out to point this out. It wasn't until I had started criminology and CJA that I decided to alter my course to forensics (typical woman I suppose!) As I think I pointed out, I may be lucky enough to have been accepted to do an internship with the LA PD CSU in 2005. I met Barry Fisher in June and we will see what happens. I hope I am lucky enough to make it as I will have finished with blood spatter (hopefully) by then. Any other suggestions you have as to relevant courses for a technician's job would be gladly received. I only have about three topics to do to complete criminology and CJA and will graduate at the end of next year. I do sessional lecturing on these topics as it is but it's not where my interest lies - it definitely lies in the forensics field. I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing your other email to me but I've been so busy I haven't even had time to read them and won't have until after Christmas Day. Thankfully we have four weeks holiday over Christmas - most people do over here in Oz. If you can advise any reading material on blood spatter or anything relevant, I would appreciate. Jerry Chisum has been a great help in this regard as well. Have a great Christmas and safe 2004. Hee, hee - I rang my sister in Los Angeles this morning to find out how she went through the earthquake, all she could say was "Earthquake? What earthquake?" And she doesn't live THAT far from the main epicentre. Jerry, you live up that way, how did you go? I was thinking of you. And anyone else who is in the general area. We get about one earthquake in about 20 years! And it's nowhere near the intensity of the ones in the US - though I think we have the cyclone market well and truly cornered! (Hurricane to you!) Thanks for your help, Bob. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, 23 December 2003 9:48 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Lynn, If your interest is in Forensic Science, you are really wasting your time with the criminal justice and criminology classes, as they have no applicability to a forensic scientist's work in the laboratory, or even to the crime scene technician's work in the field. Unless you plan on becoming a police officer, criminal lawyer, criminal psychologist or profiler, these classes are really of no use to you and will not further your career goals. Crime scene technicians and forensic scientists deal with the collection and analysis of evidence (respectively), not with the investigation of crimes and apprehension of suspects (those are jobs for the police). Your interest in blood spatter indicates you might be more interested in a scene technician's job, rather than a lab scientist's job, but in either event science classes would serve you better. The only CJ classes worthwhile for your aims are ones directly related to crime scene processing. Criminology classes are of no use at all (they are suited to detectives, profilers, and forensic psychologists, not lab scientists or scene technicians). See my other reply to your first posting for some guidance on the education needed to enter this field. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education Justin and Keli, like I said to someone else a day or so ago, I guess it depends on which country you are in. I'm in Australia. I started out just doing a certificate in criminology, crim justice and forensics then thought, blast this is too easy, so I went on to the Bachelors course - I still wonder what on earth I was thinking when I enrolled in that!! I've finished forensics but not all the scientific bits so I'm taking 2 months of this year and all of next year to focus on bloodstain pattern analysis. We have to do placements (or internships) here, one goes for 362 hours (why 362 hours I'll never know! But that's what I'm using to do my bloodstain project instead of a placement.) I can't afford to work for five days a week at the coroner's court for nothing when I have a secretarial service to run as well. And I don't particularly want to do anything in the "court room" situation as my interests lie more in forensics. With any luck I will make it to LosAngeles in 2005 for an internship in CSU - if I don't then I'll study something else! I graduate at the end of next year (she says hopefully!) Criminology and CJA are interesting and I am glad that I have done those courses but I hate the management part of the course - it's boring! I still have to do Terrorism, Ethics (of some sort), Corrections and International Policing. It's a great course and I'm more than happy with my results. I personally didn't think I had it in me to get this far! I do hope you get to where you want. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Justin McCarty Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 10:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Keli, This brings back memories. I too asked many people about the same questions you are asking and it seems as though the prerequisite to entering this field is figuring out how or what degree to get. I am attending the University of Wyoming getting my B.S. in Chemistry which is a huge benefit from what I understand. There are Forensic science degrees at such colleges as University of New Haven and John Jay College of Crim J., but I asked myself, Do I really want to limit myself to just Forensic Science? What if I go that route and decide that this is not really the lifestyle I want ie travel and long hours etc. I was told by many a ACS acredited Chemistry program is the way to go that way you still are quialified for such a position but if you do change your mind you have other alternatives. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Justin --- Keli Masten wrote: Dear List: I am still a pretty young pup and attempting to find my path. I began college in the law enforcement program, and dropped out because I realized that my interest in law was more clinical and scientific. I am still in college and taking general courses in an attempt to get my prerequisites out of the way while I figure out my major. My question is... where did you start (education-wise) to get into forensics and how did you go about getting a degree. The counselors at my community college have no real experience with people who are attempting this type of career. I would appreciate any help!!! I need a major eventually! Many thanks, Keli Masten [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 18:52:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i06Nq0a4016840 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:52:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:55:34 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00a901c3d4b0$937aff70$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031231155623.024ec968@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2004 23:51:59.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[13119D80:01C3D4B0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >A scientist's work is judged by other scientists using techniques that >science has evolved to make those judgments. Replication, peer review, >hypothesis testing, "does it make sense", and a number of other tools and >techniques are available to scientists to judge the work of other >scientists. The paper on the walls of their laboratory, or the initials >after their names, are pretty much irrelevant to the process of evaluation >of the scientist's work. The problem is that forensic scientists don't work in a vacuum of the scientific world. We must work in the lay world and the lay courts, and issue reports and opinions to non-scientists who must make decisions based on our work. We scientists may be able to judge each other's work by the quality of the work itself, but the rest of the public does not have that ability. Our credentials (degrees, certifications, accreditations, training courses completed and other "pieces of paper") are the only criteria they have to use in judging our work, so those things are essential. Whether or not one scientist finds another scientist's work to be acceptable is irrelevant to the judges, juries, and public at large, if they don't have a way to evaluate the first scientist's opinion in relation to the second scientist's work. How else can they weigh the comparative value and reliability of any expert's work and opinions, other than by those "pieces of paper?" Those "pieces of paper" aren't what make us competent, but they ARE what demonstrates our competency, in general at least, to the layperson and to any one else who has not had the opportunity or the professional capacity to properly review our work. Internally, the ultimate test of our work is professional review by our peers, agreed; but externally, the world of non-forensic scientists needs another means to evaluate us and our work. That's why the "paper" is important. As for economics, that's a straw man. We all have to live within our budgets, but in a responsible lab at least, if you don't have the money to properly train (and/or verify the prior training of) an analyst to perform a certain service, then you don't do that service - period. It's not enough to assume, "hey, he's a qualified scientist - he can figure out how to do it right," and then wait until a problem occurs to come to the conclusion that "whoops, I guess he CAN'T do it right after all - he needs remedial training." We have a responsibility to make sure the analyst is competent in a given task before allowing him to perform that task in casework. That's what training programs and competency assessments are for, and why they are essential. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:36 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education It seems to me that all of this debate about what constitutes adequate training is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or - perhaps more relevantly - arguing about how much marijuana is sufficient to support a charge of having marijuana for sale. The work of a scientist is not judged by the nature of his or her training and education, the accreditation status of the laboratory where the scientist works, or the type of professional certification the scientist has, or even whether or not the scientist followed some established protocol is doing the work. If that was the case, we'd still be living on a flat earth that the rest of the universe revolves around, and believe we were created in one day by some supreme being. A scientist's work is judged by other scientists using techniques that science has evolved to make those judgments. Replication, peer review, hypothesis testing, "does it make sense", and a number of other tools and techniques are available to scientists to judge the work of other scientists. The paper on the walls of their laboratory, or the initials after their names, are pretty much irrelevant to the process of evaluation of the scientist's work. The issue of what constitutes adequate training is primarily a matter of economics. We are willing to pay doctors a lot of money for their time, so they can invest a lot of time in their education. Surely, 95% of what a doctor does should not require 12 years of training and education (and in many places of the world does not). In the three years to train a blood spatter expert, one could train a pretty good school teacher. As a taxpayer, I think a school teacher is a lot better investment than a blood spatter expert. How much is a blood spatter expert worth? How many people have paid for their own training for three years, then been able to earn a living doing what they have been trained to do? Not any, I suspect. Let's be realistic. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 19:24:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i070OdLa017799 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:24:39 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:24:08 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <00a801c3d4b0$43fe0780$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Thread-Index: AcPUrxYAk9uFFTyzQROpW7TSxRamXQAAV/GQ Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thank you, Bob. Tackling two courses isn't too hard, it's just very time consuming when you are also trying to run a secretarial service to pay for books etc., and to survive. Our criminology/CJA/forensics course is rated very highly among many Universities, both here and around the globe. You are also perfectly correct when you say that the forensics module of the degree in crim/CJA is insufficient for my liking, so I completed forensics at a different University and was exempt from repeating it at the other one (have I confused you yet?) The other Uni (Swinburne) specialises in Certificate IV Forensics. As I am not in law enforcement, I only concentrated on crime scene examination and fingerprinting, although if I had the time I could have gone on to study all the different areas of forensics which can also be worked by civilians occasionally. I have completed endless online courses, attended endless seminars, workshops etc on different forensic subjects and now wish to branch out into blood stain pattern analysis. I am lucky that one other person on this listing who is extremely experienced in this area has offered to teach me this course online from the US. It's an offer too good to refuse and I don't care if I take 1, 2 or 3 years, or as many as are required, to complete this course to his satisfaction. I won't mention his name because I don't feel I have a right and don't wish to as this is a private thing. But I have also received wonderful offers of help from other members of this listing as well. It's nigh on impossible to find a course like this in Australia and even harder to find help! I suppose I'll be attacked for this comment but I don't see how it could be possible to complete such an intricate course at this in 40 hours. Maybe I'm just over-fussy or a perfectionist. You know, Bob, personally I find criminology a bit boring (okay - so I don't want insults from anyone!) but it wasn't until I was half way through the crim/CJA course that I realised that I would prefer to concentrate on the forensics field and CSE in particular but I wasn't about to drop out - I want to finish it. I know I won't get far just being a CSE and this is why my course coordinator suggested I take some time to branch into a specific area such as blood stain. Funny thing is that I'd been thinking about it for ages. I don't want to work in a court situation or customs or the Australian Federal Police, juvenile justice etc which is what I will be qualified for if I had only concentrated on crim/CJA. I'm more of a "hands-on" type. I realise as well that if I were required to appear in court that all the things you mention, I would really have to work on, ie competence, memory, integrity, impartiality. Thank you for your concern and your kind words of encouragement. Feel free to comment at any time if you think it will be of help. After all that, don't get me wrong, I am glad that I did the crim/CJA course, it's been a real eye opener. Regards Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 2/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 21:11:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i072BrZv021401 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:11:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: [forens] Concatamers Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:13:10 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Can anyone define this term for me? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 22:09:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i073916B022939 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:09:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: [forens] Education To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Pam Scott/FSST/TAS" Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:08:42 +1100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SMTPMTA/Servers/TAS(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 07/01/2004 02:08:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lynn, As a practicing forensic scientist in Australia, and having worked as a forensic scientist in more than one state in the country, I think you would find that if you were actually working in a forensic laboratory you would obtain all the help you are seeking. The course at Swinburne only gives you a basic overview of life in a variety of forensic disciplines. Specialising in an area such as blood stain pattern interpretation requires a large amount of practical experience as well as some theoretical knowledge. I wonder how you will obtain such practical experience doing a course on-line. Usually in Australian forensic laboratories such training is only given to those who have been attending crime scenes for a number of years. Australia does have a number of recognised experts in blood stain pattern interpretation - some are even in Melbourne! If you wish to work in the forensic field at all you must be prepared to attend court. I don't see how you can be a "hands on" person and avoid attending court to explain your findings. If you really don't want to attend court perhaps you should reconsider your future in this field. ___________________________________________ Pam Scott Senior Forensic Scientist Forensic Science Service Tasmania 20 St Johns Avenue New Town 7008 tel: +61 3 6278 5611 fax: +61 3 6278 5693 [EndPost by "Pam Scott/FSST/TAS" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 6 22:11:51 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i073BpnZ023358 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:11:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:07:17 +1100 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: Re: [forens] Concatamers To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3FFB77E5.E4B53FA6@vifm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en References: Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John In DNA terms it it is used to describe two or more circular DNA molecules joined like links on a chain. Some lower animals have DNA in the form of circles which are like a large mesh of joined links. (Hence, the Oxford dictionary definition "link together") Regards Bentley "Buckleton, John" wrote: > Can anyone define this term for me? > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or > privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, > used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are > not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and > delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email > are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of > the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > > The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any > attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be > free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the > recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received > externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that > may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > > Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited > http://www.esr.cri.nz > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 00:12:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i075CSWw026903 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:12:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Concatamers Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:13:44 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ta Bentley -----Original Message----- From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:07 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Concatamers John In DNA terms it it is used to describe two or more circular DNA molecules joined like links on a chain. Some lower animals have DNA in the form of circles which are like a large mesh of joined links. (Hence, the Oxford dictionary definition "link together") Regards Bentley "Buckleton, John" wrote: > Can anyone define this term for me? > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or > privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, > used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are > not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and > delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email > are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of > the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > > The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any > attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be > free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the > recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received > externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that > may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > > Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited > http://www.esr.cri.nz > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 09:45:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07EjIDQ006021 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:45:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7D6E@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Bill S Harwood (E-mail)" , "Kaufman (E-mail)" , "Muniec (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:43:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 09:55:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07EtcY6007338 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:55:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:54:29 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i07EtbqL007325 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 11:12:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07GCcg8012507 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:12:38 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <1c0.13ad7de9.2d2d89e8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:12:24 EST Subject: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 11:24:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07GOIGA013265 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:24:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040107162411.58529.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:24:11 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: [forens] Another Black Eye for Forensic Scientists To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <1c0.13ad7de9.2d2d89e8@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In light of the theme of the upcoming AAFS meeting, list members muight want to check out the following link: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/kane/03v0693.pdf More bad news. On the bright side "the system worked." But maybe 28 years was a little long. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 11:39:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07GdKNu014017 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:39:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:38:05 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i07GdJqL014012 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood - how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 12:04:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07H4HH0014926 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:04:17 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <41.38b44d02.2d2d9607@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:04:07 EST Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 12:14:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07HEErK016021 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:14:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:13:05 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i07HECqL016016 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks, Carla. I am all for wording which is easily understood by juries. >>> 01/07 12:04 PM >>> Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 12:16:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07HG9jP016394 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:16:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D126B@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:16:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I've used the word "consistent" for many years (27+). I haven't found a word I like better to explain that I've looked at all the characteristics I can reasonable used to discriminate between two samples and have been un-able achieve discrimination. I do say, in the report, that the samples are consistent in "chemical composition", "layer structure" etc. to lay out what I looked at. I've not had problems explaining what I mean by the term "consistent" to lawyers, judges or juries. No question that no matter what terminology we use before "laymen" we need to be ready to define our jargon. IMHO, ;-) Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 13:00:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07I03a7018477 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:00:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A67A@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:58:11 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'll propose "consistent with but not conclusive (diagnostic/determinative) of". Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Bradley Brown [mailto:bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us] Thanks, Carla. I am all for wording which is easily understood by juries. [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 14:02:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07J2xU3021323 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:02:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:03:49 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/07/2004 01:02:51 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brad and Carla must not be Trace Evidence chemists. (!) I have no problem using the word "consistent". I have much more trouble using black and white terminology that suggest a degree of certainty that a given set of exams can't assure..... just so a jury won't be confused. I have never had trouble explaining this term in court. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 "Bradley Brown" cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 01/07/2004 11:13 AM Please respond to forens Thanks, Carla. I am all for wording which is easily understood by juries. >>> 01/07 12:04 PM >>> Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 14:35:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07JZqTh022599 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:35:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:34:29 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Lloyd Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood References: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A67A@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> In-Reply-To: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A67A@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 S <6na2QJdLyPMHZdXUl2Gttablt5> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In message <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A67A@dasmthgsh666.amedd.ar my.mil>, Hause, David W LTC GLWACH writes >I'll propose "consistent with but not conclusive (diagnostic/determinative) >of". >Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO >David.Hause@us.army.mil >-----Original Message----- >From: Bradley Brown [mailto:bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us] > > Thanks, Carla. I am all for wording which is easily understood by juries. >[EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] The difficulty with the manner in which "consistent" is used affects many other comparatives e.g. "similar", "match", "identical", "the same", "alike", etc. Indeed these terms can be even more misleading. The problem is the one-sided and biased manner in which they tend to be used. Often, forensic reports do not state what else the evidence could be consistent with, or what else could match, or be identical to, etc. That is what should be deprecated. -- John Lloyd, West Midlands, UK. [EndPost by John Lloyd ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 14:37:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07Jba0f023008 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:37:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Another Black Eye for Forensic Scientists Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:37:27 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20040107162411.58529.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John; Janice Roadcap has been a feature in our Forensic Fraud archive since June. See: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html More recent additions include: Briton G. Halksworth, former Fingerprint Examiner, Scotland Yard & Mary Furlong, Forensic Serologist, IL State Police Lab Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:24 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Another Black Eye for Forensic Scientists In light of the theme of the upcoming AAFS meeting, list members muight want to check out the following link: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/kane/03v0693.pdf More bad news. On the bright side "the system worked." But maybe 28 years was a little long. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 14:39:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07JdEkk023448 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:39:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:39:04 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20040107162411.58529.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. For example: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Criminalist I http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/ohr/viewclass?ccode=JA60 "Minimum Requirements: A high school diploma and experience in law enforcement. A bachelor's degree may be substituted for the law enforcement experience." Division of Criminal Investigation/SD State Forensic Lab: Criminalist http://mafs.net/pdf/sd101703.pdf "The ideal candidate will possess: a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses; - vision correctable to 20:20; - a Fellow member of the American Board of Criminalistics-Trace Evidence - have or be able to obtain a valid South Dakota driver's license." OSBI crime lab: Level I criminalist http://www.opm.state.ok.us/jfd/g-specs/g12.htm "Education and Experience required at this level consists of a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, criminalistics, chemical engineering, metallurgy, forensic science, biology, microbiology, zoology or a closely related scientific field; or an equivalent combination of education and experience, substituting one year of experience in a forensic crime laboratory performing scientific and technical analysis of physical evidence from criminal investigations for each year of the required degree. Experience can be in drug (CDS) identification, materials identification, trace evidence analysis, forensic serology, forensic DNA and genetic markers, toxicology, questioned documents, firearms/toolmarks, latent prints development and identification, classification and identification of inked fingerprints manually or with an AFIS and blood alcohol/blood drug content determination. " Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department: Criminalist I http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01052.html "Training: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in criminalistics, forensic science, chemistry, biology, or a related field, including 24 semester hours of chemistry." South Dakota Forensic Laboratory: Criminalist http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01063.html "Minimum Qualifications: Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses. Experience in laboratory or law enforcement preferred but not required. Must have or be able to obtain a valid driver's license for South Dakota." Hennepin County: Sheriff's Criminalist http://www7.co.hennepin.mn.us/publications/hrjobclASS.nsf/0/0b7b4ef485410e4f 86256dd4005a3c46?OpenDocument "Education and Experience: A Bachelor's degree in forensic science, chemistry, toxicology, biology, microbiology, biochemistry or closely related field and one year of professional level experience performing scientific laboratory analyses of physical evidence gathered in law enforcement work; OR three years of the above experience, including providing court testimony regarding the results of such analyses. Certification as a specialist in a particular field of criminology may be required." The City of St. Paul, MN: CRIMINALIST I http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/humres/jobclass/titledef.php?code=128 "Minimum Qualifications - A bachelor's degree in forensic science, criminalistics, chemistry, biology or a related physical science field." Hope this helps Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: Noelle Herding [mailto:noelle-311@rocketmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:12 PM [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 15:56:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i07KuDfD025925 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:56:13 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Brad and Carla must not be Trace Evidence chemists. (!) I have no > problem > using the word "consistent". I have much more trouble using black and > white terminology that suggest a degree of certainty that a given set of > exams can't assure..... just so a jury won't be confused. I have never > had trouble explaining this term in court. A better approach is proposed by Ian Evett: a forensic scientist should comment on the likelihood of observing evidence given the truth of propositions (rather than commenting on the truth of propositions given the evidence). So ... you can offer an opinion to the jury that the observed test result is likely given that the substance is X, but unlikely if the substance is anything other than X. If you're offering an expert opinion, you'll be able to explain how un/likely. Mark Webster www.forensic-science.co.uk [EndPost by Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster)] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 20:59:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i081xs8f003605 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:59:54 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <3a.43232a21.2d2e138e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:59:42 EST Subject: Re: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Carla and Brad: Only a Forensic Scientist will find this on the slightly slippery side of humor. :-) ~ m In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood - how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:02:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0822tTc003961 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:02:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" Subject: [forens] China: Nation seeks forensic watchdog Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:02:46 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List Members; Last I was invited by the Chinese government to lecture on forensic science at the People's Police Security University (where they train their law enforcement), as well as at various individual police bureaus around the country. I was there for almost a month and it was one of the most enriching and positive experiences of my career to date. The Chinese have a very military structure to their national law enforcement system, in which, theoretically, if things are decided at the top then everyone must follow through down to the bottom. They are grappling with the very issues that we are grappling with here. I cannot wait to see what the come up with. Brent Nation seeks forensic watchdog www.chinaview.cn 2004-01-07 21:41:08 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/07/content_1265129.htm BEIJING, Jan. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- China is trying to find a single watchdog for forensic labs and other institutions that provide professional opinions on the validity of judicial evidence such as documents and signatures. The Ministry of Justice is working on a bill on the administration of forensic institutions, Minister of Justice Zhang Fusen said Wednesday. A resident of Mudanjiang City in Heilongjiang Province, northeast China, was beaten in late 2002, but three forensic labs presented quite different results about how severely he had been injured. His experience is not an exception in China. Parties to a lawsuit often get different results from different institutions or have to test the same evidence in several institutions. In China these institutions are subject to different administrations, including the police, the procuratory, the judiciary, hospitals and colleges. The Ministry of Justice and the Supreme People's Court have both issued regulations on their own forensic institutions, but there are no standardized rules. "We need uniform rules to answer such questions as what kind of people are qualified to provide services, how can we make sure that they operate according to the rules, and how are the labs to be run," said Du Zhichun, director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences under the Ministry of Justice. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, China's top legislature, discussed a draft bill on the administration of forensic institutions for the first time in 2002, but said it needed time for further study before the bill would be passed. The Ministry of Justice will try to promote the adoption of the bill in an early date, Zhang said. Enditem Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:07:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0827SFC004553 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:07:28 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <12a.38db10c1.2d2e1555@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:07:17 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/7/2004 1:03:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, David.Hause@us.army.mil writes: I'll propose "consistent with but not conclusive (diagnostic/determinative) of". Dave Hause Hi, Dave... Good, but still more weasel wording...sounds like documents examiner I knew. Jury hears: "Could be, but then again, might not." ~ m --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:29:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i082TPZD005421 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:29:25 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:29:05 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hello, Lynn: I agree with you that given the opportunity to speak about the report written, that the wording can be made clear to the general public. What would you say to the report that is read in court by the attorney without you present to adequately describe what is that you have found and the relavence to the question at hand? (Just stirring the pot :-) ) ~ M In a message dated 1/7/2004 12:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil writes: I've not had problems explaining what I mean by the term "consistent" to lawyers, judges or juries. No question that no matter what terminology we use before "laymen" we need to be ready to define our jargon. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:47:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i082lv6T006161 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:47:57 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <1d4.180ea191.2d2e1ed3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:47:47 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Carla: Interesting that just recently the Chinese are making inquiry into Forensics. Could it be Semantics? See: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/07/content_1265129.htm What do you think? ~ m In a message dated 1/7/2004 12:05:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, SkipnCar@aol.com writes: Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:55:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i082tCv1006665 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:55:12 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:55:00 EST Subject: Re: [forens] ASLCD-LAB and ABAcard Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:15:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, SkipnCar@aol.com writes: 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla While I agree with you, Carla, the Jury "hears' that 'x" is "X." Doesn't necessarily question the 'report' or the person in the Suit giving the report on the stand. So what is the person on the bench to do? Esp if their administration prefers to dumb-down the report so there is less wording (less cost to produce) and 'apparently' less confusion. Just a thought. ~ m --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:57:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i082vqpj007155 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:57:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <018001c3d593$69338a00$ec5f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <12a.38db10c1.2d2e1555@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:59:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jury hears: "Could be, but then again, might not." That's exactly the effect I think we should shoot for. Of course, you have to have educated whatever lawyer has called you to ask the appropriate follow up questions: Q. Doctor, what do you mean by "not conclusive"? A. Well, it means that there are some things that give the same reaction as human blood, for example, weasels and maybe ferrets. Q. Have you ever heard of a weasel being found in a New York City crack house? A. Not as I recall. Q. Do you think this blood could have come from a ferret? A. Probably not. It was a pretty big pool of blood and I'd be surprised if a ferret had that much. And more like that. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: David.Hause@us.army.mil writes: I'll propose "consistent with but not conclusive (diagnostic/determinative) of". Dave Hause Hi, Dave... Good, but still more weasel wording...sounds like documents examiner I knew. Jury hears: "Could be, but then again, might not." [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 21:58:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i082wNZJ007382 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:58:23 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:58:11 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mark: That is wonderful...If you get the opportunity to explain yourself in court. What if your report is read by the attorney? What do you say then? ~ m In a message dated 1/7/2004 3:59:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk writes: you can offer an opinion to the jury that the observed test result is likely given that the substance is X, but unlikely if the substance is anything other than X. If you're offering an expert opinion, you'll be able to explain how un/likely. Mark Webster --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 22:01:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0831M39008028 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:01:22 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <19a.1f2ae360.2d2e21f6@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:01:10 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jenny, Neither are Trace Evidence chemists as far a I know. I think that they are simply questioning the way your written report is worded. The one that stands alone when you are not there to explain what the report really means. ~ M In a message dated 1/7/2004 2:05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, smithj@mshp.state.mo.us writes: Brad and Carla must not be Trace Evidence chemists. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 22:03:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0833Wgs008473 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:03:32 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:03:22 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Oh, Do please be careful... :-) ~ m In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:59:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, dwhause@jobe.net writes: Q. Have you ever heard of a weasel being found in a New York City crack house? --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 7 22:29:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i083TgeC009703 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:29:42 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <1da.1811304c.2d2e2899@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:29:29 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You see, Dave, I am in agreement with advising the Attorney to ask follow up questions. Questions that might not necessarily need to be asked if our reports gave the most current knowledge about the tests performed...as in this particular case of 'is it human blood or not?' Do you think the report coming from your laboratory could state that the tests were consistant for human blood( and a variety / multitute of other varmits)? I suspect probably not. That might make the "Laboratory" sound indecisive. Isnt it better to make the 'report' sound like it can stand alone...to keep the scientist out of court? Nice wording would be to use "consistant with"....that might keep everyone guessing what it really means, huh? ~ m In a message dated 1/7/ 2004 9:59:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, dwhause@jobe.net writes: Jury hears: "Could be, but then again, might not." That's exactly the effect I think we should shoot for. Of course, you have to have educated whatever lawyer has called you to ask the appropriate follow up questions: Q. Doctor, what do you mean by "not conclusive"? A. Well, it means that there are some things that give the same reaction as human blood, for example, weasels and maybe ferrets. Q. Have you ever heard of a weasel being found in a New York City crack house? A. Not as I recall. Q. Do you think this blood could have come from a ferret? A. Probably not. It was a pretty big pool of blood and I'd be surprised if a ferret had that much. And more like that. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 07:16:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08CGxx9017838 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:16:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1275@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:17:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pot stirrer or thermal equilibration expert? I'd say that's the challenge to this business. If I write a report that tells Peter Barnett exactly what I did down to the calibration and system check on each test, the attorney / jury still has no idea what I did and what it means. He can go find Peter to educate him or he can call me and ask. The last paragraph of my report has my phone # and email address. Will an attorney actually pick up the phone and call? In my experience, only as a last resort at the last possible moment (with a disclaimer for a few notable exceptions). Then we add the classic 25% loss of understanding on each verbal communication between two people...... The English language makes our job challenging. Even within our lab, the phrase "could have originated from" takes on different meanings to different examiners within the unit. For example, I'd say that when I have examined 2 paint samples (4 layer structural, with the Army's spec paint), completed microscopic comparisons, FTIR and EDX on each layer and found no differences, I feel comfortable saying I've eliminated well over 90% of the potential donator paint sources available and therefore will say this paint could have originated from the source represented by the standard. Others in our lab say unless you add PGC to the exam, the phrase "could have originated from" is not justified. The phrase should only be used when every possible test available has been used. Why do I arbitrarily choose 90%? Comes from personal experience seeing ancient reports from Serology reporting ABO types only. If finding type B blood at a homicide scene is reported as "significant" evidence, then finding a partial shoe track with sufficient detail to eliminate 90% of the shoes around is certainly significant whether or not I can put a hard number to the likelihood this shoe made the track (long story) To me the bottom line has always been, I have to be able to define and explain to a layman exactly what I means when I say "could have", "consistent", "can not be eliminated" etc and we have to use as many opportunities as we can find to explain what we do and what our result / opinion statements mean. Question - I know some people only report what I would call results and don't offer any opinion in a report. (The suspect's pants are composed of purple acrylic fibers. The fiber recovered from the pants of the victim was found to be a purple fiber just like the fibers of the suspect's pants. Period, end of report.) How do you feel about that? Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:29 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Hello, Lynn: I agree with you that given the opportunity to speak about the report written, that the wording can be made clear to the general public. What would you say to the report that is read in court by the attorney without you present to adequately describe what is that you have found and the relavence to the question at hand? (Just stirring the pot :-) ) ~ M In a message dated 1/7/2004 12:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil writes: I've not had problems explaining what I mean by the term "consistent" to lawyers, judges or juries. No question that no matter what terminology we use before "laymen" we need to be ready to define our jargon. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 07:40:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08Ced9P018471 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:40:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:40:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood In-Reply-To: <1d4.180ea191.2d2e1ed3@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it > was a double entendre. > > The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. > Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous > and > in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' > is > not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or > law enforcement. > > What exactly does 'consistent' mean? > 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence > 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity > 3. compatible > 4. showing steady conformity to character > 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter > estimated > - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition > > To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in > a scientific report. > > You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use > instead of consistent. It is a term of art, and as such is appropriate. You quote a general dictionary definition, but the general usage definitions are not always appropriate. When a Freudian uses the word "ego," he or she does not not mean "arrogance." In the world of forensic pathology, "consistent with" has a consistent and well-recognized meaning. Whether or not other disciplines also have that meaning is not particularly important when the term is used in that context. If there is a question on the stand about what the pathologist means, then the pathologist can explain it with a thousand words if necessary. That does not mean that the pathologist should use a thousand words in every report for every term of art. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 08:18:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08DIvb9019488 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:18:57 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <36E91916-41DD-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:27:42 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i08DIuqL019483 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:14:13 -0600 Subject: Re: Fwd: [forens] Concatamers From: Carl Masthay Definition: Concatamer: A DNA molecule consisting of two or more separate molecules linked end-to-end to form a long linear structure. Gisela and Mark: Oh well, Google gave it to me instantly! See above. So never mind, but it was interesting to go thru the concepts, wrong tho they may have been! Carl I need to know what the new word "concatamer" means. My Mensa friend "Harold Messler" per someone far away is asking. "Meros" is Greek means 'part, piece'; "kata" would mean 'down'; and Latin "con-" means 'together' (= Greek "syn-"). If the better first element would have been "synkata-", it would have meant 'down together, down with', thus 'parts going down together as a unit' as only a small section of a polymer in some kind of a chemical environment or reaction. However, my 1880 Pape's Greek-German dictionary shows that "katameros" means 'theilweise, abwechselnd; besser getrennt geschrieben' ('partly, partially, in parts, alternate, alternatively, alternating; better written separated: "kata meros"). So this seems to be something that may be alternating small groups of segments, pieces, parts that come off a main part or branches of substances in chemicals, organic or possibly inorganic. On the other hand, there is "concatenated" + "-mer" to make "concatamer", badly constructed for something more cumbersome! Carl On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:37:32 EST EarlNMeyer@aol.com writes: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Forens-L'" Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:13:10 +1300 Subject: [forens] Concatamers CONCATAMER definition Home/C/CO/CONCATAMER. Medical Dictionary Search Engine. Advertise on this site! A service of health-link-net.com. Browse Dictionary by alphabet. ... www.books.md/C/dic/concatamer.php - 12k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] Key terms: transcriptome DNA microarray SAGE concatamer mass ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Page 1. ¢¡¤£¥&%¥¡¤ 10 ¡324 " "5 Key terms: transcriptome DNA microarray SAGE concatamer mass spectrometry two ... jon.visick.faculty.noctrl.edu/260/outlines/22.pdf - Similar pages Single Molecule Techiques in Protein Folding ... Figure 1 Above: Cartoon showing the design of the concatamer, at the DNA level. ... Below: Cartoon showing stepwise single molecule unfolding of an I27 concatamer. ... www.astbury.leeds.ac.uk/Report/2000/Radford.3.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages Biophysical Studies into the Mechanism of ?2-Microglobulin ... ... this is the case, and whether chemical and mechanical unfolding of this domain occur by similar mechanisms we have used AFM to unfold the concatamer (I27) 5 ... mpi.leeds.ac.uk/Smith/MUP.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/concatamer Similar pages --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 09:57:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08EvCxE021774 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:57:12 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:57:04 EST Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:32:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08GWMGT024813 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:32:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:32:14 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/08/2004 10:32:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:37:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08GbN9w025259 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:37:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:19:00 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) In-reply-to: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1275@usacil2.forscom.arm y.mil> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040108181451.01ba7c20@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 References: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1275@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Question - I know some people only report what I would call results and >don't offer any opinion in a report. (The suspect's pants are composed of >purple acrylic fibers. The fiber recovered from the pants of the victim was >found to be a purple fiber just like the fibers of the suspect's pants. >Period, end of report.) How do you feel about that? Depends how you define conclusions.... a sentence saying and could have come from those pants, might be in order. It may be obvious, but my experience with "obvious" and "to whom" made me add it. Going further and inferring that since they match (ouch - bad word - I can hear the discussions now) the suspect could have committed the crime. That I am against. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:44:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08Givxb025936 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:44:57 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <12a.38e3f8f7.2d2ee2f8@aol.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:44:40 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In your paint sample example, I would say, "it has the same chemical and physical characteristics ..." rather than it is consistent. Carla In a message dated 1/8/2004 11:34:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, smithj@mshp.state.mo.us writes: Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:54:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08GsIYh026721 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:54:18 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Aviles, Phil J." Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:54:16 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Thread-Index: AcPWBTDyuPV+W9XMQL2bY4fOIK3GNwAATWVQ From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 16:54:16.0016 (UTC) FILETIME=[0CD95D00:01C3D608] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i08GsHqL026716 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:55:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08GtAc1026953 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:55:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1281@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:55:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu So you'd leave out the sentencing paragraph too? The suspect is sentenced to driving I-285 around Atlanta for 3 weeks. JUST KIDDING! I put a conclusion saying it "could have originated from..." in the report also. I'm concerned that the simple statement that the result of my examinations is that A and B ..... match..... can be misinterpreted (or misrepresented) too easily. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Azriel Gorski Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) >Question - I know some people only report what I would call results and >don't offer any opinion in a report. (The suspect's pants are composed of >purple acrylic fibers. The fiber recovered from the pants of the victim was >found to be a purple fiber just like the fibers of the suspect's pants. >Period, end of report.) How do you feel about that? Depends how you define conclusions.... a sentence saying and could have come from those pants, might be in order. It may be obvious, but my experience with "obvious" and "to whom" made me add it. Going further and inferring that since they match (ouch - bad word - I can hear the discussions now) the suspect could have committed the crime. That I am against. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:58:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08GwQoG027621 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:58:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1282@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:58:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have to stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases where I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 11:59:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08GxqPo028011 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:59:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1283@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:59:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu OK, I'll bite. Define "Same" Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood In your paint sample example, I would say, "it has the same chemical and physical characteristics ..." rather than it is consistent. Carla In a message dated 1/8/2004 11:34:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, smithj@mshp.state.mo.us writes: Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 12:05:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08H5RPf028848 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:05:27 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Aviles, Phil J." Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:05:25 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Thread-Index: AcPWCLjAOvSDDdbnSSepdvAWgY82sQAAIakA From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 17:05:25.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C1AD600:01C3D609] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i08H5QqL028843 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, then we've done our job. -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have to stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases where I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 12:11:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08HBiqC029538 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:11:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:10:36 -0800 From: "Josh Spatola" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We should all try and remember... "Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals... ...except of course the weasel..." (credited to Homer J. Simpson) Is it Friday yet? Josh ***************************************** Joshua S. Spatola, Criminalist California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services Central Valley Laboratory 1306 Hughes Lane Ripon, CA 95366 ***************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. [EndPost by "Josh Spatola" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 12:52:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08Hq7Lr001048 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:52:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1284@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:52:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sorry, I'd have to disagree. The judicial system relies heavily on pled bargaining. Whether it is a "wrongfully convicted" or a victim who doesn't get the benefit of the lab results supporting their version, those folks also are impacted by our work and they count. Signed, the Idealist. :-) Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, then we've done our job. -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have to stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases where I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 12:57:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08Hvbvd001469 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:57:37 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <24F8974C-4204-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:00:37 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Barbara.Simmons@atf.gov To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:01:03 -0500 Brent- I'd love to hear more about this very high turnover rate that ATF has. I normally sit by quietly and don't post, but I've having too hard of a time biting my tongue on this one. My comments in this case are purely my own and I don't even pretent to be speaking on behalf of my agency, but as you may have guessed, I'm one of those truly blessed to be able to work for ATF. Based on what I personally have seen from my 9 years here (preceeded by 13 1/2 years in Wisconsin and a few months in Virginia while I was waiting for an ATF position to actually open), I see no more turn over here than anywhere else. What I do see are folks retiring after many years of service, folks moving closer to specialty medical services to take care of loved ones, and folks changing jobs within the agency for different opportunities (it always amazes me the number of folks in the field that actually want to be agents and carry guns!). I also see perennially open positions that aren't filled due to lack of qualified applicants (yes, we actually do require science degrees for our chemists), people who can't seem to "wait out" the lengthy background checks required for national security, and then people unable (or unwilling) to move to these high cost of living areas where our labs are located (not everyone wants to pay 450K for a 3 bedroom on a slab on 1/8 of an acre or pay rent forever). Those of us who do love the travel (have taught in Hawaii, been to special events in Alaska, and seem to go someplace at least every other month), love to share information (we do teach for state and local bomb techs as well as our own agents), and then have all of the "normal desires" of forensic chemists - solving puzzles, the challenges of court and giving advice to agents in the field, know that this is a very special place to work, and plan on staying here as long as we can.... until, of course, our futures take those unexpected turns and we are forced to move on due to illness, retirement, family circumstances, you know, all of those things that create "turn-over"....... Barbara E. Simmons, Forensic Chemist, ATF San Francisco Laboratory Center but these opinions are truly my own -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:39 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. For example: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Criminalist I http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/ohr/viewclass?ccode=JA60 "Minimum Requirements: A high school diploma and experience in law enforcement. A bachelor's degree may be substituted for the law enforcement experience." Division of Criminal Investigation/SD State Forensic Lab: Criminalist http://mafs.net/pdf/sd101703.pdf "The ideal candidate will possess: a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses; - vision correctable to 20:20; - a Fellow member of the American Board of Criminalistics-Trace Evidence - have or be able to obtain a valid South Dakota driver's license." OSBI crime lab: Level I criminalist http://www.opm.state.ok.us/jfd/g-specs/g12.htm "Education and Experience required at this level consists of a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, criminalistics, chemical engineering, metallurgy, forensic science, biology, microbiology, zoology or a closely related scientific field; or an equivalent combination of education and experience, substituting one year of experience in a forensic crime laboratory performing scientific and technical analysis of physical evidence from criminal investigations for each year of the required degree. Experience can be in drug (CDS) identification, materials identification, trace evidence analysis, forensic serology, forensic DNA and genetic markers, toxicology, questioned documents, firearms/toolmarks, latent prints development and identification, classification and identification of inked fingerprints manually or with an AFIS and blood alcohol/blood drug content determination. " Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department: Criminalist I http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01052.html "Training: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in criminalistics, forensic science, chemistry, biology, or a related field, including 24 semester hours of chemistry." South Dakota Forensic Laboratory: Criminalist http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01063.html "Minimum Qualifications: Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses. Experience in laboratory or law enforcement preferred but not required. Must have or be able to obtain a valid driver's license for South Dakota." Hennepin County: Sheriff's Criminalist http://www7.co.hennepin.mn.us/publications/hrjobclASS.nsf/0/ 0b7b4ef485410e4f 86256dd4005a3c46?OpenDocument "Education and Experience: A Bachelor's degree in forensic science, chemistry, toxicology, biology, microbiology, biochemistry or closely related field and one year of professional level experience performing scientific laboratory analyses of physical evidence gathered in law enforcement work; OR three years of the above experience, including providing court testimony regarding the results of such analyses. Certification as a specialist in a particular field of criminology may be required." The City of St. Paul, MN: CRIMINALIST I http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/humres/jobclass/titledef.php?code=128 "Minimum Qualifications - A bachelor's degree in forensic science, criminalistics, chemistry, biology or a related physical science field." Hope this helps Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: Noelle Herding [mailto:noelle-311@rocketmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:12 PM [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 13:01:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08I1uDF002002 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:01:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "French, Tim" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:01:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Once again I think Lynn hit the nail on the head when she said "The English language makes our job challenging". Is there any real difference in the underlying meanings of "match", "same" or "consistent with"? Do they have different degrees of certainty implied; no. No one would be wrong to use "match" as long as the conclusion is qualified. But we do not use the word because in English today it is perceived as 100% conclusive proof. Any word, term or version thereof will need a degree of explanation. Even if we write the report that some people feel is "proper", where all equipment used, calibrations performed, results of each examination and the resulting conclusion are written; the juror, judge or attorney will still need some expert to give them the layman's interpretation (unless of course, they have experience in the field). So why not make the report and conclusion as close to that jurors understanding in the first place? We are ultimately writing the report for someone to use in a legal proceeding where usually no one other that the expert witness "really" understands the content and meaning; not for some defense expert to duplicate the examinations performed. That is the purpose of the laboratory notes. Tim French Criminalist II CMPD Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:00 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood OK, I'll bite. Define "Same" Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood In your paint sample example, I would say, "it has the same chemical and physical characteristics ..." rather than it is consistent. Carla In a message dated 1/8/2004 11:34:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, smithj@mshp.state.mo.us writes: Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 13:20:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08IKIR7002897 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Aviles, Phil J." Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:20:16 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Thread-Index: AcPWEap3pFjp4Ba6TKWWbPBQejiEBgAATIFA From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 18:20:16.0280 (UTC) FILETIME=[109B2980:01C3D614] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i08IKHqL002892 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I agree. My fault, I thought we were focusing on the trial experience. It's OK to be an Idealist. It's also OK to be agressive, and make sure that the significance of your results gets communicated. -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:52 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Sorry, I'd have to disagree. The judicial system relies heavily on pled bargaining. Whether it is a "wrongfully convicted" or a victim who doesn't get the benefit of the lab results supporting their version, those folks also are impacted by our work and they count. Signed, the Idealist. :-) Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, then we've done our job. -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have to stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases where I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 13:28:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08ISbXi003469 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:28:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003c01c3d615$6b48db60$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> From: "John Bowden" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:29:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have been following this thread from the very beginning. I really appreciate all of the reasoned discussion. I am reminded of a favorite quote (sorry I don't recall the source), "Eventually all arguments become discussions in semantics." John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" /snip,snip,snip/ [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 13:31:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08IVlib003940 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:31:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:31:15 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/08/2004 12:31:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Ha! Ha!..... and there is an art to weaseling that a good trace chemist takes great pride in. Homer is the best. (you made my day,Josh) Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 "Josh Spatola" ca.gov> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 01/08/2004 11:10 AM Please respond to forens We should all try and remember... "Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals... ...except of course the weasel..." (credited to Homer J. Simpson) Is it Friday yet? Josh ***************************************** Joshua S. Spatola, Criminalist California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services Central Valley Laboratory 1306 Hughes Lane Ripon, CA 95366 ***************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. [EndPost by "Josh Spatola" ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 13:54:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08Isj1L004992 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:54:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:55:02 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <003c01c3d615$6b48db60$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I had thought of making the slightly tongue in cheek suggestion that we might do better by writing our reports in Latin. Then I saw John Bowden's post and asked myself how many ways you could translate "dum spiro spero" let alone "Dosis sola facit venenum". Perhaps as Robert Grave's suggested for the poet, our best friend when drafting reports should be the waste paper basket. These days it needs a shredder attached of course. Robert Forrest A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath, CChem, FRSC Professor of Forensic Toxicology Medico-legal Centre Watery Street SHEFFIELD S3 7ES UK -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Bowden Sent: 08 January 2004 18:30 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) I have been following this thread from the very beginning. I really appreciate all of the reasoned discussion. I am reminded of a favorite quote (sorry I don't recall the source), "Eventually all arguments become discussions in semantics." John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" /snip,snip,snip/ [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 16:35:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08LZGTr008920 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:35:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [forens] Deborah McHoul/FSST/TAS is out of the office. From: "Deborah McHoul/FSST/TAS" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:34:49 +1100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SMTPMTA/Servers/TAS(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 09/01/2004 08:34:51 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I will be out of the office starting 09/01/2004 and will not return until 04/03/2004. I will respond to your message when I return. If the matter requires an earlier response please contact Pam Scott: pam.scott@fsst.tas.gov.au [EndPost by "Deborah McHoul/FSST/TAS" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 17:45:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08MjWRX010543 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:45:32 -0500 (EST) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:45:16 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5100 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I think the important point is that if experts in the field cannot all feel comfortable with the terminology, and if other experts in other areas of forensic science cannot all feel comfortable with the terminology, how can one expect laymen to fully understand the implications meant by the terminology. Explanations or expressions of limitations in a report are not bad things. And, based upon some of the recent newspaper articles concerning "innocents" being released for whatever reasons (DNA, hair, etc.) such explanations may have made an impact in the initial cases. One of the concerns I have always had is that some reports from laboratories exhibit a pro-prosecution bias in the wording. Wayne Morris, MS Morris-Kopec Forensics, Inc. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 18:36:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08NaTCF011738 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:36:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:40:07 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <018201c3d640$bf61bb10$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00af01c3bdec$8c0e3a20$c10042ac@davelaptop> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 23:36:29.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D63D670:01C3D640] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu David, I know of no such cases. As for our PT practices, I'm posting on list because I see no reason not to. Our operations are public record (except of course for case information in open investigations). Everyone in our lab does at least one external proficiency test annually in each of their specialty areas, with one exception in a secondary specialty (we're working on adding that one, and will soon begin external PTs there as well). E.g.: I do separate external PTs in both drug analysis and blood alcohol determination; our FA/TM examiner does three separate external PTs in firearms, toolmarks, and impressions; etc. Our biologists do two DNA PTs annually, per SWGDAM guidelines. Blood alcohol analysts do four PTs annually (one each quarter, required under Florida law). All others PTs are done once annually. I don't know what proportion of labs do PTs for their personnel, but I would expect the percentage to be very high. Any lab in this day and age that is not doing at least internal PTs on an annual basis has a serious lapse in its QA/QC system (I consider case reanalysis to be a type of PT, but not simple peer review of notes). ASCLD-LAB accredited labs, and those pursuing accreditation, are required to do at least one annual external PT in each discipline for which the lab offers services (this is an "essential" criterion), and each analyst is required to perform at least one internal and/or external PT annually in each subdiscipline in which they are performing casework (this is an "important" criterion). Labs must comply with 100% of "essential" criteria, 75% of "important" criteria, and 50% of "desirable" criteria in order to achieve and maintain ASCLD-LAB accreditation. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:37 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Proficiency testing and impeachment of testimony List, Has anyone been thrown out of court due to a past proficiency test or know of a case in which this occurred? I am trying to get a handle on how much prominence this problem has on why proficiency testing is not popular with some individuals. Is this an forensic "urban legend"? And off the list, can someone please give me a crash course on the use/prominence of proficiency testing in your local labs if you had a few seconds? Is it about right that 2/3rds of labs run tests on their personnel? Thanks for letting me continue to pick your collective brains! Dave Khey ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 18:38:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08NcUIc012063 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:38:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:42:06 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <018301c3d641$065025c0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 23:38:28.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[8451CBF0:01C3D640] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jim, There's a significant difference between CSI and those other shows. The difference is that none of the shows you mention, not JAG, not ER, not any other fictional show on television, claims to accurately portray their subject matter --- none claim that, except for the CSI shows. The CSI shows are the ONLY fictional shows to advertise themselves as a realistic depiction of a profession, the ONLY ones to claim that their portrayal is 100% accurate in technical details. Yes, we forensic scientists can pick out all those inaccuracies in fictional shows, documentaries, and the evening news - but the general public can't. They think it's both real and accurate, especially when they are repeatedly told so. It's bad enough that we have to deal with the less fantastic errors made in the news and on the "reality" forensic science documentary shows, without having to deal with the far more spectacular deviations from the truth on fictional shows that CLAIM to be factual. Far more people are watching those fictional CSI shows than the "reality" ones. If the CSI shows admitted they were unrealistic, or at least stopped pretending to be realistic, then they would be no more problematic than any other fictional show because the public would correctly assume they are make-believe. The problem is that the CSI shows continue to promote this total fiction as realistic and technically accurate, when it is neither, and that is seriously misleading viewers. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the others on the show probably moniter the list. Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the paper, more often than not. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 18:40:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08NeKxk012444 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:40:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:43:56 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <018401c3d641$47bb2050$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 23:40:18.0021 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5BC5150:01C3D640] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lynn, There's no harm done with those medical shows - people know they aren't realistic and don't base any life or death decisions on what they see on them. Unlike them, CSI is advertised as realistic and technically accurate, and the people who see it can become jurors who are influenced by the things they thought the show "taught" them about real forensic science. That could affect the outcome of a REAL trial, and that affects the lives of real people. I'd be happy to lighten up, if the stakes weren't so high. All I ask is that the show's producers, writers, and consultants admit that they make up MUCH of what they put in the show, that it truly isn't at all realistic, and stop making claims to the contrary. The show's already enormously popular and can survive on the dramatic quality of its fictional storytelling. It no longer needs (and was never justified in) false claims of authenticity to hype it. If they feel they can't show forensic science as it really is and still be a successful program, that's fine - just stop making false claims of realism and admit it's a totally fictional cop show with a forensic science focus, no more realistic than any other cop show. Is that so much to expect, just a little honesty in advertising? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Hi Jim, I'm the same way about medical shows, having worked in medicine previously for 30 years. Everyone is so serious! I don't expect everyone to roll around the floor in hysterics during a TV medical show, but they could lighten up a little! It's not always as bad as it's made out to be. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 3:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the others on the show probably moniter the list. Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the paper, more often than not. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 18:42:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i08Ng6jY012891 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:42:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:45:42 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <018501c3d641$87577560$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2004 23:42:04.0740 (UTC) FILETIME=[05585840:01C3D641] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Just in case there's a layperson out there who might not realize it, Bradley was being sarcastic. Criminalists don't normally visit hospitals to collect samples from victims. Samples are usually collected by medical personnel at the direction of law enforcement officers. It is usually done by a doctor or nurse, or if the hospital is a very progressive one, by SANE/SART personnel (nursing staff with forensic training). While a doctor might do the collection from a victim of the opposite sex, even among medical staff it would normally be done by someone of the same sex if at all practical. If a police officer or scene technician ("CSI") does the collection from the victim, it would be _always_ be done by a person of the same sex as the victim (this is normally true for samples taken from suspects, too -- no police agency with an ounce of sense would risk opening themselves up to a charge of sexual impropriety by using someone of the opposite sex). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bradley Brown Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? My favorite episode, (and one which, ahem, most accurately depicts my job duties), is the one in which the male criminalist goes to the hospital and swabs the prostitute's breasts. >>> "Brent Turvey" 12/30 9:31 PM >>> Bob; Her position is truly split. She wants to claim accuracy for the show, admits that such a claim is not possible, but keeps going forward with it. We share the same concern ultimately - that she puts herself in front of the show as a criminalist, that her stamp of approval as a criminalist can be bought, and that she perceives no duty to the forensic science community that she misrepresents. This whole thing is yet another bizarre example of how the forensic science community responds to blatantly unethical conduct. Forensic whistleblowers of like Dr. Fred Whitehurst formerly of the FBI crime lab, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson formerly of the Harris County MEs Lab, and Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell of AFIP (to name a very few), are openly assailed by the public agencies they've deservedly outed and then treated with suspicion by the forensic community when they defend themselves for refusing to allow bad science in their name. >From the comments of some on this list, you'd think Elizabeth Devine should be considered for the Paul Kirk award because the supposed good that has come from CSI. I find this evidence that we are still heading in the wrong direction as a profession. We need a better compass than Elizabeth Devine. FYI: For those who don't know, Dr. Paul L. Kirk, one of the true fathers of modern day forensic science, was black-listed by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences because some of the more influential members did not like having to go up against him in high-profile court cases. The seeds of that division were evident to me even when I was studying at UNH in the mid 90s. Now the highest award in the criminalistics section is named for him. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 8 21:22:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i092Mhgw015572 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:22:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002901c3d657$072d1640$5ad06251@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: Subject: [forens] Pig-Burning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:19:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i092Mhgx015572 List Members, I am dealing with a case where a body was partially burned. In order to test what extent of damage would have been caused by burning the body for approximately two hours an experiment will be conducted using pig caracasses. They will be burned in circumstances as described by the suspect. The main question I am trying to answer is how much damage would have been caused to the body in the available time if it was burned in the manner described? However, I am concerned that the extent of body fat in pigs is significantly higher than in humans and that consequently, pig will burn at a faster rate. If this is the case are there any figures available for adjustments in times to take this into account? Are there any other animals that could be used that have a similar structure to humans with comparable body fat? Thank you for your attention in this matter. Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 02:15:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i097FJhZ020127 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:15:19 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:13:06 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <018401c3d641$47bb2050$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPWP/6kfnkn6fM3Sxq1PrNUbdX+SQAP56BQ Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i097FDqL020122 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob, I couldn't agree with you more. What really annoys me is that even in they bothered to include a waiver of some sort in their credits, they go past so quickly, you wouldn't have a chance to read it anyway! I totally agree with you. I can honestly say I've watched it 1½ times and that was enough. I do admit to watching FBI Files, New Detectives, Medical Detectives, The System etc. I like those. Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:44 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Lynn, There's no harm done with those medical shows - people know they aren't realistic and don't base any life or death decisions on what they see on them. Unlike them, CSI is advertised as realistic and technically accurate, and the people who see it can become jurors who are influenced by the things they thought the show "taught" them about real forensic science. That could affect the outcome of a REAL trial, and that affects the lives of real people. I'd be happy to lighten up, if the stakes weren't so high. All I ask is that the show's producers, writers, and consultants admit that they make up MUCH of what they put in the show, that it truly isn't at all realistic, and stop making claims to the contrary. The show's already enormously popular and can survive on the dramatic quality of its fictional storytelling. It no longer needs (and was never justified in) false claims of authenticity to hype it. If they feel they can't show forensic science as it really is and still be a successful program, that's fine - just stop making false claims of realism and admit it's a totally fictional cop show with a forensic science focus, no more realistic than any other cop show. Is that so much to expect, just a little honesty in advertising? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Hi Jim, I'm the same way about medical shows, having worked in medicine previously for 30 years. Everyone is so serious! I don't expect everyone to roll around the floor in hysterics during a TV medical show, but they could lighten up a little! It's not always as bad as it's made out to be. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 3:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Actually Brent, I haven't talked to Liz in a couple of years or more. Don't even know how to get hold of her except through other friends. You asked what her background was and I responded. That is all. She or some of the others on the show probably moniter the list. Maybe you and Bob haven't noticed but Hollywood does this to every profession. From ER to Jag and on and on. A relative of mine who is a retired Naval officer hates JAG because it is so unrealistic. His wife was surprised I didn't watch CSI because she loves it. Hollywood's portrayal of what a bullet does when it hits someone is even totally distorted. Hollywood and reality are simply mutually exclusive of one another, even most of the documentaries like some of the stuff on the history channel. I just don't watch if I don't find a show entertaining and I don't believe what I see when I watch. Most new broadcasts doesn't even get it right, based on personal experience. You work on an incident for several hours, come home and have trouble recognizing it as the story on the TV or in the paper, more often than not. Jim >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 12/26/03 05:47PM >>> Bob; I got an email from Ms. Devine this morning regarding my postings to forens-l. Jim ratted me out. :) I say that with a smile because I believe that any post a professional makes to any public forum should be something they can stand behind. So I take no offense from Jim and think he was well within his rights to alert his good friend. Needless to say, she wasn't happy with me. In her email, she accused me of essentially making up the media quotes I had referenced in regards to her statements. As though I would need to do that. She claimed that "I assure you I am more articulate than that rambling quotation implies." She did sign her email: "Elizabeth Devine Consulting Producer/Writer, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Producer/Writer, CSI:Miami" This would suggest she has a lot more control than we have been giving her credit for. Her justification for the "cheats" on CSI, as she called the glaring innaccuracies, was as follows: "You should be happy that the CSI franchise cares so much about forensics that they hire forensic experts for set work, research and story. Other shows would and have just read a book or two and started a show. I think the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some innacurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable. Next time you have a complaint about a story from the show or a scientific technique, I invite you to complain to me directly. I will give you the facts. The other option is, of course, to stop watching the show if it makes you so irrational. 29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Problem with complaining directlyto her is she just explained that it's okay to "cheat" because the means justify the ends. I also arrived at the same conclusion you seem to have: if she's as qualified as it seems, then the problem is bigger and not smaller. She should know way better, but either doesn't or doesn't care about signing off on bad stuff that's going to be labelled accurate with her name on it. I don't think I was out of line when I responded to her this afternoon in this manner: "You put your name and your credentials on every show. It is disturbing that your stamp of approval as a forensic scientist means so little to you. There are those of us for whom giving such approval means a great deal." And when legitimate forensic scientists start defending this practice, it's even more disturbing. We need to take a hard look at ourselves as a community, separate from law enforcement, and understand where hollywood is trying to take us. If we let them, we deserve to be as undone and out of touch as these views suggest some of us have become. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I'm a little behind on reading these discussion list messages, Brent; I'm working my way through them chronologically, trying to catch up on my lunch hour and after hours. The link below leads to a different interview than the one I previously read, but I believe it's the same woman. In the other interview, she expressed mild frustration that the producers ignore her suggested corrections about half the time for purposes of brevity, simplicity, or dramatic effect, but didn't seem greatly troubled by it. The fact that she is now a "story editor" implies she has more control over the content, but that may not be so. The producers still have the final say, and since they write her paycheck I suspect she would be reluctant to be too critical publicly. It is difficult for many people to find the integrity to bite the hand that feeds them, even when the hand is doing something objectionable. Privately may be a different matter, and for all we know she could be having vehement weekly battles with her bosses; but I tend to doubt it because if it were so they'd likely replace her with a more cooperative "consultant." Here's another interview with Ms Devine that I found on line, published in Australia last March. In this one, she admits to "cheating" in some of the story details, but again insists all the technical aspects are completely accurate, or at least "possible." She must not be watching the crime scene collection and other evidence handling techniques displayed on the show or she couldn't say that with a straight face. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Here's an excerpt about her motivations for joining the show's staff that I think is illuminating: "Her decision to leave the real field of forensics and work in the field of television forensics, Devine says, was to ensure the show was done properly. The money, she adds candidly, was fairly tempting as well. And maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to right a few wrongs as far as the traditional perception of cops goes." Her comment above illustrates one of the major fallacies in (and problems with) the show - CRIMINALISTS AREN'T COPS(!!!!) So what in the world does the "traditional perception of cops" have to do with us? Nothing! And again, if by "done properly" she means done accurately, then she's failing miserably in her goal. That may not be her fault if her bosses don't listen to her half the time, but she's failing in the goal nonetheless. I further still can't reconcile what I've seen on the show with her repeated statements that the show is technically accurate - it isn't, so there's no way to justify those statements. The more skilled she is, the more aware she must be of the show's technical inaccuracies. On the one hand she acknowledges some of the inaccuracies, but then on the other she discounts them and contradicts herself by returning to the claim that the show is technically accurate. I have a problem with that, and have difficulty understanding how a seemingly very conscientious person like her could fail to see the contradiction and NOT have a problem with it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bob; I posted this a few days ago, but you may have missed it: An article was run this summer regarding Liz Devine, who spent "15 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as a real-life crime scene investigator" and is now "executive story editor" for CSI. In the article, Executive Producer William Petersen claims that she is the one who is responsible for helping them to "get it right." Ms. Devine is quoted regarding the rush she gets from actors speaking the words that she writes. This article suggests that there is very little in the show that is not being stamped with the approval of an experienced law enforcement crime scene investigator. So, somebody is not being completely forthcoming about the actual role played by Ms. Devine, and at the end of the day the notion that juries may be tainted by this stuff seems a bit less laughable - no distinction is made here between fact and fiction. "Investigators: The Real CSI" CBS News, July 25, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/48hours/main526983.shtml Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? The CSI show does have a single bone-fide former forensic scientist as a full-time, who they hired away from her former crime lab employer. I understand she is paid considerably more than her former salary as a case-working forensic scientist. Her name escapes me, but I recall reading an interview with her. According to her quotes in this interview, she does often point out technical errors and exaggerations in the scripts but, unfortunately, the writers and producers don't always listen to her. If I recall correctly, she estimated she wins about half the battles, and loses the rest. She admitted that they take frequent liberties with the science in order to further the story, save time, "jazz it up," etc., but doesn't seem to think the liberties they take are a big deal (I disagree). She maintained that regardless of the many departures, the portrayal of science is at least based on reality. I say it's a tenuous base at best, stretched to extremes that make the shows little more than science fiction, and sometimes dipping into total fantasy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 26/12/2003 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 03:28:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i098SrWk021376 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:28:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" Cc: , Subject: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:28:46 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Members; The most recent information coming out of the HPD lab scandal (see: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html) is that their forensic scientists have given inaccurate statistics and insufficient evidence in 23% of the cases reviewed. It's the inaccurate statistics thing that's bugging me. I've seen forensic scientists misrepresenting numbers, overstating the confidence of evidence, say match to a jury without explaining what it means and know damn well the consequences... This is also akin to what Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma and Arnold Melnikoff of Montana and Washington State were doing - lying about the numbers and in some cases citing phony statistics. These were not and are not stupid people working in isolation from the rest of the forensic community. And they've all been doing it for a long time. And they've been promoted and rewarded for their work by others. It's not possible that those at HPD and that Gilchrist and Melnikoff and the many others like them are doing this without the knowledge of other forensic scientists. Is it? The first question then is this: Is this malice or ignorance? Do these forensic scientists and those who've trained them simply not understand the basics of hair and DNA analysis? Is that possible? Because I've read some Saferstein I've always assumed that this kind of conduct was malice... but that assumption may be misplaced if this problem is so widespread. The second question is this: what would the results be if similar independent evidence/ testimony audits were conducted of other state crime labs? Question # 2 should be of concern to every young or student forensic scientist out there whose working or considering work at a state police lab. The lesson of the Huston PD crime lab is that this kind of stuff only stays under water for so long. Eventually, it comes to the surface and then everyone whose taken a drink from the pool is a suspected carrier. I would sincerely appreciate any public or private response to these questions. I'd just like to know what other forensic scientists think. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 04:20:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i099KMLV022300 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 04:20:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:21:48 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, I'm not sure to what you are referring when you state "misleading statistics" but I do think that there is room for a general improvement in the use of statistics in the published forensic literature. The peer review system does not appear to be having its full effect in this matter. Interestingly the medical literature has recently made some considerable efforts to clean up their act. This is almost certainly not what you mean but it would be perhaps another area for suitable initiative in forensic science. It si the sort of thing that could be lead by journal editors. The most obvious fault that I notice is "proving the null" by hypothesis testing. It is completly agreed that this cannot be done by still well known commentators continue to do it. I am convinced that they, too, know better but still do it for some reason that evades me. there are quite a few other faults such as inadequate blinding and some dataediting that is problematic. John Buckleton -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:29 PM Cc: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Members; The most recent information coming out of the HPD lab scandal (see: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html) is that their forensic scientists have given inaccurate statistics and insufficient evidence in 23% of the cases reviewed. It's the inaccurate statistics thing that's bugging me. I've seen forensic scientists misrepresenting numbers, overstating the confidence of evidence, say match to a jury without explaining what it means and know damn well the consequences... This is also akin to what Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma and Arnold Melnikoff of Montana and Washington State were doing - lying about the numbers and in some cases citing phony statistics. These were not and are not stupid people working in isolation from the rest of the forensic community. And they've all been doing it for a long time. And they've been promoted and rewarded for their work by others. It's not possible that those at HPD and that Gilchrist and Melnikoff and the many others like them are doing this without the knowledge of other forensic scientists. Is it? The first question then is this: Is this malice or ignorance? Do these forensic scientists and those who've trained them simply not understand the basics of hair and DNA analysis? Is that possible? Because I've read some Saferstein I've always assumed that this kind of conduct was malice... but that assumption may be misplaced if this problem is so widespread. The second question is this: what would the results be if similar independent evidence/ testimony audits were conducted of other state crime labs? Question # 2 should be of concern to every young or student forensic scientist out there whose working or considering work at a state police lab. The lesson of the Huston PD crime lab is that this kind of stuff only stays under water for so long. Eventually, it comes to the surface and then everyone whose taken a drink from the pool is a suspected carrier. I would sincerely appreciate any public or private response to these questions. I'd just like to know what other forensic scientists think. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 09:45:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09EjeUd027616 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:45:40 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <7E83A493-42B2-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:22:19 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 09:56:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09EuvuL028522 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:56:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1289@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:56:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 11:08:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09G8IUq001019 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <22.41a0a23c.2d302be5@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:08:05 EST Subject: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Let's be realistic: the best written report can be misconstrued by an knowledgeable person. Ideally, the scientist is present to explain the findings. Real world. Opinions are formed by the reading of it by law enforcement and attorneys without the scientist present. So, we should be very careful to make the report as clear as possible. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 11:10:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09GA5VC001114 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:10:05 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:09:45 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu God bless all examiners. Theirs is a difficult, often unappreciated job. Carla In a message dated 1/8/2004 11:57:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org writes: Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 11:11:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09GB4tY001396 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:11:04 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <2d.386c26be.2d302c84@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:10:44 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The definition of 'same' is in the same dictionary that the definition of 'it' is. Ask Clinton. Carla In a message dated 1/8/2004 12:01:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil writes: OK, I'll bite. Define "Same" Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 11:30:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09GU61d002800 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:30:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D128A@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:29:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:11 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood The definition of 'same' is in the same dictionary that the definition of 'it' is. Ask Clinton. Carla In a message dated 1/8/2004 12:01:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil writes: OK, I'll bite. Define "Same" Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 12:28:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09HSsQa004607 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:28:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20040109092705.036ab790@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:31:09 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning In-Reply-To: <002901c3d657$072d1640$5ad06251@sekar> References: <002901c3d657$072d1640$5ad06251@sekar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This work was done by John DeHaan to debunk the myth of spontaneous human combustion. I am not sure why more fuel (higher body fat) would necessarily result in a faster rate of burning. No matter what animal was burning, the fire is pretty small and the rate pretty slow, almost as if it were a candle, where the fat was being rendered on the spot, and being wicked through clothing or bedding. I'll wager that the fire would last longer with higher fat content, but what would make it burn faster? John Houde ====================== At 06:19 PM 1/8/04, satish.sekar wrote: >List Members, > >I am dealing with a case where a body was partially burned. In order to >test what extent of damage would have been caused by burning the body for >approximately two hours an experiment will be conducted using pig >caracasses. They will be burned in circumstances as described by the >suspect. The main question I am trying to answer is how much damage would >have been caused to the body in the available time if it was burned in the >manner described? > >However, I am concerned that the extent of body fat in pigs is >significantly higher than in humans and that consequently, pig will burn >at a faster rate. If this is the case are there any figures available for >adjustments in times to take this into account? Are there any other >animals that could be used that have a similar structure to humans with >comparable body fat? Thank you for your attention in this matter. > >Best Wishes > >Satish > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] [EndPost by John Houde ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 12:40:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09HefUo005234 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:40:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000e01c3d6d7$45bc8000$195dfd3e@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: References: <002901c3d657$072d1640$5ad06251@sekar> <6.0.0.22.0.20040109092705.036ab790@pop.business.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:37:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks to all who replied. I am currently reading John deHaan's article. My concern was whether the extra body fat in pigs would act as an accelerant once the pig was burning and in that context would the damage caused be more extensive than in a human in the same time period. Thanks again. Best Wishes Satish ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Houde" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning > This work was done by John DeHaan to debunk the myth of spontaneous human > combustion. I am not sure why more fuel (higher body fat) would necessarily > result in a faster rate of burning. No matter what animal was burning, the > fire is pretty small and the rate pretty slow, almost as if it were a > candle, where the fat was being rendered on the spot, and being wicked > through clothing or bedding. I'll wager that the fire would last longer > with higher fat content, but what would make it burn faster? > John Houde > > ====================== > At 06:19 PM 1/8/04, satish.sekar wrote: > >List Members, > > > >I am dealing with a case where a body was partially burned. In order to > >test what extent of damage would have been caused by burning the body for > >approximately two hours an experiment will be conducted using pig > >caracasses. They will be burned in circumstances as described by the > >suspect. The main question I am trying to answer is how much damage would > >have been caused to the body in the available time if it was burned in the > >manner described? > > > >However, I am concerned that the extent of body fat in pigs is > >significantly higher than in humans and that consequently, pig will burn > >at a faster rate. If this is the case are there any figures available for > >adjustments in times to take this into account? Are there any other > >animals that could be used that have a similar structure to humans with > >comparable body fat? Thank you for your attention in this matter. > > > >Best Wishes > > > >Satish > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > >multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > >--- > >[EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] > > [EndPost by John Houde ] [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 13:42:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09IgbW9007136 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:42:37 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <55.4e914d2d.2d30500c@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:42:20 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/8/2004 1:30:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbowden45@comcast.net writes: I have been following this thread from the very beginning. I really appreciate all of the reasoned discussion. I am reminded of a favorite quote (sorry I don't recall the source), "Eventually all arguments become discussions in semantics." John P. Bowden =========== Well John, lets look at another option to the Hematrace question...that is, how should the report be written? Wording has been suggested as follows: Some other options: Consistent with Human or ferrett blood Consistent with blood from ferrett- eating human :-) Hope your day is going well! ~ m (Sorry B-B, just had to pass this one along!) Mark B. Lewis ========= --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 13:57:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09IvlGe007944 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:57:47 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: <9a.fdf35b.2d305390@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:57:20 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/8/2004 5:53:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, WMorris400@aol.com writes: One of the concerns I have always had is that some reports from laboratories exhibit a pro-prosecution bias in the wording. Wayne Morris, MS Morris-Kopec Forensics, Inc. =============== Mr. Morris: Being the curious person that I am, would you be kind enough to offer which section(s) of the laboratories mentioned above have what you may consider to have pro-prosecution bias reports? Respectfully, ~ m --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 14:01:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09J1PAD008383 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:01:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:01:16 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John; Thanks for responding. I appreciated it. What I meant by misleading statistics was this: Arnold Melnikoff testified and overstating and/ or misrepresenting findings related to forensic hair analysis; he testified that there was less than 1 in 10,000 chance that hairs found in the victim's bedroom came from someone other than defendant. Joyce Gilchrist did the same kind of thing. According to the peer review of Melnikoff's work (Bisbing, R., Deadman, H., Houck, M. Palenek, S. & Rowe, W. "PEER REVIEW REPORT: MONTANA v. JIMMY RAY BROMGARD"): "The witness's use of probabilities is contrary to the fact that there is not - and never was - a well established probability theory for hair comparison." The whole thing can be found at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/bromgard_print_version1.html At the HPD crime lab, one example given was this: "Edward Broussard, 79, got five years of deferred adjudication, a form of probation, for a 1997 sexual assault after an HPD analyst reported a strong statistical match -- more than 1 in 1 billion -- between evidence from the crime and Broussard's DNA. But retests released Thursday found the strength of the match was more like 1 in 3,000." Hope this helps, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Buckleton, John Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:22 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Brent, I'm not sure to what you are referring when you state "misleading statistics" but I do think that there is room for a general improvement in the use of statistics in the published forensic literature. The peer review system does not appear to be having its full effect in this matter. Interestingly the medical literature has recently made some considerable efforts to clean up their act. This is almost certainly not what you mean but it would be perhaps another area for suitable initiative in forensic science. It si the sort of thing that could be lead by journal editors. The most obvious fault that I notice is "proving the null" by hypothesis testing. It is completly agreed that this cannot be done by still well known commentators continue to do it. I am convinced that they, too, know better but still do it for some reason that evades me. there are quite a few other faults such as inadequate blinding and some dataediting that is problematic. John Buckleton -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:29 PM Cc: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Members; The most recent information coming out of the HPD lab scandal (see: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html) is that their forensic scientists have given inaccurate statistics and insufficient evidence in 23% of the cases reviewed. It's the inaccurate statistics thing that's bugging me. I've seen forensic scientists misrepresenting numbers, overstating the confidence of evidence, say match to a jury without explaining what it means and know damn well the consequences... This is also akin to what Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma and Arnold Melnikoff of Montana and Washington State were doing - lying about the numbers and in some cases citing phony statistics. These were not and are not stupid people working in isolation from the rest of the forensic community. And they've all been doing it for a long time. And they've been promoted and rewarded for their work by others. It's not possible that those at HPD and that Gilchrist and Melnikoff and the many others like them are doing this without the knowledge of other forensic scientists. Is it? The first question then is this: Is this malice or ignorance? Do these forensic scientists and those who've trained them simply not understand the basics of hair and DNA analysis? Is that possible? Because I've read some Saferstein I've always assumed that this kind of conduct was malice... but that assumption may be misplaced if this problem is so widespread. The second question is this: what would the results be if similar independent evidence/ testimony audits were conducted of other state crime labs? Question # 2 should be of concern to every young or student forensic scientist out there whose working or considering work at a state police lab. The lesson of the Huston PD crime lab is that this kind of stuff only stays under water for so long. Eventually, it comes to the surface and then everyone whose taken a drink from the pool is a suspected carrier. I would sincerely appreciate any public or private response to these questions. I'd just like to know what other forensic scientists think. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 15:13:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09KDYA1010722 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:13:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:12:23 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i09KDXqL010717 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks for emphasizing the sarcastic tone of my post, Bob. I just wanted to point out one of the more ludicrous inaccuracies of the show. Brad >>> "Robert Parsons" 01/08 6:45 PM >>> Just in case there's a layperson out there who might not realize it, Bradley was being sarcastic. Criminalists don't normally visit hospitals to collect samples from victims. Samples are usually collected by medical personnel at the direction of law enforcement officers. It is usually done by a doctor or nurse, or if the hospital is a very progressive one, by SANE/SART personnel (nursing staff with forensic training). While a doctor might do the collection from a victim of the opposite sex, even among medical staff it would normally be done by someone of the same sex if at all practical. If a police officer or scene technician ("CSI") does the collection from the victim, it would be _always_ be done by a person of the same sex as the victim (this is normally true for samples taken from suspects, too -- no police agency with an ounce of sense would risk opening themselves up to a charge of sexual impropriety by using someone of the opposite sex). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bradley Brown Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? My favorite episode, (and one which, ahem, most accurately depicts my job duties), is the one in which the male criminalist goes to the hospital and swabs the prostitute's breasts. >>> "Brent Turvey" 12/30 9:31 PM >>> Bob; Her position is truly split. She wants to claim accuracy for the show, admits that such a claim is not possible, but keeps going forward with it. We share the same concern ultimately - that she puts herself in front of the show as a criminalist, that her stamp of approval as a criminalist can be bought, and that she perceives no duty to the forensic science community that she misrepresents. This whole thing is yet another bizarre example of how the forensic science community responds to blatantly unethical conduct. Forensic whistleblowers of like Dr. Fred Whitehurst formerly of the FBI crime lab, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson formerly of the Harris County MEs Lab, and Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell of AFIP (to name a very few), are openly assailed by the public agencies they've deservedly outed and then treated with suspicion by the forensic community when they defend themselves for refusing to allow bad science in their name. >From the comments of some on this list, you'd think Elizabeth Devine should be considered for the Paul Kirk award because the supposed good that has come from CSI. I find this evidence that we are still heading in the wrong direction as a profession. We need a better compass than Elizabeth Devine. FYI: For those who don't know, Dr. Paul L. Kirk, one of the true fathers of modern day forensic science, was black-listed by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences because some of the more influential members did not like having to go up against him in high-profile court cases. The seeds of that division were evident to me even when I was studying at UNH in the mid 90s. Now the highest award in the criminalistics section is named for him. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] when I was studying at UNH in the [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 15:20:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09KKmgm011290 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:20:48 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:20:39 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the prostitute's breasts. I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 15:30:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09KUo6S012293 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:30:50 -0500 (EST) From: Markblewis@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:30:38 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 15:32:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09KWCpR012588 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:32:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:30:52 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i09KWBqL012583 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In all fairness to the technical consultant, I did take something useful away from one of the episodes of CSI. In the show, one of the criminalists was using wooden dowels to mark off a grid on a blanket that he was swabbing. While I don't swab blankets as a general rule, I have used the grid technique on more than one occasion to help me keep track of which areas I have patted down on comforters, blankets, etc. I use large metal rulers that can be decontaminated, as opposed to wooden dowels. But all in all, it was a good idea., >>> "Bradley Brown" 01/09 3:12 PM >>> Thanks for emphasizing the sarcastic tone of my post, Bob. I just wanted to point out one of the more ludicrous inaccuracies of the show. Brad >>> "Robert Parsons" 01/08 6:45 PM >>> Just in case there's a layperson out there who might not realize it, Bradley was being sarcastic. Criminalists don't normally visit hospitals to collect samples from victims. Samples are usually collected by medical personnel at the direction of law enforcement officers. It is usually done by a doctor or nurse, or if the hospital is a very progressive one, by SANE/SART personnel (nursing staff with forensic training). While a doctor might do the collection from a victim of the opposite sex, even among medical staff it would normally be done by someone of the same sex if at all practical. If a police officer or scene technician ("CSI") does the collection from the victim, it would be _always_ be done by a person of the same sex as the victim (this is normally true for samples taken from suspects, too -- no police agency with an ounce of sense would risk opening themselves up to a charge of sexual impropriety by using someone of the opposite sex). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bradley Brown Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? My favorite episode, (and one which, ahem, most accurately depicts my job duties), is the one in which the male criminalist goes to the hospital and swabs the prostitute's breasts. >>> "Brent Turvey" 12/30 9:31 PM >>> Bob; Her position is truly split. She wants to claim accuracy for the show, admits that such a claim is not possible, but keeps going forward with it. We share the same concern ultimately - that she puts herself in front of the show as a criminalist, that her stamp of approval as a criminalist can be bought, and that she perceives no duty to the forensic science community that she misrepresents. This whole thing is yet another bizarre example of how the forensic science community responds to blatantly unethical conduct. Forensic whistleblowers of like Dr. Fred Whitehurst formerly of the FBI crime lab, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson formerly of the Harris County MEs Lab, and Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell of AFIP (to name a very few), are openly assailed by the public agencies they've deservedly outed and then treated with suspicion by the forensic community when they defend themselves for refusing to allow bad science in their name. >From the comments of some on this list, you'd think Elizabeth Devine should be considered for the Paul Kirk award because the supposed good that has come from CSI. I find this evidence that we are still heading in the wrong direction as a profession. We need a better compass than Elizabeth Devine. FYI: For those who don't know, Dr. Paul L. Kirk, one of the true fathers of modern day forensic science, was black-listed by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences because some of the more influential members did not like having to go up against him in high-profile court cases. The seeds of that division were evident to me even when I was studying at UNH in the mid 90s. Now the highest award in the criminalistics section is named for him. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] when I was studying at UNH in the [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 15:43:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09Khtgc013505 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:43:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040109204343.57985.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:43:43 -0800 (PST) From: Cathy OReilly Subject: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would really irritate someone who does this for a living.. My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance Cathy Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 16:10:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09LAfBL014452 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:10:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20040109130916.03714960@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:12:35 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? In-Reply-To: <20040109204343.57985.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040109204343.57985.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu OK, I haven't done a hair case in a few years, but when I saw an episode of CSI where they pulled the hair apart in a tensile strength machine, I really cringed, thinking about how that hair would be useless for microscopic examination after that. John Houde ======= At 12:43 PM 1/9/04, Cathy OReilly wrote: >I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its >offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the >procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I >shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving >before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would >really irritate someone who does this for a living.. >My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate >science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as >many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. >I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance > > >Cathy > > > >Cathy O'Reilly >Biology,Chemistry,Forensics >Mamaroneck High School >Mamaroneck New York 10538 >o'reilly@mamkschools.org [EndPost by John Houde ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 16:15:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09LFnqg014908 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:15:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A691@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:13:53 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Of course. I can only give one example, from the one show that I watched only the first part of before I left the room in disgust (I'm ashamed to admit that my wife watches it regularly): a "stab wound to the chest/homicide" and the CSIs were going to pour a casting agent into the stab wound to see what the knife looked like. The actual result, if the medical examiner who actually was in charge of that morgue let them do such a thing, would have been to make a cast of the interior of the chest cavity. The science here is the basic one of anatomy. You know, though, CSI might be the basis for a decent course in general forensic science - I use Moritz' paper (from 1957) "Classical Mistakes in Forensic Pathology" as an outline of "here's a group of really common dumb things to avoid and this is why..." Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Cathy OReilly [mailto:coreilly2003@yahoo.com] My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 17:01:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09M1XOL016644 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:01:33 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:00:19 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPW7qoMpRUpTtBhQ+mP+ZdKmKPDsgADP1oQ Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 17:12:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09MCmmX017448 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:12:29 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i09MCmmY017448 In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 17:17:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09MHOgH017952 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:17:24 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:16:17 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1289@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPWwBa8rufbuPEZSlK3ODhZ8fWKRAAPgJRw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lynn, half of the people in Australia where I am wouldn't have a clue! :))) Lynn (pure coincidence that our names are the same) -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 1:57 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 17:27:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09MRMim018603 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:22 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:26:31 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPW/QVFVlEosbLBRLypjQ/HCImJQQAAkr0A Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 17:34:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09MY04U019321 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:34:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A694@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:31:53 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bruins is the UCLA sports team name. As a true scientist, did you repeat the oven experiment to see if you got the same result again? Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 17:41:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09Mfkea020682 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:41:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:41:15 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i09Mfkeb020682 A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 18:11:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09NBVMt021865 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:11:31 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:09:43 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXAQ2fiGm01MufS1m/vGA3tV0hYAABFMeQ Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Fair enough! Aaaah, I know where you are! I've been through Bakersfield heaps of times! Careful, I might drop in on you next time! :)) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:41 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 18:17:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09NHTYa022421 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:17:29 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:16:41 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A694@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPW/+MAt0KjBrMuSVe46831ZP0uwQABdV8g Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu No, we didn't repeat the over door trick but we managed to set the kitchen on fire with the Thanksgiving turkey - all in the name of science of course!! And a brand new oven! Smoke alarms are very effective, even in the bathroom, aren't they? They now have one in every room - I'm feeling a little insulted - only a little, mind you! If you could have seen the look on my brother in law's face when he walked in a stared at the ceiling in the hallway and saw it splattered with steak and kidney pie, that would have been worth more than a thousand photos! And all we could do was cry with laughter! Americans are so touchy!!! ")) Every time I say I'm going to visit, which is about June every year, he threatens to move to either New York or the cabin in Big Bear and hide! See, I told you they're a touchy lot! He has the attitude that there is only one thing worse than being married to an Australian, and that's having her sister come to visit! He can't win at all - if he ever could! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Hause, David W LTC GLWACH Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:32 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Bruins is the UCLA sports team name. As a true scientist, did you repeat the oven experiment to see if you got the same result again? Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 18:31:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09NVY2o023555 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:31:34 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:30:42 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 13E1E6331X8377175-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i09NVXqL023550 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 18:59:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i09Nx9IT024489 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:59:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:59:07 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? In-Reply-To: <20040109204343.57985.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Cathy OReilly wrote: > I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would really irritate someone who does this for a living.. > My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. > I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance > Here's one I vaguely remember (the details may well be wrong). A couple of investigators sneaked into the morgue against the wishes of the pathologist in order to pour plastic into a knife wound to the abdomen to get a cast of the knife. Of course, if one pours plastic into a knife wound to the abdomen, all one accomplishes is filling up the abdominal cavity with plastic. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:06:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A06CWP025014 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:06:12 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:07:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 00:06:05.0665 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A9DCD10:01C3D70D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: Are you referring to scientists who actually do lab work or do you mean "generalists" who are unqualified to do the cool stuff with laboratory equipment? I wouldn't want to misrepresent myself or anything, you know? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" Cc: ; Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:28 AM Subject: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? > Members; > > The most recent information coming out of the HPD lab scandal (see: > http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html) is > that their forensic scientists have given inaccurate statistics and > insufficient evidence in 23% of the cases reviewed. > > It's the inaccurate statistics thing that's bugging me. I've seen forensic > scientists misrepresenting numbers, overstating the confidence of evidence, > say match to a jury without explaining what it means and know damn well the > consequences... > > This is also akin to what Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma and Arnold Melnikoff > of Montana and Washington State were doing - lying about the numbers and in > some cases citing phony statistics. These were not and are not stupid people > working in isolation from the rest of the forensic community. And they've > all been doing it for a long time. And they've been promoted and rewarded > for their work by others. > > It's not possible that those at HPD and that Gilchrist and Melnikoff and the > many others like them are doing this without the knowledge of other forensic > scientists. Is it? > > The first question then is this: Is this malice or ignorance? Do these > forensic scientists and those who've trained them simply not understand the > basics of hair and DNA analysis? Is that possible? Because I've read some > Saferstein I've always assumed that this kind of conduct was malice... but > that assumption may be misplaced if this problem is so widespread. > > The second question is this: what would the results be if similar > independent evidence/ testimony audits were conducted of other state crime > labs? > > Question # 2 should be of concern to every young or student forensic > scientist out there whose working or considering work at a state police lab. > The lesson of the Huston PD crime lab is that this kind of stuff only stays > under water for so long. Eventually, it comes to the surface and then > everyone whose taken a drink from the pool is a suspected carrier. > > I would sincerely appreciate any public or private response to these > questions. I'd just like to know what other forensic scientists think. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:09:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A09w0O025465 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:09:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Education Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:13:35 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <014501c3d70e$96a64960$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 00:09:56.0372 (UTC) FILETIME=[1420E540:01C3D70E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I can't speak for Jeff, but in my opinion no 1-week course is even close to being enough to develop the expertise needed to do these exams independently, at least not by themselves. They are introductory coursework, not complete training programs. These short courses are beginning points in training for these specialties; they are not intended to be the entire training received. They provide a foundation upon which further training should be built (at other courses, in continued self-study, but most especially, on the job under the direct supervision, tutelage, and watchful eyes of an experienced expert). As for a one-year course in serology, assuming it was a well designed and executed course, yes, that should be enough - provided the student is already a qualified scientist with an appropriate degree, such that he/she has the necessary background to understand and apply the course materials. For most criminalistics specialties, one year is pretty standard for "basic training" done in house for a newly hired, degreed scientist with no experience. Some may be a little longer or a little shorter, depending on the scope of duties for the position assigned. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of shaun wheeler Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:56 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Education Jeff: Since we are on the subject of training I thought I would post two links that I think might be of interest to you. Note both the diversity of subject matter in the courses but also the duration, paying close attention to the one week long course in crime scene reconstruction. http://simpson.walraven.org/may23.html I invite your comments, Jeff, is a week long enough for crime scene recontruction? How about a year for serology? One of the things I found really intriguing about the crime scene reconstruction was that one of the instructors had made comments as to the Sam Sheppard case (see link below). http://www.law-forensic.com/bloodstain_2.htm "Gregg McCrary may be a good investigator, but he should not try to interpret bloodstains or smears. His short courses at the FBI did not go into enough depth to develop his expertise." A week in Eureka is long enough to teach crime scene reconstruction to a criminalist, but a 'short course' taught to a supervisory agent at the FBI in Quantico isn't enough to analyze bloodstains or smears? They must really pack a lot of training into a week out there in California, eh? While I'm confident that Ms. Montgomery was qualified and well trained in all of the areas in which she claims expertise, I am equally confident that Gregg McCrary is also qualified and well trained. But Jeff, you tell me, why is a week in California better than a short course in Quantico, other than the weather and scenery? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Education > Pete, > > I [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:10:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0A650025515 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:10:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006e01c3d70e$124ce890$c10042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <20040109204343.57985.qmail@web14603.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:09:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cathy, Just the other week, one of the CSI techs asked to see the bottom of this kid's shoe... took a swab of some sort of substance... brushed the swab off on some card that resembles a spot test assay... and said "Yep, we have a problem here. The DNA of a victim matches the DNA on your shoe". I can give you a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG list! Have a good weekend! Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cathy OReilly" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? > I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would really irritate someone who does this for a living.. > My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. > I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance > > Cathy > > > > Cathy O'Reilly > Biology,Chemistry,Forensics > Mamaroneck High School > Mamaroneck New York 10538 > o'reilly@mamkschools.org > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:14:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0EoL9026446 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:14:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:18:27 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <014601c3d70f$44f2ccf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1289@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 00:14:48.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[C26CF3A0:01C3D70E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Howdy, Lynn - come on now, darlin', take yer shoes off an' rest a spell! Contrar to pop'lur percepshin, Flarda DO be in th' South, shore 'nuf, and we stills got plenty 'em home-grown rurl taipes we 'fectshintly call "rednecks." But it be true that tuhday the muhjarty of we'all Flardans be transplant'd "damn Yankees." (atho ah must say it don't take abody no time a'tall teh pick up that there Suthern axint!) Hay there, Dan-boy, Ah'd sure'n like to hep y'all wid' that there crop gatherin', but I got me teh get them hogs slopped! An' wud sumbuddy puhLESE clean up th' cow maknowre in th' instruhmint rum? Ah almost slipped an broke mah brand spankin' new CB radio, consarn it! Ah thankie kindly. Heppy Friday Follies, y'all! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (and transplanted Jerseyite) Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:57 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:18:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0Ixeu026973 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:18:59 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <002901c3d657$072d1640$5ad06251@sekar> <6.0.0.22.0.20040109092705.036ab790@pop.business.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:20:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 00:18:52.0869 (UTC) FILETIME=[53E7D750:01C3D70F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'll bet he didn't try this guy's recipe - http://www.ambrosiasw.com/Ambrosia_Times/September_95/2.5HowTo.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Houde" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning > This work was done by John DeHaan to debunk the myth of spontaneous human > combustion. I am not sure why more fuel (higher body fat) would necessarily > result in a faster rate of burning. No matter what animal was burning, the > fire is pretty small and the rate pretty slow, almost as if it were a > candle, where the fat was being rendered on the spot, and being wicked > through clothing or bedding. I'll wager that the fire would last longer > with higher fat content, but what would make it burn faster? > John Houde [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:38:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0cWbC028099 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:38:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:38:01 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0A0cWbD028099 You are more than welcomed to. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 3:09:43 PM >>> Fair enough! Aaaah, I know where you are! I've been through Bakersfield heaps of times! Careful, I might drop in on you next time! :)) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:41 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:39:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0d7Rg028291 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:39:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:38:44 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0A0d7Rh028291 Touche! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 1/9/2004 3:30:42 PM >>> I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:39:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0dbLf028595 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:39:37 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:39:35 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well, unless this was a pig-burning, before I believe this story, I'd need to check my CSI TV manual for turkey spatter pattern and then further investigate for Australian concatamers. In any event, I'd suggest just thowing the whole mess into the dunny and then putting some Balmain bugs on the barbie. PS: My son is married to an Australian and he does most of the cooking...now I know why! Carol On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > No, we didn't repeat the over door trick but we managed to set the kitchen > on fire with the Thanksgiving turkey - all in the name of science of > course!! And a brand new oven! Smoke alarms are very effective, even in > the bathroom, aren't they? They now have one in every room - I'm feeling a > little insulted - only a little, mind you! > > If you could have seen the look on my brother in law's face when he walked > in a stared at the ceiling in the hallway and saw it splattered with steak > and kidney pie, that would have been worth more than a thousand photos! And > all we could do was cry with laughter! Americans are so touchy!!! ")) > Every time I say I'm going to visit, which is about June every year, he > threatens to move to either New York or the cabin in Big Bear and hide! > See, I told you they're a touchy lot! He has the attitude that there is > only one thing worse than being married to an Australian, and that's having > her sister come to visit! He can't win at all - if he ever could! > > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Hause, David W LTC GLWACH > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:32 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Bruins is the UCLA sports team name. As a true scientist, did you repeat > the oven experiment to see if you got the same result again? > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] > > Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? > > We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the > instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think > it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in > law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" > Really! Of course we did - later! > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:42:15 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0gFoi029336 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:42:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:41:03 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0A0gFoj029336 In Hawaii, I thinkthey call it a Luau. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com 1/9/2004 6:20:21 PM >>> I'll bet he didn't try this guy's recipe - http://www.ambrosiasw.com/Ambrosia_Times/September_95/2.5HowTo.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Houde" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning > This work was done by John DeHaan to debunk the myth of spontaneous human > combustion. I am not sure why more fuel (higher body fat) would necessarily > result in a faster rate of burning. No matter what animal was burning, the > fire is pretty small and the rate pretty slow, almost as if it were a > candle, where the fat was being rendered on the spot, and being wicked > through clothing or bedding. I'll wager that the fire would last longer > with higher fat content, but what would make it burn faster? > John Houde [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 19:55:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A0thsj000215 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:55:43 -0500 (EST) From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com Message-ID: <161.2a3b1005.2d30a77d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:55:25 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5003 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Just my luck! One hour after deleting the "pig Burning" thread I get a body 2/3rd's completely consumed and little to no scorching on the head and arms....... --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 20:38:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A1c1CK001254 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:38:01 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <15.202ee191.2d30b165@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:37:41 EST Subject: [forens] Southern Labs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Y'all surh duh sund lik a purty teligent feller, Bubba Bob. Ahm glad Ah now live in Flarda tuh. Carla In a message dated 1/9/2004 7:16:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: Howdy, Lynn - come on now, darlin', take yer shoes off an' rest a spell! Contrar to pop'lur percepshin, Flarda DO be in th' South, shore 'nuf, and we stills got plenty 'em home-grown rurl taipes we 'fectshintly call "rednecks." But it be true that tuhday the muhjarty of we'all Flardans be transplant'd "damn Yankees." (atho ah must say it don't take abody no time a'tall teh pick up that there Suthern axint!) Hay there, Dan-boy, Ah'd sure'n like to hep y'all wid' that there crop gatherin', but I got me teh get them hogs slopped! An' wud sumbuddy puhLESE clean up th' cow maknowre in th' instruhmint rum? Ah almost slipped an broke mah brand spankin' new CB radio, consarn it! Ah thankie kindly. Heppy Friday Follies, y'all! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (and transplanted Jerseyite) Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 20:59:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A1xQlm001991 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:59:26 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:58:41 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXB/V/CYdQMXbgQR6tlcLtpJrWNAAFQmSw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Now, now don't let's get picky! I'm sure they are just as good as each other - yes? No. He was also teaching at the University of Laverne - is that also crappy? Watch it! It's my brother in law we're talking about here and I think the world of him! (Just jokin') Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of James Roberts Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 10:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 21:03:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A23PWC002473 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:03:25 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:01:31 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <006e01c3d70e$124ce890$c10042ac@davelaptop> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXDUd259q8jG7vSZm//JwSBwtrIAAEFn+Q Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'd love to see that loooooooooooooong list! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:10 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? Cathy, Just the other week, one of the CSI techs asked to see the bottom of this kid's shoe... took a swab of some sort of substance... brushed the swab off on some card that resembles a spot test assay... and said "Yep, we have a problem here. The DNA of a victim matches the DNA on your shoe". I can give you a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG list! Have a good weekend! Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cathy OReilly" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? > I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would really irritate someone who does this for a living.. > My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. > I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance > > Cathy > > > > Cathy O'Reilly > Biology,Chemistry,Forensics > Mamaroneck High School > Mamaroneck New York 10538 > o'reilly@mamkschools.org > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 21:11:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A2BQA5003012 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:11:26 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:10:46 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <014601c3d70f$44f2ccf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXDfkVwyogcoCeQhmKkz4CSpJxXQAD9TLw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks for making my day! What frightens me is that I actually understood every word! Your rednecks are akin to our "yobbos"! I haven't laughed so much in days! Now you've got my husband in stitches and he's Italian! I really needed that - thanks a bunch! What a pisser! (sorry but it's the only description I can come up with!) Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Howdy, Lynn - come on now, darlin', take yer shoes off an' rest a spell! Contrar to pop'lur percepshin, Flarda DO be in th' South, shore 'nuf, and we stills got plenty 'em home-grown rurl taipes we 'fectshintly call "rednecks." But it be true that tuhday the muhjarty of we'all Flardans be transplant'd "damn Yankees." (atho ah must say it don't take abody no time a'tall teh pick up that there Suthern axint!) Hay there, Dan-boy, Ah'd sure'n like to hep y'all wid' that there crop gatherin', but I got me teh get them hogs slopped! An' wud sumbuddy puhLESE clean up th' cow maknowre in th' instruhmint rum? Ah almost slipped an broke mah brand spankin' new CB radio, consarn it! Ah thankie kindly. Heppy Friday Follies, y'all! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (and transplanted Jerseyite) Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:57 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 21:17:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A2HR7v003571 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:17:27 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:15:51 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXEWStUJ94EneqSWOx1z1//4RqNwADhuGg Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You might move to New York with my brother in law if I warn you! I was planning on coming over in June/July but it's too bloody hot! I'd prefer to go at Christmas and sit in the snow! My husband is going to Italy first so I have to work around that - so be prepared for the visitor from hell! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:38 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? You are more than welcomed to. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 3:09:43 PM >>> Fair enough! Aaaah, I know where you are! I've been through Bakersfield heaps of times! Careful, I might drop in on you next time! :)) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:41 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 21:23:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A2NQ41004151 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:23:26 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:22:33 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXEWQUq5O8jvudRDOXEaqrLDxRGQADqoSw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Do you have an aversion to oven doors being blown off? Thanksgiving turkeys going up in smoke? Pie on the ceiling? Mmmm - no wonder your son does the cooking! My brother in law couldn't boil water! He can mash potatoes and that's about it! Does your son have the same problems as my brother in law. He's given up trying to win an argument because he can't think fast enough especially with the two of us there, but I think that just applies to males in general! (Shut up, all of you, I'm just jokin' - to some extent) :)))))) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Carol Define MD Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, unless this was a pig-burning, before I believe this story, I'd need to check my CSI TV manual for turkey spatter pattern and then further investigate for Australian concatamers. In any event, I'd suggest just thowing the whole mess into the dunny and then putting some Balmain bugs on the barbie. PS: My son is married to an Australian and he does most of the cooking...now I know why! Carol On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > No, we didn't repeat the over door trick but we managed to set the > kitchen on fire with the Thanksgiving turkey - all in the name of science of > course!! And a brand new oven! Smoke alarms are very effective, even in > the bathroom, aren't they? They now have one in every room - I'm > feeling a little insulted - only a little, mind you! > > If you could have seen the look on my brother in law's face when he > walked in a stared at the ceiling in the hallway and saw it splattered > with steak and kidney pie, that would have been worth more than a > thousand photos! And all we could do was cry with laughter! > Americans are so touchy!!! ")) Every time I say I'm going to visit, > which is about June every year, he threatens to move to either New York or the cabin in Big Bear and hide! > See, I told you they're a touchy lot! He has the attitude that there > is only one thing worse than being married to an Australian, and > that's having her sister come to visit! He can't win at all - if he ever could! > > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Hause, David W LTC GLWACH > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:32 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Bruins is the UCLA sports team name. As a true scientist, did you > repeat the oven experiment to see if you got the same result again? > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] > > Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? > > We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the > instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I > think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my > brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" > Really! Of course we did - later! > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 21:31:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A2VQOg004960 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:31:26 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:29:48 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXEWQUq5O8jvudRDOXEaqrLDxRGQAD+ZUg Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I swear to God that all of this is true. You can email my sister in Los Angeles if you like, and she will confirm it! I'll give you her email address if you like! I know it sounds ludicrous but it DID happen! Yeah,,,,,what a good idea, turkey spatter pattern. You might try looking up steak and kidney pie spatter pattern as well - it sure covered a larger area than the turkey! I think we finished up having Thanksgiving at Sizzler! How revolting! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Carol Define MD Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, unless this was a pig-burning, before I believe this story, I'd need to check my CSI TV manual for turkey spatter pattern and then further investigate for Australian concatamers. In any event, I'd suggest just thowing the whole mess into the dunny and then putting some Balmain bugs on the barbie. PS: My son is married to an Australian and he does most of the cooking...now I know why! Carol On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > No, we didn't repeat the over door trick but we managed to set the > kitchen on fire with the Thanksgiving turkey - all in the name of science of > course!! And a brand new oven! Smoke alarms are very effective, even in > the bathroom, aren't they? They now have one in every room - I'm > feeling a little insulted - only a little, mind you! > > If you could have seen the look on my brother in law's face when he > walked in a stared at the ceiling in the hallway and saw it splattered > with steak and kidney pie, that would have been worth more than a > thousand photos! And all we could do was cry with laughter! > Americans are so touchy!!! ")) Every time I say I'm going to visit, > which is about June every year, he threatens to move to either New York or the cabin in Big Bear and hide! > See, I told you they're a touchy lot! He has the attitude that there > is only one thing worse than being married to an Australian, and > that's having her sister come to visit! He can't win at all - if he ever could! > > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Hause, David W LTC GLWACH > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:32 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > Bruins is the UCLA sports team name. As a true scientist, did you > repeat the oven experiment to see if you got the same result again? > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] > > Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? > > We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the > instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I > think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my > brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" > Really! Of course we did - later! > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 22:07:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A37SKk006092 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:07:28 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:05:20 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <014601c3d70f$44f2ccf0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPXDfkVwyogcoCeQhmKkz4CSpJxXQAGIXbw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Don't you mean "transplanted Joiseyite"! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Howdy, Lynn - come on now, darlin', take yer shoes off an' rest a spell! Contrar to pop'lur percepshin, Flarda DO be in th' South, shore 'nuf, and we stills got plenty 'em home-grown rurl taipes we 'fectshintly call "rednecks." But it be true that tuhday the muhjarty of we'all Flardans be transplant'd "damn Yankees." (atho ah must say it don't take abody no time a'tall teh pick up that there Suthern axint!) Hay there, Dan-boy, Ah'd sure'n like to hep y'all wid' that there crop gatherin', but I got me teh get them hogs slopped! An' wud sumbuddy puhLESE clean up th' cow maknowre in th' instruhmint rum? Ah almost slipped an broke mah brand spankin' new CB radio, consarn it! Ah thankie kindly. Heppy Friday Follies, y'all! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (and transplanted Jerseyite) Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:57 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 9 22:14:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0A3EY20006698 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:14:34 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <161.2a3b1005.2d30a77d@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:59:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 02:57:16.0872 (UTC) FILETIME=[74BB9C80:01C3D725] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'd start looking into engineers who graduated from Purdue. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning > Just my luck! One hour after deleting the "pig Burning" thread I get a body > 2/3rd's completely consumed and little to no scorching on the head and > arms....... > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 10:55:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0AFt4Rx015912 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:55:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:55:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "William C. Thompson" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:22:11 -0800 Brent, You might be interested in the attached OP/ED piece from the Houston Chronicle, in which I discuss some of the statistical misrepresentations I have uncovered in Houston. I can provide more details to anyone who is interested. William C. Thompson UC Irvine -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:29 AM To: kelvin@scientific.org Cc: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Misrepresenting statistics - what does it mean? Members; The most recent information coming out of the HPD lab scandal (see: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/index.html) is that their forensic scientists have given inaccurate statistics and insufficient evidence in 23% of the cases reviewed. It's the inaccurate statistics thing that's bugging me. I've seen forensic scientists misrepresenting numbers, overstating the confidence of evidence, say match to a jury without explaining what it means and know damn well the consequences... This is also akin to what Joyce Gilchrist of Oklahoma and Arnold Melnikoff of Montana and Washington State were doing - lying about the numbers and in some cases citing phony statistics. These were not and are not stupid people working in isolation from the rest of the forensic community. And they've all been doing it for a long time. And they've been promoted and rewarded for their work by others. It's not possible that those at HPD and that Gilchrist and Melnikoff and the many others like them are doing this without the knowledge of other forensic scientists. Is it? The first question then is this: Is this malice or ignorance? Do these forensic scientists and those who've trained them simply not understand the basics of hair and DNA analysis? Is that possible? Because I've read some Saferstein I've always assumed that this kind of conduct was malice... but that assumption may be misplaced if this problem is so widespread. The second question is this: what would the results be if similar independent evidence/ testimony audits were conducted of other state crime labs? Question # 2 should be of concern to every young or student forensic scientist out there whose working or considering work at a state police lab. The lesson of the Huston PD crime lab is that this kind of stuff only stays under water for so long. Eventually, it comes to the surface and then everyone whose taken a drink from the pool is a suspected carrier. I would sincerely appreciate any public or private response to these questions. I'd just like to know what other forensic scientists think. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 12:38:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0AHcatR017591 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:38:36 -0500 (EST) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: <186.23f140f8.2d319290@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:38:24 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5100 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Without going into details, for one example, two similar cases reporting the presence of trace amounts of a drug being present -- one correctly states that "a trace amount" of the drug was detected and the weight was reported for the entire exhibit while the other reports that the drug was found, with a weight reported. In the first instance, a red flag was flashed because if the whole thing was drug, it would not be a trace amount. In the second instance, no red flag was raised in the report. I am not saying that the bias is intentional only that it could have been avoided. The bias is in not raising a red flag when it could have been raised by simply adding the same descriptive as in the first case. Reanalysis is an option but it is an expensive option for the accused. While it is the right of all accused to request such a reanalysis, in reality, not every one can afford it and not every case can be subjected to reanalysis even if the fee is not in question. Wayne Morris --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 12:42:51 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0AHgo7u018134 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:42:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006401c3d7a1$6349e700$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> From: "John Bowden" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:44:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gee, I thought Greg was referring to Figueroa Tech. I don't recall CSULA ever being rated among the top ten universities in the US. Does CSULA have a world renowned Medical Center? Does it offer any PhD programs (other than the one in Special Education - in cooperation with UCLA)? How many Nobel Laureates have been professors there? No, Lynn, they are not the same. Not as extreme, but somewhat like comparing Monash or Deakin to Marcus Oldham College. Must have been a slow Friday afternoon. John P. Bowden, UCLA '62 ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roberts" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. > > >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> > A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> > Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? > > We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the > instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think > it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in > law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" > Really! Of course we did - later! > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > In would expect no less from a BRUIN. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: > (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> > I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the > keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found > this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and > lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > List: > Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing > email messages first. > Apologies. > ~ m > > > In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Markblewis@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > swabs the > I thought you really meant that one;-) > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > > > > [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 16:36:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ALabHp021598 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:36:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Pig-Burning Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:35:40 -0600 Message-ID: <033701c3d7c1$b1cd7d40$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 In-Reply-To: <000e01c3d6d7$45bc8000$195dfd3e@sekar> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In the US, pork has gotten to be pretty lean in recent decades, while humans have grown fatter. It's hard to say which species is now on average more obese :) Excess body fat can certainly lead to an accelerated burning rate. This is particularly true when the melting fat is able to drop into embers/flames/hot surfaces located below the burning body. Under such conditions, the high heat release rate of the impinging lipid-fueled flames may greatly increase the amount of heat feed-back to the body. The rate of consumption of any object is largely a function of the ratio of heat absorbed from the environment divided by the latent heat of vaporization/pyrolysis of that object. Example: Once a fatty piece of meat has been heated on a grill with a moderate flame, The flames from the dripping fat can grow in height until they envelop and char the meat. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of satish.sekar Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:37 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Pig-Burning Importance: High Thanks to all who replied. I am currently reading John deHaan's article. My concern was whether the extra body fat in pigs would act as an accelerant once the pig was burning and in that context would the damage caused be more extensive than in a human in the same time period. Thanks again. Best Wishes Satish [EndPost by "Gerald L. Hurst" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 17:57:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0AMvlkN023288 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:57:47 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:56:23 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <006401c3d7a1$6349e700$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> Thread-Index: AcPXoVfYVNbXkl5CS26+L+pOPFfajQAKs4bw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Ah, John, now I see. You could hardly compare Monash to Deakin could you? It's like comparing Melbourne Uni to RMIT and I GO to RMIT. Where on earth is Marcus Oldham? It sounds expensive! I have heard of both Cal State and UCLA. UCLA has a medical centre, doesn't it? Why does Figueroa sound familiar? I know I've been to LA 16 times now and it might be that I've just seen the name on a street sign or something, but I certainly have heard of it. My sister is in Monrovia and maybe I've seen the name around there or Pasadena or somewhere similar. If anyone wants to avoid me, I'm warning you I'm probably coming back in June/ July so those of you near Los Angeles - anywhere near, watch it or I'll visit you! :)))) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of John Bowden Sent: Sunday, 11 January 2004 4:44 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Gee, I thought Greg was referring to Figueroa Tech. I don't recall CSULA ever being rated among the top ten universities in the US. Does CSULA have a world renowned Medical Center? Does it offer any PhD programs (other than the one in Special Education - in cooperation with UCLA)? How many Nobel Laureates have been professors there? No, Lynn, they are not the same. Not as extreme, but somewhat like comparing Monash or Deakin to Marcus Oldham College. Must have been a slow Friday afternoon. John P. Bowden, UCLA '62 ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roberts" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. > > >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> > A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> > Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? > > We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the > instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think > it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in > law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" > Really! Of course we did - later! > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > In would expect no less from a BRUIN. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: > (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> > I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the > keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found > this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and > lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > List: > Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing > email messages first. > Apologies. > ~ m > > > In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Markblewis@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > swabs the > I thought you really meant that one;-) > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > > > > [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 18:04:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0AN4JrP023759 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:04:19 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [63.200.65.218] X-Originating-Email: [halverjl@hotmail.com] X-Sender: halverjl@hotmail.com From: "Joy Halverson" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] lots of spam Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:04:12 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2004 23:04:12.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[1004CA10:01C3D7CE] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I might be the only one but I think forens is getting too chatty-maybe more replies should be directed to individuals rather than the group? JOy _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 [EndPost by "Joy Halverson" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 20:09:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B19JYr025356 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:09:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" Cc: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:09:13 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Members; For those who care about such things, the Forensic Fraud Archive has been updated with four new entries: Dr. Homer Campbell - Forensic Odontologist Dr. James Grigson - Forensic Psychiatrist Briton G. Halksworth - Fingerprint Examiner Mary Furlong - Forensic Serologist See: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 20:39:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B1dRnx026372 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:39:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:39:22 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" cc: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Members; > > For those who care about such things, the Forensic Fraud Archive has been > updated with four new entries: > > Dr. Homer Campbell - Forensic Odontologist I have known Dr. Campbell for 20 years, and know him to be honest, knowledgeable, and professional. I notice that all you post about him are accusations and slurs -- no proof of any "fraud." It's no surprise that you wait until Dr. Campbell is not in a position to actively defend himself to engage in this hobby of character assassination. Tell me, Brent, if accusations and slurs are all it takes to make your list, why haven't you put your own name there? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 21:00:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B20OG5027415 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:00:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:00:18 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; Please provide me with information that shows the cited material is factually incorrect. I'd certainly appreciate it. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 4:39 PM To: Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu Cc: Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Members; > > For those who care about such things, the Forensic Fraud Archive has been > updated with four new entries: > > Dr. Homer Campbell - Forensic Odontologist I have known Dr. Campbell for 20 years, and know him to be honest, knowledgeable, and professional. I notice that all you post about him are accusations and slurs -- no proof of any "fraud." It's no surprise that you wait until Dr. Campbell is not in a position to actively defend himself to engage in this hobby of character assassination. Tell me, Brent, if accusations and slurs are all it takes to make your list, why haven't you put your own name there? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 22:05:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B35oFS028493 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:05:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:05:45 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > Please provide me with information that shows the cited material is > factually incorrect. > > I'd certainly appreciate it. > > Brent The information you cite provides no proof of fraud, just smear and accusation -- the tool of the character assassin. The very idea that mere accusation is enough for you to start feeding on someone and they have to have surrogates "prove" that your accusations are false is pretty pathetic. Dr. Campbell is a good man and a professional with great ethics. I am proud to know him. It is a shame you have decided to try to feed on the remains of his career for your own self-aggrandizement while his failing health makes it impossible for him to act in his own defense. You should be ashamed of yourself. Once again, if merely having accusations made against someone by people who profit from it makes one a "fraud," then why have you not included yourself on your list for character assassination? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 22:32:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B3WIwh029385 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:32:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:32:11 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; I do not agree at all with your characterization of the information provided as merely slurs and accusations. Though I'm not surprised that you came to this conclusion, owing to the quickness of your response. Your response came only about 20 minutes after I posted the update. And your response was not to show the falseness of the information, but to mischaracterize it as non-factual and then launch into personal attacks against me. In fact, you still don't see a responsibility to show the information provided as false, despite my simple and polite request that you do so. Look - the biggest problem we have with identifying fraud in this field is that everyone is friends with everyone. And when you are friends with someone, you shouldn't be the one reviewing or comment on their conduct when it comes in to question. It will just degenerate into name-calling, which is not useful or professional. In any case, we are all aware, I'm certain, of experts who have been around for 20 years or more that start thinking they are infallible and start overstating the certainty of their findings, or interpreting evidence based on their gut rather than science. Then the woman they declared dead shows up and their "reasonable degree of medical certainty" is exposed is a "best guess". This is no slur. This is one of the things that happened to Dr. Campbell. I'm not certain how you can defend this with a straight face. It is, however, unfortunate that you would criticize me for simply pointing to the documents that report it. We need less politicking and cronyism, and more willingness to reign in our opinions when the evidence is not there to support it. This is true across the board in the forensic sciences. I'm sorry if that offends you. And I'm sorry about your friend. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:06 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > Please provide me with information that shows the cited material is > factually incorrect. > > I'd certainly appreciate it. > > Brent The information you cite provides no proof of fraud, just smear and accusation -- the tool of the character assassin. The very idea that mere accusation is enough for you to start feeding on someone and they have to have surrogates "prove" that your accusations are false is pretty pathetic. Dr. Campbell is a good man and a professional with great ethics. I am proud to know him. It is a shame you have decided to try to feed on the remains of his career for your own self-aggrandizement while his failing health makes it impossible for him to act in his own defense. You should be ashamed of yourself. Once again, if merely having accusations made against someone by people who profit from it makes one a "fraud," then why have you not included yourself on your list for character assassination? billo [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 23:17:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B4Hbnx000552 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:17:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:17:35 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > I do not agree at all with your characterization of the information provided > as merely slurs and accusations. There has been no proof of fraud. Just allegations. All your attempts to pretty it up make it no more. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 10 23:41:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B4fPDb001258 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:41:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:41:22 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > > In any case, we are all aware, I'm certain, of experts who have been around > for 20 years or more that start thinking they are infallible and start > overstating the certainty of their findings, or interpreting evidence based > on their gut rather than science. Then the woman they declared dead shows up > and their "reasonable degree of medical certainty" is exposed is a "best > guess". This is no slur. This is one of the things that happened to Dr. > Campbell. > I do not have your mind-reading skills, which apparently provide you with a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" regarding what people think. I didn't know that being a profiler provided you with demonstrable ESP. But let me remind you -- you are accusing Dr. Campbell of *fraud* not making an error. Calling someone a fraud may not be a slur in *your* practice, but it is considered one where I work. Let me remind you of what you put in your own page: "This is not an archive of mere forensic mistakes, mishaps, or misidentifications. It is maintained solely for educational and informational purposes." In other words, you are not merely accusing Dr. Campbell of making a mistake. You accuse him of *fraud.* And you have provided *no* evidence of it. I know you love the cameras, and it feels good to be the go-to guy for the talking heads on Fox. But when you write " of experts who have been around for 20 years or more that start thinking they are infallible and start overstating the certainty of their findings" you might look in the mirror and realize that this applies to witch-hunting, too. Produce incontrovertable evidence of *fraud,* not mistake, or apologize to Dr. Campbell. If you fail to do that, then your accusations of fraud are nothing more than self-serving parasitism. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 01:05:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B65vd9002916 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:05:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:05:50 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bill; Again, you flatter me by making this all about me when it is not. You clearly have some other issues here that are surfacing but unrelated. I'm not really all that interested in what they are. But I do suggest you work them out before posting to a professional discussion list as a professional. When you don't, it reflects poorly on everyone. Believe me, I've had to learn that the hard way. At any rate, please reread the material again. It is not me who is forming these conclusions. No ESP is required. I'm not fallible, you're not fallible, and Dr. Campbell wasn't fallible. This is not and never was the issue. What Dr. Campbell has done is provide sworn expert testimony that was overconfident and exceeded the acceptable limits of science. He gave his opinions with too much certainty. Consider this basic issue re: bitemark evidence - Thornton, John I., "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," for David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, & Joseph Sanders, Editors, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2, (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1997): "?20-9.2.10 Bitemarks Subjectivity: Very high. Reliability in the minds of forensic scientists: Variable, but often low. Vulnerability to attach in the light of Daubert criteria (1) and (3): Moderately low to moderate. Bitemark evidence falls within the province of the forensic odontologist. Many bitemark cases involve evidence that is straightforward and unambiguous. In these instances, a photograph (or in some instances a cast) of the bitemark may be shown in juxtaposition with a test impression made by the teeth of a suspect, and the extent of agreement is apparent to everyone, jury included. The only question that remains at that point is the likelihood that another bite is an equally good match, something that has not been tested, in other instances, however, the evidence marks are obscure, or fragmentary, or susceptible to some negotiation or interpretation. In these instances, forensic odontologists have been more successful in convincing courts of the legitimacy of their opinions than they have been in convincing other forensic scientists. Other forensic scientists who routinely compare pattern evidence, e.g., shoe-print evidence, often have difficulty in seeing the agreement claimed by bitemark specialists. The bitemark specialists attribute this blindness to the fact that the other pattern specialist is not a dentist, and therefore is unable to properly interpret the patterns caused by teeth. The pattern specialists counter with the charge that this is The Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome, and the discussions quickly deteriorate. Significant areas of disagreement exist which have not yet been resolved within the forensic science community. Nevertheless, forensic odontologists have been quite active in promulgating criteria for the identification of bitemarks, and have pursued a vigorous program for the certification of those engaged in this practice." Consider also this study which conducted a lit review re: the uniqueness issue for bitemark evidence (http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/currentopic1.htm): "The article determined that the dentition is unique; however, when this paper is cited, authors often extend this conclusion to incorporate the uniqueness of bitemarks. The question of bitemark uniqueness remains unanswered. ... Summary 1. Bitemarks are can be useful physical evidence 2. The effect of skin variability has not yet been determined and further research is required in this area. The distortion of various anatomical locations is subject to curvature, bone and adipose deposits 3. Currently, digitally created overlays can be regarded as best practice although no official recommendation has been made by either US or UK bodies 4. Care must be taken when expressing certainty, especially with regard to the product rule 5. Forensic dentistry requires more research to investigate bitemark accuracy and reliability" Given the persistence and availability of this basic information in the field of bitemark analysis, and Dr. Campbell's own experience with false identifications, it quite deceptive to go into court and testify without extreme qualification that someone matches a bitemark to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Excluding a suspect is one thing. But providing certain testimony regarding the ultimate issue with such evidence is another. To suggest that someone of Dr. Campbell's tenure and experience was unaware of whether and how to limit the certainty of his opinions is disingenuous. Six forensic odontologists lined up to explain this to the court on behalf of the defense in David Wayne SPENCE v. The STATE of Texas, No. 69341, decided June 13, 1990. None of them were me, as I am not a forensic odontologist. Curiously, in Steven Mark CHANEY v. The STATE of Texas, No. 05-87-01371-CR, July 5, 1989, Dr. Campbell testified that "to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, appellant made the bite marks on Sweek's [the victim] body." I guess it became a reasonable degree of medical certainty for other cases later on? Is it medical certainty? Scientific certainty? Dental certainty? And what is the difference? Unless your argument is that Dr. Campbell was completely unaware of this basic problem with bitemark evidence, in which case the suggestion that he is an expert in that area would be a whole other kind of fraud. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 7:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > > In any case, we are all aware, I'm certain, of experts who have been around > for 20 years or more that start thinking they are infallible and start > overstating the certainty of their findings, or interpreting evidence based > on their gut rather than science. Then the woman they declared dead shows up > and their "reasonable degree of medical certainty" is exposed is a "best > guess". This is no slur. This is one of the things that happened to Dr. > Campbell. > I do not have your mind-reading skills, which apparently provide you with a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" regarding what people think. I didn't know that being a profiler provided you with demonstrable ESP. But let me remind you -- you are accusing Dr. Campbell of *fraud* not making an error. Calling someone a fraud may not be a slur in *your* practice, but it is considered one where I work. Let me remind you of what you put in your own page: "This is not an archive of mere forensic mistakes, mishaps, or misidentifications. It is maintained solely for educational and informational purposes." In other words, you are not merely accusing Dr. Campbell of making a mistake. You accuse him of *fraud.* And you have provided *no* evidence of it. I know you love the cameras, and it feels good to be the go-to guy for the talking heads on Fox. But when you write " of experts who have been around for 20 years or more that start thinking they are infallible and start overstating the certainty of their findings" you might look in the mirror and realize that this applies to witch-hunting, too. Produce incontrovertable evidence of *fraud,* not mistake, or apologize to Dr. Campbell. If you fail to do that, then your accusations of fraud are nothing more than self-serving parasitism. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 01:44:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B6ixaS004073 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:44:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:44:58 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Bill; > > Again, you flatter me by making this all about me when it is not. I don't flatter anybody who calls a man like Dr. Campbell a fraud when he is not. >You > clearly have some other issues here that are surfacing but unrelated. Yes. Dr. Campbell is a friend and a man I greatly admire. I don't like it when people call people I care for and admire "frauds" when they are not. It's not that hard to comprehend. >I'm > not really all that interested in what they are. But I do suggest you work > them out before posting to a professional discussion list as a professional. We are talking about professional accusations of *fraud* and you have provided *no* evidence that these mistakes are fraud. > When you don't, it reflects poorly on everyone. Believe me, I've had to > learn that the hard way. > When you accuse innocent people of fraud, it reflects badly on you, and on the little witch-hunting industry you and your ilk profit by. > At any rate, please reread the material again. It is not me who is forming > these conclusions. There is nothing in there that convicts a man of fraud. Making a mistake is not fraud. Fallibility is not fraud. Provide proof of fraud or apologize to Dr. Campbell. >No ESP is required. I'm not fallible, you're not > fallible, and Dr. Campbell wasn't fallible. This is not and never was the > issue. You call him a *fraud.* This is not a matter of fallibility. Read your own damned web site. You claim that you are showing *fraud,* not mistakes. You are listing Dr. Campbell in the same company as Fred Zain. You accuse him of lying on the stand. An here you are talking around it, invoking "fallibility." Your own web site uses the word fraud and denies that you are talking about fallibility and mistakes. Prove Dr. Campbell was lying. Prove that it is fraud. You cannot. All you have is accusation and smear. > > What Dr. Campbell has done is provide sworn expert testimony that was > overconfident and exceeded the acceptable limits of science. He gave his > opinions with too much certainty. > He *may* have made a mistake in one case and almost certainly made a mistake in another. Whooo boy. Two mistakes in a forty year career. This is what you call "fraud." Shame on you. > >To suggest that someone of Dr. Campbell's tenure and experience was > unaware of whether and how to limit the certainty of his opinions is > disingenuous. I see. Any mistake by someone of Dr. Campbell's tenure is fraud. Shame on you. > > Unless your argument is that Dr. Campbell was completely unaware of this > basic problem with bitemark evidence, in which case the suggestion that he > is an expert in that area would be a whole other kind of fraud. > You have provided *no* proof of fraud. You have only provided your accusation, and this pathetic ratiocination. No, Brent, anybody can make a mistake, and a mistake is not fraud. Unless, of course, someone can make a buck off the accusation. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 02:07:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B77xuh005224 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:07:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:07:52 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; You have really worked to ignore what I have posted here. And you've absolutely misrepresented it to make my assertion seem more general and subsequently less accurate. I said: "Given the persistence and availability of this basic information in the field of bitemark analysis, and Dr. Campbell's own experience with false identifications, it is quite deceptive to go into court and testify without extreme qualification that someone matches a bitemark to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Excluding a suspect is one thing. But providing certain testimony regarding the ultimate issue with such evidence is another. To suggest that someone of Dr. Campbell's tenure and experience was unaware of whether and how to limit the certainty of his opinions is disingenuous." Are you seriously contending that it's possible Dr. Campbell did not know about this very basic limitation of the use of bitemark analysis? That his overconfident testimony, which has cost at least one person their life, was a simple oops? Isn't he board certified by the ABFO? Isn't he a past president and fellow of the AAFS? How is it possible that he did not know this? Explain this, and you will get an apology. I am eager to be your student on this matter. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 9:45 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update > > What Dr. Campbell has done is provide sworn expert testimony that was > overconfident and exceeded the acceptable limits of science. He gave his > opinions with too much certainty. > He *may* have made a mistake in one case and almost certainly made a mistake in another. Whooo boy. Two mistakes in a forty year career. This is what you call "fraud." Shame on you. > >To suggest that someone of Dr. Campbell's tenure and experience was > unaware of whether and how to limit the certainty of his opinions is > disingenuous. I see. Any mistake by someone of Dr. Campbell's tenure is fraud. Shame on you. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 02:28:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0B7SKpQ006103 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:28:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:28:19 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > You have really worked to ignore what I have posted here. And you've > absolutely misrepresented it to make my assertion seem more general and > subsequently less accurate. > > I said: "Given the persistence and availability of this basic information in > the field of bitemark analysis, and Dr. Campbell's own experience with false > identifications, it is quite deceptive to go into court and testify without > extreme qualification that someone matches a bitemark to a reasonable degree > of medical certainty. Ah, I see. So forensic dentist that makes an identification is a "fraud." Whoo boy. That's going to be a *big* list you got there. > > Are you seriously contending that it's possible Dr. Campbell did not know > about this very basic limitation of the use of bitemark analysis? Perhaps he is not as good a forensic dentist as you are, but a quote from a book written by non-forensic odontologists as the basis for calling any forensic odontologist who makes an id a "fraud" is stretching the McCarthy thing a bit, even for you. In fact, the question of whether or not all forensic odontologists who make ids are frauds is not quite as cut and dried as you pretend. But, sure, many forensic odontologists do not believe that making an id is necessarily fraud and give testimony in good faith. Aparently they did not study forensic odontology from the apropriate profiler. In fact, Brent, many forensic odontologists do not accept your characterization of their profession, and they are not frauds because they do disagree with you. What is even worse is for you to take your angst about an entire profession and single out one excellent practitioner who has a well-defined and stellar career for your little witch hunt. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 08:10:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BDA8gU011701 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:10:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-Id: <200401111310.i0BDA8gU011701@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Note: This is from Shaun, not Chris. Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "shaun wheeler" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:15:25 -0800 Billo: Brent's obvious angst with AAFS is because it's members are all out to get him. Shaun ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ MEMORANDUM DATE: April 16, 1999 TO: Patricia J. McFeeley, MD, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner, Office of the Medical Investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine & President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences FROM: Brent E. Turvey, MS, Knowledge Solutions LLC, Watsonville, CA SUBJECT: False Allegations & Tortious Interference To Patricia McFeeley, the AAFS Ethics Committee, and all other interested parties; This memorandum is a follow-up to a memorandum dated February 20, 1999, addressed to Patricia J. McFeeley, MD, President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, concerning unethical conduct by FBI profiler fellows, and their associates, Richard Walter and Robert Keppel, at the 1999 AAFS Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida. The primary purpose of this memorandum is to respond directly to the false allegations made by these individuals, and those acting as their agents, regarding my professional conduct. The secondary purpose of this memorandum is to document the tortious interference of these individuals, and those acting as their agents, with my business practice and clientele in the form of vicious libel and slander. I take no pleasure in chronicling and relaying these events, and am ashamed for the community of professionals that they arose from. However, as it is my understanding that opposition to my application for Affiliate status in the AAFS General Section has been made by these individuals, and their false allegations have spread into the professional community, it is necessary that the truth be known. False Allegations The following false allegations regarding my professional conduct stem from a 1998 investigation into my professional CV by attorney Barbara Corey-Boulet of the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office in the State of Washington. This resulted because I had been consulted and retained as an expert in the area of criminal profiling by defense attorneys Fred Leatherman and Linda R. Sullivan of the Department of Assigned Counsel in the matter of the People vs. Guy Rasmussen, which involved the Rape-Homicide of Cynthia Allinger. In that involvement, I thoroughly examined the relevant case materials and visited the disposal area in the State of Washington with my client, Mr. Leatherman, and a defense investigator. In October of 1998 I made a written report, and gave a recorded interview at the Department of Assigned Counsel with both Mr. Leatherman and Prosecutor Barbara Corey-Boulet present, regarding my opinions about the case. This was not a sworn deposition nor was it testimony before a judge in a courtroom. The allegations listed below were designed in part by Barbara Corey-Boulet and distributed publicly to the Internet via email discussion lists, including Profiling-L (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/profiling-l.html). Also distributed by her office, was the full text of the above mentioned interview to at minimum the following individuals: Richard Walter, MA, a therapist from the Michigan State prison system, Robert Keppel, PhD of the State of Washington Attorney General's office, William Hagmaier of the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, and Jim Fitzgerald of the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. The distribution of this interview was highly unprofessional, as it was not a part of the public case record, and I did not testify as an expert in that case. Each of these false allegations, stemming from Barbara Corey-Boulet's "investigation," have been perpetuated by Richard Walter, Robert Keppel, and William Hagmaier, both publicly and privately, and have been, in my view, further embellished by them. False Allegation #1 In email distributed by Richard Walter, MA to the recipients of Profiling-L on October 31, 1998, he states that I have not studied under or taken courses from Dr. Henry Lee. He alleges to have based that finding on his discussions with both Dr. Henry Lee of the University of New Haven, in Connecticut and Barbara Corey-Boulet. This is untrue, and can easily be verified by calling UNH and verifying my degree and course of study. I have earned a Master's of Science in Forensic Science from the University of New Haven conferred in 1996. It should also be noted that in 1998, I was also an Adjunct Lecturer for the Forensic Science Graduate Program at the University of New Haven, in Sacramento, CA under Dean Thomas Johnson (in charge of both the West Coast and East Coast graduate forensic science programs). False Allegation #2 & #3 In email distributed by Richard Walter, MA to the recipients of Profiling-L on October 31, 1998, he states that: "In reference to work history, it was reported that you recently attempted to be qualified as an Expert in Criminal Profiling, at $400.00 per hour, in the State of Washington. However, you were deemed unqualified because, amongst other reasons, you did not present ANY credible work experience or product. That is, although you presented various claimed cases worked, a check with the agencies revealed that your involvement was restricted to an expressed interest...and offering of services for fee. As the net result, your offers were rejected and you had no claims or standing with the agencies." This statement is completely false and I cannot even begin to imagine where Mr. Walter is getting his information. Firstly, I have an established history of charging $150.00 per hour. That is a matter of record, and the amount I was paid for my time billed in the case in Washington (the People vs. Guy Rasmussen). I have never charged more than this on any case and I have never asked to receive more than this on any case. Secondly, Mr. Walter is apparently ignoring or unaware of: The Conan Wayne Hale case, a triple homicide in Oregon in which I gave my services to the defense pro bono for over a year; The Upper East Side Rapist case, which I have consulted on pro bono for the NYPD since 1997; The West Memphis case (www.wm3.org), a triple homicide in Arkansas which I have consulted on pro bono for the defense since 1997 (which resulted in a profile that led to the discovery of new evidence in the case); The Lewis Peoples case, a serial homicide case in California that I consulted pro bono with the Stockton Police Department for a period of a few weeks in 1997 (which resulted in his identification and arrest); The Wesley Shermantine case, a serial homicide case in California that I consulted on pro bono with the Stockton Police Department beginning in 1998 (revived from a cold case until arrests were made only a few weeks ago). Please note that in all of the above cases, save Peoples, I prepared written profiles or reports that aided the investigative or case effort. Though this is not the limit of my pro bono work, and represents only a small portion of the total cases that I have worked, it should suffice to demonstrate that Mr. Walter is dangerously uninformed about the nature and extent of even my most public professional involvements (i.e., the West Memphis case). Therefore, speculations he may put forward as fact should be treated with the requisite care. At this point I feel it necessary to make a general note. Regardless of my pro bono work, which I do not regularly publicize (and do so now only in my own defense after being essentially dubbed a "whore" by Mr. Walter), I was unaware that forensic scientists were expected to work for free. I was under the impression that offering competent, objective services for a reasonable fee is precisely what a good Independent forensic examiner does. Apparently Mr. Walter is at issue with this. False Allegation #4 In an email authored by Barbara Corey-Boulet to the recipients of Profiling-L on Wed, 2 Dec 1998, she states that: ".In our interview with him, Turvey also significantly overstated his work on the Manhattan Eastside serial rape case and also averred that an FBI agent had published Turvey's profile "as his own." I take extreme umbrage at this misrepresentation of fact by Corey-Boulet. I did not, and have not, misrepresented or overstated my work on the Upper East Side case. I reviewed the case material for each victim, visited all of the known crime scenes with the case detectives, then prepared a written profile of the case. As new case material is available I have provided investigative insights and suggestions to the task force. In a signed letter (attached with hard copy) dated February 27, 1999 from NYPD Det. John J. Baeza, of the Manhattan Special Victim's Squad, assigned to the Upper East Side task force, he states, among other things: ".Brent's written profile is referred to more often than other profiles prepared for this case due in large part to its easy to read format, investigative relevance, and the fact that it is written (the FBI has not yet prepared a written profile at this time). Brent is updated regularly with regard to new case developments." It is my understanding that Corey-Boulet received her information regarding my involvement on the case not from Det. Baeza, but from William Hagmaier, Director of the FBI's NCAVC, who assured her that no outside individuals are allowed to profile cases that have been profiled by the FBI. This despite the fact that FBI special agent Jim Fitzgerald of the FBI's profiling unit had, in his possession, a copy of the profile I had prepared regarding this case for some time prior to this incident. Ironically, FBI special agent Jim Fitzgerald has appeared in both newspaper articles and on national television to discuss the FBI's profile of the above-mentioned case. As they have not yet written a profile for this specific case, and the task force refers internally to the work done by my office, in my view the FBI is publicly taking credit for profiling work they have not done. False Allegation #5 In an email authored by Barbara Corey-Boulet to the recipients of Profiling-L on Wed, 2 Dec 1998, she states that: ".Turvey also claimed to be an affiliate member (not applicant) in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences." This is not true. What it stated on my CV at the time was that I had applied to the AAFS, and that I was (and still am as of this writing) a Member of the Young Forensic Scientists Forum Steering Committee with the AAFS. My application status can be verified simply by reviewing the Academy Newsletter dated November 1998 Vol. 28, Issue 6. My name is listed with many, many others as an affiliate applicant on p. 16 under the General Section. My participation with the YFSF can be verified on the website that our company, Knowledge Solutions, designed for the YFSF at www.forensic-science.com/yfsf. I have never intentionally claimed to be anything other than an Affiliate Applicant to the AAFS General Section, nor would I find it appropriate to do so. False Allegation #6 In February of this year, an attorney client informed me that the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office, acting with information supplied by Barbara Corey-Boulet, has alleged that I have never conducted work of any kind with the Tehama County Sheriff's Office (TCSO). This is untrue. In 1997, I was contacted by then Sheriff's Deputy Peter Alan Kasler, representing then Sheriff of Tehama County, Robert Heard, to examine the unsolved homicide case of Michael Britt and the rape-homicide of Rachel Ward. I did examine the case materials, and on a number of occasions did meet with Deputy Kasler to discuss investigative strategy and visit the disposal sites in Tehama County. Deputy Kasler and myself conducted this investigation as part of a larger Internal Affairs investigation into the criminal activity of a homicide detective who is still employed by that Sheriff's Office. I participated in the investigation roughly from the summer of 1997 until the fall of 1998, making numerous visits to the disposal sites, the TCSO, and reviewing the largest portion of the available case materials. Unfortunately, both Kasler and Heard left the TCSO at the end of 1998 when the new Sheriff, Clay Parker, took office. Any attempts to verify my involvement with casework after that time with the TCSO directly would, unfortunately, meet with resistance from the very people who were at the time being investigated. The details of my involvement with these cases are provided in a federal lawsuit (attached with hard copy) filed on March 24, 1999- United States District Court, Eastern District of California Case No. civ. S-99 - 0582 wbs jfm; Kasler et al vs. Parker et al See Paragraphs 99-103 False Allegation #7 At the AAFS Annual Meeting in February of this year, I was accused by a female FBI Fellowship profiler of "stealing our work." She would not elaborate on what this meant. In a phone conversation to Det. John Baeza this month, FBI Special Agent Mary Galligan also alleged that I had copied paragraphs of things that the FBI had written and used them on the Internet. My first response to such vague accusations is that I would never knowingly take credit for the work of another professional, and in fact take great care to cite all sources, as I would expect any professional to do. I have been a victim of plagiarism myself in the past, and have in fact reported it to the Ethics committee of the AAFS as it involved a now former AAFS Affiliate. Secondly, I take great pains to give former FBI profilers in specific all the credit they are due for concepts or materials they have developed, because I know how sensitive they are to such issues. This can be seen in credit given beyond mere citation to NCAVC profilers in my articles available online, and in my upcoming textbook where the work of Robert Hazelwood is singled out for recognition. Finally, I take great pains to dissociate my own profiling practices and theories from those of the FBI, in essence to separate what they do from what I do. Tortious Interference, Libel, & Slander I allege that in order to further their relationships with, or preserve their perceived status with, the network of FBI profiler fellows and the NCAVC, the following individuals, or those acting as their agents, have engaged in an ongoing pattern of libelous and slanderous conduct against my character. This continues to be accomplished on their part by perpetuating the above false allegations, as well as their involvement in the incidents of libel and slander detailed below. I further allege that this was done for the express purposes of defaming, embarrassing, humiliating, harassing, vexing, annoying, oppressing, and otherwise damaging my constitutional and civil rights, and to interfere with or prevent me from obtaining work as a criminal profiling consultant, university instructor, and expert witness. Barbara Corey-Boulet, Attorney Pierce County Prosecutors Office Tacoma, WA William Hagmaier, Director National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime FBI Academy, Quantico, VA Thomas Johnson, Dean University of New Haven West Haven, CT Robert Keppel, PhD Chief Criminal Investigator Washington State Attorney General's Office Seattle, WA Richard Walter, MA Prison Therapist Michigan Department of Corrections Lansing, MI The following incidents represent a pattern of libelous and slanderous conduct on the part of the individuals listed above (or those acting as their agents). It represents, at the very least, tortious interference of business practices. Incident #1 In April of 1998, William Hagmaier, Director of the FBI's NCAVC, telephoned Dr. Henry Lee and Dean Thomas Johnson of the University of New Haven. This occurred while I was still an adjunct lecturer in the area of criminal profiling with the University of New Haven's Sacramento campus. Mr. Hagmaier phoned them to complain that I had unethically distributed confidential case materials over the Internet, regarding the unsolved homicides of Kristin Lisk, Kati Lisk, and Sofia Silva in the area of Spotsylvania, Virginia. This was untrue, and a blatant misrepresentation of the facts by Mr. Hagmaier. The material he was referring to was not, in fact, available on the public portion of our Internet website, but was made available to registered students, in an online course instructed through Knowledge Solutions (not the University of New Haven). Material had been made available to Knowledge Solutions students regarding those specific cases in the form of links to information which has been made publicly available by the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia, archived in detail on their website located at: http://vh0312.infi.net/case/story30n.htm. This archive contains explicit news articles with details about the investigation, as well as the FBI profile and involvement in the case. Again, this was all a part of the public record and made available through the news media. The likely reason that Mr. Hagmaier was so upset, is that I discussed the FBI's profile in the case unfavorably, pointing out how similar it was to many other FBI profiles, and how general it was. I also remarked on the FBI's unfavorable involvements in other cases over the years, which very effectively demonstrate the dos and don'ts of criminal profiling to students. Regardless, Dean Johnson phoned me in an agitated state and informed me of his embarrassment regarding the conversation with Mr. Hagmaier, and of his concerns with pursuing a relationship with myself or with Knowledge Solutions further. I believe his words were, "Don't piss in the well you drink from." However, I explained to Dean Johnson the above facts regarding the materials that Mr. Hagmaier was referring to. I also followed up with a letter to Dean Johnson detailing the above (attached with hard copy). Dean Johnson assured me repeatedly during this conversation that he still intended to have me teach further at UNH Sacramento. In fact, Dean Johnson had assured me repeatedly since my first successful profiling class, that he still intended to have me teach that course and others at UNH Sacramento. Soon after, it is my understanding that Mr. Hagmaier gave Dean Johnson an ultimatum, threatening that students applying to the FBI's internship program at the NCAVC from the University of New Haven's Graduate Forensic Science Program would not be accepted if I was teaching for the University. In fact, it is my understanding from Dean Johnson that an otherwise qualified UNH Sacramento student was turned down for the FBI's Internship program mainly because I had recommended her. I was and continue to be in regular contact with many of the UNH students whom I taught while adjunct lecturer in the area of criminal profiling with the University of New Haven's Sacramento campus. They told me that Dean Johnson maligned my name and character in front of a classroom full of students that he was instructing at UNH Sacramento. They said many students continued to ask Dean Johnson when I was returning to teach the criminal profiling course that they had heard such good things about. Many were students that were at UNH Sacramento because I had initially taught them through Knowledge Solutions over the Internet and had encouraged them to apply to UNH Sacramento to further their education. I was told that Dean Johnson said that he would not have me back because I was "in trouble with the FBI," and that he had tried to "make that boy's career but he wouldn't listen to me," or words to that effect. I was also made aware that he made disparaging remarks about my teaching abilities, which he knew to be false. Unbeknownst to me until December of 1998, when I received a brief cryptic note from Dean Johnson regarding reference to UNH on my CV (attached with hard copy), Dean Johnson agreed to Hagmaier's ultimatum, and did not renew my contract for the current profiling course. Instead he hired retired FBI profiler Russell Vorpagel in my place, without notifying me that I would not be asked to teach any further courses at UNH Sacramento. Dean Johnson did not attempt to notify me in any way, despite numerous attempts I made to contact him by phone, letter, and fax. It seems several UNH students were admitted to the NCAVC's internship program after Vorpagel was hired, furthering the relationship between UNH and the FBI's profiling unit. As a result of Mr. Hagmaier's slanderous tortious interference, three things happened: My original contract for the very successful profiling course was not renewed despite verbal agreement from Dean Johnson that it would be (and I have overwhelmingly positive written student reviews from that course); A second course that had already been developed in good faith for UNH on the topic of arson profiling was not picked up despite verbal agreement from Dean Johnson that it would be; Internet based courses that were intended to be developed between Knowledge Solutions and UNH were never realized, despite this having been the mutually agreed upon intent of the initialization of the relationship. Incident #2 Near the end of 1998, William Hagmaier, Director of the FBI's NCAVC, or one of his agents, contacted Nick Fallon of Academic Press in London, UK through a third party (a well respected forensic scientist). Mr. Fallon is the in-house Editor for my soon to be released textbook "Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavior Evidence Analysis." Through this respected third party, Mr. Hagmaier warned Academic Press not to publish my textbook. He had not read the book, but knew of my methods and more importantly of my opinions regarding FBI profiling methods through my other writings. The likely reason that Mr. Hagmaier does not want to see this textbook published is that, to my knowledge, no significant publications in the area of criminal profiling have been made by FBI trained profilers in about a decade (since the Crime Classification Manual), let alone a full textbook. It is also likely that Mr. Hagmaier fears the content of the textbook will undermine current FBI profiling practices and theories (which, again, I oppose on a number of very pointed issues). Therefore, the publication of a textbook on the subject of criminal profiling outside of FBI control or influence must be unimaginable to Mr. Hagmaier and his confederates, for him to feel compelled to try and stop its release. Academic Press, however, views this as a political issue and not one of actual merit. No good reason could be given for the termination of publication, and it is still scheduled for release in June of 1999. Incident #3 Near the end of 1998, William Hagmaier, Director of the FBI's NCAVC, through FBI special agent Jim Fitzgerald, contacted Det. John Baeza of the NYPD to discuss my involvement on the Upper East Side Rapist case. The message relayed to Det. Baeza was that I was an untrustworthy individual, that the FBI had unspecified problems with me, and that I was not a competent or properly trained criminal profiler (i.e., FBI fellowship status and crime scene experience through law enforcement). Fitzgerald further explained that the FBI prefers to be the sole agency profiling a case, and that he had no idea that I had been involved with the task force. Det. Baeza reminded SA Fitzgerald that the FBI had indeed been made aware of my involvement with the task force since the very beginning, and that he had been given a copy of my profile of the case when it was initially provided to the task force. Det. Baeza also reminded SA Fitzgerald that I had provided a written profile, and that he had yet to provide the task force with any written profile regarding the case, or any substantive, written investigative direction. Incident #4 On April 13, 1999, G. Maurice Godwin, a private geographical profiler with a book on the subject of serial murder due out through CRC Press this summer, contacted Wayne Petherick of Bond University. It is my belief that acting with information provided by Robert Keppel (who wrote the forward for his textbook) that he was able to state in his email (attached with hard copy): ".any time for any reason one is in trouble with an Attorney General of any State in the USA - that suggests trouble." I am currently under contract with Bond University to teach an online profiling course through their Department of Criminology, SOCI 311: Applied Behavioral Evidence Analysis. The suggestion in the email was that I was in some sort of legal trouble with Robert Keppel's office, and that it surrounded my professional conduct. The reality is that I have publicly criticized a specific case worked by Robert Keppel, specifically his methods and opinions regarding alleged sadistic behavior of an offender. This is the Jack O. Spillman case, referenced in the memorandum dated February 20, 1999 (addressed to Patricia J. McFeeley, MD, President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences concerning unethical conduct by FBI profiler fellows, and their associates, Richard Walter and Robert Keppel, at the 1999 AAFS Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida). The public discussion of his methods and conclusions regarding that case has no doubt caused him a great deal of public embarrassment. The purpose of this contact by Mr. Godwin, with Mr. Petherick of Bond University, was to perpetuate falsehoods about my conduct and character, and to purposefully damage my credibility with Bond University, as well as to endear Mr. Petherick with his own profiling methods, university course, and upcoming book. Incident #5 On April 16, 1999, Special Agent Mary Galligan of the FBI's New York Office contacted Det. John Baeza (hard copy of Det. Baeza's notes attached), acting as an agent for William Hagmaier. In that phone conversation, she related to Det. Baeza that as he had, on more than one occasion, asked questions regarding the background of FBI profilers in general on the public discussion list Profiling-L, all FBI support for the Upper East Side Rapist case was to be immediately withdrawn. She stated that the "people in Quantico" had been monitoring his discussion list activity, had become increasingly "annoyed with his questions," and now wanted a "piece of your ass." She then told him, reluctantly, that she had been advised to go to his supervisor with this information. He invited her to do so, and further advised her that he did not appreciate having his activity monitored by the FBI. In any event, he advised her that he would not be retracting any of his questions, as they remained unanswered. She then went on to tell Det. Baeza that the NYPD's affiliation with myself, on this case in specific, was another reason for their withdrawal of resources. She then made two false allegations to Det. Baeza. Firstly, she stated that I might be arrested for perjury regarding my testimony in a case in Washington. As discussed in the False Allegations section of this memorandum, the only case I've worked in the State of Washington is People vs. Guy Rasmussen. While I did give an interview in that case, it was not a sworn deposition, let alone sworn testimony. Therefore, regardless of any statements made (none of which were falsehoods or misrepresentations of any kind, I should add), they could not be considered perjury by any definition of the law. It is my assertion that the false threat that I might be arrested for perjury in the state of Washington was provided by Barbara Corey-Boulet to both Robert Keppel and William Hagmaier. Subsequently, this false threat evolved into an inflammatory innuendo and accusation in conversations with subsequent parties, and was intended to cause harm to my professional reputation and intimidate the NYPD from endorsing the use of my services. The invention and dissemination of this falsehood (that I had committed perjury and that I might be arrested for it) by Barbara Corey-Boulet, Robert Keppel, and William Hagmaier has done untold permanent damage to my professional reputation. Secondly, SA Galligan alleged that I had copied paragraphs of things that the FBI had written and used them on the Internet. This is untrue and this issue has already been covered in False Allegation #7 of the memorandum. As a result of the ongoing false allegations made by individuals mentioned in this memorandum, and as a result of the incidents of tortious interference detailed, Knowledge Solutions now finds itself in the unenviable position of having to consider taking legal action against the above named individuals. It is my view that as these false allegations abound and are continuing to perpetuate, I need to keep the AAFS membership committee and related parties informed as to the truth. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and for your consideration, Respectfully, Brent P.S. Please note my new address and phone number below, if you should wish to contact me with any questions. Brent E. Turvey, MS Knowledge Solutions 1961 Main Street, #221 Watsonville, CA 95076 Phone (831) 786-9238 email: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com Website: http://www.corpus-delicti.com CC: Lawrence J. DeNardis, President, University of New Haven Don Harper-Mills, AAFS Ethics Committee John W. Ladenburg, District Attorney, Pierce County, Washington Janet Reno, Attorney General, United States Robert Thibault, AAFS General section, former Chair Dawn Young, AAFS General section, Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 09:19:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BEJZvD013243 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:19:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001801c3d84d$7528dec0$606cff3e@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: Subject: [forens] Wood Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:16:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0BEJZvE013243 List members, Is it possible to tell exactly what type of wood was used in a fire from analysis of charred lumps and ashes? If so, how can this be done? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 09:56:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BEujTQ014753 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:56:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:56:42 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Explain this, and you will get an apology. I am eager to be your student on > this matter. > I do not need an apology. Dr. Campbell deserves an apology -- in every forum that you have used to make your false accusations. If you want to take on the ABFO and AAFS, go for it. But don't try to make an ill man in the twilight of a stellar career the butt of your attacks on an entire discipline. Speaking of ethics, Brent, you *did* get permission from UNM to use their content, didn't you? Certainly a pillar of ethics would not steal content from another site and break copyright simply to spruce up his web page, eh? When, exactly, *did* you take that excellent photograph of Dr. Campbell? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 10:01:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BF12Wh015459 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:01:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040111150050.14116.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:00:50 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, Re inaccuracies in your Forensic Fraud Archive listings Your entry on Jim Bolding has errors, which you may want to correct. FFA: "He apparently wasn't qualified to be supervisor and couldn't be accredited as a DNA analyst because he hadn't taken statistics." The source of this statement appears to be the following newspaper article: Houston Chronicle, 9/7/2003: "Independent auditors from the Department of Public Safety and Tarrant County found in 2002 that Bolding was not qualified to be supervisor, nor could he be accredited as a DNA analyst because he has not taken statistics." This is a misrepresentation of the auditor's report: http://www.scientific.org/archive/Audit%20Document--Houston.pdf The finding of the report was that there was no transcript showing completion of a statistics course, which pertained to his responsibilities as technical leader, not DNA analyst. DNA analysts are not required to complete coursework in statistics or population genetics. Also, the statement that "he hadn't taken statistics" does not appear to be completly accurate, since it's implication is that he had no statistical training at all. Other information in your listed sources indicate that he had statistical training, although apparently not in the form of a college course. Also, qualifications for supervisors (which is an administrative function) are not covered in the quality management standards used by the auditors. Both your summary and the Chronicle article confuse "supervisor" with "technical leader". The qualifications for supervisor would be covered in the Houston PD's job description for that position, and that may or may not have matched the qualifications for technical leader used by the auditors. Timothy Sliter, Ph.D. Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 10:05:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BF5G4b016044 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:05:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001e01c3d854$6d58e260$d0126018@knology.net> From: "John" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:05:59 -0500 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 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [24.96.18.208] at Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:05:15 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu My question to the list, and Bill Oliver and Brent Turvey specifically would have to be: "What is your clear definition of fraud?" It seems to me that intentionally testifying to the authenticity of evidence known to be inacurate or false, is misrepresentation or fraudulent. Testimony you believe to be true, but may be questioned by another expert witness may not constitue fraud, but may in fact just be 2 differing oppinions by 2 expert witnesses based on the same evidence. Unless there is a deliberate action to deceive the jury, this kind of testimony should not be considered fraud. I'd be interested to know what the list thinks. John Peterson [EndPost by "John" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 10:25:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BFPutG017150 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:25:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:25:55 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: <001e01c3d854$6d58e260$d0126018@knology.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, John wrote: > My question to the list, and Bill Oliver and Brent Turvey specifically would > have to be: "What is your clear definition of fraud?" > Brent uses the term on a public web page without qualification that he is using the term idiosyncratically. He is smearing people using a common word in common context. While is it *not* particularly useful to get into dictionary wars, a man testifying in good faith is not committing fraud, even if he is incorrect. If you want a dictionary definition, here is one from m-w.com: 1. : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK 2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be Brent is accusing Dr. Campbell of intentionally lying on the stand. He has presented *no* proof of this. It is outrageous. Shame on him. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 11:28:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BGSlE2018880 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:28:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:28:46 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <200401111310.i0BDA8gU011701@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > SUBJECT: False Allegations & Tortious Interference > Sounds like a good name for Brent's web page. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 12:38:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BHcHn7020349 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:38:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:38:15 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] For Brent -- witchunting SOP questions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu So, you know, like, I was thinking this witch hunting thing might be a lot of fun. There's no certification or professional requirements, you get famous, people buy your books, you get on TV. Until now, I always thought that the *professional* thing to do if there were ethics questions about someone would be to go to their professional organization or such. But this is a lot easier. Why bother with professional ethics review when you can pop up a web page and start the old personal destruction two-step without any oversight at all? This is a great idea! So, I was thinking of putting up my own website -- "Billo's Big Blow-holes" or "Freakin' Forensic Foibles." I don't know. The title's still a work in progress. But I'm a little unsure on the SOP thing. After all, Brent, you've been lecturing me on my professional demeanor and all. So I have a couple quick questions on your character assassination SOP: 1) When I read the literature you put out, I didn't see *anybody* actually accuse Homer Campbell of fraud. Other than you, of course. Is this something you made up yourself, or do you have a written allegation of fraud from another source regarding the accusation of fraud? I don't know. It seems pretty ballsy to start calling fraud on a case I never actually had anything to do with when none of the people involved did so. That's quite an allegation to have sole ownership of in published media. But you're the expert. 2) Most of those namsy-pamsy professional organizations have this stupid little policy of informing the accused of the allegations and letting them respond. Hell, even the child-predator sites do that -- see: www.perverted-justice.com. They have this "right of reply" thing. Now I know that what's fair for sexual predators is just too much to expect for a 70-year-old forensic odontologist who made two mistaken calls in a 40-year career. Let's get real. I mean, if anybody deserves to be hung without a trial, its a forensic odontologist. So... 2 a) When did you contact Dr. Campbell and let him know about the accusations you were making about him? 2 b) What kind of reply did you offer him on your site before you published your accusation? 3) And, another thing these stupid professional organizations do is that they don't have *one person* act as judge, jury and executioner. Oh, I know, *real* professionals don't need quality control, but I couldn't help wondering... When you went out to destroy Dr. Campbell's professional reputation, did you just set out on your own, or did you submit your plan to some review board? Thanks! I know that I'm not nearly as professional as you when it comes to this character assassination thing, so I appreciate these tips! billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 12:57:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BHvaRZ021432 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:57:36 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1ea.170d50ab.2d32e87d@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:57:17 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/10/2004 8:40:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, billo@Radix.Net writes: > Subj:Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update > Date:1/10/2004 8:40:54 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:billo@Radix.Net > Reply-to:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > CC:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com > Sent from the Internet > > > > > > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > Members; > > > > For those who care about such things, the Forensic Fraud Archive has been > > updated with four new entries: > > > > Dr. Homer Campbell - Forensic Odontologist > > I have known Dr. Campbell for 20 years, and know him to be honest, > knowledgeable, and professional. I notice that all you post about > him are accusations and slurs -- no proof of any "fraud." It's no > surprise that you wait until Dr. Campbell is not in a position to > actively defend himself to engage in this hobby of character > assassination. > > Tell me, Brent, if accusations and slurs are all it takes to > make your list, why haven't you put your own name there? > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] Billo Brent might better refer to his information as "Forensic controversy" rather than fraud. We don't need to label these folks forensic frauds but as scientists collect the data for review. It was with this thought that I shared government documents recently with the Associated Press concerning Mr. Edward Bender of the BATF lab. Having my own concerns about Mr. Bender's work product now for the past 17 years I collected documentation for others to review. My own concerns could very well have been ill founded or I might have arrived at the wrong conclusions as we all do at times. So I simply presented the document collection and others found reason to question also and published those concerns. Brent may very well help his presentation by simply collecting data for public review rather than referring to the data as proof of forensic fraud. Present it for discussion by the forensic community. Personally I feel that what Brent is doing here is a very valuable addition to our profession's own self regulation. He just needs to rethink the allegation part of the presentation. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 13:34:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BIYRFk023064 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:34:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:34:25 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: <1ea.170d50ab.2d32e87d@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/10/2004 8:40:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, > billo@Radix.Net writes: > > Personally I feel that > what Brent is doing here is a very valuable addition to our profession's own self > regulation. He just needs to rethink the allegation part of the > presentation. > Fred Whitehurst Of course you do. Me to. After all, as Brent said, it's not like a slur or anything. It's one of those cocktail party things: "Oh, did you know your fly is open?" "Oh, I think you have some celery in your teeth." "Oh, by the way, I telling the world that you lied on the stand in order to knowingly kill an innocent man." Nah, you're right. No need for any QC there. I think we *all* should have our own websites just to take potshots at the professional reputations of people we don't like, or maybe who can't defend themselves. Yeah, just tone it down a little. Maybe find some other way of saying "fraud." After all, there's nothing *really* wrong with false allegations and false accusations, as long as your heart's in the right place. Right, Fred? What Brent did is no different than what he accuses these others of doing -- overstatement, false testimony, and speaking out of one's area of expertise. Tell me, Fred. How does his action differ from that he is pretending to police? This isn't professional policing. This is witchunting and character assasination wrapped in the flag of "self-regulation". It's self-aggrandizing vigilantism, pure and simple. But then, we'be been through that part before, haven't we? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 13:51:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BIpS72023730 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:51:28 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1d2.17a89c45.2d32f52b@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:51:23 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional organizations' abilities to police their own. A long time ago I believed in the FBI and the US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human enterprises, prone to failure. The AAFS has been around for a long long time full of folks who knew that there were real problems within crime labs and who did not address those failures until the Fred Zains were exposed by victims of the fraud. I don't believe that one should depend upon the "professional organizations" solely to police themselves. Politics is just part of life and part of every organization. When, as an attorney I am facing an expert witness, I want to know if there is any information out there that will indicate the failure rate of that expert. I will not get that from the AAFS. I just won't. But I don't believe that we should be slandering folks in the way that you indicate Brent Turvey is slandering them. I think that if Brent has data that he believes is consistent with failure of a forensic scientist his desire to publicize that is fine. The publication without ad hominem attack is mandatory. If someone like Turvey had been around when Fred Zain was in his glory a lot of innocent folks might not have been incarcerated and our profession might not have such a bad name. If someone with courage had spoken out about the Houston crime lab system a long time ago, six years ago, then folks in Texas would not be doubting every forensic scientist who gets on the stand. I could not agree with you more, though, in your opinion that we ought not to slander folks, but simply present the data that we believe indicates a failure rate. I would encourage Brent Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his presentation. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 14:46:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BJkdb5025116 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:46:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:46:37 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: <1d2.17a89c45.2d32f52b@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > Billo > I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional organizations' > abilities to police their own. Yeah, yeah. Tell me, Fred. And I am serious here. In Brent's character assassination of Dr. Campbell, tell me how he did not break every rule he promulates. He opines that from his great experience as a profiler, that any forensic odontologist that makes an id to reasonable certainty (not *absolute* certainty, mind you) is a fraud. Tell me, Fred, is that offering opinion of of one's expertise, or not? He offers up an example of a positive dental id on a woman who turned up alive later. What do you want to bet Brent looked at the charts and X-rays? Somehow I don't think so. What do you want to bet the he even bothered to review the case in depth? Somehow I don't think so. What do you want to bet he noted where any mistake was made -- if any? Somehow I don't think so. Tell me, Fred. Do you think Brent even *knows* the difference between "reasonable medical certainty" and absolute certainty? Even more, do you think he cares -- has he demonstrated he knows or cares? Tell me, Fred, is that how you suggest we go about engaging in professional character assassination? He goes into the mind of Homer by pretending that all forensic odontologists believe that one cannot make a positive id. Hmmm... What do you want to bet Brent actually polled a large group of forensic odontologists in order to come to that conclusion about what Homer wsas thinking? Somehow I don't think so. Tell me, Fred, is that what you call overstating a case, or not? What do you want to bet he actually looked or did any evaluation of the capital case data? Or did he just copy from an advocacy book? Hmmm? Is that what you call professional self-policing, Fred? What do you want to bet he gave Homer a chance to reply before engaging in his character assassination? Hmmm? I wouldn't put money on it. What do you want to bet he gave Home advance notice he was going to try to destroy his career? Hmmm? Who vets Brent's accusations? Hmmm? Yeah, this is a *big* improvement over professional self-regulation by professional organizations. Tell me, Fred. Who watches the watchers? Who do *you* report to for fraud when you decide to take some poor shmuck down? Who does Brent report to when he decides to destroy a professional reputation? It's just a matter of luck that I happen to be a friend of Homer and happen to read this llst. Otherwise, Brent's calumny could sit there without challenge for God knows how long. > A long time ago I believed in the FBI and the > US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human enterprises, prone to > failure. As opposed, of course, to one guy with a big ego and a web page. Yeah, no human enterprise there. > I would encourage Brent > Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his presentation. > Yeah, we don't need no steenkin quality control. Damn the torpedos and full speed ahead! Bring on the witches, we got plenty of firewood. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 15:04:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BK4NDA025815 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:04:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:04:21 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In that excellent attack on Dr. Campbell, Brent, you mention the dental identification of a corpse as someone who was later found alive as an example of fraud. I am sure, since I know you would neither speak outside your expertise or make accusations without reviewing the actual case data, that you carefully used your knowledge as a forensic odontologic profiler to reveiwe the teeth charts and such. Tell me, Brent. What, exactly was Homer's error? In what way was the conclusion not within the range of reasonable medical certainty (as opposed to absolute certainty)? After all, making an accusation of fraud without actually bothering to look at the data the accusation was based on would be, well, um, you know..... billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 15:22:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BKMXp5026471 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:22:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <025a01c3d880$9a7a5db0$25fd0b43@paulwise> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:21:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I read the Fifth Circut's decision that BT has posted on his website and I am confused. How does that decision substantiate any allegation that Dr Campbell is a fraud? It even mentions the defendant had his own odontolgy expert testify and that expert said he could not rule out the subject as the source of the bite marks. And even more importantly, since there was minor importance of that odontological evidence in the jury's findings, what's the point? A guilty man was executed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Oliver" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:04 PM Subject: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" > > In that excellent attack on Dr. Campbell, Brent, you mention the > dental identification of a corpse as someone who was later > found alive as an example of fraud. > > I am sure, since I know you would neither speak outside > your expertise or make accusations without reviewing the > actual case data, that you carefully used your knowledge > as a forensic odontologic profiler to reveiwe the teeth > charts and such. > > Tell me, Brent. What, exactly was Homer's error? In > what way was the conclusion not within the range > of reasonable medical certainty (as opposed to > absolute certainty)? > > After all, making an accusation of fraud without actually > bothering to look at the data the accusation was based > on would be, well, um, you know..... > > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 16:23:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BLNfra027832 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:23:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:23:35 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20040111150050.14116.qmail@web14702.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Timothy; Thank you for the corrections; I'll update them. That's why I post the information here - to get feedback and make it better. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tim Sliter Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:01 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Brent, Re inaccuracies in your Forensic Fraud Archive listings Your entry on Jim Bolding has errors, which you may want to correct. FFA: "He apparently wasn't qualified to be supervisor and couldn't be accredited as a DNA analyst because he hadn't taken statistics." The source of this statement appears to be the following newspaper article: Houston Chronicle, 9/7/2003: "Independent auditors from the Department of Public Safety and Tarrant County found in 2002 that Bolding was not qualified to be supervisor, nor could he be accredited as a DNA analyst because he has not taken statistics." This is a misrepresentation of the auditor's report: http://www.scientific.org/archive/Audit%20Document--Houston.pdf The finding of the report was that there was no transcript showing completion of a statistics course, which pertained to his responsibilities as technical leader, not DNA analyst. DNA analysts are not required to complete coursework in statistics or population genetics. Also, the statement that "he hadn't taken statistics" does not appear to be completly accurate, since it's implication is that he had no statistical training at all. Other information in your listed sources indicate that he had statistical training, although apparently not in the form of a college course. Also, qualifications for supervisors (which is an administrative function) are not covered in the quality management standards used by the auditors. Both your summary and the Chronicle article confuse "supervisor" with "technical leader". The qualifications for supervisor would be covered in the Houston PD's job description for that position, and that may or may not have matched the qualifications for technical leader used by the auditors. Timothy Sliter, Ph.D. Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 16:24:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BLOOBT027900 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:24:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040111212348.66770.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:23:48 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Error rates To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <1d2.17a89c45.2d32f52b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu --- Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > When, as an attorney I am facing an expert > witness, I want to know if there is > any information out there that will indicate > the failure rate of that expert. > data that we believe indicates a failure rate. Fred: A failure rate is a statistic. Unlike medicine, unlike baseball, unlkike almost anything else, the error rate of a forensic scientist is unknown and unknowable. An incompetent or dishonest tradesman doesn't last long because his work product fails to work. A forensic scientist can put out garbage for years and not be caught. Sure, you would like to know if an expert adverse to your client has ever booted a proficiency test, or made a demonstrable error. But that will not help you calculate an error rate, except to help you prove it is not zero, and you knew that anyway. The purpose of finding out if a forensic scientist ever made a mistake is not to get a handle on his or her error rate, but to imply that the scientist never made a correct determination. Given this logic, and there is plenty of it out there, there would be no old forensic scientists, because they would have been obliged to find another line of work after they made their first mistake. Even a certified scientist working in an accredited laboratory using standard methodology, who has never booted a proficeincy test is capable of making an error. That's why peer review is so important. And I don't mean a technical review by a supervisor. I mean a detailed review and reanalysis of the evidence, if necessary, by a scientist with expertise in the field in question, who is working for either the judge or the defendant. THAT would have stopped Fred Zain and others like him. Despite the fact that Justice Breyer, writing in Joiner, urged other judges to use the power given to them under rule 706 to hire their own independent experts, that advice has not been heeded. I have heard all kinds of reasons why this is so, but mainly it looks like a failure of nerve on both the part of judges and on the part of the scientific organizations. The alternative is for judges to order funding for defense experts, and let counsel select whom they want to use. This would go a long way toward protecting a defendant's right under amendment 6 to confront the witnesses against him. Sure, this approach uses resources, but not that many when looked at in the big picture. Over 90 per cent of felony defendants plead guilty, and of those that go to trial, only a small per centage of those actually need to confront a forensic scientist. It can be done, if the scientific and legal communities have the will. It could be funded by one tenth of one per cent of the treasure we spend losing the war on drugs. We need open discovery and access to experts by defendants. Then, one case at a time, those who do not belong in the field of forensic science will find that out. Billo is right. We do not need character assassination pages. You are right. There should be a place we can go for a dispassionate presentation of data about controversies that affect the public's and our own perception of our profession. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 16:34:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BLYttA028896 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:34:55 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <025a01c3d880$9a7a5db0$25fd0b43@paulwise> Subject: Re: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:35:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2004 21:34:48.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD25E690:01C3D88A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike: Brent lacks the intellectual integrity to try and read and understand the issues. He did this in his attack last year on my friend Richard Walter. http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/200301/01-22170.html The 2d Circuit's opinion relied on the notion that a particular term, 'sexual picquerism' did not exist in the lexicon of criminal behavior and "is referenced nowhere but in a true-crime paperback." As a supposed professional with a background and training in behavioral analysis, not to mention a "founder of the Academy of Behavioral Profiling", I would presume that he had at least a passing familiarity with the lexicon peculiar to sexually motivated homicide. Where I can understand the court's ignorance as laymen, Turvey cannot simultaneously claim to be an expert and seek the safe haven of an unqualified and uneducated individual. He had a professional obligation to point out the obvious flaws in the decision as well as the proper citation of relevant publications that discredit that court's opinion. The term itself has at least 117 years of history and perhaps even more. It was chronicled in "Psychopathia Sexualis" by Kraft-Ebing in the late 1880s. In a modern context it can be found in Vernon Geberth's book "Practical Homicide". In light of the liberal use Turvey made of that book in creating his online courses (the term plagiarism has been used by others to describe it), it's hard for me to believe that he didn't at least once thumb through the book long enough to linger on the many impressive photographs of which at least one depicts and describes picquerism in fairly accurate detail. Fred correctly states that it is an effective strategy in dealing with fraud to use documents. I have done this as have others and subsequently been threatened by Mr. Turvey. The memo I posted to this list yesterday is but one example of this kind of conduct on Turvey's part. He exempts himself from the standards he wants to apply to others. In that memo you will find that Mr. Turvey took violent exception to Barbara Corey-Boulet's impressive research into his false claims and fabricated resume, particularly he alleges she engaged in unethical conduct by distributing those documents pertaining to him. It is more than a little ironic that Turvey openly criticizes prosecuting attorneys and their forensic scientist lap dogs of some sort of ongoing conspiracy because they don't "do their homework", then sets about the work of muzzling them when they do. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Wise" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" > I read the Fifth Circut's decision that BT has posted on his website and I > am confused. How does that decision substantiate any allegation that Dr > Campbell is a fraud? It even mentions the defendant had his own odontolgy > expert testify and that expert said he could not rule out the subject as the > source of the bite marks. And even more importantly, since there was minor > importance of that odontological evidence in the jury's findings, what's the > point? A guilty man was executed. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Oliver" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:04 PM > Subject: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" > > > > > > In that excellent attack on Dr. Campbell, Brent, you mention the > > dental identification of a corpse as someone who was later > > found alive as an example of fraud. > > > > I am sure, since I know you would neither speak outside > > your expertise or make accusations without reviewing the > > actual case data, that you carefully used your knowledge > > as a forensic odontologic profiler to reveiwe the teeth > > charts and such. > > > > Tell me, Brent. What, exactly was Homer's error? In > > what way was the conclusion not within the range > > of reasonable medical certainty (as opposed to > > absolute certainty)? > > > > After all, making an accusation of fraud without actually > > bothering to look at the data the accusation was based > > on would be, well, um, you know..... > > > > > > billo > > > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 16:49:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BLnjf1029539 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:49:45 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: [forens] Oh please!! Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:40:26 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPYi4CeQ4b5pgd3TnOQh06ysYYnLA== Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Guys! I don't know about anyone else but I'm fast becoming bored to death with this topic. If it were I, arguing with that other "thing", I'd be told to get off, and do it off line. We've been reading this for days and not proving a damned thing - so give us a break! Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 16:57:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BLva7B000084 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:57:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:57:34 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > > Guys! I don't know about anyone else but I'm fast becoming bored to death > with this topic. If it were I, arguing with that other "thing", I'd be told > to get off, and do it off line. We've been reading this for days and not > proving a damned thing - so give us a break! > > > Lynn > Wait until someone targets you for destruction. Then it won't be so irrelevant. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 16:58:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BLwxcd000483 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:58:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:58:57 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Timothy; > > Thank you for the corrections; I'll update them. > > That's why I post the information here - to get feedback and make it better. > > Brent > Good. When can we expect your retraction and apology to Dr. Campbell? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:17:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMHsUJ001397 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:17:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:17:48 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <1d2.17a89c45.2d32f52b@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo & Fred; Firstly, the fraud issue comes from knowingly testifying against community standards. He gave certain opinions about IDs without qualification and was wrong at least once, but continued to do so. A question has been raised that these things were simple mistakes, and that Dr. Campbell was merely incompetent in these case, not malicious. Since I am not malicious, and do not desire misrepresent the facts, I am willing to take Billo's word because he knew the man, worked in the same field and at the same places, etc... If I were malicious, there's a lot more that would be in that archive. It is not my intention to mischaracterize anything or anyone. The people calling Dr. Campbell biased, deceptive and subsequently fraudulent are those experts who lined up against him, and "A State of Denial: Texas Justice and the Death Penalty" published by the Texas Defender Service, which lists him in Ch. 3 - "A Danger to Society: Fooling the Jury with Phony Experts". So that characterization of Dr. Campbell, as a phony aka fraud, will continue in an archive on their site. Again, these characterizations do not come from me, but I do appreciate correction and clarification which is why I post the updates to this list and others - to solicit a response. So, after much consideration, and rereading and rereading, here's what I am prepared to do; I'll divide the archive today; 1) the Fraud Archive & 2) Forensic Misadventures Since the intent of his conduct cannot be decided, only Dr. Campbell will go over in to the Forensic Misadventure Archive for now, to join others like Robin McLaughlin, Charles Linch, Michael West (who remains an American Board of Forensic Odontology member despite his misconduct), Dr. Charles Randal Smith, Joan Wood, Christi Y. Kim, and Joseph H. Chu. Dr. Campbell made at least one huge ID error and at least two testimony errors. This is not a question. The question is one of intent. I don't see how the testimony can be a harmless mistake on Dr. Campbell's part, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that he just doesn't know the proper weight to give bitemark evidence when testifying. Again, I do not know the man, and Billo does. It is not my intention to create a character assassination page, though ironically the response to the existence of the archive is to assassinate my character by spinning my past conduct in a damaging light; as though reporting errors and misconduct makes one bad. That's something that one sees in a law enforcement culture, unfortunately. And I think reflects fairly accurately on those doing it so I'm going to ignore it. My intention is to create awareness of fraud and fallibility. And despite what Billo has stated (that two mistakes in a career is no big deal), most forensic scientists do only get one major public mistake - then their career is over. The only way that this would not happen is if their agency covered for them and nobody was looking at their conduct. The problem is that such a public mistake when people are looking is often an indication of a pattern. Like with Zaine, Melnikoff, Gilchrist, and Erdmann. This is not a witch-hunt. This is an attempt to level the field and educate multiple communities. Students need to know this stuff, the public needs to know this stuff, and other forensic scientists need to know this stuff. My experience is that many forensic scientists are aware of the problems in their own lab or region, but say nothing for fear of losing their jobs; they just keep their heads down and hope that someone else will see it and report it. They also may think that they are alone with their kinds of concerns. It says something about our community that those who report wrong-doing are treated with derision. It really does. Most forensic scientists are honest and hard working and well intentioned. But one person in one place doing bad science can affect thousands of cases and cause many people to get in trouble for concealing the problems. We need to be honest with each other about these kinds of things or they won't get fixed. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Cfwhiteh@aol.com Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Billo I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional organizations' abilities to police their own. A long time ago I believed in the FBI and the US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human enterprises, prone to failure. The AAFS has been around for a long long time full of folks who knew that there were real problems within crime labs and who did not address those failures until the Fred Zains were exposed by victims of the fraud. I don't believe that one should depend upon the "professional organizations" solely to police themselves. Politics is just part of life and part of every organization. When, as an attorney I am facing an expert witness, I want to know if there is any information out there that will indicate the failure rate of that expert. I will not get that from the AAFS. I just won't. But I don't believe that we should be slandering folks in the way that you indicate Brent Turvey is slandering them. I think that if Brent has data that he believes is consistent with failure of a forensic scientist his desire to publicize that is fine. The publication without ad hominem attack is mandatory. If someone like Turvey had been around when Fred Zain was in his glory a lot of innocent folks might not have been incarcerated and our profession might not have such a bad name. If someone with courage had spoken out about the Houston crime lab system a long time ago, six years ago, then folks in Texas would not be doubting every forensic scientist who gets on the stand. I could not agree with you more, though, in your opinion that we ought not to slander folks, but simply present the data that we believe indicates a failure rate. I would encourage Brent Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his presentation. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:34:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMYK7t002129 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:34:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:34:18 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > Dr. Campbell made at least one huge ID error and at least two testimony > errors. Actually, you don't know this. Since you have not reviewed the dental records, you don't know if Dr. Campbell made a mistake or not. Of course, whether or not he actually made a mistake isn't really important to you is it? >This is not a question. Oh? What technical mistake, exactly, did Dr. Campbell make in that body identification? Have you bothered to review the case before your little character assassination attempt? No? Why not? > It is not my intention to create a character assassination page, though > ironically the response to the existence of the archive is to assassinate my > character by spinning my past conduct in a damaging light Oh? You still attack Dr. Campbell, and I bet you *still* have not looked at any of the original data. Have you? "Damaging light?" Heh. Tell me, Brent. How do you make false accusations of fraud a *good* thing. > This is not a witch-hunt. Bullshit. You never answered any of my questions. 1) Did you give Dr. Campbell the right of reply? 2) Did you inform Dr. Campbell before you decided to engage in character assassination? 3) Did you review the original data in the cases you quote? 4) Where are charges of fraud raised in print anywhere other than your page? 5) Did you go to the ABFO before your character assassination attempt and find out whether your assertion about what forensic odontologist really think is in fact true? > > It says something about our community that those who report wrong-doing are > treated with derision. It really does. > It says that character assassins should be a little careful about calling people frauds. I can't believe you still think you did nothing wrong by accusing Dr. Campbell of fraud. You should be ashamed of yourself. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > I await the posting of your apology, the removal of the picture you took without permission, and your personal letter of apology to Dr. Cambpell. Until you do this, all your chest beating means nothing. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:41:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMfrg0002676 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:41:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:41:47 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; Wow. I think you make my points so much better than I can. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:34 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > Dr. Campbell made at least one huge ID error and at least two testimony > errors. Actually, you don't know this. Since you have not reviewed the dental records, you don't know if Dr. Campbell made a mistake or not. Of course, whether or not he actually made a mistake isn't really important to you is it? >This is not a question. Oh? What technical mistake, exactly, did Dr. Campbell make in that body identification? Have you bothered to review the case before your little character assassination attempt? No? Why not? > It is not my intention to create a character assassination page, though > ironically the response to the existence of the archive is to assassinate my > character by spinning my past conduct in a damaging light Oh? You still attack Dr. Campbell, and I bet you *still* have not looked at any of the original data. Have you? "Damaging light?" Heh. Tell me, Brent. How do you make false accusations of fraud a *good* thing. > This is not a witch-hunt. Bullshit. You never answered any of my questions. 1) Did you give Dr. Campbell the right of reply? 2) Did you inform Dr. Campbell before you decided to engage in character assassination? 3) Did you review the original data in the cases you quote? 4) Where are charges of fraud raised in print anywhere other than your page? 5) Did you go to the ABFO before your character assassination attempt and find out whether your assertion about what forensic odontologist really think is in fact true? > > It says something about our community that those who report wrong-doing are > treated with derision. It really does. > It says that character assassins should be a little careful about calling people frauds. I can't believe you still think you did nothing wrong by accusing Dr. Campbell of fraud. You should be ashamed of yourself. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > I await the posting of your apology, the removal of the picture you took without permission, and your personal letter of apology to Dr. Cambpell. Until you do this, all your chest beating means nothing. billo [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:44:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMimrx003106 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:44:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:44:46 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo & Fred; > > > If I were malicious, there's a lot more that would be in that archive. It is > not my intention to mischaracterize anything or anyone. The people calling > Dr. Campbell biased, deceptive and subsequently fraudulent are those experts > who lined up against him, and "A State of Denial: Texas Justice and the > Death Penalty" published by the Texas Defender Service, which lists him in > Ch. 3 - "A Danger to Society: Fooling the Jury with Phony Experts". So that > characterization of Dr. Campbell, as a phony aka fraud, will continue in an > archive on their site. You know, you can't even tell the truth in this. There is nowhere in that chapter that Dr. Campbell is actually called a fraud or a "phony". That you are so eager to ignore his entire career, his training, his accomplishments in order to say he is a phony shows how hard you try to be the character assassin. Maybe you ought to do just a *little* research into what a man has actually accomplished before calling him a phony on the basis of one accusation in one advocacy text. But that's the way you are, isn't it Brent? All it takes is one accusation from anybody and whoop! Someone is incompetent or a fraud. Tell me, Brent. When all those guys made those accusations against you -- does that make *you* a fraud? Or is this standard one you only apply to others? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:45:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMjPww003199 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:45:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <01f101c3d894$a7f8dd90$a494b1c8@Micro1> From: "Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia" To: "Forens List" References: <001801c3d84d$7528dec0$606cff3e@sekar> Subject: [forens] Return - Wood Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:21:07 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Satish, Try contact Aaron J. Hicks (ahicks51@cox.net), he is a Fire Expert. Cheers, Jorge Alejandro [EndPost by "Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:45:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMjej5003265 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:45:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:45:34 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <001e01c3d854$6d58e260$d0126018@knology.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John; Thanks for writing. It's posted on my site. "...cases where forensic and police experts have provided sworn expert testimony or reports to the court that contain deceptive or misleading findings, opinions, or conclusions, deliberately offered in order to secure an unfair or unlawful gain as determined by their employers, the courts, and/ or in many cases their own admission." As I can see where anyone might feel that Dr. Campbell's case might not fit this definition based on Billo's assertion that these were mistakes, I'm moving Dr. Campbell to a misadventure archive. Hope this helps. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:06 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update My question to the list, and Bill Oliver and Brent Turvey specifically would have to be: "What is your clear definition of fraud?" It seems to me that intentionally testifying to the authenticity of evidence known to be inacurate or false, is misrepresentation or fraudulent. Testimony you believe to be true, but may be questioned by another expert witness may not constitue fraud, but may in fact just be 2 differing oppinions by 2 expert witnesses based on the same evidence. Unless there is a deliberate action to deceive the jury, this kind of testimony should not be considered fraud. I'd be interested to know what the list thinks. John Peterson [EndPost by "John" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 17:54:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BMsIfF004761 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:54:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:54:17 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > Wow. > > I think you make my points so much better than I can. > > Brent > Ah, I see. Your new section is for random allegations and accusations you don't know are true and don't care. I see. Are you going to include yourself there and the allegations against you? Or is this just for people you happen to target? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:00:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BN0603005362 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:00:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:59:59 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; Your propensity for distortion of the facts speaks volumes. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:54 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > Wow. > > I think you make my points so much better than I can. > > Brent > Ah, I see. Your new section is for random allegations and accusations you don't know are true and don't care. I see. Are you going to include yourself there and the allegations against you? Or is this just for people you happen to target? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:08:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BN8DGr006161 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:08:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > As I can see where anyone might feel that Dr. Campbell's case might not fit > this definition based on Billo's assertion that these were mistakes, I'm > moving Dr. Campbell to a misadventure archive. > When you add this to your character assassination page, you should make a point of noting you have no knowledge whether the allegations are true or not, whether a mistake was actually made, or whether there was actually anything technically wrong was done at all. Instead, you are just repeating random allegations because you are just that type of guy. Otherwise, someone might get the impression you actually know if the person actually did something wrong. I am sure that all of the professionals on this list who have ever had bullshit allegations made against them will be happy to know you are there to collect them and present them as fact. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:14:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNE2cO006809 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:14:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:14:01 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > Your propensity for distortion of the facts speaks volumes. > > Brent > Distortion? I have asked the questions four times and you refuse to answer: 1) Did you look at any of the original data before presenting what Dr. Campbell did as a mistake, particularly in the body identification case? Can you point to any technical insufficiencey he committed? No? Oh. 2) Have you given your victims any right of reply on your character assasination page? No? Oh. 3) Did you notify Dr. Campbell of your intent to engage in character assassination on your web page? No? Oh. 4) Have you published an apology for calling Dr. Campbell a fraud on your web site? No? Oh. 5) Have you sent Dr. Campbell an apology? No? Oh. 6) Have you made any effort to validate the accusations made against Dr. Campbell? No? Oh. 7) Are you going to include the allegations made against you in your character assassination page? No? Oh. There's no distortion here. You don't have a clue whether or not Dr. Campbell made any technical error in his identification of the body, and *you* *don't* *care.* And you are going to set up a page dedicated to nothing but unsubstantiated allegations. What a guy. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:23:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNNIpZ007483 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:23:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000801c3d899$d6ccd590$8178e344@ALEISHA> From: "Aleisha Heuer" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:22:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I must agree. Please take your battles offline! AH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:40 PM Subject: [forens] Oh please!! > > Guys! I don't know about anyone else but I'm fast becoming bored to death > with this topic. If it were I, arguing with that other "thing", I'd be told > to get off, and do it off line. We've been reading this for days and not > proving a damned thing - so give us a break! > > > Lynn > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by "Aleisha Heuer" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:30:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNUwSV008034 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:30:58 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <6d.20747584.2d3336a7@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:30:47 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/11/2004 2:49:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, billo@Radix.Net writes: > > Yeah, we don't need no steenkin quality control. Damn the torpedos > and full speed ahead! Bring on the witches, we got plenty of firewood. > > billo > > Billo When I was working daily in the world of science we had open conversations without verbal acid spilling all over the face of open discussion. When I went into forensic science I found this very strange thing happening in a world that labeled itself as "science." Hatefulness. Open, vicious hatefulness. Useless hatefulness. No one allowed to disagree anywhere about anything ever. Deadness of thought. Deadness of will. Just deadness. I used to follow this listserve and finally tired of deadness. I find that deadness is still alive and well. Billo, look into yourself and ask what you contribute here. As for me, well I should have known better. I'll simply push the "delete" key for another year and hope live discussions return to this listserv. Brent Turvey has an idea. He presents it. He learns from live discussions. I learned a lot from this listserv at one time. But not from hatefulness. So back to the "delete" key. Don't bother to respond, at least not to me. I'll simply delete it rather than read the hatefulness. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:32:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNWmH1008406 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:32:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:32:46 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! In-Reply-To: <000801c3d899$d6ccd590$8178e344@ALEISHA> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Aleisha Heuer wrote: > I must agree. Please take your battles offline! > > AH > You won't be so sanguine when *your* name gets on Brent's random unsubstantiated allegation page. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:32:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNWu1a008472 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:32:56 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Oh please!! Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:32:10 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPYjygHDQ6t4vAsQiOOf4+be2x+7AAC988g Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I HAVE been targeted for destruction and was told to basically shut up! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 8:58 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > > Guys! I don't know about anyone else but I'm fast becoming bored to > death with this topic. If it were I, arguing with that other "thing", > I'd be told to get off, and do it off line. We've been reading this > for days and not proving a damned thing - so give us a break! > > > Lynn > Wait until someone targets you for destruction. Then it won't be so irrelevant. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:34:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNYa9E009146 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:34:36 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:34:35 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! In-Reply-To: <000801c3d899$d6ccd590$8178e344@ALEISHA> Message-ID: References: <000801c3d899$d6ccd590$8178e344@ALEISHA> 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The current discussion/disagreement is perfectly appropriate for this list...very relevant and educational. Turkey hash pie spatter doesn't need rehashing. [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:42:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNg7OW010196 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:42:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:42:05 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: <6d.20747584.2d3336a7@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/11/2004 2:49:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, > billo@Radix.Net writes: > > > > Billo > When I was working daily in the world of science we had open conversations > without verbal acid spilling all over the face of open discussion. When I went > into forensic science I found this very strange thing happening in a world > that labeled itself as "science." Hatefulness. Open, vicious hatefulness. You mean like setting up web pages calling innocent people frauds? > Useless hatefulness. No one allowed to disagree anywhere about anything ever. > Deadness of thought. Deadness of will. Just deadness. I used to follow this > listserve and finally tired of deadness. I find that deadness is still alive > and well. Billo, look into yourself and ask what you contribute here. Well, for one thing, I've gotten Brent to back off on his false allegations of fraud against an excellent forensic scientist. That was my purpose, and it's at least partially successful. I know you don't think that's a worthwhile thing, but I think it is. > me, well I should have known better. I'll simply push the "delete" key for > another year and hope live discussions return to this listserv. Brent Turvey has > an idea. He presents it. He learns from live discussions. I learned a lot > from this listserv at one time. But not from hatefulness. So back to the > "delete" key. Don't bother to respond, at least not to me. I'll simply delete > it rather than read the hatefulness. Right. And keep your eye on the character assassination web pages, since you don't consider *that* "hatefullness." billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:43:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNhJVA010338 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:43:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:43:17 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Oh please!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > I HAVE been targeted for destruction and was told to basically shut up! > > Lynn > So you have decided to do the same thing? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:45:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNjPxx011090 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:45:25 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:46:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2004 23:45:18.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7F0D840:01C3D89C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, Since you feel it is proper to air such questions on this list without bothering to check your facts, I wonder if you might help me out a bit? In the Peter Kupaza case, you stated under oath that you were a "sworn investigative witness". While I've never met a sworn investigative witness, and given this rather unusual occurence, I couldn't help but note your testimony in the Alex Dale Thomas case. I have provided a link for your benefit. http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/montoya/20000823.html Because I was rather shocked to learn that your promotion from "sworn investigative witness" to "sworn detective" had escaped my notice, I contacted an investigator in the Sacramento District Attorney's Office for a brief chat. He confirmed that you had even brought a badge with you which you displayed in court, along with the traditional white socks that all experts must wear when they testify. He subsequently contacted SPD Chief Bob Gorder. Gorder confirmed that you were not, in fact, a sworn detective and in light of the conflicting details in the two iterations of your testimony about your status, I hope you'll clarify the record a bit. Obviously you must have been promoted from "unpaid sworn investigative witness" (in Kupaza) to "unpaid sworn detective" in the Alex Dale Thomas case, but the details have been lost along the way. Normally promotions in law enforcement tend to be fairly significant events. Having attended more than one ceremony myself, I'll note that even in the smallest of departments they are accompanied by a measure of decorum as befits the occassion. Often this extends to giving the promoted officer a certificate that reflects the change in his/her rank and commission and I can't help but wonder how it is that, if your allegations in your civil suit for libel are true, Bob Gorder and the other folks conspiring against you at Sitka PD could have destroyed all evidence of this happy occassion? These types of events tend to enjoy some measure of recognition, did anybody attend your promotion ceremony? Did they all forget their still and videocameras? I would think that for a guy who had never worked for a law enforcment agency before you would have been pretty excited and gone through at least a few frames of film or perhaps five or ten hours of videotape. Did Sitka PD manage to destroy all of this through some huge conspiracy? Or was it just an oversight, perhaps because owing to your diligence in solving the murder/sexual assault of the woman you now live with? Thanks in advance for clearing this up as I'm sure it will help point out Billo's penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts which I'm sure you want no part of. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:59 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update > Billo; > > Your propensity for distortion of the facts speaks volumes. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:54 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update > > > > > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > Billo; > > > > Wow. > > > > I think you make my points so much better than I can. > > > > Brent > > > > Ah, I see. Your new section is for random allegations and accusations > you don't know are true and don't care. I see. > > Are you going to include yourself there and the allegations against > you? Or is this just for people you happen to target? > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:47:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNlXUv011553 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:47:33 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:48:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2004 23:47:27.0074 (UTC) FILETIME=[44B5DC20:01C3D89D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Other than running interference for Brent, why would they care? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:32 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Oh please!! > I HAVE been targeted for destruction and was told to basically shut up! > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 8:58 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > > > > > Guys! I don't know about anyone else but I'm fast becoming bored to > > death with this topic. If it were I, arguing with that other "thing", > > I'd be told to get off, and do it off line. We've been reading this > > for days and not proving a damned thing - so give us a break! > > > > > > Lynn > > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 18:54:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0BNsn9B012316 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:54:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:54:42 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Anyone who has an issue with this is free to contact Bob Gorder and ask him about it: 907-747-3245 You'll find that Mr. Wheeler is again lying. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of shaun wheeler Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:46 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Brent, Since you feel it is proper to air such questions on this list without bothering to check your facts, I wonder if you might help me out a bit? In the Peter Kupaza case, you stated under oath that you were a "sworn investigative witness". While I've never met a sworn investigative witness, and given this rather unusual occurence, I couldn't help but note your testimony in the Alex Dale Thomas case. I have provided a link for your benefit. http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/montoya/20000823.html Because I was rather shocked to learn that your promotion from "sworn investigative witness" to "sworn detective" had escaped my notice, I contacted an investigator in the Sacramento District Attorney's Office for a brief chat. He confirmed that you had even brought a badge with you which you displayed in court, along with the traditional white socks that all experts must wear when they testify. He subsequently contacted SPD Chief Bob Gorder. Gorder confirmed that you were not, in fact, a sworn detective and in light of the conflicting details in the two iterations of your testimony about your status, I hope you'll clarify the record a bit. Obviously you must have been promoted from "unpaid sworn investigative witness" (in Kupaza) to "unpaid sworn detective" in the Alex Dale Thomas case, but the details have been lost along the way. Normally promotions in law enforcement tend to be fairly significant events. Having attended more than one ceremony myself, I'll note that even in the smallest of departments they are accompanied by a measure of decorum as befits the occassion. Often this extends to giving the promoted officer a certificate that reflects the change in his/her rank and commission and I can't help but wonder how it is that, if your allegations in your civil suit for libel are true, Bob Gorder and the other folks conspiring against you at Sitka PD could have destroyed all evidence of this happy occassion? These types of events tend to enjoy some measure of recognition, did anybody attend your promotion ceremony? Did they all forget their still and videocameras? I would think that for a guy who had never worked for a law enforcment agency before you would have been pretty excited and gone through at least a few frames of film or perhaps five or ten hours of videotape. Did Sitka PD manage to destroy all of this through some huge conspiracy? Or was it just an oversight, perhaps because owing to your diligence in solving the murder/sexual assault of the woman you now live with? Thanks in advance for clearing this up as I'm sure it will help point out Billo's penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts which I'm sure you want no part of. Shaun [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 19:21:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C0Lfig013362 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:21:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <028e01c3d8a2$0b79a950$3c9c3d42@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: Subject: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:21:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu If a "forensic expert" were to say that an 18 year old woman would have to have defense wounds in order to prove that she had been raped by a 38 year old ex-con, would that fall under the heading of "fraud" or "forensic misadventure"? [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 19:28:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C0Sojd013862 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:28:50 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:29:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2004 00:28:43.0980 (UTC) FILETIME=[090FB8C0:01C3D8A3] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: My bad. The police chief at the time was Bill McClendon. Other than that, it would be refreshing to see you actually answer the questions. Either you were promoted or you were not promoted. Your testimony in the two cases could hardly be more clear. Thanks in advance for your answers. Btw, congratulations on the new digs. Maybe next time you'll invite me to the fire sale? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update > Anyone who has an issue with this is free to contact Bob Gorder and ask him > about it: > > 907-747-3245 > > You'll find that Mr. Wheeler is again lying. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of shaun wheeler > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:46 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update > > > Brent, > > Since you feel it is proper to air such questions on this list without > bothering to check your facts, I wonder if you might help me out a bit? > > In the Peter Kupaza case, you stated under oath that you were a "sworn > investigative witness". While I've never met a sworn investigative witness, > and given this rather unusual occurence, I couldn't help but note your > testimony in the Alex Dale Thomas case. I have provided a link for your > benefit. > > http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/montoya/20000823.html > > Because I was rather shocked to learn that your promotion from "sworn > investigative witness" to "sworn detective" had escaped my notice, I > contacted an investigator in the Sacramento District Attorney's Office for a > brief chat. He confirmed that you had even brought a badge with you which > you displayed in court, along with the traditional white socks that all > experts must wear when they testify. > > He subsequently contacted SPD Chief Bob Gorder. Gorder confirmed that you > were not, in fact, a sworn detective and in light of the conflicting details > in the two iterations of your testimony about your status, I hope you'll > clarify the record a bit. > > Obviously you must have been promoted from "unpaid sworn investigative > witness" (in Kupaza) to "unpaid sworn detective" in the Alex Dale Thomas > case, but the details have been lost along the way. > > Normally promotions in law enforcement tend to be fairly significant events. > Having attended more than one ceremony myself, I'll note that even in the > smallest of departments they are accompanied by a measure of decorum as > befits the occassion. Often this extends to giving the promoted officer a > certificate that reflects the change in his/her rank and commission and I > can't help but wonder how it is that, if your allegations in your civil suit > for libel are true, Bob Gorder and the other folks conspiring against you at > Sitka PD could have destroyed all evidence of this happy occassion? > > These types of events tend to enjoy some measure of recognition, did anybody > attend your promotion ceremony? Did they all forget their still and > videocameras? I would think that for a guy who had never worked for a law > enforcment agency before you would have been pretty excited and gone through > at least a few frames of film or perhaps five or ten hours of videotape. Did > Sitka PD manage to destroy all of this through some huge conspiracy? Or was > it just an oversight, perhaps because owing to your diligence in solving the > murder/sexual assault of the woman you now live with? > > Thanks in advance for clearing this up as I'm sure it will help point out > Billo's penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts which I'm sure > you want no part of. > > Shaun > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 19:42:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C0g5qC014548 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:42:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:41:57 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <028e01c3d8a2$0b79a950$3c9c3d42@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike; That would be an opinion. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Mike Wise Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure If a "forensic expert" were to say that an 18 year old woman would have to have defense wounds in order to prove that she had been raped by a 38 year old ex-con, would that fall under the heading of "fraud" or "forensic misadventure"? [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 19:49:15 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C0nF2V015276 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" Cc: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:49:08 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Members; Because of discussions with colleagues, which I found quite helpful, I have divided the archive into two sections. In the first are cases of clear and essentially unambiguous fraud. Those is the gray area, but with clear errors present, are placed in the misadventure section. The only two who will be moved from the fraud archive to the misadventure archive are: Dr. Jame Grigson aka "Dr. Death" Dr. Homer Campbell This because both could have possibly believed that what they were testifying to was accurate, despite the literature and the community standards present. See: FORENSIC FRAUD http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html FORENSIC MISADVENTURES http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html Thanks to my colleagues who helped with the issue and gave useful advice as to how to proceed. Please do not hesitate to comment. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 19:59:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C0x3AI016077 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:59:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:59:00 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" cc: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Members; > > Because of discussions with colleagues, which I found quite helpful, I have > divided the archive into two sections. In the first are cases of clear and > essentially unambiguous fraud. Those is the gray area, but with clear errors > present, are placed in the misadventure section. > > The only two who will be moved from the fraud archive to the misadventure > archive are: > > Dr. Jame Grigson aka "Dr. Death" > Dr. Homer Campbell > > This because both could have possibly believed that what they were > testifying to was accurate, despite the literature and the community > standards present. When yo mention "literature and the community standards" do you mean that you actually went to the ABFO in your attack on Homer, or do you mean that small part of the community that supports character assassination? I suggest that if you want to talk about "community standards" you refer to the standards of the discipline -- which you do *not* refer to in your attack on Dr. Campbell. Have you posted an apology for your false accusation of fraud? Have you sent Dr. Campbell an apology? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 20:15:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C1FSqf017040 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:15:28 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <028e01c3d8a2$0b79a950$3c9c3d42@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> Subject: Re: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:15:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2004 01:15:22.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D148230:01C3D8A9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Oh I'm sure it has to be a misadventure. It would be wholly improper to ask an individual who enjoys the respect of peers like Fred to explain his opinion in so public a forum as this one. I'm confident that Ms. Montoya found the one inch high numerals tattooed on Alex Dale Thomas's forehead to be quite attractive. It was probably a form of teenage rebellion, just as the defense expert testified. After all, I'm sure in his vast four or so years of experience he's run into quite a few instances in which 18 year old athletic females engage in consensual sex then threaten to tell somebody so that the perpetrator becomes enraged and then murders them with a crowbar and slits their throat. Happens all the time. http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/montoya/20000811.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Wise" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure > If a "forensic expert" were to say that an 18 year old woman would have to > have defense wounds in order to prove that she had been raped by a 38 year > old ex-con, would that fall under the heading of "fraud" or "forensic > misadventure"? > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 20:27:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C1Roio017709 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:27:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:27:43 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; I cited the paper written by Forensic Odontologists who lit reviewed the scientific basis for using bitemark analysis to confirm an identity and found it absent. You say it's Dr. Campbell was not deceptive when he testified to the contrary. Okay. But note that Dr. Michael West was originally expelled from the ABFO for offering those kinds of overly confident opinions and the like... With that, this conversation can continue off-line if you like. Or you can just keep character assassinating the messenger with Wheeler. It's up to you. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:59 PM To: Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu Cc: Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Members; > > Because of discussions with colleagues, which I found quite helpful, I have > divided the archive into two sections. In the first are cases of clear and > essentially unambiguous fraud. Those is the gray area, but with clear errors > present, are placed in the misadventure section. > > The only two who will be moved from the fraud archive to the misadventure > archive are: > > Dr. Jame Grigson aka "Dr. Death" > Dr. Homer Campbell > > This because both could have possibly believed that what they were > testifying to was accurate, despite the literature and the community > standards present. When yo mention "literature and the community standards" do you mean that you actually went to the ABFO in your attack on Homer, or do you mean that small part of the community that supports character assassination? I suggest that if you want to talk about "community standards" you refer to the standards of the discipline -- which you do *not* refer to in your attack on Dr. Campbell. Have you posted an apology for your false accusation of fraud? Have you sent Dr. Campbell an apology? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 20:47:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C1lJwR018619 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:47:19 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <028e01c3d8a2$0b79a950$3c9c3d42@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> Subject: Re: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:47:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2004 01:47:13.0017 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFDDBE90:01C3D8AD] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Geeze, unless the guy who expressed that opinion can provide a basis for it, I think I'd have to say fraud. Since I'm pretty familiar with his background and he has a penchant for calling me a liar, I'm sure any minute now I'm going to see him reference where he's published that study. After all, everybody knows that forensic scientists rely strictly on 100 percent accurate statistically viable published studies as opposed to nomographs, medical texts and experience garnered over decades like Homer Campbell did. You see, Mike, you have to be a team player. If you were a team player, you'd realize that it's entirely reasonable to adopt the opinions of anti-death penalty groups assailing Homer Campbell because he might have made a mistake or two in the last forty or so years, but at the same time realize that it is because he testifies for the state that this more rigorous standard must be adopted. If he had chosen the wise path of testifying for folks like Mr. Alex Dale Thomas, he could have been treated with more deference because his cause was noble and his intentions pure. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Wise" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:21 PM Subject: [forens] Fraud or Misadventure > If a "forensic expert" were to say that an 18 year old woman would have to > have defense wounds in order to prove that she had been raped by a 38 year > old ex-con, would that fall under the heading of "fraud" or "forensic > misadventure"? > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 21:22:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C2MBSl019915 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:22:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:22:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:45:35 -0800 From: Torrey Johnson Subject: Re: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, coreilly2003@yahoo.com The early episode with the round swimming pool with a lab stirrer (for current) and a fan (for wind) to simulate Lake Mead! Gil put small plastic boat in pool to figure out where a missing boat in Lake Mead would have gone. The small soil sample knocked off a suspected kidnappers shoe with numerous sparkling grains. Gil recognized they were gold, therefore the kidnaped victim was buried (alive of course and dependent on CSI for rescue) at the site of a gold mine. There were only four said Gil. So using infrared viewer on their helicopter they checked out the four mines, found and rescued the victim. My thought was when the small sample of soil off a shoe contains that much gold, to heck with forensics, I'm going gold mining! Seems to me someone said CSI has figured out a way to do DNA on a GCMS too. That was not in the 2.5 episodes I have been able to stomach. T. Johnson, Las Vegas Metro (actual) Forensic Lab >>> coreilly2003@yahoo.com 01/09/04 12:43PM >>> I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would really irritate someone who does this for a living.. My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance Cathy Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 21:48:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C2mew5020753 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:48:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:48:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > I cited the paper written by Forensic Odontologists who lit reviewed the > scientific basis for using bitemark analysis to confirm an identity and > found it absent. You say it's Dr. Campbell was not deceptive when he > testified to the contrary. Okay. You are being disengenuous. It was not forensic odontologists who stated that it was fraud to make an id on bitemarks. Get your story straight. > > But note that Dr. Michael West was originally expelled from the ABFO for > offering those kinds of overly confident opinions and the like... > You just keep laying it on. > With that, this conversation can continue off-line if you like. Or you can > just keep character assassinating the messenger with Wheeler. It's up to > you. I love this. You engage in character assassination with a free hand, and refuse to answer questions as to your own quality control when you do so. Making false accusations is just wrong, Brent. Deal with it. Whining about "assassinating the messenger" doesn't change that. Once again, you never did answer my questions: 1) Did you bother to look at the evidence you are basing your accusations on? No? Why not? 2) Did you give Homer the right of reply? No? Why not ? 3) Did you bother to inform Homer of your accusations against him? No? Why not? 4) Did you go the the ABFO with your accusations or with your bizarre claim that any forensic odontologist who makes an id is committing fraud? No? Why not? 5) Did you use any external quality control in your accusations? Who? No? Why not? Brent, if you are going to be engaging in organized character assassination because you don't like the process people use, you ought to at least have the decency to answer the questions about how you crucify them. Oh, and, of course: 6) Did you get permission to use other people's web content on your site? Specifically, did you get permission to use Homer's picture? No? Why not? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 22:16:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C3GvfQ021797 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:16:57 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:17:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2004 03:16:50.0738 (UTC) FILETIME=[853CD920:01C3D8BA] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: http://www.midsouthjustice.org/images/kupaza/kupaza_1325.jpg http://www.midsouthjustice.org/images/kupaza/kupaza_1326.jpg http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/montoya/20000823.html Your testimony in Kupaza antedate that of the trial of Alex Dale Thomas. You may recall that both of your clients were convicted and the latter was sentenced to death (Wisconsin does not have the death penalty). As the two images plainly show, I'm not basing my opinion on the word of groups that oppose the death penalty or have other political agendas, as you have with regards to Homer Campbell. Also unlike you, I don't see the opinion of a jurist as being the end game were a scientific or other expert opinion is concerned. If I did, I have two file drawers just chock full of stuff from the Conan Hale case to others where they concluded you don't have much business in front of a jury. If you would like to discuss your website's forensic fraud allegations about my friend Richard Walter, you can start with the any of the questions I've already posted and you have ignored. If not, I think your position that this amounts to merely shooting the messenger is ignoring an awful lot. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 5:27 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure > Billo; > > I cited the paper written by Forensic Odontologists who lit reviewed the > scientific basis for using bitemark analysis to confirm an identity and > found it absent. You say it's Dr. Campbell was not deceptive when he > testified to the contrary. Okay. > > But note that Dr. Michael West was originally expelled from the ABFO for > offering those kinds of overly confident opinions and the like... > > With that, this conversation can continue off-line if you like. Or you can > just keep character assassinating the messenger with Wheeler. It's up to > you. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 3:59 PM > To: Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu > Cc: Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com > Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure > > > > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > Members; > > > > Because of discussions with colleagues, which I found quite helpful, I > have > > divided the archive into two sections. In the first are cases of clear and > > essentially unambiguous fraud. Those is the gray area, but with clear > errors > > present, are placed in the misadventure section. > > > > The only two who will be moved from the fraud archive to the misadventure > > archive are: > > > > Dr. Jame Grigson aka "Dr. Death" > > Dr. Homer Campbell > > > > This because both could have possibly believed that what they were > > testifying to was accurate, despite the literature and the community > > standards present. > > > When yo mention "literature and the community standards" do you > mean that you actually went to the ABFO in your attack on > Homer, or do you mean that small part of the community that > supports character assassination? > > I suggest that if you want to talk about "community standards" > you refer to the standards of the discipline -- which you > do *not* refer to in your attack on Dr. Campbell. > > Have you posted an apology for your false accusation of > fraud? Have you sent Dr. Campbell an apology? > > billo > > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 22:38:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C3c9L2022653 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:38:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:38:06 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu" cc: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > FORENSIC MISADVENTURES > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html You still continue to state lies about forensic odontology, and smear Homer with those lies. I am sure the ABFO will be amazed to find that they cannot do what their "community" quite directly says it can do. The "community" you write of, I gather, is the community of profilers who like to engage in character assasination of forensic odontologists. Have you asked the ABFO about you claims of the "community" saying positive IDs cannot be made? No? Of course not. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 22:46:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C3kKul023547 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:46:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002c01c3d8be$3640ad20$13d06251@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: Subject: [forens] Wood-Burning Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:40:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0C3kKum023547 List Members, Thanks to everyone who replied to my query. I will pursue the matters raised. Thanks again. Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 11 23:30:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0C4UePa025344 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:30:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:30:33 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; The ABFO has made clear their position on the matter in the form of guidelines. Taken from: http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines. htm " ABFO Bitemark Methodology Guidelines 1. All Diplomates of the American Board of Forensic Odontology are responsible for being familiar with the most common analytical methods reported in this study. 2. All Diplomates of the American Board of Forensic Odontology should utilize appropriate analytical methods in their analysis of the evidence. 3. A list of all the evidence analyzed and the specific analytical procedures should be included in the body of the final report. All available evidence associated with the Bitemark must be reviewed prior to rendering an expert opinion. 4. Any new analytical methods not listed in the previously described list of analytical methods should be thoroughly explained in the body of the report. New analytical methods should be scientifically sound and duplicated by other forensic experts. New analytical methods should, if possible, be "backed up" with the use of one or more of the accepted techniques listed in these guidelines" And then later on the ABFO states: "Match: . nonspecific term indicating some degree of concordance between a single feature, combi nation of features or a whole case. . an expression of similarity without stating degree of probability or specificity. [COMMENT: This term "match" or "positive match" should not be used as a definitive expression of an opinion in a Bitemark case. The statement "It is a positive match" or "It is my opinion that the bitemark matches the suspect 's teeth" will likely be interpreted by juries as tantamount to specific perpetrator identification when all the odontologist might mean is that a poorly-defined or nonspecific bitemark was generally similar to the suspect' s teeth, as it might to a large percentage of the population.]" It's a pretty straight-forward guideline, and one that Dr. Campbell had no problem ignoring on regular basis. This is not character assassination, Billo. This an error. You argue that it's not fraud. I concede it is a grey enough area that I can put it over into another section for now. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:38 PM To: Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu Cc: Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > FORENSIC MISADVENTURES > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html You still continue to state lies about forensic odontology, and smear Homer with those lies. I am sure the ABFO will be amazed to find that they cannot do what their "community" quite directly says it can do. The "community" you write of, I gather, is the community of profilers who like to engage in character assasination of forensic odontologists. Have you asked the ABFO about you claims of the "community" saying positive IDs cannot be made? No? Of course not. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 10:40:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CFewB5008343 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:40:58 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <126.389f6ebd.2d3419fa@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:40:42 EST Subject: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Fred, I concur with most of what you wrote. But I would like to clarify one matter. Years ago, the members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) came down hard on the FBI. We were aghast that reports were not signed by the examiner. And the examiners did not testify to their results, the head of the section did! Many interesting and sometimes heated discussions ensued and, you guessed, who is going to tell the FBI what to do? But, boy, did we try. Many times. That was only one problem we had with them, but, as with most forensic organizations, it had and has no teeth to bring about change in its members. Unless it can be proven to be unethical, there is nothing a forensic organization can do. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much Billo I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional organizations' abilities to police their own. A long time ago I believed in the FBI and the US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human enterprises, prone to failure. The AAFS has been around for a long long time full of folks who knew that there were real problems within crime labs and who did not address those failures until the Fred Zains were exposed by victims of the fraud. I don't believe that one should depend upon the "professional organizations" solely to police themselves. Politics is just part of life and part of every organization. When, as an attorney I am facing an expert witness, I want to know if there is any information out there that will indicate the failure rate of that expert. I will not get that from the AAFS. I just won't. But I don't believe that we should be slandering folks in the way that you indicate Brent Turvey is slandering them. I think that if Brent has data that he believes is consistent with failure of a forensic scientist his desire to publicize that is fine. The publication without ad hominem attack is mandatory. If someone like Turvey had been around when Fred Zain was in his glory a lot of innocent folks might not have been incarcerated and our profession might not have such a bad name. If someone with courage had spoken out about the Houston crime lab system a long time ago, six years ago, then folks in Texas would not be doubting every forensic scientist who gets on the stand. I could not agree with you more, though, in your opinion that we ought not to slander folks, but simply present the data that we believe indicates a failure rate. I would encourage Brent Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his presentation. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 12:10:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CHARGQ012177 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:10:27 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <64.395e1129.2d342efa@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:10:18 EST Subject: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems To: deadman@gwu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi, Hal; nice to hear from you. Hope all is well. ASCLD started in 1974. My statements were made from information given to members of the ASCLD from the FBI members and those attending from the FBI. We were told that reports were not signed so that one could testify if another was unavailable. Thus, the reports were not signed so that the person testifying could be assumed to be the one who did the analysis. None of us ASCLD members could personally attest as to who testified and who did the analysis. The FBI members told us. The reports were definitely not signed by the analyst. I can't say if they are signed now. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much Hi Carla, I may be wrong, but I think you need to get some of your facts straight. I started testifying in 1973 in the FBI Lab (I don't think ASCLD was around at that time) and no one has ever testified to my findings that I'm aware of. Certainly not the Section Chief or for that matter the Unit Chief, both of whom would not have any meaningful knowledge about one of my cases. I did have technicians working under my supervision when I was doing hair and fiber work. They were involved in evidence collection and preparation of the hairs and fibers for analysis. But I conducted the comparisons, did all of the technical work on a case (I did hair/fiber for 15 years, about 150 testimonies), generated a report and testified. The technician rarely testified but was available if called. When I got into DNA (worked cases for 8 years), the technicians did do most of the technical analyses (and they did it much better than I could have ever done it) but I still interpreted the data, wrote the report and testified (about 250 times). DNA is different from hairs and fibers. Its is very hard to make a mistake without a sample mix-up and the technicians followed a standard protocol with many controls. Again, the technicians were available for testimony and did testify in some of my cases. Hal ----- Original Message ----- From: SkipnCar@aol.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:40 am Subject: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems > Fred, I concur with most of what you wrote. But I would like to clarify one matter. > > Years ago, the members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors > (ASCLD) came down hard on the FBI. We were aghast that reports were not > signed by the examiner. And the examiners did not testify to their results, the > head of the section did! Many interesting and sometimes heated discussions > ensued and, you guessed, who is going to tell the FBI what to do? But, boy, did > we try. Many times. > > That was only one problem we had with them, but, as with most forensic > organizations, it had and has no teeth to bring about change in its members. >Unless it can be proven to be unethical, there is nothing a forensic organization > can do. > > Carla > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > Billo > I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional > organizations' abilities to police their own. A long time ago I believed in the FBI > and the US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human enterprises, > prone to failure. The AAFS has been around for a long long time full of folks who > knew that there were real problems within crime labs and who did not address >those failures until the Fred Zains were exposed by victims of the fraud. I don't > believe that one should depend upon the "professional organizations" solely > to police themselves. Politics is just part of life and part of every organization. > When, as an attorney I am facing an expert witness, I want to know if there > is any information out there that will indicate the failure rate of that expert. > I will not get that from the AAFS. I just won't. But I don't believe that we should > be slandering folks in the way that you indicate Brent Turvey is slandering them. > I think that if Brent has data that he believes is consistent with failure of a >forensic scientist his desire to publicize that is fine. The publication without ad >hominem attack is mandatory. If someone like Turvey had been around when >Fred Zain was in his glory a lot of innocent folks might not have been incarcerated >and our profession might not have such a bad name. > > If someone with courage had spoken out about the Houston crime lab system a > long time ago, six years ago, then folks in Texas would not be doubting every > forensic scientist who gets on the stand. I could not agree with you more, > though, in your opinion that we ought not to slander folks, but simply present the data that we believe indicates a failure rate. I would encourage Brent Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his presentation. > Fred Whitehurst > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 12:54:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CHsfEi013440 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:54:41 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:54:29 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/12/2004 10:44:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, SkipnCar@aol.com writes: > Subj:[forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems > Date:1/12/2004 10:44:44 AM Eastern Standard Time > From:SkipnCar@aol.com > Reply-to:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > Fred, I concur with most of what you wrote. But I would like to clarify one > > matter. > > Years ago, the members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors > > (ASCLD) came down hard on the FBI. We were aghast that reports were not > signed by the examiner. And the examiners did not testify to their results, > the > head of the section did! Many interesting and sometimes heated discussions > ensued and, you guessed, who is going to tell the FBI what to do? But, boy, > did > we try. Many times. > > That was only one problem we had with them, but, as with most forensic > organizations, it had and has no teeth to bring about change in its members. > Unless > it can be proven to be unethical, there is nothing a forensic organization > can do. > > Carla Carla I had determined to simply punch the "delete" key but upon seeing you weigh in on this I had to read what you have said. I am hoping that one day we can point out our disagreements within the forensic science community without the bitterness that seems to come too quickly. As you know, I too was frustrated with response from the FBI when I questioned practices at their lab. After years and years of hearing concerns about the FBI lab from local and state lab personnel who were attending classes at Quantico which I was teaching and attending I could not simply close my eyes and turn away. I also saw that many times the concerns were well founded. I also had my own concerns. When I initially expressed those concerns I was gently rebuffed by managers who admitted that the problems existed but would do nothing about them. When folks are rewriting your reports without your knowledge or authorization that is a real problem. When the trace lab is so dirty that one could not really determine if residues were from the lab or the evidence then that is a problem. When you are being instructed to write your reports in such a way as to hide alternative explanations from reviewers that is a problem. When fellow examiners give false and misleading testimony under oath and all your colleagues know about it but do nothing that is a problem. All the problems that Barry Fisher speaks about in his book Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation are real problems. But the biggest problem of all turned out to be our inability to address those problems due to fear of discovery. The forensic science community is not full of bad folks, just folks. Like folks everywhere. We just do not seem to have methods in place to fix problems before they become really big problems. I believe that speaking openly about those perceived problems is good. Brent Turvey is tackling that, even if in his presentation he is describing what he is seeing as fraud from bad folks. There was a time when I made that mistake also. Then about five years ago I joined this listserv. And good folks with patience showed me another way. For one thing, coming from the FBI culture, I never thought about who knighted me to say something was wrong. Hell, in the FBI we passed judgement on the world as if it were our God given right. Well, that is wrong. But pointing out concerns is not. I hope that Brent Turvey will continue to maintain web site while at the same time changing the presentation to one of data gathering for all of us to review and render opinions concerning the failure rates without all the bitterness. Thank you for weighing in on this subject, Carla. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 13:12:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CICLpX014381 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:12:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:11:03 -0800 From: "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0CICKqL014376 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu See, I was thinking he was referring to Loyola Marymount, a fine institution of higher learning in the LA area. >>> James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us 01/09/04 03:30PM >>> I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" Really! Of course we did - later! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? In would expect no less from a BRUIN. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? List: Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing email messages first. Apologies. ~ m In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Markblewis@aol.com writes: In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: swabs the I thought you really meant that one;-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "CHRISTOPHER BREYER" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 13:15:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CIFUir014756 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:15:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:15:27 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > > Carla > I had determined to simply punch the "delete" key but upon seeing you weigh > in on this I had to read what you have said. I am hoping that one day we can > point out our disagreements within the forensic science community without the > bitterness that seems to come too quickly. Funny that. It's OK to make false accusations of fraud, but it's "bitterness" to call someone on it. You are quick to criticize your fellow forensic scientists for their work, Fred. Why are you so loathe to criticize people who make false accusations of fraud? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 14:03:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CJ3v2U017117 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:03:57 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1e.20568078.2d344987@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:03:35 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Carla I entered the FBI lab in 1986 and was there until 1997 and left the FBI in 1998. While at the FBI lab I found that other examiners often testified to the meaning of my work product. Those folks who were testifying to my work had no scientific training, education or experience at all. They had degrees in political science, English, etc. not preparing them to understand in any way at all what my data meant. I have reviewed cases since retiring which go all the way back into the 70's and found that that practice was not uncommon. We were told that if we testified to someone else's opinion we had to simply read the report of the non-present examiner. I had to push to have the names or at least identifying information from the technicians placed on the reports that I was involved with. During the first World Trade Center trial it was determined that the principal examiner in the lab had not even looked at most of the evidence; his technician simply put his initials on the evidence. Hal's experience is different than mine. We do not necessarily disagree with what was being practiced at the FBI lab. We simply saw different practices. Where Hal may have had valid reasons for not noting the names of technicians who worked on his cases, I was ordered not to identify those folks specifically because they were not prepared to be cross examined by defense attorneys and the FBI did not want them on the stand. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 1/12/2004 12:20:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, SkipnCar@aol.com writes: > Subj:[forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems > Date:1/12/2004 12:20:44 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:SkipnCar@aol.com > Reply-to:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To:deadman@gwu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > Hi, Hal; nice to hear from you. Hope all is well. > > ASCLD started in 1974. > > My statements were made from information given to members of the ASCLD from > the FBI members and those attending from the FBI. We were told that reports > > were not signed so that one could testify if another was unavailable. Thus, > the > reports were not signed so that the person testifying could be assumed to be > > the one who did the analysis. > > None of us ASCLD members could personally attest as to who testified and who > > did the analysis. The FBI members told us. The reports were definitely not > > signed by the analyst. I can't say if they are signed now. > > Carla > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > Hi Carla, > > I may be wrong, but I think you need to get some of your facts straight. I > started testifying in 1973 in the FBI Lab (I don't think ASCLD was around at > > that time) and no one has ever testified to my findings that I'm aware of. > Certainly not the Section Chief or for that matter the Unit Chief, both of > whom > would not have any meaningful > knowledge about one of my cases. I did have technicians working under my > supervision when I was doing hair and fiber work. They were involved in > evidence > collection and preparation of the hairs and fibers for analysis. But I > conducted the comparisons, did all of the technical work on a case (I did > hair/fiber > for 15 years, about 150 testimonies), generated a report and testified. The > > technician rarely testified but was available if called. When I got into DNA > > (worked cases for 8 years), the technicians did do most of the technical > analyses (and they did it much better than I could have ever done it) but I > still > interpreted the data, wrote the report and testified (about 250 times). > DNA is > different from hairs and fibers. Its is very hard to make a mistake without > a > sample mix-up and the technicians followed a standard protocol with many > controls. Again, the technicians were available for testimony and did > testify in > some of my cases. > > Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: SkipnCar@aol.com > Date: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:40 am > Subject: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems > > > Fred, I concur with most of what you wrote. But I would like to clarify > one > matter. > > > > Years ago, the members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory > Directors > > (ASCLD) came down hard on the FBI. We were aghast that reports were not > > signed by the examiner. And the examiners did not testify to their > results, the > > head of the section did! Many interesting and sometimes heated > discussions > > ensued and, you guessed, who is going to tell the FBI what to do? But, > boy, did > we try. Many times. > > > > That was only one problem we had with them, but, as with most forensic > > organizations, it had and has no teeth to bring about change in its > members. >Unless it can be proven to be unethical, there is nothing a > forensic > organization > > can do. > > > > Carla > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > Forensic Scientist > > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > > skipncar@aol.com > > > > Live Well > > Laugh Often > > Love Much > > Billo > > I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional > > organizations' abilities to police their own. A long time ago I believed > in the FBI > and the US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human > enterprises, > > prone to failure. The AAFS has been around for a long long time full of > folks who > knew that there were real problems within crime labs and who did > not > address >those failures until the Fred Zains were exposed by victims of the > fraud. I don't > > believe that one should depend upon the "professional organizations" > solely > > to police themselves. Politics is just part of life and part of every > organization. > > When, as an attorney I am facing an expert witness, I want to know if > there > > is any information out there that will indicate the failure rate of that > expert. > > I will not get that from the AAFS. I just won't. But I don't believe > that > we should > be slandering folks in the way that you indicate Brent Turvey is > > slandering them. > I think that if Brent has data that he believes is > consistent with failure of a >forensic scientist his desire to publicize > that is > fine. The publication without ad >hominem attack is mandatory. If someone > like > Turvey had been around when >Fred Zain was in his glory a lot of innocent > folks > might not have been incarcerated >and our profession might not have such a > bad name. > > > > If someone with courage had spoken out about the Houston crime lab system > a > > long time ago, six years ago, then folks in Texas would not be doubting > every > > forensic scientist who gets on the stand. I could not agree with you > more, > > though, in your opinion that we ought not to slander folks, but simply > present the data that we believe indicates a failure rate. I would > encourage > Brent Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his > presentation. > > Fred Whitehurst > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 14:05:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CJ58vl017336 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:05:08 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:11:13 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6C1C30331RC23233-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0CJ58qL017331 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'm sure he was, but I wouldn't give him the satisfaction of claiming that the U of Spoiled Children was on top. It's not that UCLA is my favorite school (I went to CSULB who was a UCLA basketball rival at the time) but I tend to root for whoever is playing the school from south centeral. Jim >>> jbowden45@comcast.net 01/10/04 09:44AM >>> Gee, I thought Greg was referring to Figueroa Tech. I don't recall CSULA ever being rated among the top ten universities in the US. Does CSULA have a world renowned Medical Center? Does it offer any PhD programs (other than the one in Special Education - in cooperation with UCLA)? How many Nobel Laureates have been professors there? No, Lynn, they are not the same. Not as extreme, but somewhat like comparing Monash or Deakin to Marcus Oldham College. Must have been a slow Friday afternoon. John P. Bowden, UCLA '62 ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roberts" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. > > >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> > A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the lesser known university in Los Angeles. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:26:31 PM >>> > Pardon my ignorance (I am Australian after all!) what's a BRUIN? > > We also managed to blow the over door clean off by not reading the > instructions on a can of some sort of food which is made of steel. I think > it was a steak and kidney pie or some such thing. Of course, my brother in > law's first question was, "You didn't read the instructions again did you?" > Really! Of course we did - later! > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 9:12 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > In would expect no less from a BRUIN. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: > (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lynncoceani@connexus.net.au 1/9/2004 2:00:19 PM >>> > I know! And don't try to tell your husband that you weren't even near the > keyboard with the coffee and have NO idea how it got there! My sister found > this one out the hard way - her husband is a computer technician and > lecturer of some sort at (I think) UCLA. > > Lynn > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:31 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > List: > Never Spill Coffee on the key board and try to clean up before finishing > email messages first. > Apologies. > ~ m > > > In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Markblewis@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 1/9/2004 3:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > swabs the > I thought you really meant that one;-) > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 > > > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > > > > [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 14:32:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0CJWVt5019667 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:32:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <012b01c3d943$07004400$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> From: "John Bowden" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:33:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Yea Verily! Actually I have to admit that I have rooted for the 'Trojans" (all possible puns intended), but only when they were playing in the Rose Bowl or against Notre Dame. The game in the early '70's when they overcame a 24-0 half-time deficit by scoring 55 unanswered points in the second half to defeat the Irish was remarkable. An Institute in Pasadena, which I attended for a brief period a long, long time ago was in the same soccer league as UCLA (and beat them). We also played CSULB (then LB State) in water polo. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roberts" To: Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > I'm sure he was, but I wouldn't give him the satisfaction of claiming that the U of Spoiled Children was on top. It's not that UCLA is my favorite school (I went to CSULB who was a UCLA basketball rival at the time) but I tend to root for whoever is playing the school from south centeral. > > Jim > > >>> jbowden45@comcast.net 01/10/04 09:44AM >>> > Gee, I thought Greg was referring to Figueroa Tech. I don't recall CSULA > ever being rated among the top ten universities in the US. > > Does CSULA have a world renowned Medical Center? Does it offer any PhD > programs (other than the one in Special Education - in cooperation with > UCLA)? How many Nobel Laureates have been professors there? > > No, Lynn, they are not the same. Not as extreme, but somewhat like comparing > Monash or Deakin to Marcus Oldham College. > > Must have been a slow Friday afternoon. > > John P. Bowden, UCLA '62 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Roberts" > To: > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:30 PM > Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? > > > > I didn't know that Cal State LA was better know than UCLA Greg. > > > > >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/09/04 02:41PM >>> > > A BRUIN is one who matriculates(d) or claims to be an alumnus of UCLA the > lesser known university in Los Angeles. > > > > Gregory E. Laskowski > > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > > Kern County District Attorney > > Forensic Science Division > > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us SNIP/SNIP [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 19:18:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D0IKtQ001994 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:18:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00c601c3d96c$37594b00$166f2ac8@quesca> From: "Quesada-Scatena" To: References: <000801c3d899$d6ccd590$8178e344@ALEISHA> Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:22:28 -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="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I would say why don´t you take your battles to your own private e-mails. I do not think that this is the purpose of the list. People that do not live in the States are not interested in your personal problems, Dr. Adolfo Scatena Medico Forense 2ª Circunsc Judicial Gral Roca, Rio Negro ARGENTINA [EndPost by "Quesada-Scatena" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 20:17:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D1HHSj002913 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:17:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:17:14 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Oh please!! In-Reply-To: <00c601c3d96c$37594b00$166f2ac8@quesca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0D1HGqL002903 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Quesada-Scatena wrote: > I would say why don´t you take your battles to your own private e-mails. I > do not think that this is the purpose of the list. > People that do not live in the States are not interested in your personal > problems, > > Dr. Adolfo Scatena > Medico Forense > 2ª Circunsc Judicial > Gral Roca, Rio Negro > ARGENTINA > Unfortunately, this is not a personal issue. In the United States, there is a big movement to villify forensic scientists. This has lead to a number of people who have made a cottage industry of character assassination which makes the problem worse. The press, who loves a scandal, eats it up. The use of trivial allegations for character assassination is a problem because *every* forensic scientist who does his or her job will suffer them. A classic example for forensic pathologists is the determination of suicide in an adolescent. In many, many cases the parents will not accept the determination, claiming that there *must* have been a murder or an accident. Junior would just never kill himself. As forensic pathologists, we accept this denial as part of the grieving process, and pretty much ignore the allegations that invariably follow -- of incompetence, of consipiracy, etc. We understand and do not, usually, take the allegations personally. In a case I remember well from my fellowship, a parent could not accept the determination of manner of death. She called multiple news conferences and accused the local police, the local government, and me of conspiring to cover up the murder of her daughter. I took the woman aside, went over my reasoning piece by piece. She called another news conference and claimed that the local police and local government were conspiring to cover up the murder of her daughter, but that I was not lying -- instead I was an incompetent dupe being manipulated by the conspiracy. I considered that a victory for my bedside manner. Unfortunately, the character assassination industry, in its various forms, does not care. They will take these allegations and use them for whatever purpose comes to hand. A good example in the recent past was a young man who hanged himself. The family could not accept that this was the case and posited the existence of some unnamed and unknown racist assailant (the decedent was African-American) who was being aided by the inevitable police/government/medical examiner conspiracy. Of course, the racial ambulance chasers and character assassins were quick to make the most of this natural denial on the part of the parents, and made allegations of conspiracy to cover up a hate crime, of incompetence in investigation, etc. Little Johnny just could never kill himself. It *must* have been a lynching. Before the surge in the character assassination business, this would die down. Now we have people who will pick this up and present the allegations as fact in order to destroy the career of the investigators for their own gain. Sure, it destroys a good career, but it also makes the character assassin look good because he or she gets to play the hero for "exposing" another miscreant. The justification of the character assassins is that they want to "police" forensic science and thus better the reputation of the industry. Instead, they have the opposite effect. First, by attacking and tearing down good forensic scientists and attempting to discredit leading figures in the field, they discredit the field in general. Second, by putting the threat of inquisition and witch burning before journeyman scientists, they make the practice of forensic science more difficult. Since mere allegations are enough for the character assassins, and since allegations are part and parcel of doing the job, the scientist is in a no-win situation. People are being hung on the basis of secondary recordkeeping and other tangential things rather than the actual practice of forensic science. If, for instance, you go to one of Brent Turvey's character assassination sites, you will see that some of the people villified there are attacked for personnel issues, administrative issues, and things that have nothing to do with forensic science per se. And, of course, they are being villified on the basis of allegation, not proof. Third, in contrast to the claims of the character assassins, they are making testimony less effective, not more. By justifying bizarre secondary attacks on forensic scientists, they are impeding justice, not advancing it. This may not be a problem in Argentina, but it is a big problem in the US. It's not personal. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 21:37:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D2bfrm004754 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:37:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040113023659.97276.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:36:59 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf > Of John > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:06 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive > update > > > My question to the list, and Bill Oliver and > Brent Turvey specifically would > have to be: "What is your clear definition of > fraud?" > > It seems to me that intentionally testifying to > the authenticity of evidence > known to be inacurate or false, is > misrepresentation or fraudulent. > > Testimony you believe to be true, but may be > questioned by another expert > witness may not constitue fraud, but may in > fact just be 2 differing > oppinions by 2 expert witnesses based on the > same evidence. Unless there is > a deliberate action to deceive the jury, this > kind of testimony should not > be considered fraud. > > I'd be interested to know what the list thinks. > > John Peterson > I'm sure that fraud requires the intent to deceive. I'm also sure that in the case you describe, where two experts looking at the same evidence, and reach opposite conclusions, (at least)one of them is WRONG. And I'm equally sure thast these opinions are not like body parts. In forensic science, you do NOT have the right to be wrong. You'd better have it right because the stakes are not even a little bit trivial. In my experience (and admittedly I work in a field "ate up with the dumb ass") most unethical behavior starts with a cover up of incompetence. And it is unethical to be so incompetent as to fail to keep up with your field. But is that fraud? Or is it merely some other kind of unethical behavior? ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 21:54:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D2srCw005330 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:54:53 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <64.395e1129.2d342efa@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:37:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jan 2004 00:35:13.0121 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B6BAD10:01C3D96D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Carla: Not to sure about the reports, but I can tell you for a fact that the FBI currently has adopted the WGASA approach to what goes on at their lab and in their classrooms. I am rather curious about ASCLD and since you're obviously familiar with them I wonder if you might oblige? If they are inspecting or preparing to inspect a lab for accreditation, and a scientist from that lab contacts an ASCLD member not associated with the inspection in confidence, do they now maintain confidentiality or do they forward the information and identity to lab directors for further action? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 9:10 AM Subject: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems > Hi, Hal; nice to hear from you. Hope all is well. > > ASCLD started in 1974. > > My statements were made from information given to members of the ASCLD from > the FBI members and those attending from the FBI. We were told that reports > were not signed so that one could testify if another was unavailable. Thus, the > reports were not signed so that the person testifying could be assumed to be > the one who did the analysis. > > None of us ASCLD members could personally attest as to who testified and who > did the analysis. The FBI members told us. The reports were definitely not > signed by the analyst. I can't say if they are signed now. > > Carla > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > Hi Carla, > > I may be wrong, but I think you need to get some of your facts straight. I > started testifying in 1973 in the FBI Lab (I don't think ASCLD was around at > that time) and no one has ever testified to my findings that I'm aware of. > Certainly not the Section Chief or for that matter the Unit Chief, both of whom > would not have any meaningful > knowledge about one of my cases. I did have technicians working under my > supervision when I was doing hair and fiber work. They were involved in evidence > collection and preparation of the hairs and fibers for analysis. But I > conducted the comparisons, did all of the technical work on a case (I did hair/fiber > for 15 years, about 150 testimonies), generated a report and testified. The > technician rarely testified but was available if called. When I got into DNA > (worked cases for 8 years), the technicians did do most of the technical > analyses (and they did it much better than I could have ever done it) but I still > interpreted the data, wrote the report and testified (about 250 times). DNA is > different from hairs and fibers. Its is very hard to make a mistake without a > sample mix-up and the technicians followed a standard protocol with many > controls. Again, the technicians were available for testimony and did testify in > some of my cases. > > Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: SkipnCar@aol.com > Date: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:40 am > Subject: [forens] Forensic Organizations and Perceived Problems > > > Fred, I concur with most of what you wrote. But I would like to clarify one > matter. > > > > Years ago, the members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory > Directors > > (ASCLD) came down hard on the FBI. We were aghast that reports were not > > signed by the examiner. And the examiners did not testify to their > results, the > > head of the section did! Many interesting and sometimes heated discussions > > ensued and, you guessed, who is going to tell the FBI what to do? But, > boy, did > we try. Many times. > > > > That was only one problem we had with them, but, as with most forensic > > organizations, it had and has no teeth to bring about change in its > members. >Unless it can be proven to be unethical, there is nothing a forensic > organization > > can do. > > > > Carla > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > Forensic Scientist > > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > > skipncar@aol.com > > > > Live Well > > Laugh Often > > Love Much > > Billo > > I really don't have a lot of faith in our professional > > organizations' abilities to police their own. A long time ago I believed > in the FBI > and the US DOJ but now realize that they are simply human > enterprises, > > prone to failure. The AAFS has been around for a long long time full of > folks who > knew that there were real problems within crime labs and who did not > address >those failures until the Fred Zains were exposed by victims of the > fraud. I don't > > believe that one should depend upon the "professional organizations" solely > > to police themselves. Politics is just part of life and part of every > organization. > > When, as an attorney I am facing an expert witness, I want to know if there > > is any information out there that will indicate the failure rate of that > expert. > > I will not get that from the AAFS. I just won't. But I don't believe that > we should > be slandering folks in the way that you indicate Brent Turvey is > slandering them. > I think that if Brent has data that he believes is > consistent with failure of a >forensic scientist his desire to publicize that is > fine. The publication without ad >hominem attack is mandatory. If someone like > Turvey had been around when >Fred Zain was in his glory a lot of innocent folks > might not have been incarcerated >and our profession might not have such a > bad name. > > > > If someone with courage had spoken out about the Houston crime lab system a > > long time ago, six years ago, then folks in Texas would not be doubting > every > > forensic scientist who gets on the stand. I could not agree with you more, > > though, in your opinion that we ought not to slander folks, but simply > present the data that we believe indicates a failure rate. I would encourage > Brent Turvey to continue to maintain his website but simply change his > presentation. > > Fred Whitehurst > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 22:07:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D37bxY005939 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:07:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:07:35 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: <20040113023659.97276.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > > > I'm also sure that in the case you describe, > where two experts looking at the same evidence, > and reach opposite conclusions, (at least)one of > them is WRONG. > > And I'm equally sure thast these opinions are not > like body parts. In forensic science, you do NOT > have the right to be wrong. You'd better have it > right because the stakes are not even a little > bit trivial. > > In my experience (and admittedly I work in a > field "ate up with the dumb ass") most unethical > behavior starts with a cover up of incompetence. > And it is unethical to be so incompetent as to > fail to keep up with your field. But is that > fraud? Or is it merely some other kind of > unethical behavior? Interesting, John. You are the very first forensic scientist I have ever known to claim to have *never* made an error. Congratulations on being the only ethical forensic scientist in existence. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 22:15:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D3FL1i006415 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:15:21 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:17:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jan 2004 03:15:14.0243 (UTC) FILETIME=[7622A130:01C3D983] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: " It's a pretty straight-forward guideline, and one that Dr. Campbell had no problem ignoring on regular basis." Yes, I definitely smell an odor consistent with accellerants on the clothing of this suspected wytch. Somebody hold his head under the water to see if he needs oxygen (something wytchs are known to use) on a "regular basis". Brent, I'm confident that as a 'forensic scientist' you learned how to quantify and qualify your results. That said, telling me what somebody does or did on a "regular basis" is not nearly as compelling as telling me how many cases, over how long a time frame, what standards he deviated from and why. In the Katie Poirier murder, Dr. Thomas P. Rumreich identified the victim's remains from what I recall as a single crown and a fairly new bonding agent that had only recently been introduced. I doubt that a single crown would probably meet either the ASFO or ABFO standards but, like you, I'm not a forensic odontologist. He probably accounted for this deviation from accepted standards, qualified (you know, the scientific stuff again) his results by the adjunct testing of the adhesive. Could he "back it up by the usual methods" as suggested in the guidelines? Not very damned likely. Was his work less than scientific? I don't think so. It was a qualified opinion that rested on the evidence available at the time. > > This is not character assassination, Billo. This an error. You argue that > it's not fraud. I concede it is a grey enough area that I can put it over > into another section for now. Brent, there is nothing at all grey about your choice of words. You have already stated as fact that Homer Campbell does not comply with the guidelines of an association to which he belongs and engages in fraud. That is not speculation, it is a conclusion. Citing the standards only has meaning if you can then compare and contrast the extent to which Homer has not complied with them along with the frequency and extent to which he's done so. I'm sure as a forensic scientist you can do that, right? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:30 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure > Billo; > > The ABFO has made clear their position on the matter in the form of > guidelines. > > Taken from: > http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines. > htm > > " > ABFO Bitemark Methodology Guidelines > > 1. All Diplomates of the American Board of Forensic Odontology are > responsible for being familiar with the most common analytical methods > reported in this study. > > 2. All Diplomates of the American Board of Forensic Odontology should > utilize appropriate analytical methods in their analysis of the evidence. > > 3. A list of all the evidence analyzed and the specific analytical > procedures should be included in the body of the final report. All available > evidence associated with the Bitemark must be reviewed prior to rendering an > expert opinion. > > 4. Any new analytical methods not listed in the previously described list of > analytical methods should be thoroughly explained in the body of the report. > New analytical methods should be scientifically sound and duplicated by > other forensic experts. New analytical methods should, if possible, be > "backed up" with the use of one or more of the accepted techniques listed in > these guidelines" > > > And then later on the ABFO states: > > "Match: > > . nonspecific term indicating some degree of concordance between a single > feature, combi nation of features or a whole case. > > . an expression of similarity without stating degree of probability or > specificity. > > [COMMENT: This term "match" or "positive match" should not be used as a > definitive expression of an opinion in a Bitemark case. The statement "It is > a positive match" or "It is my opinion that the bitemark matches the suspect > 's teeth" will likely be interpreted by juries as tantamount to specific > perpetrator identification when all the odontologist might mean is that a > poorly-defined or nonspecific bitemark was generally similar to the suspect' > s teeth, as it might to a large percentage of the population.]" > > It's a pretty straight-forward guideline, and one that Dr. Campbell had no > problem ignoring on regular basis. > > This is not character assassination, Billo. This an error. You argue that > it's not fraud. I concede it is a grey enough area that I can put it over > into another section for now. > > > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:38 PM > To: Forens@Statgen. Ncsu. Edu > Cc: Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com > Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure > > > > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > > FORENSIC MISADVENTURES > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html > > You still continue to state lies about forensic odontology, and > smear Homer with those lies. I am sure the ABFO will be amazed > to find that they cannot do what their "community" quite directly > says it can do. The "community" you write of, I gather, is the > community of profilers who like to engage in character assasination > of forensic odontologists. > > Have you asked the ABFO about you claims of the "community" > saying positive IDs cannot be made? > > No? Of course not. > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 12 23:58:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D4whGO009458 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:58:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040112203554.024ffe70@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:51:31 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: References: <20040113023659.97276.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gosh, Billo, you must be reading something that I don't see in John's message. He doesn't claim to have never made a mistake, nor does he claim that making a mistake is unethical. It seems to me what he is saying is "it is unethical to be so incompetent as to fail to keep up with your field." (Actually, that is what he did say). The CAC Code of Ethics states "F. The progressive worker will keep abreast of new developments in scientific methods and in all cases view them with an open mind. This is not to say that he need not be critical of untried or unproved methods, but he will recognize superior methods, if and when, they are introduced." and the AAFS "Good Forensic Practice Guidelines" state "Forensic scientists should strive to keep current and maintain competence in their scientific discipline. Although competence at minimum should be a goal, forensic scientists should strive for excellence." Or, do you disagree with John when he says "In forensic science, you do NOT have the right to be wrong." If you disagree, when DO you have the right to be wrong? Pete Barnett At 07:07 PM 1/12/2004, you wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > > > > > > > I'm also sure that in the case you describe, > > where two experts looking at the same evidence, > > and reach opposite conclusions, (at least)one of > > them is WRONG. > > > > And I'm equally sure thast these opinions are not > > like body parts. In forensic science, you do NOT > > have the right to be wrong. You'd better have it > > right because the stakes are not even a little > > bit trivial. > > > > In my experience (and admittedly I work in a > > field "ate up with the dumb ass") most unethical > > behavior starts with a cover up of incompetence. > > And it is unethical to be so incompetent as to > > fail to keep up with your field. But is that > > fraud? Or is it merely some other kind of > > unethical behavior? > > > >Interesting, John. You are the very first forensic scientist >I have ever known to claim to have *never* made an error. >Congratulations on being the only ethical forensic scientist >in existence. > >billo > >[EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 02:33:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D7XaGu012271 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:33:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [forens] Carol MacDonald/FSST/TAS is out of the office. From: "Carol MacDonald/FSST/TAS" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:33:11 +1100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SMTPMTA/Servers/TAS(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 13/01/2004 06:33:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I will be out of the office starting 23/12/2003 and will not return until 05/04/2004. If you need a response before I return you can contact Pam Scott on 6278 5611. Cheers and Happy new year. Carol [EndPost by "Carol MacDonald/FSST/TAS" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 04:19:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0D9JEIR014459 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:19:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040113104715.00a05110@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:15:57 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In an effort to get a "handle" on the diversity and the "weight" of words used in forensic reports, I ask the list members help by answering the following questions. To standardise the reporting of results, please give your answers in the requested form, adding comments and thoughts sparingly and only after you have given the requested answer. Results will be reported back to the list. This is an attempt to gauge the feelings of the profession, so please do not defer to dictionary or probability theory definitions. Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a position where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES or NO (Results will be reported separately for the YES and NO categories) Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are reported back to the list. 1. good chance - 2. same as - 3. congruency - 4. indistinguishable - 5. consistent - 6. matched - Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two compared items shared a common source expressed by the following words and phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. 1. might have - 2. could have - 3. possible - 4. probable - Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following hypothetical: In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using a peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. 1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? YES or NO 2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common origin is: a. Better than 1 in 2 (1 in 2.1 or higher) b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) 3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? YES or NO 4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common origin is: a. Better than 1 in 2 (1 in 2.1 or higher) b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis for some constructive discussion. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 09:35:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DEZsuV021323 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:35:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040113143548.6510.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:35:48 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040112203554.024ffe70@mail.fsalab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks, Pete. I couldn't have said that better myself. The point that I was trying to make (apparently not very successfully) is that disagreements among experts should not be brushed off as a "difference of opinion." This is not a first amendment issue here. Differences among fire experts are quite common, and I often hear "I've got to call them as I see them," and "He has a right to his opinion." In all such cases, at least one expert is wrong. And opinions that are wrong are not helpful to the jury, and should not be admitted as evidence. I think that courts, when confronted with such disagreements, do a disservice when they decide to let the jury sort it out. (What crieteria should juries use to make such choices?) Courts actually have available to them the power to appoint independent experts to advise the court. It's a shame more of this is not done. --- Peter Barnett wrote: > Gosh, Billo, you must be reading something that > I don't see in John's > message. He doesn't claim to have never made a > mistake, nor does he claim > that making a mistake is unethical. It seems > to me what he is saying is > "it is unethical to be so incompetent as to > fail to keep up with your > field." (Actually, that is what he did say). > > The CAC Code of Ethics states "F. The > progressive worker will keep abreast > of new developments in scientific methods and > in all cases view them with > an open mind. This is not to say that he need > not be critical of untried or > unproved methods, but he will recognize > superior methods, if and when, they > are introduced." > > and the AAFS "Good Forensic Practice > Guidelines" state "Forensic scientists > should strive to keep current and maintain > competence in their scientific > discipline. Although competence at minimum > should be a goal, forensic > scientists should strive for excellence." > > Or, do you disagree with John when he says "In > forensic science, you do NOT > have the right to be wrong." If you disagree, > when DO you have the right > to be wrong? > > Pete Barnett > > At 07:07 PM 1/12/2004, you wrote: > > > >On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm also sure that in the case you > describe, > > > where two experts looking at the same > evidence, > > > and reach opposite conclusions, (at > least)one of > > > them is WRONG. > > > > > > And I'm equally sure thast these opinions > are not > > > like body parts. In forensic science, you > do NOT > > > have the right to be wrong. You'd better > have it > > > right because the stakes are not even a > little > > > bit trivial. > > > > > > In my experience (and admittedly I work in > a > > > field "ate up with the dumb ass") most > unethical > > > behavior starts with a cover up of > incompetence. > > > And it is unethical to be so incompetent as > to > > > fail to keep up with your field. But is > that > > > fraud? Or is it merely some other kind of > > > unethical behavior? > > > > > > > >Interesting, John. You are the very first > forensic scientist > >I have ever known to claim to have *never* > made an error. > >Congratulations on being the only ethical > forensic scientist > >in existence. > > > >billo > > > >[EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 10:40:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DFeNdB023526 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:40:23 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: Subject: forwarded message RE: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? (Modified by basten) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:26:56 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Hans de Moel Subject: RE: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:21:15 +0100 Cathy, Because of all the commotion I have recently watched two CSI episodes here in Holland (may be there are old ones for you in the States). In the first episode the ESDA was one of the forensic techniques used on a document. The ESDA can be used to revealed indented writing. And indeed a skilled operator can detect indentations up to 7 pages under the actual page. In this episode of CSI they managed to reveal seven pages of text on top of another from one ESDA. I dare every skilled document examiner or experienced ESDA worker to accomplish this. Of course, it's easy to use a graphic programme like PhotoShop to make seven layers of text and merge them, but the other way around?? No way! Especially since much of the text was overlapping. Definite no-no. In the other episode a woman was murdered. The murder weapon was in a bank and the bank was robbed. The only thing they took was a safety deposit box with the evidence, A bloodstained scarf and a pair of scissors as it turned out. The imprint of the scissors (the stabbing instrument) was visible in the blood on the scarf of the victim. As by crystal ball magic they managed to reveal the letters engraved in the scissors "R.MP..T" (which was the Rampart hotel, a crucial clue). These were just the two main inaccuracies in the episodes from my point of view, but there were several other too. How about using the list to compile a "NITPICKER's GUIDE" for each episode. I have two volumes for the Star Trek: Next Generation series and I love to rewatch the episodes to see even more inaccuracies. Maybe this can be a good way to educate everybody on the list in "fraudulous forensics" and "impossible science"?? Regards, Hans -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Cathy OReilly [mailto:coreilly2003@yahoo.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 9 januari 2004 21:44 Aan: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Onderwerp: [forens] Which is Inaccurate? I have been reading intently on the inaccuracies of CSI and its offshoots. I have noticed most posts have had problems with the procedures used. For example, a male swabbing a female victim's breasts(I shudder to think that someone would believe this), no gloves, moving before pictures taken etc....and I realize how these inaccuracies would really irritate someone who does this for a living.. My question is however; are there examples of just plain bad or inaccurate science? This would be an important point for me as a science teacher as many of my students watch this show on a regular basis. I would really appreciate some specific examples on this..Thanks in advance Cathy Cathy O'Reilly Biology,Chemistry,Forensics Mamaroneck High School Mamaroneck New York 10538 o'reilly@mamkschools.org --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 12:01:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DH1g0w027317 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:01:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:01:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well, since Brent doesn't think that there's any ethical requirement to notify the people he attacks, do any actual investigation regarding the charges he makes or provide any right of reply to his victims, I did what Brent declines to do. I (gasp) bearded the lion in his den and asked Homer about these cases. The results are interesting and for anybody who knows Homer, but not too surprising. Regarding the body identification issue, Homer never actually called it an identification at the level of reasonable medical certainty. Brent is simply lying when he makes that claim. Regarding the bitemark identification, the story is a bit more complicated, but one any of us who have watched defense lawyers in action will recognize. The five forensic odontologists hired by the defense 10 years after the actual case were not shown all the case material. They were shown scene photos but none of the autopsy photos. Not surprisingly, since they were not shown the diagnostic imagery, they did not make the diagnosis. Anyone who has been a defense witness or who has dealt with defense experts might recognize this tactic. In fact, at least one of the five forensic odontologists who disagreed with Homer changed his opinion after seeing all the evidence. A libel suit is pending on these allegations against the people who originally spread these lies. I don't know if Homer will add others who knowingly parrot the false accusations to the case. So, let's see what this self-appointed paragon has done in order to libel an outstanding forensic scientist. In order to support a specious accusation of fraud, and then "incompetence," he has found it necessary to: 1) Misrepresent the standard of practice 2) Lie about what happened in one case 3) Support the use of trickery and evaluation of incomplete data in order to malign those who look at all the data in another case. Hmm... Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, 4) Steal content from other web pages in order to spruce up the aesthetics of the attack. This is what Fred Whitehurst calls "very valuable addition to our profession's own self regulation" and calls opposition to it "hatefulness." This is what Fred says will protect us from "human enterprises" that are "prone to error." Yeah, reliance on self-appointed inquisitors accountable to nobody is a *big* improvement. Feh. The only thing almost as irritating as this little cottage industry in character assassination is the false sanctimony these guys exude when they burn their victims. That flag you are wrapping yourselves in is getting a little tattered. So, Brent. Are you going to persist in your baseless accusations, in your false charges, in your misrepresentations? Are you going to apologize to Dr. Campbell for your smear? Are you going to post and apology and retraction on your character assassination website? Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 12:15:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DHFMt5027829 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:15:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:15:20 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040112203554.024ffe70@mail.fsalab.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Peter Barnett wrote: > Gosh, Billo, you must be reading something that I don't see in John's > message. He doesn't claim to have never made a mistake, nor does he claim > that making a mistake is unethical. It seems to me what he is saying is > "it is unethical to be so incompetent as to fail to keep up with your > field." (Actually, that is what he did say). I read this as an agreement that Homer had done such a thing. I over-reacted, and I apologize. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 13:57:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DIvRa9000461 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:57:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACBAD@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:57:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I came across a reference on this subject. In the book Forensic Examination of Hair (1999), James Robertson refers to a chapter entitled 'Trace Evidence' by E.J. Crocker, in Forensic Evidence in Canada, edited by G.M. Chayko, E.D. Gulliver and D.V. Macdougall (Aurora, ON: Canada Law Book) pp. 259-299. According to Robertson, Crocker discussed the results of a study which assessed the weight placed by jurors and criminal law professionals on common forensic statements. The statements included, "revealed the presence of; indicated; is consistent with; indistinguishable; strongly indicates but does not conclusively reveal; within reasonable scientific certainty; suggests; is identical to; matched; [gave a] positive result. The negative statements were essentially the opposite the positive statements. Responses as to the degree of certainty were: positive (certain); positive (probable), possible or inconclusive, negative (probable) and negative (certain). The term 'consistent with' was considered positive (certain plus probable) by 77% of jurors polled. According to Robinson, "The critical message which should be clear from this study is that whatever terminology is used by a particular laboratory or an individual, the report (if it is to be meaningful and not potentially misleading) must attempt to spell out what weight or significance is or should be attached to the terms used." Robinson goes on to say that at least two major commissions of inquiry into wrongful convictions have strongly criticized the use of the term 'consistent with' (Shannon, 1984; Kaufman, 1998). He uses the term 'could have' because it is inclusionary, then attempts to state in his reports a sense of the strength of that inclusion without using a numerical or statistical estimate. (This is in regard to hair examination reports.) Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division 2679 Palmer Street Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 329-1154 Fax: (406) 549-1067 Email: aammen@state.mt.us [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 14:16:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DJGlKR001235 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:16:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:16:43 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; Again, you misrepresent the facts to suggest that it is I calling Dr. Campbell a phony and that it is I interpreting how he testified. This was done by the Texas Defender Service after six ABFO certified forensic odontologists came out to denounce his testimony in a case that ultimately sent a defendant to his death. And the ABFO made the guidelines, not me. You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. It is the court documents that provide Dr. Campbell testified in this manner. If this record is false, he should seek to have the record changed. The appellate decisions are unambiguous about what certainty Dr. Campbell gave his opinions in his testimony. I suspect you are not reading the documentation carefully on this issue, as you have shown a propensity to speak up before reading on other matters thus far. You are clearly out to exxonnerate your friend and that is admirable, but it is not exactly objective. You have raised doubts and concerns. I think this is good. This could be investigated further, but by an impartial party. You have disqualified yourself from that roster time and time again. Also, if Dr. Campbell has a response, I'd be more than happy to post it in our archive. PS - When somebody makes an ID that declares a person dead, and that person later turns up alive, clearly an error was made. When that person fails to in future cases tone down the certainty of their opinions, that's something else. What that is is what's at issue - the grey area. PSS - It is interesting that Dr. Campbell has a libel suit going. Apparently this controversey about the quality of his work did not originate with me. Now I can understand why you are so sensitive about it. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:02 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Well, since Brent doesn't think that there's any ethical requirement to notify the people he attacks, do any actual investigation regarding the charges he makes or provide any right of reply to his victims, I did what Brent declines to do. I (gasp) bearded the lion in his den and asked Homer about these cases. The results are interesting and for anybody who knows Homer, but not too surprising. Regarding the body identification issue, Homer never actually called it an identification at the level of reasonable medical certainty. Brent is simply lying when he makes that claim. Regarding the bitemark identification, the story is a bit more complicated, but one any of us who have watched defense lawyers in action will recognize. The five forensic odontologists hired by the defense 10 years after the actual case were not shown all the case material. They were shown scene photos but none of the autopsy photos. Not surprisingly, since they were not shown the diagnostic imagery, they did not make the diagnosis. Anyone who has been a defense witness or who has dealt with defense experts might recognize this tactic. In fact, at least one of the five forensic odontologists who disagreed with Homer changed his opinion after seeing all the evidence. A libel suit is pending on these allegations against the people who originally spread these lies. I don't know if Homer will add others who knowingly parrot the false accusations to the case. So, let's see what this self-appointed paragon has done in order to libel an outstanding forensic scientist. In order to support a specious accusation of fraud, and then "incompetence," he has found it necessary to: 1) Misrepresent the standard of practice 2) Lie about what happened in one case 3) Support the use of trickery and evaluation of incomplete data in order to malign those who look at all the data in another case. Hmm... Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, 4) Steal content from other web pages in order to spruce up the aesthetics of the attack. This is what Fred Whitehurst calls "very valuable addition to our profession's own self regulation" and calls opposition to it "hatefulness." This is what Fred says will protect us from "human enterprises" that are "prone to error." Yeah, reliance on self-appointed inquisitors accountable to nobody is a *big* improvement. Feh. The only thing almost as irritating as this little cottage industry in character assassination is the false sanctimony these guys exude when they burn their victims. That flag you are wrapping yourselves in is getting a little tattered. So, Brent. Are you going to persist in your baseless accusations, in your false charges, in your misrepresentations? Are you going to apologize to Dr. Campbell for your smear? Are you going to post and apology and retraction on your character assassination website? Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 14:33:51 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DJXpHi001912 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:33:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:33:48 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > Again, you misrepresent the facts to suggest that it is I calling Dr. > Campbell a phony and that it is I interpreting how he testified. This was > done by the Texas Defender Service after six ABFO certified forensic > odontologists came out to denounce his testimony in a case that ultimately > sent a defendant to his death. And the ABFO made the guidelines, not me. OK, fine. You support the idea of giving experts incomplete data and don't see anything wrong with drawing conclusions after having data witheld. OK. Now I know what you consider ethical investigation. > > You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an > objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. > Odd. I thought "objective" meant showing both sides of a question. Why didn't you mention that the odontologists made their conclusions without seeing all the case data and without access to the diagnostic imagery? Oh. You don't think *that's* important. Why didn't you mention that after seeing the diagnostic imagery at least one of these odontologists changed their opinion to support Dr. Campbell. Oh, you don't think *that's* part of an "objective" evaluation. Feh. > It is the court documents that provide Dr. Campbell testified in this > manner. Nice try. The question isn't how Dr. Campbell testified. He stands by his testimony. The question is the trickery used to cause the other odontologists to make a diagnosis without the diagnostic images. You don't see any problem with that, however. After all, it would interfere with your crucifixion of Dr. Campbell. I can see why Fred is such a fan of yours. > > You are clearly out to exxonnerate your friend and that is admirable, but it > is not exactly objective. You have raised doubts and concerns. I think this > is good. This could be investigated further, but by an impartial party. You > have disqualified yourself from that roster time and time again. > Uh huh. Which one of us has actually bothered to *ask the question* of what really happened? Not you. > Also, if Dr. Campbell has a response, I'd be more than happy to post it in > our archive. Uh huh. Have you had the common decency to contact Dr. Campbell? Of course not. It's much better to knife a colleague in the back. > > PS - When somebody makes an ID that declares a person dead, and that person > later turns up alive, clearly an error was made. When that person fails to > in future cases tone down the certainty of their opinions, that's something > else. What that is is what's at issue - the grey area. > Your claim that he made the id to a medical certainty is a lie. You continue in the lie. What a triumph for your and Fred's brand of ethics. > PSS - It is interesting that Dr. Campbell has a libel suit going. Apparently > this controversey about the quality of his work did not originate with me. > Now I can understand why you are so sensitive about it. > Of course not. It originated with the lies that you have picked up and are repeating. It would be too much to expect you to do any original investigation or to check the accuracy of your allegations. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 14:46:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DJk26U002578 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:46:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:45:06 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] The wisdom of the courts - Humorous X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040113212303.01ba1b48@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To try and bring a little humor into this list, I would like to point out that sometimes the courts in their "judical wisdom", sometimes loose the sight of what was valued when I was growing up - "common sense." The below list is a list of warning labels on products inspired by people who sued, were awarded compensation, and "common sense" seems to have been thrown out the court room window. I collect, but have not personally seen them all. Take them for what they are worth, shake your head in sadness, smile, but try and enjoy. Shalom from Jerusalem Azriel An electric router made for carpenters: "This product not intended for use as a dental drill." A baby stroller: "Remove child before folding" Sleeping pills: "Warning: May cause drowsiness." A sticker on a toilet at a public facility: "Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking." A massage chair: "DO NOT use massage chair without clothing... and, Never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving." A snowblower: "Do not use snowthrower on roof." A dishwasher: "Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher." A CD player: "Do not use the (product and model name deleted) as a projectile in a catapult." A fireplace lighter: "Do not use near fire, flame or sparks" A hand-held massager warns consumers not to use "while sleeping or unconscious" A container of underarm deodorant: "Caution: Do not spray in eyes" A cartridge for a laser printer: "Do not eat toner" A household iron: "Never iron clothes while they are being worn" An electric hair dryer: "Never use hair dryer while sleeping." ...and... "Do not use while taking a shower." A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow: "Not intended for highway use" A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard: "Do not drive with sunshield in place" A Bathroom Heater: "This product is not to be used in bathrooms" A can of self-defense pepper spray: "May irritate eyes" A pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists: "Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover." A fireplace log: "Caution - Risk of Fire" A box of birthday cake candles: "Do not use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity." ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 14:48:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DJmMSS002855 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:48:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:47:09 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] results wording Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0DJmLqL002846 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have a question for other serologists on this list, or anyone with input. When you are performing a presumptive chemical screening test, (i.e. on a garment) and you get positive speckles on the filter paper, but you can't localize the source, how do you word your results? I'll give you an example: I have sometimes had to examine bags of clothing. One of the items in the bag will have obvious blood stains. Some of the other items will give a positive result with leucomalachite green, but there are just speckles on the filter paper. I believe that this is the result of tiny particles of dried blood which have flaked off of the stained item. I can not localize the source of the blood, so I have nothing to send on to DNA. Because I am seeing a positive reaction, though, I can't call the results negative. Past wording that has been used includes "presumptive screening test for blood positive, quantity insufficient for DNA analysis". Thanks Brad [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 14:58:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DJw5OS003368 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:58:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:58:02 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > > You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an > objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. > Ok. So you don't *care* and you *don't want to know* if any of the allegations you repeat are true or false. You simply spread allegations for the joy of spreading allegations. True, false, it's all the same to you. Fine. Then you should put the disclaimer that the allegations on your character assassination website are likely false and that you are spreading them purely for the joy of attacking other forensic scientists. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 14:58:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DJwOfi003494 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:58:24 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <1a5.1e39d4f6.2d35a7cc@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:58:04 EST Subject: [forens] Weasel Words Reference To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Alice, thank you for the reference. I had heard of a study that had been done, but did not know the particulars. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/13/2004 2:08:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, aammen@state.mt.us writes: I came across a reference on this subject. In the book Forensic Examination of Hair (1999), James Robertson refers to a chapter entitled 'Trace Evidence' by E.J. Crocker, in Forensic Evidence in Canada, edited by G.M. Chayko, E.D. Gulliver and D.V. Macdougall (Aurora, ON: Canada Law Book) pp. 259-299. According to Robertson, Crocker discussed the results of a study which assessed the weight placed by jurors and criminal law professionals on common forensic statements. The statements included, "revealed the presence of; indicated; is consistent with; indistinguishable; strongly indicates but does not conclusively reveal; within reasonable scientific certainty; suggests; is identical to; matched; [gave a] positive result. The negative statements were essentially the opposite the positive statements. Responses as to the degree of certainty were: positive (certain); positive (probable), possible or inconclusive, negative (probable) and negative (certain). The term 'consistent with' was considered positive (certain plus probable) by 77% of jurors polled. According to Robinson, "The critical message which should be clear from this study is that whatever terminology is used by a particular laboratory or an individual, the report (if it is to be meaningful and not potentially misleading) must attempt to spell out what weight or significance is or should be attached to the terms used." Robinson goes on to say that at least two major commissions of inquiry into wrongful convictions have strongly criticized the use of the term 'consistent with' (Shannon, 1984; Kaufman, 1998). He uses the term 'could have' because it is inclusionary, then attempts to state in his reports a sense of the strength of that inclusion without using a numerical or statistical estimate. (This is in regard to hair examination reports.) Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division 2679 Palmer Street Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 329-1154 Fax: (406) 549-1067 Email: aammen@state.mt.us --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 15:16:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DKGqEO004500 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:16:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:16:50 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an > objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. > You carefully avoided the outright lie on your character assassination page that stated that he made the ID on Melody Cutlip to a medical certainty. Since this is not a matter of interpretation but an outright lie, will you delete this, or are you sticking with your story? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 15:28:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DKS1NA005008 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:28:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040113202759.50029.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: [forens] results wording To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Wow. Maybe the more fundamental issue here is training someone who submits materials for later analysis to you. I mean, it's pretty obvious that they need some basic idea of evidence packaging and submission to preclude cross-contaminating evidence items. With the sensitivity that DNA testing now has, it would seem to me that even those "speckles" could give a genetic profile that could be easily become important (not to mention the possibility of losing any potential for any issues regarding possible scenarios for reconstruction. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab --- Bradley Brown wrote: > I have a question for other serologists on this > list, or anyone with input. When you are performing > a presumptive chemical screening test, (i.e. on a > garment) and you get positive speckles on the filter > paper, but you can't localize the source, how do you > word your results? I'll give you an example: I have > sometimes had to examine bags of clothing. One of > the items in the bag will have obvious blood stains. > Some of the other items will give a positive result > with leucomalachite green, but there are just > speckles on the filter paper. I believe that this is > the result of tiny particles of dried blood which > have flaked off of the stained item. I can not > localize the source of the blood, so I have nothing > to send on to DNA. Because I am seeing a positive > reaction, though, I can't call the results negative. > Past wording that has been used includes > "presumptive screening test for blood positive, > quantity insufficient for DNA analysis". > > Thanks > > Brad > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 15:38:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DKcXhM005615 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:38:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:38:29 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. But then, you'd have to read the material. You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it true; furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I pulled it together. Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations myself. I find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send me a response so that I can add it to the material. Taken from Snyder, J. "HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE DID HE EXECUTE? THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY UNDER GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH" Copyright 2003, which cites a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Exhibit M, Spence v. Scott (W.D. Tex.No. 94020212). As quoted by the Texas Defender Service, at fn42: "Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell sometimes tended to be a bit too certain in his judgments. He had once claimed to identify with medical certainty the body of a missing person, Melody Cutlip, based on dental records. In this case he had both the actual teeth and the dental records of the alleged deceased. After the funeral and burial, the real Melody Cutlip was found alive and well in Florida two years later, much to the relief of her family.42" The only possible defense to this is that Melody Cutlip is actually dead and that Dr. Campbell was correct with his orginal findings. I will await that notification. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an > objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. > You carefully avoided the outright lie on your character assassination page that stated that he made the ID on Melody Cutlip to a medical certainty. Since this is not a matter of interpretation but an outright lie, will you delete this, or are you sticking with your story? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 15:43:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DKhYqT005993 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:43:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:43:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, Where did you get your degree(s)? Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:38 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Billo; If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. But then, you'd have to read the material. You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it true; furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I pulled it together. Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations myself. I find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send me a response so that I can add it to the material. Taken from Snyder, J. "HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE DID HE EXECUTE? THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY UNDER GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH" Copyright 2003, which cites a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Exhibit M, Spence v. Scott (W.D. Tex.No. 94020212). As quoted by the Texas Defender Service, at fn42: "Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell sometimes tended to be a bit too certain in his judgments. He had once claimed to identify with medical certainty the body of a missing person, Melody Cutlip, based on dental records. In this case he had both the actual teeth and the dental records of the alleged deceased. After the funeral and burial, the real Melody Cutlip was found alive and well in Florida two years later, much to the relief of her family.42" The only possible defense to this is that Melody Cutlip is actually dead and that Dr. Campbell was correct with his orginal findings. I will await that notification. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an > objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. > You carefully avoided the outright lie on your character assassination page that stated that he made the ID on Melody Cutlip to a medical certainty. Since this is not a matter of interpretation but an outright lie, will you delete this, or are you sticking with your story? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 16:10:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DLADKu007527 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:10:13 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] The wisdom of the courts - Humorous Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:10:10 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] The wisdom of the courts - Humorous Thread-Index: AcPaDmKwYRiXclJ7Q7COKSqSjBLO5QACsdhg From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0DLABqL007522 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The last one on your list reminded me of the night I was working the OR desk at the UCLA medical center and a 16 year old patient came in to have a birthday candle removed from his bladder... -----Original Message----- From: Azriel Gorski [mailto:azriel@castledesk.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:45 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] The wisdom of the courts - Humorous To try and bring a little humor into this list, I would like to point out that sometimes the courts in their "judical wisdom", sometimes loose the sight of what was valued when I was growing up - "common sense." The below list is a list of warning labels on products inspired by people who sued, were awarded compensation, and "common sense" seems to have been thrown out the court room window. I collect, but have not personally seen them all. Take them for what they are worth, shake your head in sadness, smile, but try and enjoy. Shalom from Jerusalem Azriel An electric router made for carpenters: "This product not intended for use as a dental drill." A baby stroller: "Remove child before folding" Sleeping pills: "Warning: May cause drowsiness." A sticker on a toilet at a public facility: "Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking." A massage chair: "DO NOT use massage chair without clothing... and, Never force any body part into the backrest area while the rollers are moving." A snowblower: "Do not use snowthrower on roof." A dishwasher: "Do not allow children to play in the dishwasher." A CD player: "Do not use the (product and model name deleted) as a projectile in a catapult." A fireplace lighter: "Do not use near fire, flame or sparks" A hand-held massager warns consumers not to use "while sleeping or unconscious" A container of underarm deodorant: "Caution: Do not spray in eyes" A cartridge for a laser printer: "Do not eat toner" A household iron: "Never iron clothes while they are being worn" An electric hair dryer: "Never use hair dryer while sleeping." ...and... "Do not use while taking a shower." A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow: "Not intended for highway use" A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard: "Do not drive with sunshield in place" A Bathroom Heater: "This product is not to be used in bathrooms" A can of self-defense pepper spray: "May irritate eyes" A pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists: "Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover." A fireplace log: "Caution - Risk of Fire" A box of birthday cake candles: "Do not use soft wax as ear plugs or for any other function that involves insertion into a body cavity." ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 16:36:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DLacPr008454 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:36:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:36:31 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. But > then, you'd have to read the material. > > You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it true; > furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The > documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I pulled it > together. > > Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations myself. I > find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the > public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send me > a response so that I can add it to the material. Here's a clue, Brent. If you want to throw allegations at a colleague, take the minimal amount of effort to actually check the record rather than quote advocacy press. An activist with an axe to grind is not a court record. If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell made an identification to medical certainty, get off your ass and see if he did it. If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell testified wrongly, get off your ass and see what he testified and see what his detractors used for their testimony. Your reliance on a single piece of advocacy literature to throw allegations at a colleague is no different that posting a Stormfront piece denying the holocaust and then running around saying that it's not your responsibility that you have a holocaust denier on your site. Even worse, only *you* have called Dr. Campbell a fraud and incompetent. This is *your* conclusion. And you try to avoid responsibility by falsely claiming that any reputable forensic scientist other than you has so claimed. Take responsibility for what you do, Brent. Posting lies is posting lies. You can no longer claim you don't know they are lies. You can only claim you don't care. You claim that forensic odontologists do not make bitemark ids to the level of reasonable medical certainty, even though the ABFO standards tell you that they do. You are lying. You claim that Dr. Campbell identified a person to reasonable medical certainty even though he notes that he did not, and you *refuse* to check to see who is telling the truth. By refusing to even check on the truth, you embrace the lie. You claim that Dr. Campbell was shown wrong in a case, and *you don't care* that it was done because the advocacy group you quote tricked the experts by not showing them all the case data. You promote this. And all you can do is *refuse* to investigate the allegations you promulgate and keep parroting one piece of advocacy literature. This is what you call good forensic science. This is what Fred says is good forensic science. Shame on both of you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 17:06:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DM61cW009273 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:06:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040113220558.57034.qmail@web20502.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:05:58 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: [forens] Request for Info To: Forensic Science Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This request is for anyone in the New York or Maryland state systems (or anyone else) who is familiar with COBIS(?) - - (1) Could you please provide me with a 'Readers Digest' version of what COBIS is and how it's supposed to work? (2) What is the linkage (if any) between NIBIN and COBIS? (3) Could you provide me with the name of your LIMS provider? (4) Does your LIMS offer direct input into NIBIN/IBIS? Please respond to me offlist, since this is a specific request and would likely be of little or no interest to the rest of the list - and time is actually of the essence, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone - - 510.238.3386 FAX - - 510.238.6555 Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com (business) Email - - jta@rocketmail.com (personal) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 17:51:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DMpE24010357 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:51:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:51:05 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jack; See: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/brent/brent_cv.html And ignore the picture of me. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:43 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Brent, Where did you get your degree(s)? Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:38 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Billo; If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. But then, you'd have to read the material. You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it true; furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I pulled it together. Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations myself. I find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send me a response so that I can add it to the material. Taken from Snyder, J. "HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE DID HE EXECUTE? THE TEXAS DEATH PENALTY UNDER GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH" Copyright 2003, which cites a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Exhibit M, Spence v. Scott (W.D. Tex.No. 94020212). As quoted by the Texas Defender Service, at fn42: "Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell sometimes tended to be a bit too certain in his judgments. He had once claimed to identify with medical certainty the body of a missing person, Melody Cutlip, based on dental records. In this case he had both the actual teeth and the dental records of the alleged deceased. After the funeral and burial, the real Melody Cutlip was found alive and well in Florida two years later, much to the relief of her family.42" The only possible defense to this is that Melody Cutlip is actually dead and that Dr. Campbell was correct with his orginal findings. I will await that notification. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:17 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > You can try and make this about me all you want; I'm and just creating an > objective archive of cases based on the records that are available. > You carefully avoided the outright lie on your character assassination page that stated that he made the ID on Melody Cutlip to a medical certainty. Since this is not a matter of interpretation but an outright lie, will you delete this, or are you sticking with your story? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 17:59:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DMx8Av010656 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:59:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:59:01 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; You continue to restate selective information with the tenacity of a poorly prepared attorney. You really, really need to read the ABFO guidelines again. Maybe take some time to calm down before you do it. At no point have I made any false statements, only assembled the record for all to view. You need to accept this and move on with your life. I am not the biased advocate in this discussion. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:37 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. But > then, you'd have to read the material. > > You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it true; > furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The > documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I pulled it > together. > > Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations myself. I > find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the > public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send me > a response so that I can add it to the material. Here's a clue, Brent. If you want to throw allegations at a colleague, take the minimal amount of effort to actually check the record rather than quote advocacy press. An activist with an axe to grind is not a court record. If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell made an identification to medical certainty, get off your ass and see if he did it. If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell testified wrongly, get off your ass and see what he testified and see what his detractors used for their testimony. Your reliance on a single piece of advocacy literature to throw allegations at a colleague is no different that posting a Stormfront piece denying the holocaust and then running around saying that it's not your responsibility that you have a holocaust denier on your site. Even worse, only *you* have called Dr. Campbell a fraud and incompetent. This is *your* conclusion. And you try to avoid responsibility by falsely claiming that any reputable forensic scientist other than you has so claimed. Take responsibility for what you do, Brent. Posting lies is posting lies. You can no longer claim you don't know they are lies. You can only claim you don't care. You claim that forensic odontologists do not make bitemark ids to the level of reasonable medical certainty, even though the ABFO standards tell you that they do. You are lying. You claim that Dr. Campbell identified a person to reasonable medical certainty even though he notes that he did not, and you *refuse* to check to see who is telling the truth. By refusing to even check on the truth, you embrace the lie. You claim that Dr. Campbell was shown wrong in a case, and *you don't care* that it was done because the advocacy group you quote tricked the experts by not showing them all the case data. You promote this. And all you can do is *refuse* to investigate the allegations you promulgate and keep parroting one piece of advocacy literature. This is what you call good forensic science. This is what Fred says is good forensic science. Shame on both of you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 18:02:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DN2hoQ010935 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:02:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Simon Stables To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:01:59 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Enough is enough. I am tired of receiving these emails. Please take your personal attacks off this list server. This is not the purpose of it. Simon Stables Forensic Pathologist Forensic Pathology - LabPlus Auckland City Hospital PO Box 110031 Auckland NEW ZEALAND Tel: 64-9-3757013 Fax: 64--3094301 Mob: 027 4173750 Email: sstables@adhb.govt.nz > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [SMTP:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:59 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies > > Billo; > > You continue to restate selective information with the tenacity of a > poorly > prepared attorney. You really, really need to read the ABFO guidelines > again. Maybe take some time to calm down before you do it. > > At no point have I made any false statements, only assembled the record > for > all to view. You need to accept this and move on with your life. > > I am not the biased advocate in this discussion. > > Brent > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:37 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > Billo; > > > > If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. > But > > then, you'd have to read the material. > > > > You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it > true; > > furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The > > documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I > pulled > it > > together. > > > > Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations > myself. > I > > find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the > > public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send > me > > a response so that I can add it to the material. > > Here's a clue, Brent. If you want to throw allegations at a colleague, > take the minimal amount of effort to actually check the record rather > than quote advocacy press. An activist with an axe to grind is > not a court record. > > If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell made an identification > to medical certainty, get off your ass and see if he did it. > > If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell testified wrongly, > get off your ass and see what he testified and see what > his detractors used for their testimony. > > Your reliance on a single piece of advocacy literature to > throw allegations at a colleague is no different that > posting a Stormfront piece denying the holocaust and then > running around saying that it's not your responsibility > that you have a holocaust denier on your site. > > Even worse, only *you* have called Dr. Campbell a > fraud and incompetent. This is *your* conclusion. > And you try to avoid responsibility by falsely > claiming that any reputable forensic scientist > other than you has so claimed. > > Take responsibility for what you do, Brent. Posting lies > is posting lies. You can no longer claim you don't know > they are lies. You can only claim you don't care. > > You claim that forensic odontologists do not make bitemark > ids to the level of reasonable medical certainty, even though > the ABFO standards tell you that they do. You are lying. > > You claim that Dr. Campbell identified a person to reasonable > medical certainty even though he notes that he did not, and > you *refuse* to check to see who is telling the truth. By > refusing to even check on the truth, you embrace the lie. > > You claim that Dr. Campbell was shown wrong in a case, > and *you don't care* that it was done because the advocacy > group you quote tricked the experts by not showing them > all the case data. You promote this. > > And all you can do is *refuse* to investigate the > allegations you promulgate and keep parroting one > piece of advocacy literature. > > This is what you call good forensic science. This > is what Fred says is good forensic science. > > Shame on both of you. > > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by Simon Stables ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 18:06:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DN6QU8011251 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:06:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040113230622.42014.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:06:22 -0800 (PST) From: Cathy OReilly Subject: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I teach in a well respected High School in New York. We would never consider hiring a teacher who does not have an undergraduate degree in science. We all know that it is quite easy to get a Master of Science in just about anything( nas opposed to getting the undergraduate one). I just wished they would take my money and give me the degree, and I recieved a 4.0 and an award! Quite frankly, I was embarassed because some people were impressed by what I knew was not exactly a great accomplishment. My degree is in Biochemistry and I have a Master of Science Teaching Biology. I have no illusions that this makes me qualified to judge other people. When I was working in research, it was common knowledge that a MS was what you got if you couldn't finish your PhD. I am sorry but now I am just p...ed off, more so because before belonging to this list I had some illusions about Mr Turvy as being some "fountain of forensic knowledge". I am always amazed at how we can make ourselves seem so much more important and educated than we actually are. I am sure someone is going to yell at me for not sending this privately, but I actually don't really care right now. My Irish is Up and I don't even know Homer Campbell! Cathy O'Reilly --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 18:09:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DN9lso011536 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:09:47 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:09:46 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Thread-Index: AcPaKfn4uF0C3NIaR3aaD22qFda6XAAAEclg From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0DN9kqL011531 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I second the motion.... -----Original Message----- From: Simon Stables [mailto:SStables@adhb.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:02 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Enough is enough. I am tired of receiving these emails. Please take your personal attacks off this list server. This is not the purpose of it. Simon Stables Forensic Pathologist Forensic Pathology - LabPlus Auckland City Hospital PO Box 110031 Auckland NEW ZEALAND Tel: 64-9-3757013 Fax: 64--3094301 Mob: 027 4173750 Email: sstables@adhb.govt.nz > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [SMTP:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:59 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies > > Billo; > > You continue to restate selective information with the tenacity of a > poorly > prepared attorney. You really, really need to read the ABFO guidelines > again. Maybe take some time to calm down before you do it. > > At no point have I made any false statements, only assembled the record > for > all to view. You need to accept this and move on with your life. > > I am not the biased advocate in this discussion. > > Brent > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:37 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > Billo; > > > > If read the material, you'd find that this is taken directly from it. > But > > then, you'd have to read the material. > > > > You need to learn that wanting something to be true does not make it > true; > > furthermore, repeating something ad naseum does not make it true. The > > documentation is there for all to read, and has been long before I > pulled > it > > together. > > > > Again, and for the last time, I do not make these interpretations > myself. > I > > find multiple corroborating findings, decisons, or admissions from the > > public record. If Dr. Campell disputes this record, please have him send > me > > a response so that I can add it to the material. > > Here's a clue, Brent. If you want to throw allegations at a colleague, > take the minimal amount of effort to actually check the record rather > than quote advocacy press. An activist with an axe to grind is > not a court record. > > If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell made an identification > to medical certainty, get off your ass and see if he did it. > > If you want to claim that Dr. Campbell testified wrongly, > get off your ass and see what he testified and see what > his detractors used for their testimony. > > Your reliance on a single piece of advocacy literature to > throw allegations at a colleague is no different that > posting a Stormfront piece denying the holocaust and then > running around saying that it's not your responsibility > that you have a holocaust denier on your site. > > Even worse, only *you* have called Dr. Campbell a > fraud and incompetent. This is *your* conclusion. > And you try to avoid responsibility by falsely > claiming that any reputable forensic scientist > other than you has so claimed. > > Take responsibility for what you do, Brent. Posting lies > is posting lies. You can no longer claim you don't know > they are lies. You can only claim you don't care. > > You claim that forensic odontologists do not make bitemark > ids to the level of reasonable medical certainty, even though > the ABFO standards tell you that they do. You are lying. > > You claim that Dr. Campbell identified a person to reasonable > medical certainty even though he notes that he did not, and > you *refuse* to check to see who is telling the truth. By > refusing to even check on the truth, you embrace the lie. > > You claim that Dr. Campbell was shown wrong in a case, > and *you don't care* that it was done because the advocacy > group you quote tricked the experts by not showing them > all the case data. You promote this. > > And all you can do is *refuse* to investigate the > allegations you promulgate and keep parroting one > piece of advocacy literature. > > This is what you call good forensic science. This > is what Fred says is good forensic science. > > Shame on both of you. > > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by Simon Stables ] [EndPost by "Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 18:19:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DNJNWr012103 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:19:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:19:14 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20040113230622.42014.qmail@web14607.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cathy; I'm not sure how others achieved their degrees, but I worked very hard for mine. And I've been working cases and testifying in court now for more than 8 years. Though I am certainly no fountain of forensic knowledge as you suggest, I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research. Others, as always, are free to disagree. And should. It is the personal nature of the disagreements that are most telling, however. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Cathy OReilly Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:06 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Credentials I teach in a well respected High School in New York. We would never consider hiring a teacher who does not have an undergraduate degree in science. We all know that it is quite easy to get a Master of Science in just about anything( nas opposed to getting the undergraduate one). I just wished they would take my money and give me the degree, and I recieved a 4.0 and an award! Quite frankly, I was embarassed because some people were impressed by what I knew was not exactly a great accomplishment. My degree is in Biochemistry and I have a Master of Science Teaching Biology. I have no illusions that this makes me qualified to judge other people. When I was working in research, it was common knowledge that a MS was what you got if you couldn't finish your PhD. I am sorry but now I am just p...ed off, more so because before belonging to this list I had some illusions about Mr Turvy as being some "fountain of forensic knowledge". I am always amazed at how we can make ourselves seem so much more important and educated than we actually are. I am sure someone is going to yell at me for not sending this privately, but I actually don't really care right now. My Irish is Up and I don't even know Homer Campbell! Cathy O'Reilly --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 18:33:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DNXMuV012690 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:33:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:32:46 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Request for Info Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0DNXMuW012690 Tom, If you don't mind a more local response, I'll give one to you. In the early days (the 90s) when the FBI was placing the Drugfire system in forensic laboratories and the ATF was placing the IBIS system in forensic laboratories, the FBI wastying their network server abd router with CODIS and Drgfire simultaneously. When IBIS and Drugfire were merged into NIBIN and palced unser the jurisdiction of the ATF, the FBI contiued to maintain a router and server for CODIS and Drugfire, but dropped the Drugfire support this year. BATF contined to run NIBIN but under an entirely different network toatlly separate from CODIS. CODIS being the Convicted Offender Database for DNA evidence. Our LIMS system is under contract with RJ Lee. LIMS does not link between CODIS or NIBIN as they are secure stad alone networks. I am not aware of any LIMS system that links to either system. However Forensic Technologies Inc. that produces the IBIS system is currently working on such a system. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> jta@rocketmail.com 1/13/2004 2:05:58 PM >>> This request is for anyone in the New York or Maryland state systems (or anyone else) who is familiar with COBIS(?) - - (1) Could you please provide me with a 'Readers Digest' version of what COBIS is and how it's supposed to work? (2) What is the linkage (if any) between NIBIN and COBIS? (3) Could you provide me with the name of your LIMS provider? (4) Does your LIMS offer direct input into NIBIN/IBIS? Please respond to me offlist, since this is a specific request and would likely be of little or no interest to the rest of the list - and time is actually of the essence, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone - - 510.238.3386 FAX - - 510.238.6555 Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com (business) Email - - jta@rocketmail.com (personal) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 18:56:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0DNudel013383 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:56:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:00:18 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010f01c3da31$651259e0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <41.38b44d02.2d2d9607@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jan 2004 23:56:36.0497 (UTC) FILETIME=[E104A810:01C3DA30] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The problem with the term "consistent" is that it is a qualitative, not a quantitative, description that may be misconstrued by the layperson unless its use is properly explained. Of course, not all forensic tests, by their nature, can be quantified. Some are necessarily qualitative, and this term can be properly used in discussing the results of such qualitative testing, so long as its intended meaning is explained. As used by forensic scientists, it means the tested item reacts in the same way as the thing it is said to be "consistent with," in regard to whatever test result is being reported, but that doesn't necessarily mean the analyte is identical (the same as) the thing it is compared to, only that it exhibits the same characteristics under the conditions of the test or tests in question. There may be a great many different things that exhibit those same characteristics, or only a few, or only one. Two things can be "consistent" in one way or many ways, and yet still not be the same thing. Two things may be indistinguishable ("consistent with" each other) under some tests, but clearly different under others. If everyone instinctively understood this, there would be no problem with use of the term without further explanation. The problem of course is that others may interpret "consistent with" to mean "identical to" or "identified as," and that is not a correct interpretation. Therefore, if one uses the term "consistent with," then in order to avoid any misunderstanding I think one is obligated to explain in what way the analyte is "consistent with" something else, and what the limitations of that consistency are (i.e., how significant the consistency is, how common that characteristic is and how discriminating the test is). The explanation should answer the question "does this mean the two are proven to be the same or to have a common origin?" because that is the question that will be formed in the lay reader's mind when they read "consistent with." Usually, the answer to that question is "no, not necessarily," so the other possibilities and their relative likelihoods should be addressed somehow. "Consistent with," to me, implies that the reported result is not an identification but rather an inclusion, with other possibilities also existing, i.e., "X was consistent with Y as to parameter Z; X therefore cannot be excluded as Y, and either is Y, or is some other item with these same characteristics as to parameter Z" (if Y is more likely than other possibilities, it should be explained in what way and to what extent it is more likely). If the result is an identification (proven to be the same to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty), then it should be reported as such, i.e., "X was identified as Y," not simply "consistent with Y." The term "consistent with" can be properly used if properly explained, but because of its inherent ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation, I feel it is better to use more descriptive terms whenever possible, such as "the two items gave the same result to the (whatever) test," or "shared the following similarities," or "were alike in the following characteristics," followed by an enumeration of the positive comparative parameters and an explanation of their significance. While more specific result terminology has less potential to be pejorative or misleading than the simple phrase "consistent with," in both cases an explanation of the results is still needed. All test results need to be placed in the proper perspective for the reader to properly understand their import. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 19:00:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E00nef013766 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:00:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:04:29 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <011501c3da31$fafa34a0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1275@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2004 00:00:47.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[76EC82D0:01C3DA31] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu My opinion - I think that reporting results without explanation is at best dangerous and at worst irresponsible, unless the results truly need no explanation (e.g., "this blood was examined by gas chromatography and was found to contain ethyl alcohol at a concentration of 0.150g%" - a statement that needs no explanation if the purpose of the exam was simply to determine the presence and quantity of alcohol in the blood, sans any interpretation of impairment). Street drug identification would be another example of results that need no explanation. The exhibit either contains or does not contain a controlled substance, period, so only an ID is needed. However, whenever interpretation of results is needed in order to determine the impact of those results, an explanation should be included. Reporting results is only half our job - the other half, which is at least as important, is telling the users of our reports what those results mean. If the meaning is not self-explanatory to the layman, or if it could conceivably be misinterpreted by the layman, then an explanation is required. We have a responsibility to make certain that our reports are properly understood and interpreted as a basic part of our job, a part that is just as important as making certain our results are correct. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:17 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] Weasel words (was Hematrace) Question - I know some people only report what I would call results and don't offer any opinion in a report. (The suspect's pants are composed of purple acrylic fibers. The fiber recovered from the pants of the victim was found to be a purple fiber just like the fibers of the suspect's pants. Period, end of report.) How do you feel about that? Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Markblewis@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:29 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Hello, Lynn: I agree with you that given the opportunity to speak about the report written, that the wording can be made clear to the general public. What would you say to the report that is read in court by the attorney without you present to adequately describe what is that you have found and the relavence to the question at hand? (Just stirring the pot :-) ) ~ M In a message dated 1/7/2004 12:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil writes: I've not had problems explaining what I mean by the term "consistent" to lawyers, judges or juries. No question that no matter what terminology we use before "laymen" we need to be ready to define our jargon. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Markblewis@aol.com] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 19:02:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E02D5q013960 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:02:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:05:53 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <011601c3da32$2d1ea970$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2004 00:02:12.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[A90EADB0:01C3DA31] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps even more, depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach disposition without ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have a lot to do with whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced or dropped entirely; guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; lines of investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As several have pointed out, all this happens in most cases without any of the decision makers picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. For this reason, our reports really must stand alone and be able to convey not just our results, but also what they mean or imply about the case in question. We must make every effort to include explanations in our reports that are reasonably concise and clear, but also as illuminating as is practical. At minimum, we must strive to include enough explanatory detail to minimize the possibility that the results will be misinterpreted. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, then we've done our job. -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have to stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases where I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 19:54:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E0sXrL015229 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:54:33 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:56:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2004 00:54:26.0844 (UTC) FILETIME=[F58195C0:01C3DA38] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: In what case and location did you testify in 1995-96? Neither I nor any of your other fans appear to have any record of this and I would like to ensure that what I say is absolutely accurate rather than have you accuse me of lying again. If you prefer not to answer I can simply put "alleged, but declined to provide supporting facts" for that year, which I think is incredibly generous of me in light of your approach to forensic fraud. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:19 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Cathy; > > I'm not sure how others achieved their degrees, but I worked very hard for > mine. And I've been working cases and testifying in court now for more than > 8 years. Though I am certainly no fountain of forensic knowledge as you > suggest, I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and > research. > > Others, as always, are free to disagree. And should. > > It is the personal nature of the disagreements that are most telling, > however. > > Brent > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 20:02:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E121dl015571 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:02:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:01:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > You continue to restate selective information with the tenacity of a poorly > prepared attorney. You really, really need to read the ABFO guidelines > again. Maybe take some time to calm down before you do it. > > At no point have I made any false statements, only assembled the record for > all to view. You need to accept this and move on with your life. Yeah yeah "I'm not lying, I'm just repeating other people's lies." That's a hell of an ethical position to take, Brent. > > I am not the biased advocate in this discussion. > Ah, and the advocacy propaganda you tout is not biased? What a crock. When you quote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you are not very convincing when you claim you are not an anti-semite, just because you didn't *write* the Protocols. "I'm not lying, I just repeat the lies of others as fact." What a guy. You still maintain that the ABFO does not allow matches to reasonable medical certainty. This is a lie. And you *know* it is a lie. You still maintain that Homer made a diagnosis he did not make. And you state it as *fact* even though you *know* it is a lie. You still maintain that people who are decieved into only looking at part of the data are correct and people who look at all the data are wrong. You *do not care* what the truth is. And the claim of "I just put the lies on my web site, but I'm not promoting the lie" is pathetic. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 20:16:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E1G4eN016120 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:16:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040114011602.48100.qmail@web20504.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:16:02 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab --- Brent Turvey wrote: > Cathy; > > I'm not sure how others achieved their degrees, but > I worked very hard for > mine. And I've been working cases and testifying in > court now for more than > 8 years. Though I am certainly no fountain of > forensic knowledge as you > suggest, I am not afraid to give my opinions and > back them up with facts and > research. > > Others, as always, are free to disagree. And should. > > It is the personal nature of the disagreements that > are most telling, > however. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Cathy OReilly > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:06 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] Credentials > > > I teach in a well respected High School in New York. > We would never consider > hiring a teacher who does not have an undergraduate > degree in science. We > all know that it is quite easy to get a Master of > Science in just about > anything( nas opposed to getting the undergraduate > one). I just wished > they would take my money and give me the degree, and > I recieved a 4.0 and an > award! Quite frankly, I was embarassed because > some people were impressed > by what I knew was not exactly a great > accomplishment. My degree is in > Biochemistry and I have a Master of Science Teaching > Biology. > I have no illusions that this makes me qualified to > judge other people. > > When I was working in research, it was common > knowledge that a MS was what > you got if you couldn't finish your PhD. > > I am sorry but now I am just p...ed off, more so > because before belonging to > this list I had some illusions about Mr Turvy as > being some "fountain of > forensic knowledge". I am always amazed at how we > can make ourselves seem > so much more important and educated than we actually > are. > > I am sure someone is going to yell at me for not > sending this privately, but > I actually don't really care right now. My Irish is > Up and I don't even > know Homer Campbell! > > > Cathy O'Reilly > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" > Sweepstakes > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 21:20:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E2KVFe017050 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:20:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001401c3da40$6a809680$581c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: <20040114011602.48100.qmail@web20504.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:47:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I often wondered just what he has meant when he claimed to be a forensic scientist. It is apparently based on a pretty loose interpretation of what one is. I looked at the Univ of New Haven website and this is what they have to say about their program (below). There seems to be little requirement for any "science" background or training in the specific degree he obtained. When he speaks of evidence he has examined, I suspect it is likely just reports prepared by true forensic scientists, or maybe in some cases he actually looks at the physical evidence, though I doubt he is qualified to do any comparison type examinations. Graduate Program in Forensic Science Forensic Science Director: Howard A. Harris, Associate Professor of Forensic Science, Ph.D., Yale University; J.D., St. Louis University Forensic science is a broad, interdisciplinary field in which the natural sciences are employed to analyze and evaluate physical evidence in matters of the law. The interdisciplinary forensic science program has three concentrations: criminalistics, fire science and advanced investigation. In addition to the M.S. degree programs, professional certificates are offered in all the specialties for those who want certification in a second track or who require only the specialized courses. The criminalistics concentration provides the advanced technical background for those wishing to enter the criminalistics field as professional laboratory examiners. The fire science concentration provides advanced training in arson scene investigation, laboratory analysis of arson-related evidence and related aspects of arson and fire investigation. The advanced investigation concentration provides advanced training in the forensic sciences and in investigation techniques, and is designed for students interested in applying forensic science to investigations, forensic identification, crime scene processing and other related work. The program and courses stress not only up-to-date analytical and scientific methods, but also a broad understanding of the concepts underlying the forensic sciences. Degree programs in forensic science require a sequence of core courses, followed by concentration requirement courses and a flexible offering of electives designed to meet individual interests. In addition to the graduate forensic science program at the main campus in West Haven, the University offers the Master of Science in forensic science with a concentration in advanced investigation at its California location in Sacramento. Graduate certificates in advanced investigation and in forensic computer investigation are also available at the California site. Authorization for UNH to operate in California is granted through the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, which oversees and monitors the university's compliance with regulations set forth in the California Education code and is the students' primary advocate in matters of consumer protection. Admission Policy Because the admissions criteria differ, at the time of initial application students must specify which one of the three concentrations they plan to pursue. For admission to the criminalistics concentration in the M.S. in forensic science program, students must have an undergraduate degree in a natural science (chemistry, biology or physics) or forensic science from an accredited institution. Applicants should have taken at least one year of general chemistry with lab, one year of organic chemistry with lab and one semester of instrumental analysis or analytical chemistry with lab. A semester of biochemistry with lab and a year of physics with lab are highly recommended. Applications will be strengthened by an overall undergraduate grade average of at least 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) and grades of "B" or better in science and mathematics courses. Applicants for the criminalistics concentration are required to take the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) General Test and submit their scores to Graduate Admissions as part of their application. Applications will be strengthened by verbal scores falling at or above the 50th percentile and by quantitative/analytical scores falling at or above the 70th percentile. For admission to the advanced investigation or fire science concentrations in the M.S. in forensic science program, students must have earned a baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution. The degree need not be in the natural sciences, and the GRE is not required. Applications will be strengthened by natural science coursework and by an overall undergraduate average of at least 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:16 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Brent, > > In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in > part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and > back them up with facts and research." > > So if you would please answer my questions regaring > the following. > > On your website/CV and noticed it stated the > following: > > "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* > > Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. > > Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with > Knowledge Solutions LLC > > Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler > > Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course > development" > > I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your > qualifications that enable you to call yourself a > 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate > degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a > number of chemistry or biology (or any science) > courses within the context of those majors. I guess > the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS > in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a > scientist. Did your MS from the University of New > Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, > chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely > associated with science? > > The following is also directly from your CV - - > > "Education > > Master's of Science in Forensic Science > Advanced Investigation Concentration, > University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut > > B.S. - Psychology > Portland State University, Portland, Oregon > > B.S. - History > Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" > > Exactly what type of science courses does one get when > involved in a program that has an "Advanced > Investigation Concentration"? > > You further state in your CV that - - > > "Professional Activities > Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist > and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or > trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney > clients around the World. The greatest volume of his > casework has focused on the examination and > interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence > relating to the following:" > > Further, could you please comment on how your > "casework has focused on the examination and > interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? > Have you actually performed scientific examinations of > physical evidence utilizing standard forensic > physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at > items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the > field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am > truly confounded as to how someone without an > undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science > could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. > Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling > himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because > he handles money and makes change. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > > > > > > > > > --- Brent Turvey wrote: > > Cathy; > > > > I'm not sure how others achieved their degrees, but > > I worked very hard for > > mine. And I've been working cases and testifying in > > court now for more than > > 8 years. Though I am certainly no fountain of > > forensic knowledge as you > > suggest, I am not afraid to give my opinions and > > back them up with facts and > > research. > > > > Others, as always, are free to disagree. And should. > > > > It is the personal nature of the disagreements that > > are most telling, > > however. > > > > Brent > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > > Cathy OReilly > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:06 PM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: [forens] Credentials > > > > > > I teach in a well respected High School in New York. > > We would never consider > > hiring a teacher who does not have an undergraduate > > degree in science. We > > all know that it is quite easy to get a Master of > > Science in just about > > anything( nas opposed to getting the undergraduate > > one). I just wished > > they would take my money and give me the degree, and > > I recieved a 4.0 and an > > award! Quite frankly, I was embarassed because > > some people were impressed > > by what I knew was not exactly a great > > accomplishment. My degree is in > > Biochemistry and I have a Master of Science Teaching > > Biology. > > I have no illusions that this makes me qualified to > > judge other people. > > > > When I was working in research, it was common > > knowledge that a MS was what > > you got if you couldn't finish your PhD. > > > > I am sorry but now I am just p...ed off, more so > > because before belonging to > > this list I had some illusions about Mr Turvy as > > being some "fountain of > > forensic knowledge". I am always amazed at how we > > can make ourselves seem > > so much more important and educated than we actually > > are. > > > > I am sure someone is going to yell at me for not > > sending this privately, but > > I actually don't really care right now. My Irish is > > Up and I don't even > > know Homer Campbell! > > > > > > Cathy O'Reilly > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" > > Sweepstakes > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [EndPost by Cathy OReilly ] > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" > ] > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 21:38:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E2c1qS017687 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:38:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:37:56 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20040114011602.48100.qmail@web20504.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 21:41:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E2ffNP018008 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:41:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:41:36 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <001401c3da40$6a809680$581c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike; You'd be way off. Not only have I visited crime scenes with law enforcement and other investigators, and helped to identify and package evidence, I have performed many, many evidence collections myself in a variety of cases and contexts. I do not do analytical testing, however. I am not a crime lab, nor do I work for one. Regardless, you can cut at my CV all you like - I think my work speaks for itself and the need to cut away at a CV for lack of the ability to defend onself against a critical arguement makes its own statement. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Mike Wise Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:47 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials I often wondered just what he has meant when he claimed to be a forensic scientist. It is apparently based on a pretty loose interpretation of what one is. I looked at the Univ of New Haven website and this is what they have to say about their program (below). There seems to be little requirement for any "science" background or training in the specific degree he obtained. When he speaks of evidence he has examined, I suspect it is likely just reports prepared by true forensic scientists, or maybe in some cases he actually looks at the physical evidence, though I doubt he is qualified to do any comparison type examinations. Graduate Program in Forensic Science Forensic Science Director: Howard A. Harris, Associate Professor of Forensic Science, Ph.D., Yale University; J.D., St. Louis University Forensic science is a broad, interdisciplinary field in which the natural sciences are employed to analyze and evaluate physical evidence in matters of the law. The interdisciplinary forensic science program has three concentrations: criminalistics, fire science and advanced investigation. In addition to the M.S. degree programs, professional certificates are offered in all the specialties for those who want certification in a second track or who require only the specialized courses. The criminalistics concentration provides the advanced technical background for those wishing to enter the criminalistics field as professional laboratory examiners. The fire science concentration provides advanced training in arson scene investigation, laboratory analysis of arson-related evidence and related aspects of arson and fire investigation. The advanced investigation concentration provides advanced training in the forensic sciences and in investigation techniques, and is designed for students interested in applying forensic science to investigations, forensic identification, crime scene processing and other related work. The program and courses stress not only up-to-date analytical and scientific methods, but also a broad understanding of the concepts underlying the forensic sciences. Degree programs in forensic science require a sequence of core courses, followed by concentration requirement courses and a flexible offering of electives designed to meet individual interests. In addition to the graduate forensic science program at the main campus in West Haven, the University offers the Master of Science in forensic science with a concentration in advanced investigation at its California location in Sacramento. Graduate certificates in advanced investigation and in forensic computer investigation are also available at the California site. Authorization for UNH to operate in California is granted through the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, which oversees and monitors the university's compliance with regulations set forth in the California Education code and is the students' primary advocate in matters of consumer protection. Admission Policy Because the admissions criteria differ, at the time of initial application students must specify which one of the three concentrations they plan to pursue. For admission to the criminalistics concentration in the M.S. in forensic science program, students must have an undergraduate degree in a natural science (chemistry, biology or physics) or forensic science from an accredited institution. Applicants should have taken at least one year of general chemistry with lab, one year of organic chemistry with lab and one semester of instrumental analysis or analytical chemistry with lab. A semester of biochemistry with lab and a year of physics with lab are highly recommended. Applications will be strengthened by an overall undergraduate grade average of at least 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) and grades of "B" or better in science and mathematics courses. Applicants for the criminalistics concentration are required to take the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) General Test and submit their scores to Graduate Admissions as part of their application. Applications will be strengthened by verbal scores falling at or above the 50th percentile and by quantitative/analytical scores falling at or above the 70th percentile. For admission to the advanced investigation or fire science concentrations in the M.S. in forensic science program, students must have earned a baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution. The degree need not be in the natural sciences, and the GRE is not required. Applications will be strengthened by natural science coursework and by an overall undergraduate average of at least 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Abercrombie" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:16 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 13 21:50:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E2o2ja018408 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:50:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:49:58 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Tom & Mike; Since you asked... what the heck qualifies you guys? Lots of people work at crime labs, including the janitor and the interns. Thinking of it, Joyce Gilchrist worked at a crime lab. She was a police scientist, to be sure, but not a forensic scientist as I would define one. I assume you both have your master's degrees since they are so easy get. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:38 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 01:11:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0E6BKfo022033 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:11:20 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:11:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2004 05:09:01.0964 (UTC) FILETIME=[862FECC0:01C3DA5C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: You have made a few statements that I find a bit confusing and I wonder if you might help clear them up? For your benefit, I have included a link to your statements which I will reference - http://www.midsouthjustice.org/textfiles/Pierce_rev.htm In your reply to Cathy, you stated "And I've been working cases and testifying in court now for more than 8 years." >From your statements in Pierce v. Rasmussen, October 14th, 1998 - "Q. (By Ms. Corey-Boulet) And in what cases have you previously testified as an expert in profiling, testified in open court? A I have not testified as an expert in, quote, unquote, profiling. Q. Have you testified in a criminal trial as an expert in any capacity? A. Evidentiary hearing. Q. You've testified in an evidentiary hearing? A Yes. Q. In what case? A. It would be State v. Conan Wayne Hale - State of Oregon v. Conan Wayne Hale." The prosecutor in that case requested and was granted voire dire, you're testimony was supressed in it's entirety. "23 Q. Have you ever testified as an expert in the area of 24 criminal profiling in a criminal case before a jury? 25 A. No, I have not. http://www.wm3.org/html/oct271998.html >From your testimony in the appeal of Damien Echols, October 27th, 1998 "23 Q. Have you ever testified as an expert in the area of 24 criminal profiling in a criminal case before a jury? 25 A. No, I have not. 885 1 Q. Okay. Have you ever been qualified to testify as an 2 expert in the area of criminal profiling? 3 A. No, I have not. 4 Q. Okay. Have you ever attempted to qualify as an expert in 5 the area of crim -- criminal profiling and have your testimony 6 submitted to a jury for purposes of determining if, in fact, 7 you're an expert in that area? 8 A. Yes, I have. 9 Q. Okay. What were the results? 10 A. It only happened one other time. 11 Q. Was that in Oregon? 12 A. Yes, it was. 13 Q. Is that the Hale case? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Okay. And was there a preliminary hearing to determine if 16 in fact your testimony would be acceptable as an expert in that 17 case? 18 A. Yes, it was. 19 Q. And did you, in fact -- was there a preliminary hearing at 20 which time you testified and the judge made a ruling that he 21 would not use your testimony? 22 A. Yes, he did. snip................. 886 1 whether or not -- well, I won't get into it. I 2 apologize. snip......... 21 Q. Okay. And the court in that case determined that your -- 22 you did not qualify as an expert to testify in that area? 23 A. The Judge determined that criminal profiling was not 24 scientific. 25 Q. So the extent of your experience after you graduated with 889 1 your degree in forensic science has been limited to 2 consultations and investigation but not testifying as an expert 3 in court? 4 A. That's correct. I don't typically testify in any of my 5 cases. 6 Q. Okay. Even though you've attempted to and not be allowed 7 to, correct? 8 A. Only one time." Brent, the record of your sworn testimony suggests that as of 1998, the only case in which you attempted to testify is none other than Oregon v. Conan Hale, in which your testimony was excluded. The Echols appeal was just that, an appeal. Your testimony was not introduced before a jury and by stipulation of the appellant's counsel, you were not testifying as an expert in that case either. It seem to me that your reply to Cathy is a little misleading in that you have lumped your 'work' along with your 'testimony' in court cases which had to have begun after October of 1998, as the record plainly shows. Then we have your reply to Mike, where you say - "> Mike; > > You'd be way off. Not only have I visited crime scenes with law enforcement > and other investigators, and helped to identify and package evidence, I have > performed many, many evidence collections myself in a variety of cases and > contexts." Again, as the record plainly shows, you did not collect evidence according to your own statements in 1998, and as late as 2000 (Wisconsin v. Kupaza) you were still testifying to work as a "generalist" and a "crime reconstructionist" that had nothing to do with evidence collection. You specifically state that you declined the opportunity when it was afforded to you in Stockton, California. It seems a little implausible that, from an island off the coast of Alaska, you are able to arrive at crime scenes faster than criminalists that traditionally support police investigations, much less, that they would hold up the release of a crime scene until you arrived. Obviously your stated attitudes and roles regarding crime scene and evidence collection have changed dramatically since 2000 and the Kupaza case. While I'm aware that you have been collecting buccal swabs during your investigation of the murder of your domestic partner's sibling, Jessica Baggen, I'll confess that I've never seen nor been aware of any other case in which any law enforcement agency has entrusted you to gather evidence nor is there any testimony to suggest that this is the case. So Mike feels a little less foolish for being "way off" and so I don't furnish less than accurate information, I'm confident that you'll actually explain where, when and with whom, you actually changed your approach to forensic science and evidence collection. Thanks in advance. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:41 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Mike; > > You'd be way off. Not only have I visited crime scenes with law enforcement > and other investigators, and helped to identify and package evidence, I have > performed many, many evidence collections myself in a variety of cases and > contexts. > > I do not do analytical testing, however. I am not a crime lab, nor do I work > for one. > > Regardless, you can cut at my CV all you like - I think my work speaks for > itself and the need to cut away at a CV for lack of the ability to defend > onself against a critical arguement makes its own statement. > > Brent > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 07:38:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ECcg8Z027852 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:38:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] RE: in re: Turvey Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:38:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The reason why I asked was because I'm going to have a couple of weeks off this summer and I thought I might get a MS from UNH too. -----Original Message----- From: shaun wheeler [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:58 PM To: Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Subject: in re: Turvey Jack: You might want to take a look at the UNH requirements for Turvey's MS or better still, call and talk with either the dean or associate dean of the school of public safety. I did and it was well worth the call. Shaun [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 07:47:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EClOlD028196 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:47:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:47:23 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) In-Reply-To: <20040113143548.6510.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > Thanks, Pete. I couldn't have said that better > myself. > > The point that I was trying to make (apparently > not very successfully) is that disagreements > among experts should not be brushed off as a > "difference of opinion." This is not a first > amendment issue here. > > Differences among fire experts are quite common, > and I often hear "I've got to call them as I see > them," and "He has a right to his opinion." > > In all such cases, at least one expert is wrong. > > And opinions that are wrong are not helpful to > the jury, and should not be admitted as evidence. > > I think that courts, when confronted with such > disagreements, do a disservice when they decide > to let the jury sort it out. (What crieteria > should juries use to make such choices?) > The problem is that you assume two things: 1) The judge is competent to know which expert is "wrong." 2) The jury is not competent to figure out which expert is "wrong." There is no reason to believe either of these positions. In fact, that's one of the ironies of the Daubert world -- we are now in the positiong of having judges who have no concept of what constitutes "science" deciding what it is. While the judges are supposed to use Daubert criteria for federal cases, most judges are largely illiterate when it comes those criteria. One recent study showed, for instance, that only 6% of judges understood the concept of "falsifiability," only 4% understood what "error rate" meant, and only 71% knew what "peer review" meant. (Gatowski, et al. "Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a Post-Daubert World." Law and Human Behavior, Vol 25, 433-458, 2001). As I have noted, what gets in as "scientific testimony" has little to do with science (Oliver, WR, "Truth and Beauty in Forensic Medicine." ACM SIGGRAPH Special Session "Truth Before Beauty: Guiding Principles for Scientific and Medical Visualization." 2003). My experience has been that juries are pretty competent. The biggest problem is not that the jury rather than the judge gets to make decisions. The problem is that juries don't get to ask questions in most courts. When I testify in front of grand juries (where juries get to ask questions) I am always gratified to find that the juries follow well and ask appropriate questions. If one of the experts is always "right" and one of the experts always "wrong" (a position I disagree with and can disprove by construction if you want), you have no reason to believe that the judge will choose the "right" one. Instead the jury will only hear the "wrong" one. > Courts actually have available to them the power > to appoint independent experts to advise the > court. It's a shame more of this is not done. > I think this would be a bad thing. This would inevitably develop into the courts having a very few "go to" guys in each jurisdiction, and would be at the mercy of their expertise. If new technology, technique, etc. become available that particular expert doesn't know, mistakes will be made. Some experts who are later shown to make bad mistakes on a regular basis get away with it for some time. It would be unfortunate if the courts happened to choose that particular bad apple as its special master -- and found itself in the position of having to retry all cases done in, say, the past 10 years. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 08:23:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EDNLCe029047 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:23:21 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:56:50 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: RE: [forens] The other shoe drops. Homer Campbell replies Hi Brent; Why don't you post the trial transcripts of Dr. Campbell's claim from Dr Campbell himself and at least clear up that part of this discussion? What did HE actually say? Marilyn > Taken from Snyder, J. "HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE DID HE EXECUTE? THE > TEXAS > DEATH PENALTY UNDER GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH" Copyright 2003, which > cites a > Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Exhibit M, Spence v. Scott (W.D. > Tex.No. > 94020212). As quoted by the Texas Defender Service, at fn42: > > "Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell sometimes tended to be a bit too certain > in his > judgments. He had once claimed to identify with medical certainty the > body > of a missing person, Melody Cutlip, based on dental records. In this > case he > had both the actual teeth and the dental records of the alleged > deceased. > After the funeral and burial, the real Melody Cutlip was found alive > and > well in Florida two years later, much to the relief of her family.42" [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 08:54:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EDse0r000266 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:54:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040114135423.97424.qmail@web21504.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:54:23 -0800 (PST) From: Forensic lawLab Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Let’s not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. What about the cross reactivity in other antibody based tests or human DNA hybridization-based quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA test from urine (data reported at places such as in the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & in the FBI’s Forensic Science Communication, April 2003 issue). Isn’t urine more commonly found than ferrets or weasels being discussed here? To my understanding average PSA in male urine is around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to be every reason to be concerned about a high probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit just as we are discussing here about the meager possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD’s desk? Doesn’t this issue then apply across the board? How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the report and testimony become conclusive in cases using other such tests with similar issues? How do we write it up then? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps even more, > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach disposition without > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have a lot to do with > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced or dropped entirely; > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; lines of > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As several have pointed > out, all this happens in most cases without any of the decision makers > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. For this reason, > our reports really must stand alone and be able to convey not just our > results, but also what they mean or imply about the case in question. > We must make every effort to include explanations in our reports that > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as illuminating as is > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include enough explanatory > detail to minimize the possibility that the results will be > misinterpreted. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, > then we've done our job. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have > to > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases > where > I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. > Lynn Henson > US Army Crime Laboratory > Trace Evidence Division > 4553 N 2ND Street > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't > say > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly > originating > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis > for > examination and comparison? If two items display the same > characteristics, > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the > significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is > not > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results > that > much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. > Common > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless > all > the Trace examiners. > > P. Aviles > Fort Worth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes > I > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be > certain. > "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" > (Edgar > Watson Howe) > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave > Hause) > I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my > instrumental > and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is > consistent > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the > known > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the > known > is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship > that > is worth reporting. > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. > > What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to > suggestions. > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > Sent by: To: > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > owner-forens@statg cc: > > en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] > Hematrace > test for human blood > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > AM > > Please respond to > > forens > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many > years. > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports > and > testimony should be very clear. > > Carla > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 08:59:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EDxIh3000677 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:59:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:59:09 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/14/2004 07:59:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob, your point is well stated as always. "The questioned paint (A) is consistent with (similar to, indistinquishable from) the known vehicle paint (B) in color, chemical and physical properties. Therefore, paint A could have come from the same source as paint B or any other source with paint exactly like it." In my experience in Trace evidence the above example is somewhat common verbage. I usually use the "similar to" nomenclature myself. Some people may go on to explain that probabilities are not available for the liklihood that ...... etc. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 "Robert Parsons" > cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test owner-forens@statg for human blood) en.ncsu.edu 01/13/2004 06:00 PM Please respond to forens The problem with the term "consistent" is that it is a qualitative, not a quantitative, description that may be misconstrued by the layperson unless its use is properly explained. Of course, not all forensic tests, by their nature, can be quantified. Some are necessarily qualitative, and this term can be properly used in discussing the results of such qualitative testing, so long as its intended meaning is explained. As used by forensic scientists, it means the tested item reacts in the same way as the thing it is said to be "consistent with," in regard to whatever test result is being reported, but that doesn't necessarily mean the analyte is identical (the same as) the thing it is compared to, only that it exhibits the same characteristics under the conditions of the test or tests in question. There may be a great many different things that exhibit those same characteristics, or only a few, or only one. Two things can be "consistent" in one way or many ways, and yet still not be the same thing. Two things may be indistinguishable ("consistent with" each other) under some tests, but clearly different under others. If everyone instinctively understood this, there would be no problem with use of the term without further explanation. The problem of course is that others may interpret "consistent with" to mean "identical to" or "identified as," and that is not a correct interpretation. Therefore, if one uses the term "consistent with," then in order to avoid any misunderstanding I think one is obligated to explain in what way the analyte is "consistent with" something else, and what the limitations of that consistency are (i.e., how significant the consistency is, how common that characteristic is and how discriminating the test is). The explanation should answer the question "does this mean the two are proven to be the same or to have a common origin?" because that is the question that will be formed in the lay reader's mind when they read "consistent with." Usually, the answer to that question is "no, not necessarily," so the other possibilities and their relative likelihoods should be addressed somehow. "Consistent with," to me, implies that the reported result is not an identification but rather an inclusion, with other possibilities also existing, i.e., "X was consistent with Y as to parameter Z; X therefore cannot be excluded as Y, and either is Y, or is some other item with these same characteristics as to parameter Z" (if Y is more likely than other possibilities, it should be explained in what way and to what extent it is more likely). If the result is an identification (proven to be the same to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty), then it should be reported as such, i.e., "X was identified as Y," not simply "consistent with Y." The term "consistent with" can be properly used if properly explained, but because of its inherent ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation, I feel it is better to use more descriptive terms whenever possible, such as "the two items gave the same result to the (whatever) test," or "shared the following similarities," or "were alike in the following characteristics," followed by an enumeration of the positive comparative parameters and an explanation of their significance. While more specific result terminology has less potential to be pejorative or misleading than the simple phrase "consistent with," in both cases an explanation of the results is still needed. All test results need to be placed in the proper perspective for the reader to properly understand their import. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 09:01:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EE1dLY000951 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:01:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12A3@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:01:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a position where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES) Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are reported back to the list. 1. good chance - 1 in 10 2. same as - 1 in 1 3. congruency - 4. indistinguishable - 1 in 1 5. consistent - 1 in 1 6. matched - 1 in 1 Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two compared items shared a common source expressed by the following words and phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. 1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75 Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following hypothetical: In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using a peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. 1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) I'm interpreting this as 1 in 1 is identity. 3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis for some constructive discussion. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 09:21:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EELXxs001626 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:21:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040114055051.024f4ae0@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:18:28 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) In-Reply-To: References: <20040113143548.6510.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I certainly agree with Billo. There is not much that forensic scientists do that is too difficult for the average juror to comprehend. When someone asks "Why should I believe you??", my usual response is "It is not your job to believe me, it is my job to convince you." Of course, some people simply believe any conclusion that is presented to them, even if, at the time, they have to suspend their own rational beliefs in the process. This is, of course, the currency of seers and soothsayers. The recent controversy over bullet lead analysis that is the subject of the critical NRC review is a good example. There was never any demonstration that the technique the FBI lab was using for 30 years had any validity, and the testimony that was often given was, to put it simply, unbeleivable. Everyone in the forensic science community realized that - or else everyone would have been doing the analysis. But lawyers who wanted to make a case, and judges who listened to the cases, did not use any critical judgement in assessing the testimony and the methodology. The same for hair comparison. And, as Lentini points out, the same for fire investigation, and there are certainly other examples that can be given - some, IMHO, which have been recently discussed on this list. Asking lawyers and judges to decide on the acceptability of scientific evidence is, it seems to me, obviously foolish. The trial lawyer has a stake in promoting or disparaging the evidence, and that stake may be totally different from one day to the next. Judges, as Billo points out in the study he refers to, have no background for the task. The fact that they apparently have relied exclusively on the 3 or 4 criteria stated in the Daubert decision as the criteria for admissibility certainly proves that they neither really understand the Daubert case (in which the criteria are given as examples of what might be considered rather than the specific criteria to be considered), nor do the judges have the ability to articulate other criteria that might be appropriate. So what it comes down to is that forensic scientists have to practice good science (and a large part of that is proving their case, not simply stating it), and that the process that has been used by science to assure quality for the past several hundred years, at least, (independent peer review) has to be applied to the forensic sciences. This is not the same thing as proof reading, otherwise everything you'd read in a newspaper you could assumed to be true. And not only the technique has to be the subject of independent peer review, but the application of the technique in specific cases needs to be the subject of independent peer review. Pete Barnett At 04:47 AM 1/14/2004, Billo wrote: >The problem is that you assume two things: > >1) The judge is competent to know which >expert is "wrong." > > >2) The jury is not competent to figure out >which expert is "wrong." > > >There is no reason to believe either of these positions. In fact, >that's one of the ironies of the Daubert world -- we are now in the >positiong of having judges who have no concept of what constitutes >"science" deciding what it is. > > >While the judges are supposed to use Daubert criteria for federal >cases, most judges are largely illiterate when it comes those >criteria. One recent study showed, for instance, that only 6% of >judges understood the concept of "falsifiability," only 4% understood >what "error rate" meant, and only 71% knew what "peer review" meant. >(Gatowski, et al. "Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges >on judging expert evidence in a Post-Daubert World." Law and Human >Behavior, Vol 25, 433-458, 2001). As I have noted, what gets in as >"scientific testimony" has little to do with science (Oliver, WR, >"Truth and Beauty in Forensic Medicine." ACM SIGGRAPH Special Session >"Truth Before Beauty: Guiding Principles for Scientific and Medical >Visualization." 2003). > >My experience has been that juries are pretty competent. The biggest >problem is not that the jury rather than the judge gets to make >decisions. The problem is that juries don't get to ask questions in >most courts. When I testify in front of grand juries (where juries get >to ask questions) I am always gratified to find that the juries follow >well and ask appropriate questions. > >If one of the experts is always "right" and one of the experts always >"wrong" (a position I disagree with and can disprove by construction if >you want), you have no reason to believe that the judge will choose the >"right" one. Instead the jury will only hear the "wrong" one. > > > > > Courts actually have available to them the power > > to appoint independent experts to advise the > > court. It's a shame more of this is not done. > > > >I think this would be a bad thing. This would inevitably develop into >the courts having a very few "go to" guys in each jurisdiction, and >would be at the mercy of their expertise. If new technology, >technique, etc. become available that particular expert doesn't know, >mistakes will be made. Some experts who are later shown to make bad >mistakes on a regular basis get away with it for some time. It would >be unfortunate if the courts happened to choose that particular bad >apple as its special master -- and found itself in the position of >having to retry all cases done in, say, the past 10 years. > >billo > >[EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 09:33:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EEXBAX002181 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:33:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040114143250.44997.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:32:50 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The problem with the phrase "consistent with" is that it suggests an association when in fact none may exist. If evidence is "consistent with" scenario A, just saying that can be very misleading. The evidence may be equally "consistent with" scenarios B, C, D & E. With respect to identity of sorce, except for firearms identification, I learned to say "Examination and comparison of the questioned item with the known item reveals sufficient similarities to conclude that the questioned and known items COULD HAVE had a common origin." Adjectives such as "microscopic," "spectroscopic," "chromatographic", etc are usefully added to modify "Examination." Criteria such as "in terms of retention times, mass spectral characteristics, layer structure, etc are usefully added to modify "sufficient similarities." Other scientists reviewing this report, and even lawyers, get at least a general idea of the analytical method(s) used, and the thought processes employed to make the determination. The use of the words "could have" implies the possibility "might not have." --- Jenny Smith wrote: > > Bob, your point is well stated as always. > > "The questioned paint (A) is consistent with > (similar to, indistinquishable > from) the known vehicle paint (B) in color, > chemical and physical > properties. Therefore, paint A could have come > from the same source as > paint B or any other source with paint exactly > like it." > > In my experience in Trace evidence the above > example is somewhat common > verbage. I usually use the "similar to" > nomenclature myself. Some people > may go on to explain that probabilities are not > available for the liklihood > that ...... etc. > > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > > "Robert Parsons" > > > To: > > > > cc: > > Sent by: > Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: > Hematrace test > owner-forens@statg > for human blood) > > en.ncsu.edu > > > > > > > > > 01/13/2004 06:00 > > > PM > > > Please respond to > > > forens > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with the term "consistent" is that > it is a qualitative, not > a quantitative, description that may be > misconstrued by the layperson > unless its use is properly explained. Of > course, not all forensic > tests, by their nature, can be quantified. > Some are necessarily > qualitative, and this term can be properly used > in discussing the > results of such qualitative testing, so long as > its intended meaning is > explained. As used by forensic scientists, it > means the tested item > reacts in the same way as the thing it is said > to be "consistent with," > in regard to whatever test result is being > reported, but that doesn't > necessarily mean the analyte is identical (the > same as) the thing it is > compared to, only that it exhibits the same > characteristics under the > conditions of the test or tests in question. > There may be a great many > different things that exhibit those same > characteristics, or only a few, > or only one. Two things can be "consistent" in > one way or many ways, > and yet still not be the same thing. Two > things may be > indistinguishable ("consistent with" each > other) under some tests, but > clearly different under others. If everyone > instinctively understood > this, there would be no problem with use of the > term without further > explanation. > > The problem of course is that others may > interpret "consistent with" to > mean "identical to" or "identified as," and > that is not a correct > interpretation. Therefore, if one uses the > term "consistent with," then > in order to avoid any misunderstanding I think > one is obligated to > explain in what way the analyte is "consistent > with" something else, and > what the limitations of that consistency are > (i.e., how significant the > consistency is, how common that characteristic > is and how discriminating > the test is). The explanation should answer > the question "does this > mean the two are proven to be the same or to > have a common origin?" > because that is the question that will be > formed in the lay reader's > mind when they read "consistent with." > Usually, the answer to that > question is "no, not necessarily," so the other > possibilities and their > relative likelihoods should be addressed > somehow. "Consistent with," to > me, implies that the reported result is not an > identification but rather > an inclusion, with other possibilities also > existing, i.e., "X was > consistent with Y as to parameter Z; X > therefore cannot be excluded as > Y, and either is Y, or is some other item with > these same > characteristics as to parameter Z" (if Y is > more likely than other > possibilities, it should be explained in what > way and to what extent it > is more likely). If the result is an > identification (proven to be the > same to a reasonable degree of scientific > certainty), then it should be > reported as such, i.e., "X was identified as > Y," not simply "consistent > with Y." > > The term "consistent with" can be properly used > if properly explained, > but because of its inherent ambiguity and > potential for > misinterpretation, I feel it is better to use > more descriptive terms > whenever possible, such as "the two items gave > the same result to the > (whatever) test," or "shared the following > similarities," or "were alike > in the following characteristics," followed by > an enumeration of the > positive comparative parameters and an > explanation of their > significance. While more specific result > terminology has less potential > to be pejorative or misleading than the simple > phrase "consistent with," > in both cases an explanation of the results is > still needed. All test > results need to be placed in the proper > perspective for the reader to > properly understand their import. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On > Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:04 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human > blood > > Brad- > > I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a > positive with ferrets, > so it > was a double entendre. > > The use of the word 'consistent' has been > bantered about for some time. > > Scientists should speak and write clearly, in > terms which cannot be > ambiguous and > in terms which are easily understood by a > layperson. The word > 'consistent' is > not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood > by juries, attorneys, > judges or > law enforcement. > > What exactly does 'consistent' mean? > 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence > 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady > continuity > 3. compatible > 4. showing steady conformity to character > 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true > value of the parameter > estimated > - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, > 10th edition > > To my mind, none of these definitions are clear > enough to use > 'consistent' in > a scientific report. > > You queried the list for ways to report the > results. Let's see what > they use > instead of consistent. > > What do you folks think about 'consistent'? > > If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory > reported, "Human blood > detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the > ferret, they may have > changed. > > Carla > > > In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > Carla - > > Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a > positive reaction with > weasel > blood -- how appropriate. If you have any > suggestions for more > appropriate > wording for a positive Hematrace result I am > all ears. > > Brad > > >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> > 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really > means absolutely nothing. > > Juries do not understand it either. > > Carla > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > "Results consistent with human blood" > > Brad Brown > FSII > NYSP Forensic Investigation center > > >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" > 01/07 9:43 AM >>> > List, > > As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question > regarding reporting of HemaTrace > results, I am wondering how other labs report > the results of the > HemaTrace > test. > > Thanks in advance, > Gretchen Hicks > Maine State Police > Crime Lab > [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" > ] > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" > ] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" > ] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" > ] > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 09:42:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EEg9eQ002695 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:42:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:42:07 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040114055051.024f4ae0@mail.fsalab.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Peter Barnett wrote: > I certainly agree with Billo. There is not much that forensic scientists > do that is too difficult for the average juror to comprehend. When someone > asks "Why should I believe you??", my usual response is "It is not your job > to believe me, it is my job to convince you." Heh. This reminds me of one Daubert hearing I had on some patterned injury interpretation involving image processing and image enhancement. The defense objected to the use of image enhancement, but it was allowed on the basis that I was using it for illustration rather than conclusion and that I could point to every feature I discussed in the original image. Then they objected to my doing patterned injury analysis at all because it was not really "science". After I went through the principles of perception-based image analysis and how it is used in things like intelligence, after I went through my testimony and what my conclusions were and how I came to my conclusions, the defense then objected because my findings were based in basic science but were essentially "common sense." However, since my findings were ones that anybody could easily see, it was inappropriate to have an expert present them... > > So what it comes down to is that forensic scientists have to practice good > science (and a large part of that is proving their case, not simply stating > it) ... Actually, I think that forensic scientists should get over the idea that they are doing Science with a big "S." This is one of the problems with this whole thing. I remember a lecture given by Fred Brooks at the Computer Science department at UNC. He was being given a lifetime achievment award by the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Graphics (ACM SIGGRAPH) and presented a plenary lecture. One of the things he noted was that "Computer Science" was not really science at all. It was engineering. Oh sure, engineers use scientific techniques, but successful computer scientists realized that they were, first and foremost, designers. Similarly, forensic scientists are primarily technologists; sure, we use scientific techniques, but we are not Scientists in the pure sense for the most part. Intelligence image analyists *use* science, but they are analysts, not scientists. Physicians mix the art and science of medicine freely, and there is no clear border between them. That doesn't invalidate the practice of medicine -- including forensic medicine. The biggest problem with "forensic science" is that people are trying to shove multiple disciplines into one cubbyhole that fits none of them. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 10:05:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EF5E90003614 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:05:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040114070128.0250fe68@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:05:11 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 05:59 AM 1/14/2004, you wrote: >"The questioned paint (A) is consistent with (similar to, indistinquishable >from) the known vehicle paint (B) in color, chemical and physical >properties. Therefore, paint A could have come from the same source as >paint B or any other source with paint exactly like it." This is a very misleading statement. A "red" paint is "consistent with" *any* other red paint, and there are many "red" paints that are not "exactly like" other "red" paints. It is not the properties of the reference material that are in question, it is the properties of the evidence. (Of course, by "red" I mean whatever combination of properties have been determined for the evidence). Pete Barnett [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 10:30:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EFUgPm004412 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:30:42 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Disposition-Notification-To: "Aviles, Phil J." X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:30:24 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Thread-Index: AcPaMxhBDqjxpyEDTIW2IQrE1J7SJQAf210A From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2004 15:30:25.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[54B4EBD0:01C3DAB3] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0EFUfqL004407 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Once again, you have written an an eloquent dissertation, which says the same thing that we all agree on. Be able to explain and defend your results, because you may just be called upon to do so. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:06 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps even more, depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach disposition without ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have a lot to do with whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced or dropped entirely; guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; lines of investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As several have pointed out, all this happens in most cases without any of the decision makers picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. For this reason, our reports really must stand alone and be able to convey not just our results, but also what they mean or imply about the case in question. We must make every effort to include explanations in our reports that are reasonably concise and clear, but also as illuminating as is practical. At minimum, we must strive to include enough explanatory detail to minimize the possibility that the results will be misinterpreted. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, then we've done our job. -----Original Message----- From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have to stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases where I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't say conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly originating from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis for examination and comparison? If two items display the same characteristics, say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is not the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results that much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. Common sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless all the Trace examiners. P. Aviles Fort Worth -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes I am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be certain. "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" (Edgar Watson Howe) I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave Hause) I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my instrumental and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is consistent in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the known cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the known is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship that is worth reporting. Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to suggestions. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 SkipnCar@aol.com Sent by: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu owner-forens@statg cc: en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood 01/08/2004 08:57 AM Please respond to forens Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many years. Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports and testimony should be very clear. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 11:01:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EG19ZN005551 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:01:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:00:38 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0EG19ZO005551 Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution. Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 11:27:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EGR30Y006342 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:27:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:24:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Same goes for KY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 11:30:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EGUwIb006657 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:30:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12A7@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:30:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Too many sexual assault cases! I was wondering what KY jelly had to do with this discussion.... But then again.... :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:25 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Same goes for KY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 11:31:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EGVqhi006793 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:31:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:28:53 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/14/2004 10:31:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John Lentini cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test owner-forens@statg for human blood) en.ncsu.edu 01/14/2004 08:32 AM Please respond to forens *The problem with the phrase "consistent with" is that it suggests an association when in fact none may exist.* Class relationships are always, PROBABLY but not absolutely. *With respect to identity of sorce, except for firearms identification, I learned to say "Examination and comparison of the questioned item with the known item reveals sufficient similarities to conclude that the questioned and known items COULD HAVE had a common origin."* I stopped using the term "common origin" when a defense attorney argued that "common" meant the source was very abundant, generic, not unusual. *Other scientists reviewing this report, and even lawyers, get at least a general idea of the analytical method(s) used, and the thought processes employed to make the determination. The use of the words "could have" implies the possibility "might not have."* Look at my example again. I use "could have". --- Jenny Smith wrote: > > Bob, your point is well stated as always. > > "The questioned paint (A) is consistent with > (similar to, indistinquishable > from) the known vehicle paint (B) in color, > chemical and physical > properties. Therefore, paint A could have come > from the same source as > paint B or any other source with paint exactly > like it." > > In my experience in Trace evidence the above > example is somewhat common > verbage. I usually use the "similar to" > nomenclature myself. Some people > may go on to explain that probabilities are not > available for the liklihood > that ...... etc. > > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > > "Robert Parsons" > > > To: > > > > cc: > > Sent by: > Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: > Hematrace test > owner-forens@statg > for human blood) > > en.ncsu.edu > > > > > > > > > 01/13/2004 06:00 > > > PM > > > Please respond to > > > forens > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with the term "consistent" is that > it is a qualitative, not > a quantitative, description that may be > misconstrued by the layperson > unless its use is properly explained. Of > course, not all forensic > tests, by their nature, can be quantified. > Some are necessarily > qualitative, and this term can be properly used > in discussing the > results of such qualitative testing, so long as > its intended meaning is > explained. As used by forensic scientists, it > means the tested item > reacts in the same way as the thing it is said > to be "consistent with," > in regard to whatever test result is being > reported, but that doesn't > necessarily mean the analyte is identical (the > same as) the thing it is > compared to, only that it exhibits the same > characteristics under the > conditions of the test or tests in question. > There may be a great many > different things that exhibit those same > characteristics, or only a few, > or only one. Two things can be "consistent" in > one way or many ways, > and yet still not be the same thing. Two > things may be > indistinguishable ("consistent with" each > other) under some tests, but > clearly different under others. If everyone > instinctively understood > this, there would be no problem with use of the > term without further > explanation. > > The problem of course is that others may > interpret "consistent with" to > mean "identical to" or "identified as," and > that is not a correct > interpretation. Therefore, if one uses the > term "consistent with," then > in order to avoid any misunderstanding I think > one is obligated to > explain in what way the analyte is "consistent > with" something else, and > what the limitations of that consistency are > (i.e., how significant the > consistency is, how common that characteristic > is and how discriminating > the test is). The explanation should answer > the question "does this > mean the two are proven to be the same or to > have a common origin?" > because that is the question that will be > formed in the lay reader's > mind when they read "consistent with." > Usually, the answer to that > question is "no, not necessarily," so the other > possibilities and their > relative likelihoods should be addressed > somehow. "Consistent with," to > me, implies that the reported result is not an > identification but rather > an inclusion, with other possibilities also > existing, i.e., "X was > consistent with Y as to parameter Z; X > therefore cannot be excluded as > Y, and either is Y, or is some other item with > these same > characteristics as to parameter Z" (if Y is > more likely than other > possibilities, it should be explained in what > way and to what extent it > is more likely). If the result is an > identification (proven to be the > same to a reasonable degree of scientific > certainty), then it should be > reported as such, i.e., "X was identified as > Y," not simply "consistent > with Y." > > The term "consistent with" can be properly used > if properly explained, > but because of its inherent ambiguity and > potential for > misinterpretation, I feel it is better to use > more descriptive terms > whenever possible, such as "the two items gave > the same result to the > (whatever) test," or "shared the following > similarities," or "were alike > in the following characteristics," followed by > an enumeration of the > positive comparative parameters and an > explanation of their > significance. While more specific result > terminology has less potential > to be pejorative or misleading than the simple > phrase "consistent with," > in both cases an explanation of the results is > still needed. All test > results need to be placed in the proper > perspective for the reader to > properly understand their import. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On > Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:04 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human > blood > > Brad- > > I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a > positive with ferrets, > so it > was a double entendre. > > The use of the word 'consistent' has been > bantered about for some time. > > Scientists should speak and write clearly, in > terms which cannot be > ambiguous and > in terms which are easily understood by a > layperson. The word > 'consistent' is > not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood > by juries, attorneys, > judges or > law enforcement. > > What exactly does 'consistent' mean? > 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence > 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady > continuity > 3. compatible > 4. showing steady conformity to character > 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true > value of the parameter > estimated > - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, > 10th edition > > To my mind, none of these definitions are clear > enough to use > 'consistent' in > a scientific report. > > You queried the list for ways to report the > results. Let's see what > they use > instead of consistent. > > What do you folks think about 'consistent'? > > If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory > reported, "Human blood > detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the > ferret, they may have > changed. > > Carla > > > In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > Carla - > > Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a > positive reaction with > weasel > blood -- how appropriate. If you have any > suggestions for more > appropriate > wording for a positive Hematrace result I am > all ears. > > Brad > > >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> > 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really > means absolutely nothing. > > Juries do not understand it either. > > Carla > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: > "Results consistent with human blood" > > Brad Brown > FSII > NYSP Forensic Investigation center > > >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" > 01/07 9:43 AM >>> > List, > > As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question > regarding reporting of HemaTrace > results, I am wondering how other labs report > the results of the > HemaTrace > test. > > Thanks in advance, > Gretchen Hicks > Maine State Police > Crime Lab > [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" > ] > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" > ] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" > ] > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" > ] > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 12:21:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EHLLUc008321 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:21:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:20:18 -0800 From: terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear) To: Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information about the nature of a particular stain. It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . Terry Spear >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. What about the cross reactivity in other antibody based tests or human DNA hybridization-based quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA test from urine (data reported at places such as in the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than ferrets or weasels being discussed here? To my understanding average PSA in male urine is around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to be every reason to be concerned about a high probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit just as we are discussing here about the meager possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the report and testimony become conclusive in cases using other such tests with similar issues? How do we write it up then? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps even more, > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach disposition without > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have a lot to do with > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced or dropped entirely; > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; lines of > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As several have pointed > out, all this happens in most cases without any of the decision makers > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. For this reason, > our reports really must stand alone and be able to convey not just our > results, but also what they mean or imply about the case in question. > We must make every effort to include explanations in our reports that > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as illuminating as is > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include enough explanatory > detail to minimize the possibility that the results will be > misinterpreted. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, > then we've done our job. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have > to > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases > where > I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. > Lynn Henson > US Army Crime Laboratory > Trace Evidence Division > 4553 N 2ND Street > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't > say > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly > originating > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis > for > examination and comparison? If two items display the same > characteristics, > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the > significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is > not > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results > that > much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. > Common > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless > all > the Trace examiners. > > P. Aviles > Fort Worth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes > I > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be > certain. > "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" > (Edgar > Watson Howe) > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave > Hause) > I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my > instrumental > and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is > consistent > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the > known > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the > known > is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship > that > is worth reporting. > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. > > What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to > suggestions. > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > Sent by: To: > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > owner-forens@statg cc: > > en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] > Hematrace > test for human blood > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > AM > > Please respond to > > forens > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many > years. > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports > and > testimony should be very clear. > > Carla > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 13:02:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EI2l26009498 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:02:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:01:45 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] RE: in re: Turvey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0EI2kqL009493 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jack - I guess they've really shortened the program. I spent two years earning my MS in Forensic Science - Criminalistics Concentration at UNH >>> 01/14 7:38 AM >>> The reason why I asked was because I'm going to have a couple of weeks off this summer and I thought I might get a MS from UNH too. -----Original Message----- From: shaun wheeler [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:58 PM To: Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Subject: in re: Turvey Jack: You might want to take a look at the UNH requirements for Turvey's MS or better still, call and talk with either the dean or associate dean of the school of public safety. I did and it was well worth the call. Shaun [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 13:59:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EIxc1a011171 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:59:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Cc: "Greg Laskowski" Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:59:27 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Greg; Have I applied your crime lab to be a criminalist? I think not. This causes me to wonder at the true motives behind your post... Moreover, my undergraduate hard (biology & chemistry) science is fairly well packed and present. Perhaps 2-3 years worth. I just didn't post it because I don't have the transcripts in front of me. My suggestion to you is, don't use your public position at a crime lab to try and take the wind out of someone's online arguments by stating that you wouldn't hire them for job that they didn't apply to. You are a police scientist. Of course this is what you must say to someone that regularly testifies for the defense in your state. Also, I have no alliance with the defence or with defense advocacy groups. I work with law enforcement and the defense and civil attorneys. I just don't advertise my law enforcement clients because if I did, they would be harassed by law enforcement aligned detractors and prosecutors looking to keep me out of court. It's called black-listing, which is why many experts who speak to defense groups do so under condition of anonymity - the police-prosecutorial community loves a good black list. Especially in California. I do note, however, that your boss is a prosecutor. I list the malfeasance of prosecutors and forensic scientists alike, yes. I do not see how this compromises my integrity or objectivity. What it does is educate the public. If you have a problem with any of the content, I invite you help me make it better or more informed by writing me outside of the public forum to discuss it, without grandstanding. PS - I find it quite laughable that anyone would suggest that an MS in forensic science would not be enough to get them in the door at many crime labs, especially since a lot of the people with my same degree and no hard other hard science went to work at such places. I just chose not to because of the tedium. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution. Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 14:05:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EJ567a011698 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:05:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:04:55 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jack; I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all wasting their money. Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. The issue here is politics and friends of friends. I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics have been the primary reason why. Thank you both for making my point. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Same goes for KY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 14:20:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EJK0fd012646 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:17:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics >have been the primary reason why. Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Jack; I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all wasting their money. Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. The issue here is politics and friends of friends. I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics have been the primary reason why. Thank you both for making my point. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Same goes for KY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 14:38:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EJcA8i013525 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:38:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:38:05 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jack; Not exactly. I was actually offered a position at a state lab on exit from UNH. I definitely chose not to take it. Again, too political. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics >have been the primary reason why. Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Jack; I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all wasting their money. Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. The issue here is politics and friends of friends. I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics have been the primary reason why. Thank you both for making my point. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Same goes for KY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 14:47:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EJlUP9014096 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:47:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: "Forens@Statgen.Ncsu.Edu" Subject: [forens] Forensic Scientist Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:47:25 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Members; An interesting issue has been raised by other members: What is the definition of a forensic scientist? Dr. John Thornton discusses a very good definition and its context (Thornton,1997): "What then, of the forensic scientist? The single feature that distinguishes forensic scientists from any other scientist is the certain expectation that they will appear in court and testify to their findings and offer an opinion as to the significance of those findings. The forensic scientist will testify not only to what things are, hut to what things mean. Forensic science is science exercised on behalf of the law in the just resolution of conflict. It is therefore expected to be the handmaiden of the law, but at the same time this expectation may very well be the marina from which is launched the tension that exists between the two disciplines." Thornton goes on to explain that if there is no science (in a particular method or practice), then there can be no forensic science. Forensic science is science exercised on behalf of the law. A forensic scientist is defined by the presentation and explanation of their scientific work-product in court. A forensic scientist is not defined by their affiliations, crime scene presence or experience. There are in fact many kinds of forensic scientists, not just one kind. There are criminalists: forensic scientists of various specialties performing objective examinations and tests on particular kinds of physical evidence. There are forensic dentists & odontologists: forensic scientists who specialize in comparing teeth and the impressions they leave behind. There are forensic pathologists: forensic scientists who who specialize in determining cause and manner of death. An exhaustive list would be tremendous. Less commonly known or discussed in this era of specialization (and overspecialization) is the forensic generalist. As defined in DeForest, P. & Gaennslen, R.E. & Lee, H. (1987) Forensic Science: An Introduction to Criminalistics, McGraw-Hill (p.17): "There can be serious problems... with overspecialization. Persons who have a working knowledge of a broad range of criminalistics problems and techniques are also necessary. These people are called generalists. The value of generalists lies in their ability to look at all aspects of a complex case and decide what needs to be done, which specialists should be involved, and in which order to carry out the examinations." The term criminalist is often used synonymously with the term forensic scientist. Though, one can actually be a forensic scientist without being a criminalist. Other thoughts? REFS Thornton, J. I. "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," in Faigman, D., Kaye, D., Saks, M. & Sanders, J. (Eds.) (1997) Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2, St. Paul, Mn: West Publishing Co. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 15:04:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EK4DPS014914 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:04:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:04:06 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jack; In Kentucky, The Kentucky State Police Forensic Laboratory is the only state lab system that exists. Though they are civilian positions, you are still an employee of a law enforcement agency, making you essentially a police scientist. I quote from http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/civcareer.htm#civ, which is available to all - CLASS TITLE: FIREARMS AND TOOLMARK EXAMINER I EDUCATION: Graduate of a college or university with a bachelor's degree in the physical, biological or forensic sciences, criminal justice, engineering or mathematics. EXPERIENCE: None EDUCATION: None EXPERIENCE: None SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS(AGE, LICENSURE, REGULATION, ETC.): None Hmmmm... Looks like UNH MS students in forensic science from Kentucky needn't start burning their diplomas just yet. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics >have been the primary reason why. Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Jack; I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all wasting their money. Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. The issue here is politics and friends of friends. I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics have been the primary reason why. Thank you both for making my point. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Same goes for KY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 15:19:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EKJWi8015689 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:19:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:19:25 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Greg; According to http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/fsanalyticalunits.asp#org_staff: "Every Criminalist employed in the lab has, at a minimum, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university in a physical or biological science. Certain degrees in forensic science or criminalistics are also acceptable." So that opens the door for someone with my background at your lab--- And this swings it wide: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." Since I have only 24 hours of undregraduate chemistry and at least that much in biology coursework, I'm pretty sure I'm safe. Geez. I hope you don't do this on the stand some time. It could be embarassing. What you really meant to say is that your lab wouldn't hire me. Not someone with my background. Just me. That is something I think that we can both live with. Especially since, again, I didn't apply. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 16:35:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ELZvw1018098 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:35:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:32:34 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu cc: Greg Laskowski Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Greg; > > > I list the malfeasance of prosecutors and forensic scientists alike, yes. I > do not see how this compromises my integrity or objectivity. What it does is > educate the public. > No, you repeat, unchecked, *lies* about prosecutors and forensic scientists. By your own admission you neither know nor care whether the allegations you repeat are true, and you make no effort whatsoever to determine if they are true. making up the lies yourself, but are merely repeating the lies of advocacy groups. This is your defense for libeling Dr. Homer Campbell. This is different than reporting malfeasance. You know this, because you, not surprisingly, fail to report the allegations against yourself. Tell me, Brent, if all you do is "objectively" report allegations, why do you not place yourself on your character assassination list and and "objectively" report the the charges against you? I guess that "objectivity" thing isn't quite so objective, eh? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 17:26:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EMQIP8019931 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:26:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:25:49 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0EMQIP9019931 Brent, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if your 24 hours of chemistry did not include course work in quantitative analysis, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. As to the so-called Masters in Forensic Science with an Emphasis in Advanced Investigation (certain degrees), it is my opinion that it would not be accepted. Again, I stress, one must have a hard science background, a baccalaureate degree in history and psychology do not qualify despite having some minimal coursework in a hard science. In this instance the door remains shut. We have hired individuals who have degrees in criminalistics from accredited university, but they met the minimum chemistry qualifcations. This is something that has to do with forensic alcohol testing licensing within the state of California. As for your double entendre regarding hiring someone with your background, Ill respectfully decline to comment. As for your concern regarding my testimony on the witness stand, you need not worry. My mandated court testimony monitor says I do great. What does yours say? As for your sarcasm, I am sure that the citizens of the County of Kern as well as the State of California are relieved that you did not apply. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 12:19:25 PM >>> Greg; According to http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/fsanalyticalunits.asp#org_staff: "Every Criminalist employed in the lab has, at a minimum, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university in a physical or biological science. Certain degrees in forensic science or criminalistics are also acceptable." So that opens the door for someone with my background at your lab--- And this swings it wide: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." Since I have only 24 hours of undregraduate chemistry and at least that much in biology coursework, I'm pretty sure I'm safe. Geez. I hope you don't do this on the stand some time. It could be embarassing. What you really meant to say is that your lab wouldn't hire me. Not someone with my background. Just me. That is something I think that we can both live with. Especially since, again, I didn't apply. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 17:30:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0EMUNON020237 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:30:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:30:14 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Billo; There is no false information on the site. Only things that you would rather not have known about your friend. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: Greg Laskowski Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Greg; > > > I list the malfeasance of prosecutors and forensic scientists alike, yes. I > do not see how this compromises my integrity or objectivity. What it does is > educate the public. > No, you repeat, unchecked, *lies* about prosecutors and forensic scientists. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 18:16:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ENGbeD021647 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:16:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:16:28 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Greg; Since your lab's hiring documents say nothing about the quantitative analysis part I guess we'll have to take your word for that. Though I agree with higher standards, I think you're splitting hairs. If there was someone you wanted but they didn't have one class, it seems they could go and get it taken care of during their probationary period. This is a common enough practice in labs. Just check out Houston PD. But again, recall that you seem to be the one wanting to boot me from qualification from your lab though I've expressed no interest in it or any other criminalist position, ever. To what end I have no idea. As for what the citizens of Kern county, let alone California, do or do not want - do not embarrass yourself by speaking on their behalf. You work in a lab and with the police. You do not work with "the people." In any case, I think that your boss' record speaks for itself. See: http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/kernlist.shtml You are a criminalist whose boss is a prosecutor. I am an independent forensic scientist with civil and criminal attorney clients and law enforcement clients. Objectivity doesn't mean working for only one side. It means working for no side and advocating good science, which is what our archives are meant to do. I've only encountered a very small number of forensic scientists that have had a problem with it, and mostly because, as in the case of Billo, friends were listed. Otherwise, the response from the forensic science community has been strong and supportive. Unfortunately, this list has a very few vocal detractors who, owing to the absence of other voices, are confused into thinking that they are a majority. That's the way it is online. Those who speak are those who get counted. Again, as I've told you before, I think you will see a great many new things if you are ever able to retire from state work and go in to private practice. The view you get of your cases will be much more complete. So try to chip away at my CV all you want. Pretend that an MS degree in forensic science isn't a hard science degree all you want. Imagine that you have the power to decide who is or is not a forensic scientist. Outside of perhaps deciding who works at your lab, you don't. But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab. Alas, all of this nonsense over qualifications is useless, anyway. I know forensic analysts in crime labs with no college and no chemistry that are better criminalists than most people will ever be. I know them by the quality of their work. And that is how a forensic scientist is known. The credential issue is typically raised to exclude people when someone disagrees with their work but can't find anything wrong with it. My work product is a matter of public record, and I stand by it. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:26 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if your 24 hours of chemistry did not include course work in quantitative analysis, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. As to the so-called Masters in Forensic Science with an Emphasis in Advanced Investigation (certain degrees), it is my opinion that it would not be accepted. Again, I stress, one must have a hard science background, a baccalaureate degree in history and psychology do not qualify despite having some minimal coursework in a hard science. In this instance the door remains shut. We have hired individuals who have degrees in criminalistics from accredited university, but they met the minimum chemistry qualifcations. This is something that has to do with forensic alcohol testing licensing within the state of California. As for your double entendre regarding hiring someone with your background, Ill respectfully decline to comment. As for your concern regarding my testimony on the witness stand, you need not worry. My mandated court testimony monitor says I do great. What does yours say? As for your sarcasm, I am sure that the citizens of the County of Kern as well as the State of California are relieved that you did not apply. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 12:19:25 PM >>> Greg; According to http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/fsanalyticalunits.asp#org_staff: "Every Criminalist employed in the lab has, at a minimum, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university in a physical or biological science. Certain degrees in forensic science or criminalistics are also acceptable." So that opens the door for someone with my background at your lab--- And this swings it wide: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." Since I have only 24 hours of undregraduate chemistry and at least that much in biology coursework, I'm pretty sure I'm safe. Geez. I hope you don't do this on the stand some time. It could be embarassing. What you really meant to say is that your lab wouldn't hire me. Not someone with my background. Just me. That is something I think that we can both live with. Especially since, again, I didn't apply. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 18:19:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ENJWIe021837 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:19:32 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <17a.24c33ca5.2d372876@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:19:18 EST Subject: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Discussions which probe into alternative solutions are healthy. Bashing is not. The statement by one person on the list about folks who received an MS was unfair. Many of us who have them worked darned hard for them. I received mine at age 40, holding a full time job, with two teenagers and a husband who owned his own businesses. What I had was a wonderfully supportive husband and children. Easy? A piece of cake? You decide. Should I compare that situation with a person who receives an MS right after receiving their BS, still supported by his parents? No, because I am not into bashing nor trivializing an accomplishment. Any foray into the educational system, done with motivation and drive, should be applauded. Pat yourselves on the back all you MSers! Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 18:33:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ENX74i022375 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:33:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:33:05 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Brent Turvey wrote: > Billo; > > There is no false information on the site. Only things that you would rather > not have known about your friend. > > Brent > > Oh? So you actually looked at his report to see what Dr. Campbell wrote in his opinion on Melody? Answer that simple question. You lie. So you actually followed up and found out what evidence was presented to the forensic odontologists that disagreed with him in the capital case? Answer that simple question. You lie. So you actually asked the forensic odontologist who changed his opinion *after* seeing all the evidence? Answer that simple question. You lie. You repeat lies without *any* attempt at verification, and pretend you have no responsibility for what you do. Prove me wrong, Brent. Quote Homer's opinion from his actual report. Prove me wrong, Brent. Show us what evidence was presented to the odontologists who were duped. Prove me wrong, Brent. Tell us why they changed their opinion after seeing all the evidence. Shame on you. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 19:30:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F0UAH9023372 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:30:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: RE: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:33:49 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00cb01c3daff$3eb17a00$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 00:30:08.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA6BC840:01C3DAFE] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You're welcome. Alas, such inaccuracies are legion. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bradley Brown Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:12 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Thanks for emphasizing the sarcastic tone of my post, Bob. I just wanted to point out one of the more ludicrous inaccuracies of the show. Brad >>> "Robert Parsons" 01/08 6:45 PM >>> Just in case there's a layperson out there who might not realize it, Bradley was being sarcastic. Criminalists don't normally visit hospitals to collect samples from victims. Samples are usually collected by medical personnel at the direction of law enforcement officers. It is usually done by a doctor or nurse, or if the hospital is a very progressive one, by SANE/SART personnel (nursing staff with forensic training). While a doctor might do the collection from a victim of the opposite sex, even among medical staff it would normally be done by someone of the same sex if at all practical. If a police officer or scene technician ("CSI") does the collection from the victim, it would be _always_ be done by a person of the same sex as the victim (this is normally true for samples taken from suspects, too -- no police agency with an ounce of sense would risk opening themselves up to a charge of sexual impropriety by using someone of the opposite sex). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bradley Brown Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? My favorite episode, (and one which, ahem, most accurately depicts my job duties), is the one in which the male criminalist goes to the hospital and swabs the prostitute's breasts. >>> "Brent Turvey" 12/30 9:31 PM >>> Bob; Her position is truly split. She wants to claim accuracy for the show, admits that such a claim is not possible, but keeps going forward with it. We share the same concern ultimately - that she puts herself in front of the show as a criminalist, that her stamp of approval as a criminalist can be bought, and that she perceives no duty to the forensic science community that she misrepresents. This whole thing is yet another bizarre example of how the forensic science community responds to blatantly unethical conduct. Forensic whistleblowers of like Dr. Fred Whitehurst formerly of the FBI crime lab, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson formerly of the Harris County MEs Lab, and Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell of AFIP (to name a very few), are openly assailed by the public agencies they've deservedly outed and then treated with suspicion by the forensic community when they defend themselves for refusing to allow bad science in their name. >From the comments of some on this list, you'd think Elizabeth Devine should be considered for the Paul Kirk award because the supposed good that has come from CSI. I find this evidence that we are still heading in the wrong direction as a profession. We need a better compass than Elizabeth Devine. FYI: For those who don't know, Dr. Paul L. Kirk, one of the true fathers of modern day forensic science, was black-listed by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences because some of the more influential members did not like having to go up against him in high-profile court cases. The seeds of that division were evident to me even when I was studying at UNH in the mid 90s. Now the highest award in the criminalistics section is named for him. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Criminalists at Crime Scenes? Well, Ms Devine's response confirms my worst fears. What benefit does hiring forensic experts to work on the show provide if those experts don't ensure the show is accurate, and instead approve "cheats" while putting a false "authenticity" stamp of approval on every episode? They might as well not have hired the experts and saved the money, because a non-forensic expert can "cheat" (i.e., make stuff up) as easily as a forensic expert can. According to your quote, she says: "the cheats we make are only those essential to the storytelling, and thus make the mundane portion of this job more camera ready. Some inaccurate science has slipped through, but for the most part all of us at CSI and CSI:Miami take great pains to make the show accurate, exciting and watcheable." Well, the problem with that statement is that at least 95% of what real criminalists do is "mundane," not "exciting," so I guess it requires a heck of a lot of "cheating" to make it "camera ready." I think the basic problem here is that the goals of "exciting/watchable" for the general public and scientifically/technically "accurate" are incompatible and really at cross purposes. The fact is that criminalists practice science, not law enforcement. While science can certainly be made interesting, even engrossing, to the layperson it is rarely "exciting" in the TV-show sense. Even among criminalists, few among us would call our jobs "exciting" - "rewarding," "important," "critical," "pivotal," "essential," "passion-inspiring," "highly probative," "enthusiasm-producing" or a host of other positive adjectives, yes, but not "exciting." The most telling portions of her response to you is her dismissal of your complaints as "irrational" and the admonition that if you don't like the show you should stop watching it; followed by the implication that she couldn't care less what you think or whether or not you watch the show, because "29 million fans will keep us on the air for a long time." Well, millions of fans keep the WWF and "Survivor" on the air too, but that's hardly justification for a forensic scientist to put her stamp of approval, much less one of "realism" and "accuracy," on those shows, and it doesn't justify doing it for "CSI" either. It seems she's bought into the Hollywood mindset that the only thing that REALLY matters is ratings and popular appeal. She seems to have forgotten that as scientific consultant her first priority was supposed to be to make the show scientifically accurate, not popular (worrying about popularity is the producer's job, not the consultant's). Becoming a writer, instead of remaining a reviewer/critic, may have compromised her professional ethics and clouded her judgment; unless, of course, she was never really devoted to making the show accurate in the first place. Big bucks can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] when I was studying at UNH in the [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 19:32:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F0W7VC023578 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:32:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:35:47 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00cc01c3daff$84f88120$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 00:32:05.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[00B2CF60:01C3DAFF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Small world - I'm Italian too (half, on my mother's side) - and guess what kind of Italian? SOUTHERN Italian (Calabrese)! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:11 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Thanks for making my day! What frightens me is that I actually understood every word! Your rednecks are akin to our "yobbos"! I haven't laughed so much in days! Now you've got my husband in stitches and he's Italian! I really needed that - thanks a bunch! What a pisser! (sorry but it's the only description I can come up with!) Regards Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Howdy, Lynn - come on now, darlin', take yer shoes off an' rest a spell! Contrar to pop'lur percepshin, Flarda DO be in th' South, shore 'nuf, and we stills got plenty 'em home-grown rurl taipes we 'fectshintly call "rednecks." But it be true that tuhday the muhjarty of we'all Flardans be transplant'd "damn Yankees." (atho ah must say it don't take abody no time a'tall teh pick up that there Suthern axint!) Hay there, Dan-boy, Ah'd sure'n like to hep y'all wid' that there crop gatherin', but I got me teh get them hogs slopped! An' wud sumbuddy puhLESE clean up th' cow maknowre in th' instruhmint rum? Ah almost slipped an broke mah brand spankin' new CB radio, consarn it! Ah thankie kindly. Heppy Friday Follies, y'all! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (and transplanted Jerseyite) Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:57 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 19:33:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F0XgYm023826 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:33:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Weasel words Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:37:23 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00cd01c3daff$be336220$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <186.23f140f8.2d319290@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 00:33:41.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[39EDB060:01C3DAFF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In Florida, as in every state I believe, the purity of a drug mixture is irrelevant under the law because the law treats mixtures of a controlled substance identically to pure substances. One kilo of 1% pure cocaine (1% cocaine, 99% lactose, for example) is equivalent under the law to one kilo of 100% cocaine, because both are sold on the illicit market as one kilo of cocaine. The crime is the same and the penalty is the same, so whether or not a "trace" of cocaine was found, or lots of it, makes no difference to the charge and its adjudication. If there was any cocaine present in the sample, the entire sample weight is prosecutable under the law. So what "flag" is raised and how does not raising it constitute bias of any kind? There is no "flag" and no bias that is obvious to me. The report is serving the letter and the spirit of the law, which is what it is supposed to do. The purpose of the exam is to determine the presence or absence of any controlled substance, and if one is present, the total weight of the substance or substance mixture, so that is what the report reports. Since purity is irrelevant under the law, few labs attempt any kind of purity determination anyway, so they have no way to report it. The only time drugs might be reported as "trace" amounts would be in the event of residues on otherwise "empty" containers, and only then to explain why the drugs are not visible in the container. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of WMorris400@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:38 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Weasel words Without going into details, for one example, two similar cases reporting the presence of trace amounts of a drug being present -- one correctly states that "a trace amount" of the drug was detected and the weight was reported for the entire exhibit while the other reports that the drug was found, with a weight reported. In the first instance, a red flag was flashed because if the whole thing was drug, it would not be a trace amount. In the second instance, no red flag was raised in the report. I am not saying that the bias is intentional only that it could have been avoided. The bias is in not raising a red flag when it could have been raised by simply adding the same descriptive as in the first case. Reanalysis is an option but it is an expensive option for the accused. While it is the right of all accused to request such a reanalysis, in reality, not every one can afford it and not every case can be subjected to reanalysis even if the fee is not in question. Wayne Morris --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by WMorris400@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 19:35:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F0Z728024052 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:35:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] lots of spam Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:38:47 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00ce01c3daff$f0177290$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 00:35:05.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[6BD40AC0:01C3DAFF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Allowances have traditionally been made for "Friday Follies," otherwise, you're correct that off-topic chats should be done in private e-mail. Occasionally, one of us (myself included) may stray into off-topics on other days, and for that we apologize. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Joy Halverson Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] lots of spam I might be the only one but I think forens is getting too chatty-maybe more replies should be directed to individuals rather than the group? JOy _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 [EndPost by "Joy Halverson" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 19:39:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F0d5AI024333 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:39:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:42:45 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00cf01c3db00$7e03ff60$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 00:39:03.0802 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9BE4DA0:01C3DAFF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >> Courts actually have available to them the power >> to appoint independent experts to advise the >> court. It's a shame more of this is not done. >> > >I think this would be a bad thing. This would inevitably develop into >the courts having a very few "go to" guys in each jurisdiction, and >would be at the mercy of their expertise. If new technology, >technique, etc. become available that particular expert doesn't know, >mistakes will be made. Some experts who are later shown to make bad >mistakes on a regular basis get away with it for some time. It would >be unfortunate if the courts happened to choose that particular bad >apple as its special master -- and found itself in the position of >having to retry all cases done in, say, the past 10 years. Question, Bill. How then do you propose we resolve the problem? You've stated that judges are not necessarily competent to judge scientific evidence, and I agree (although I think juries are even less well prepared than judges - at least all judges have graduated from high school and gone to college, something that is not true of all jurors, probably not even of the average juror). Yet judges have been given the duty to do exactly that. They are tasked to be "gatekeepers" for scientific testimony even though we (and they) agree they often lack the background needed to fulfill that role effectively. Court appointed experts could provide them with guidance, but you worry that if the court chooses its experts poorly, the guidance will be poor. So what's the solution? How else can judges obtain the information they need to fulfill their duties as gatekeepers? While I share your concern about how judges pick their advisors, that concern could be addressed in various ways. How else can a judge obtain that information if not through court-appointed consultants? At least the judge would have a source of scientific information they know is neutral (not called by either litigant) to use in making the decisions about expert testimony that they are required to make. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:47 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > Thanks, Pete. I couldn't have said that better > myself. > > The point that I was trying to make (apparently > not very successfully) is that disagreements > among experts should not be brushed off as a > "difference of opinion." This is not a first > amendment issue here. > > Differences among fire experts are quite common, > and I often hear "I've got to call them as I see > them," and "He has a right to his opinion." > > In all such cases, at least one expert is wrong. > > And opinions that are wrong are not helpful to > the jury, and should not be admitted as evidence. > > I think that courts, when confronted with such > disagreements, do a disservice when they decide > to let the jury sort it out. (What crieteria > should juries use to make such choices?) > The problem is that you assume two things: 1) The judge is competent to know which expert is "wrong." 2) The jury is not competent to figure out which expert is "wrong." There is no reason to believe either of these positions. In fact, that's one of the ironies of the Daubert world -- we are now in the positiong of having judges who have no concept of what constitutes "science" deciding what it is. While the judges are supposed to use Daubert criteria for federal cases, most judges are largely illiterate when it comes those criteria. One recent study showed, for instance, that only 6% of judges understood the concept of "falsifiability," only 4% understood what "error rate" meant, and only 71% knew what "peer review" meant. (Gatowski, et al. "Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a Post-Daubert World." Law and Human Behavior, Vol 25, 433-458, 2001). As I have noted, what gets in as "scientific testimony" has little to do with science (Oliver, WR, "Truth and Beauty in Forensic Medicine." ACM SIGGRAPH Special Session "Truth Before Beauty: Guiding Principles for Scientific and Medical Visualization." 2003). My experience has been that juries are pretty competent. The biggest problem is not that the jury rather than the judge gets to make decisions. The problem is that juries don't get to ask questions in most courts. When I testify in front of grand juries (where juries get to ask questions) I am always gratified to find that the juries follow well and ask appropriate questions. If one of the experts is always "right" and one of the experts always "wrong" (a position I disagree with and can disprove by construction if you want), you have no reason to believe that the judge will choose the "right" one. Instead the jury will only hear the "wrong" one. > Courts actually have available to them the power > to appoint independent experts to advise the > court. It's a shame more of this is not done. > I think this would be a bad thing. This would inevitably develop into the courts having a very few "go to" guys in each jurisdiction, and would be at the mercy of their expertise. If new technology, technique, etc. become available that particular expert doesn't know, mistakes will be made. Some experts who are later shown to make bad mistakes on a regular basis get away with it for some time. It would be unfortunate if the courts happened to choose that particular bad apple as its special master -- and found itself in the position of having to retry all cases done in, say, the past 10 years. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 20:03:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F13H3w025104 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:03:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:02:24 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0F13H3x025104 Brent, As I perused the job description for the Criminalist I position as officially issued by the Kern County Personnel Department, not a prosecutorial agency, it does indeed state that course work in quantitative chemistry is required unless one is pursuing the DNA criminalist track where molecular biology, biochemistry, and genetics are required. If one was applying and in the process of taking such a course, they might be considered, but most likely not high on the list of candidates. They most likely would not make it through the initial personnel department screening process. That is how government works. It has nothing to do with me. As to booting you from qualifying for employment at our lab, again I may or may not have any say in that. All I was attempting to demonstrate to you that the use of the term forensic scientist and the possession of an advanced degree from a particular institution may not qualify you for employment in a given lab, despite your protestations to the contrary. Course work and degree status does make a difference, especially to those of us who work in the field, and are questioned by counsel on these matters while on the witness stand. So qualifications are extremely important despite your misgivings. As for embarrassing the citizens of Kern County and the state of California, I'll let them be the judge. It is true that I don't work with the people. I work for the PEOPLE! I swore an oath to that and I swear oaths that I will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't have to justify my boss to you. He is a dedicated public servant, who has been duly elected by the people to the Office of District Attorney in overwhelming numbers and has run unopposed for several four year terms. Perhaps you should read the official KCDA reply to Hume's book. Let's be objective here! Although my boss is the Kern County District Attorney's Office, my pay check is issued by the County of Kern. I do minimal consulting for civil litigation, and I am infrequently called by public defenders, as well as private defense counsel to give testimony in court or in depositions. I don't have to hide who my clientele is. Mine is a matter of public record. You don't know me so your invectives are meaningless. I have seen the big picture, and I've watched all sorts of experts, real and charlatans. In my twenty seven years in this job, my experience has shown me things that you can only read about in books, so don't lecture me on what you don't know. Again, Brent you are not being entirely truthful. I've seen the University of New Haven's course outline. There are three so-called Master in Forensic Science programs offered - one in Crminalistics, which has hard science course work in one form or another - one in Fire Science, - and one in Advanced Investigation. Very few, if any hard science courses with laboratory analysis as part of the curriculum. Now, you tell me what hard science courses did you take? How many with laboratories, and how many laboratory hours? I think those of us who have official job titles and testify in court as criminalists or forensic scientists would want to know. If I am wrong as to your qualifications, I'll admit here on this list. I haven't condemned you, but you have taken my inquiries as an insult, then continue to belittle those of us who work in "police' laboratories. You say, "But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab." While that may or may be true, it sure as hell is tough to do. Hard to do QA/QC work not done in a laboratory environment. It's time to get off your high horse, because I know a number of independent examiners, many on this list, and they are forensic scientists. To paraphrase from a former vice-presidential candidate, "I know forensic scientists, and you are no forensic scientist, at least your listed course work and degree work doesn't support your contention. Prove me wrong. Your last statement intrigues me. Because all the great forensic scientists that are recognized have some sort of advanced degree and have a chemistry background of some sort. As to me not having a say as to the hiring of criminalists outside of Kern County, you are wrong again, because I am often asked to sit on personnel boards in neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that laboratories get well qualified candidates in their employee pool. I will close now, and let you collect your thoughts. If you can demonstrate that you have the necessary course work in the hard sciences to establish yourself as "forensic scientist" without simply usurping the title because it is chic, then by all means do so. I have had my say on this issue because when the horse is dead, I know when to get off. Good evening, Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 3:16:28 PM >>> Greg; Since your lab's hiring documents say nothing about the quantitative analysis part I guess we'll have to take your word for that. Though I agree with higher standards, I think you're splitting hairs. If there was someone you wanted but they didn't have one class, it seems they could go and get it taken care of during their probationary period. This is a common enough practice in labs. Just check out Houston PD. But again, recall that you seem to be the one wanting to boot me from qualification from your lab though I've expressed no interest in it or any other criminalist position, ever. To what end I have no idea. As for what the citizens of Kern county, let alone California, do or do not want - do not embarrass yourself by speaking on their behalf. You work in a lab and with the police. You do not work with "the people." In any case, I think that your boss' record speaks for itself. See: http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/kernlist.shtml You are a criminalist whose boss is a prosecutor. I am an independent forensic scientist with civil and criminal attorney clients and law enforcement clients. Objectivity doesn't mean working for only one side. It means working for no side and advocating good science, which is what our archives are meant to do. I've only encountered a very small number of forensic scientists that have had a problem with it, and mostly because, as in the case of Billo, friends were listed. Otherwise, the response from the forensic science community has been strong and supportive. Unfortunately, this list has a very few vocal detractors who, owing to the absence of other voices, are confused into thinking that they are a majority. That's the way it is online. Those who speak are those who get counted. Again, as I've told you before, I think you will see a great many new things if you are ever able to retire from state work and go in to private practice. The view you get of your cases will be much more complete. So try to chip away at my CV all you want. Pretend that an MS degree in forensic science isn't a hard science degree all you want. Imagine that you have the power to decide who is or is not a forensic scientist. Outside of perhaps deciding who works at your lab, you don't. But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab. Alas, all of this nonsense over qualifications is useless, anyway. I know forensic analysts in crime labs with no college and no chemistry that are better criminalists than most people will ever be. I know them by the quality of their work. And that is how a forensic scientist is known. The credential issue is typically raised to exclude people when someone disagrees with their work but can't find anything wrong with it. My work product is a matter of public record, and I stand by it. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:26 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if your 24 hours of chemistry did not include course work in quantitative analysis, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. As to the so-called Masters in Forensic Science with an Emphasis in Advanced Investigation (certain degrees), it is my opinion that it would not be accepted. Again, I stress, one must have a hard science background, a baccalaureate degree in history and psychology do not qualify despite having some minimal coursework in a hard science. In this instance the door remains shut. We have hired individuals who have degrees in criminalistics from accredited university, but they met the minimum chemistry qualifcations. This is something that has to do with forensic alcohol testing licensing within the state of California. As for your double entendre regarding hiring someone with your background, Ill respectfully decline to comment. As for your concern regarding my testimony on the witness stand, you need not worry. My mandated court testimony monitor says I do great. What does yours say? As for your sarcasm, I am sure that the citizens of the County of Kern as well as the State of California are relieved that you did not apply. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 12:19:25 PM >>> Greg; According to http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/fsanalyticalunits.asp#org_staff: "Every Criminalist employed in the lab has, at a minimum, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university in a physical or biological science. Certain degrees in forensic science or criminalistics are also acceptable." So that opens the door for someone with my background at your lab--- And this swings it wide: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." Since I have only 24 hours of undregraduate chemistry and at least that much in biology coursework, I'm pretty sure I'm safe. Geez. I hope you don't do this on the stand some time. It could be embarassing. What you really meant to say is that your lab wouldn't hire me. Not someone with my background. Just me. That is something I think that we can both live with. Especially since, again, I didn't apply. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 20:13:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F1D8Rh025503 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:13:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115011307.55539.qmail@web20507.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:13:07 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, Well, now . . . in an earlier email response to Greg Laskowski regarding your 'qualifications' that would make you eligible to become a Criminalist at the Kern Co DA's Crime Lab, you quoted the following (in the section you headed with the statement, "And this swings it wide:"), obviously indicating your surity that you could/would easily meet the minimum qualifications for a Criminalist I: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." I could be wrong, but being the trained observer I've become over the last quarter century, I noticed the line in the above paragraph that stated " . including a course in quantitative analysis . .". Doesn't that seem to be in diametric contradiction to your statement, "Since your lab's hiring documents say nothing about the quantitative analysis part . . ."?? As to actual non-scientists being employed as forensic scientists - since I am the product of an ACS-accredited undergradute BS in Chemistry, I can assure you that is simply not possible for someone who doesn't have a substantial amount of chemistry under their belts to just " . . go and get it taken care of during their probationary period." Quant is often one of the last major hurdles (if not the last) one encounters on the long, difficult road toward a BS within any chemistry program I'm familiar with. In fact, there are a number of those critical junctures - to name just a few: the 4 semesters of Newtonian physics, the 3-4 semesters of the Calculus, the full year (labs and lectures) or organic and P Chem, not to mention Inorganic Chemistry, Thermo, etc., etc. - - but I'm sure that I'm making those of us who went through this process shiver again with recollection. So . . as one who has also been involved in many, many hiring panels, if someone doesn't have quant and successful completion of that class is a mandated requirement, then that person simply doesn't make the cut. In further response to your statements regarding individuals hired/employed as forensic scientists without the benefit of a degree in a science, I will additionally state that if someone doesn't have an undergraduate degree from an accredited university or college in a physical or natural science, they would never be considered for employment as an entry-level forensic scientist at any laboratory I'm familiar with on the West Coast or in the labs I'm familiar with in virtually all other areas of the US. Lastly, I know Greg Laskowski both professionally and personally, and your crude inferential attempts to discredit him (Example 1 - "As for what the citizens of Kern county, let alone California, do or do not want - do not embarrass yourself by speaking on their behalf. You work in a lab and with the police. You do not work with "the people." Example 2 - "You are a criminalist whose boss is a prosecutor. I am an independent forensic scientist . . .") and even his employer are transparent attempts to shift the focus of his questions/comments so that you can glibly be as "non-responsive" as any recalcitrant witness. Greg's a good and honest person as well as being an ethical and eminently reputable forensic scientist. He's not a self-proclaimed 'forensic scientist' without a shred of substance/gravitas that could be attached to that term. Like innumerable others who function in this profession, he's a scientist who has lent his considerable knowledge, common sense, integrity and continued (and continuing) training to further both his abilities and the profession as whole. **Sorry if you're reading this Greg - I know you can more than adequately defend yourself** Well, as I'm sure others feel, I'm tired of this thread and have better things to do with my time (and this list). Therefore, I'm going back to hitting the 'DEL' key whenever I see missives from those I know have no substance or are pretentious, pedantic bores, or when I see topics in which I have no interest. I'll again limit myself to topics/issues that that actually have some focus (even peripherally) in the actual practice of forensic science. Tom Abercrombie __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tom Abercrombie ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 20:13:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F1DPSN025612 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:13:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:13:15 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Greg; You are way too impressed with yourself. It is this sort of arrogance that routinely gets police criminalists in trouble. I don't think there's anything further we have to say to each other. Good evening to you, Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:02 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, As I perused the job description for the Criminalist I position as officially issued by the Kern County Personnel Department, not a prosecutorial agency, it does indeed state that course work in quantitative chemistry is required unless one is pursuing the DNA criminalist track where molecular biology, biochemistry, and genetics are required. If one was applying and in the process of taking such a course, they might be considered, but most likely not high on the list of candidates. They most likely would not make it through the initial personnel department screening process. That is how government works. It has nothing to do with me. As to booting you from qualifying for employment at our lab, again I may or may not have any say in that. All I was attempting to demonstrate to you that the use of the term forensic scientist and the possession of an advanced degree from a particular institution may not qualify you for employment in a given lab, despite your protestations to the contrary. Course work and degree status does make a difference, especially to those of us who work in the field, and are questioned by counsel on these matters while on the witness stand. So qualifications are extremely important despite your misgivings. As for embarrassing the citizens of Kern County and the state of California, I'll let them be the judge. It is true that I don't work with the people. I work for the PEOPLE! I swore an oath to that and I swear oaths that I will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't have to justify my boss to you. He is a dedicated public servant, who has been duly elected by the people to the Office of District Attorney in overwhelming numbers and has run unopposed for several four year terms. Perhaps you should read the official KCDA reply to Hume's book. Let's be objective here! Although my boss is the Kern County District Attorney's Office, my pay check is issued by the County of Kern. I do minimal consulting for civil litigation, and I am infrequently called by public defenders, as well as private defense counsel to give testimony in court or in depositions. I don't have to hide who my clientele is. Mine is a matter of public record. You don't know me so your invectives are meaningless. I have seen the big picture, and I've watched all sorts of experts, real and charlatans. In my twenty seven years in this job, my experience has shown me things that you can only read about in books, so don't lecture me on what you don't know. Again, Brent you are not being entirely truthful. I've seen the University of New Haven's course outline. There are three so-called Master in Forensic Science programs offered - one in Crminalistics, which has hard science course work in one form or another - one in Fire Science, - and one in Advanced Investigation. Very few, if any hard science courses with laboratory analysis as part of the curriculum. Now, you tell me what hard science courses did you take? How many with laboratories, and how many laboratory hours? I think those of us who have official job titles and testify in court as criminalists or forensic scientists would want to know. If I am wrong as to your qualifications, I'll admit here on this list. I haven't condemned you, but you have taken my inquiries as an insult, then continue to belittle those of us who work in "police' laboratories. You say, "But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab." While that may or may be true, ! it sure as hell is tough to do. Hard to do QA/QC work not done in a labora tory environment. It's time to get off your high horse, because I know a number of independent examiners, many on this list, and they are forensic scientists. To paraphrase from a former vice-presidential candidate, "I know forensic scientists, and you are no forensic scientist, at least your listed course work and degree work doesn't support your contention. Prove me wrong. Your last statement intrigues me. Because all the great forensic scientists that are recognized have some sort of advanced degree and have a chemistry background of some sort. As to me not having a say as to the hiring of criminalists outside of Kern County, you are wrong again, because I am often asked to sit on personnel boards in neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that laboratories get well qualified candidates in their employee pool. I will close now, and let you collect your thoughts. If you can demonstrate that you have the necessary course work in the hard sciences to establish yourself as "forensic scientist" without simply usurping the title because it is chic, then by all means do so. I have had my say on this issue because when the horse is dead, I know when to get off. Good evening, Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 3:16:28 PM >>> Greg; Since your lab's hiring documents say nothing about the quantitative analysis part I guess we'll have to take your word for that. Though I agree with higher standards, I think you're splitting hairs. If there was someone you wanted but they didn't have one class, it seems they could go and get it taken care of during their probationary period. This is a common enough practice in labs. Just check out Houston PD. But again, recall that you seem to be the one wanting to boot me from qualification from your lab though I've expressed no interest in it or any other criminalist position, ever. To what end I have no idea. As for what the citizens of Kern county, let alone California, do or do not want - do not embarrass yourself by speaking on their behalf. You work in a lab and with the police. You do not work with "the people." In any case, I think that your boss' record speaks for itself. See: http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/kernlist.shtml You are a criminalist whose boss is a prosecutor. I am an independent forensic scientist with civil and criminal attorney clients and law enforcement clients. Objectivity doesn't mean working for only one side. It means working for no side and advocating good science, which is what our archives are meant to do. I've only encountered a very small number of forensic scientists that have had a problem with it, and mostly because, as in the case of Billo, friends were listed. Otherwise, the response from the forensic science community has been strong and supportive. Unfortunately, this list has a very few vocal detractors who, owing to the absence of other voices, are confused into thinking that they are a majority. That's the way it is online. Those who speak are those who get counted. Again, as I've told you before, I think you will see a great many new things if you are ever able to retire from state work and go in to private practice. The view you get of your cases will be much more complete. So try to chip away at my CV all you want. Pretend that an MS degree in forensic science isn't a hard science degree all you want. Imagine that you have the power to decide who is or is not a forensic scientist. Outside of perhaps deciding who works at your lab, you don't. But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab. Alas, all of this nonsense over qualifications is useless, anyway. I know forensic analysts in crime labs with no college and no chemistry that are better criminalists than most people will ever be. I know them by the quality of their work. And that is how a forensic scientist is known. The credential issue is typically raised to exclude people when someone disagrees with their work but can't find anything wrong with it. My work product is a matter of public record, and I stand by it. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:26 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if your 24 hours of chemistry did not include course work in quantitative analysis, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. As to the so-called Masters in Forensic Science with an Emphasis in Advanced Investigation (certain degrees), it is my opinion that it would not be accepted. Again, I stress, one must have a hard science background, a baccalaureate degree in history and psychology do not qualify despite having some minimal coursework in a hard science. In this instance the door remains shut. We have hired individuals who have degrees in criminalistics from accredited university, but they met the minimum chemistry qualifcations. This is something that has to do with forensic alcohol testing licensing within the state of California. As for your double entendre regarding hiring someone with your background, Ill respectfully decline to comment. As for your concern regarding my testimony on the witness stand, you need not worry. My mandated court testimony monitor says I do great. What does yours say? As for your sarcasm, I am sure that the citizens of the County of Kern as well as the State of California are relieved that you did not apply. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 12:19:25 PM >>> Greg; According to http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/fsanalyticalunits.asp#org_staff: "Every Criminalist employed in the lab has, at a minimum, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university in a physical or biological science. Certain degrees in forensic science or criminalistics are also acceptable." So that opens the door for someone with my background at your lab--- And this swings it wide: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." Since I have only 24 hours of undregraduate chemistry and at least that much in biology coursework, I'm pretty sure I'm safe. Geez. I hope you don't do this on the stand some time. It could be embarassing. What you really meant to say is that your lab wouldn't hire me. Not someone with my background. Just me. That is something I think that we can both live with. Especially since, again, I didn't apply. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 20:20:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F1KRf8026127 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:20:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:20:26 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) In-Reply-To: <00cf01c3db00$7e03ff60$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > > Question, Bill. How then do you propose we resolve the problem? You've > stated that judges are not necessarily competent to judge scientific > evidence, and I agree (although I think juries are even less well > prepared than judges - at least all judges have graduated from high > school and gone to college, something that is not true of all jurors, > probably not even of the average juror). Yet judges have been given the > duty to do exactly that. They are tasked to be "gatekeepers" for > scientific testimony even though we (and they) agree they often lack the > background needed to fulfill that role effectively. Court appointed > experts could provide them with guidance, but you worry that if the > court chooses its experts poorly, the guidance will be poor. > > So what's the solution? How else can judges obtain the information they > need to fulfill their duties as gatekeepers? While I share your concern > about how judges pick their advisors, that concern could be addressed in > various ways. How else can a judge obtain that information if not > through court-appointed consultants? At least the judge would have a > source of scientific information they know is neutral (not called by > either litigant) to use in making the decisions about expert testimony > that they are required to make. > Well, one thing would be to do what the Supremes actually intended with Daubert. The purpose of Daubert was not to *limit* what went before a jury, but instead to allow *more* stuff before a jury. Remember that the problem was that the "expert" against Dow was denied the ability to testify in the lower court-- and that was what was overturned. Instead, the result of Daubert has been the exact opposite of what was intended (at least at the time). By establishing arbitrary and inappropriate criteria, the Supremes created a monster that disallows good science and allows bad science. Now ( after Kumho Tire) a plumber who needs to testify on whether a garbage disposal was properly installed must (theoretically) show that he or she engaging in some sort of wacky "plumbing science." The correct way would be to allow both the prosecution and defense to call whomever they damned well pleased, to voir dire the bejezus out of everybody, and let the jury ask questions. Bullshit isn't all that hard to spot (as anybody reading Brent's ethical jitterbug, or Fred's convenient absence can see). The problem is in letting experts lecture the jury without having to face what are usually simple questions that prove the emperor has no clothes. It's the simple things that bring the real bullshitters down. Chief Justice Rhenquist was prescient when he dissented in Daubert that: I defer to no one in my confidence in federal judges; but I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its "falsifiability," and I suspect some of them will be, too. I [do not doubt that Rule 702 confides to the judge some gatekeeping responsibility] in deciding questions of the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. But I do not think it imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become amateur scientists in order to perform that role... Well, the role of amateur scientist is exactly what *has* been imposed. Since we are not going to be successful at making judges good amateur scientists then we should have special masters as *advisers* rather than as the only expert who can testify. We could have a special master who is not an expert for the purpose testimony but for two other purposes: First kill all the lawyers. No, that's not right. Let me try again. First, kill all the lawyers. Hmm... Gotta do something about that twitch. One more time. First, let the judge ask questions -- not as to the facts in trial, but as to scientific validity. Then: a) Use the special master to coach the judge in asking questions during voir dire. b) Use the special master to coach the judge to ask procedural/scientific questions of the expert, and to provide specific procedural commentary on the methodology used. There would have to be a process to vet what such commentary can address and whether or not a repsonse would be allowed, etc. But that can evolve. That would be my suggestion. You can bring in any idiot profiler you want (for example) to say that the killer had to be a one-legged Lithuanian weightlifter with a penchant for wearing French ticklers, but that idiot profiler will be grilled in front of the jury on how and why he or she says that, and someone with real credentials will comment on the method (without commenting on the facts). billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 20:21:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F1LlRp026341 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:21:47 -0500 (EST) From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: <12e.397b9f62.2d37451b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:21:31 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 370 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I agree, Carla. In the past few days I have been bashed, albeit indirectly, for having a Master of Science Degree, because I earned it at UNH and because I work for a state lab. While we are still on this subject, I would be glad to answer any questions about the forensic science program at the University of New Haven. Unlike Brent, I concentrated in Criminalists, which was geared toward laboratory bench work. However, I did take several elective courses from the Advanced Investigation tract, and they were all quality courses with very well-regarded instructors. I would say that the program is among the top in the country. Let's not get hung up on the Advance Investigation concentration. This portion of the program is geared toward police investigators. And the Fire Science program is geared toward arson investigators. Graduation from either of these programs, or any program, for that matter, does not qualify the graduate to call themselves a forensic scientist. But, the core courses common to all three concentrations provide exposure to all disciplines of forensic science, and teach students how to think like a forensic scientist. And this provides a distinct advantage when those students go to work for a crime laboratory. If I were a laboratory administrator, I would much rather hire an applicant with a BS in Chemistry with a 3.0 GPA and an MSFS - Advanced Investigation, than an otherwise equal applicant with a 4.0 GPA but no graduate degree. I have seen first hand that there would be a great benefit if all labs included in their requirements at least survey in Forensic Science course. Brent, if you have some data on the hiring standards of state labs to support your statement, I'd like to see it. Most state labs are accredited now, and having been through a recent ASCLD inspection, if anything the bar is continuously being raised. I have not worked as a forensic scientist in the private sector, and you admittedly have not worked in a state lab, so we are really not in the position to judge each other. But this is what you do when you make generalizations. Finally, while I am employed by a police agency, I work for the people of the state of New York. I get paid the same regardless of the outcome of my analyses, and my testimony accurately reflects my results, whether I am testifying for the prosecution or the defense. Sometimes the attorneys who subpoena me don't like what I have to say, but none are in the position to pressure me even if they chose to. While I am well aware that several analysts in the public sector have made the news for their acts of alleged fraud and/or incompetence, we also know that there are some charlatans in the private sector. Let's not stereotype. Thanks, Brad Brown FS II New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center Albany, NY 12226 _bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us_ (mailto:bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 20:38:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F1cRvk027017 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:38:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:38:17 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <12e.397b9f62.2d37451b@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brad; I think I agree with most of what you have said. However, there are some criminalists here who are using the term forensic scientist to refer only to criminalists. That's not how it works. A forensic scientist is a person who testifies regarding their scientific findings in a court of law. A criminalist is a type of forensic scientist. One type. Bear in mind, also, that I do not call myself a criminalist or claim any ability in regards to performing analytic tests on evidence. So the need to prove that I'm not a criminalist is silly, but has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a forensic scientist. I am trained, and have continued to get training, as a generalist. That others are unfamiliar with this concept is not my issue. Additionally, I posted a bunch of links about a week ago on the subject of lab hiring info, showing that some places do not even have a degree requirement for applying to be a criminalist in their crime lab. And I know that in certain areas of the south it is particular interesting. For example: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Criminalist I http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/ohr/viewclass?ccode=JA60 "Minimum Requirements: A high school diploma and experience in law enforcement. A bachelor's degree may be substituted for the law enforcement experience." Division of Criminal Investigation/SD State Forensic Lab: Criminalist http://mafs.net/pdf/sd101703.pdf "The ideal candidate will possess: a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses; - vision correctable to 20:20; - a Fellow member of the American Board of Criminalistics-Trace Evidence - have or be able to obtain a valid South Dakota driver's license." OSBI crime lab: Level I criminalist http://www.opm.state.ok.us/jfd/g-specs/g12.htm "Education and Experience required at this level consists of a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, criminalistics, chemical engineering, metallurgy, forensic science, biology, microbiology, zoology or a closely related scientific field; or an equivalent combination of education and experience, substituting one year of experience in a forensic crime laboratory performing scientific and technical analysis of physical evidence from criminal investigations for each year of the required degree. Experience can be in drug (CDS) identification, materials identification, trace evidence analysis, forensic serology, forensic DNA and genetic markers, toxicology, questioned documents, firearms/toolmarks, latent prints development and identification, classification and identification of inked fingerprints manually or with an AFIS and blood alcohol/blood drug content determination. " Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department: Criminalist I http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01052.html "Training: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in criminalistics, forensic science, chemistry, biology, or a related field, including 24 semester hours of chemistry." South Dakota Forensic Laboratory: Criminalist http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01063.html "Minimum Qualifications: Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses. Experience in laboratory or law enforcement preferred but not required. Must have or be able to obtain a valid driver's license for South Dakota." Hennepin County: Sheriff's Criminalist http://www7.co.hennepin.mn.us/publications/hrjobclASS.nsf/0/0b7b4ef485410e4f 86256dd4005a3c46?OpenDocument "Education and Experience: A Bachelor's degree in forensic science, chemistry, toxicology, biology, microbiology, biochemistry or closely related field and one year of professional level experience performing scientific laboratory analyses of physical evidence gathered in law enforcement work; OR three years of the above experience, including providing court testimony regarding the results of such analyses. Certification as a specialist in a particular field of criminology may be required." The City of St. Paul, MN: CRIMINALIST I http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/humres/jobclass/titledef.php?code=128 "Minimum Qualifications - A bachelor's degree in forensic science, criminalistics, chemistry, biology or a related physical science field." Hope this helps Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of FORENSIC022@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials I agree, Carla. In the past few days I have been bashed, albeit indirectly, for having a Master of Science Degree, because I earned it at UNH and because I work for a state lab. While we are still on this subject, I would be glad to answer any questions about the forensic science program at the University of New Haven. Unlike Brent, I concentrated in Criminalists, which was geared toward laboratory bench work. However, I did take several elective courses from the Advanced Investigation tract, and they were all quality courses with very well-regarded instructors. I would say that the program is among the top in the country. Let's not get hung up on the Advance Investigation concentration. This portion of the program is geared toward police investigators. And the Fire Science program is geared toward arson investigators. Graduation from either of these programs, or any program, for that matter, does not qualify the graduate to call themselves a forensic scientist. But, the core courses common to all three concentrations provide exposure to all disciplines of forensic science, and teach students how to think like a forensic scientist. And this provides a distinct advantage when those students go to work for a crime laboratory. If I were a laboratory administrator, I would much rather hire an applicant with a BS in Chemistry with a 3.0 GPA and an MSFS - Advanced Investigation, than an otherwise equal applicant with a 4.0 GPA but no graduate degree. I have seen first hand that there would be a great benefit if all labs included in their requirements at least survey in Forensic Science course. Brent, if you have some data on the hiring standards of state labs to support your statement, I'd like to see it. Most state labs are accredited now, and having been through a recent ASCLD inspection, if anything the bar is continuously being raised. I have not worked as a forensic scientist in the private sector, and you admittedly have not worked in a state lab, so we are really not in the position to judge each other. But this is what you do when you make generalizations. Finally, while I am employed by a police agency, I work for the people of the state of New York. I get paid the same regardless of the outcome of my analyses, and my testimony accurately reflects my results, whether I am testifying for the prosecution or the defense. Sometimes the attorneys who subpoena me don't like what I have to say, but none are in the position to pressure me even if they chose to. While I am well aware that several analysts in the public sector have made the news for their acts of alleged fraud and/or incompetence, we also know that there are some charlatans in the private sector. Let's not stereotype. Thanks, Brad Brown FS II New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center Albany, NY 12226 _bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us_ (mailto:bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 21:40:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F2exoI028706 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:40:59 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:43:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 02:40:52.0562 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE1A9320:01C3DB10] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Cc: "Greg Laskowski" Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Greg; > > Have I applied your crime lab to be a criminalist? I think not. This causes > me to wonder at the true motives behind your post... I'm sure Greg must be part of that vast FBI conspiracy you alleged in your letter to AAFS in 1999. He's just too modest to admit it. > > Moreover, my undergraduate hard (biology & chemistry) science is fairly well > packed and present. Perhaps 2-3 years worth. I just didn't post it because I > don't have the transcripts in front of me. Brent, you are being obfuscatory and misleading. According to your sworn and unsworn statements (you are careful to make the distinction when an allegation of perjury is raised against you), you spent your entire first year at PSU as a pre-med student. It took you another four years to obtain your first undergraduate degree in history, followed by a summer term and another fall term to complete your BS in psychology. Is it possible that you are intentionally avoiding direct answers to my questions and those of others on a "regular basis"? > > My suggestion to you is, don't use your public position at a crime lab to > try and take the wind out of someone's online arguments by stating that you > wouldn't hire them for job that they didn't apply to. You are a police > scientist. Of course this is what you must say to someone that regularly > testifies for the defense in your state. Brent, Dr. Lee Colwell said he wouldn't hire you either. Mara Leveritt (an unabashed opponent of capital punishment) appeared with you in a movie and authored the article in which she alleged, based on your statements, that you had been offered a job at CJI, along with some rather disparaging statements from you about the institute. BTW, it's pretty sad to see your thinly veiled threats against Greg about his 'public position' when Fred Whitehurst has just applauded your false and unfounded allegations about Homer at the same time he condemns most forensic scientists for not repeating biased hearsay, unfounded allegations and anti-death penalty rhetoric. What you want is Greg's silence enough that you'll threaten to contact his agency and ask that they discipline him for doing a much more honest and credible job of questioning your qualifications. Your views about prosecuting attorneys and the forensic scientists that serve them are pretty well established. I doubt that after your comments that any prosecuting attorney would set any speed records telling him he can't speak his mind at the same time you do. It's a 1st Amendment thing. Deal with it. > > Also, I have no alliance with the defence or with defense advocacy groups. Of course not, they are just much nicer to work for and their clients need good help too. I hope that you continue to work for them to the exclusion of all others. > I work with law enforcement and the defense and civil attorneys. I just don't > advertise my law enforcement clients because if I did, they would be > harassed by law enforcement aligned detractors and prosecutors looking to > keep me out of court. It's called black-listing, which is why many experts > who speak to defense groups do so under condition of anonymity - the > police-prosecutorial community loves a good black list. Especially in > California. Yes Brent, as Fred has pointed out, you must be incredibly brave to have testified under oath that you were variously a "sworn investigative witness" and later promoted to "sworn detective". It is rather unfortunate that the entire City of Sitka has engaged in some sort of conspiracy to deny you your rightful due, thus causing you to sue most of the folks who live and work there. I'm sure in a small, geographically isolated island community this must tend to isolate you and force you to look for other outlets for your justifiable outrage. > > I do note, however, that your boss is a prosecutor. Wouldn't this fall under the "repeating something doesn't make it true" category you mentioned earlier, Brent? > > I list the malfeasance of prosecutors and forensic scientists alike, yes. I > do not see how this compromises my integrity or objectivity. What it does is > educate the public. While you're educating the public, perhaps you'd like to explain how you can testify about your work experience truthfully but remain silent about any associations with law enforcement? You've never shown any reluctance to making those alleged associations known in the past. Is it because Sitka PD fired both you and your fellow Knowledge Solutions instructor, John Baeza? I recall that John was fired for cause, according to statements made to me by an Alaska State trooper who investigated your claims of widespread police corruption at Sitka PD. Perhaps you remember him? He called and asked to speak with you about your allegations and you refused to speak with him or any other member of law enforcement. You must surely be very brave to continue to live on an island where the state police have such a presence, knowing that the local police force is so corrupt, as you alleged in your written and verbal statements to City Attorney, Cliff Groh (copies available on request). > > If you have a problem with any of the content, I invite you help me make it > better or more informed by writing me outside of the public forum to discuss > it, without grandstanding. Brent, the burden as an editor includes being responsible for your content. It isn't the publics job or anybody elses to correct your unsupported conclusions. > > PS - I find it quite laughable that anyone would suggest that an MS in > forensic science would not be enough to get them in the door at many crime > labs, Which explains why you've named so many of them at the same time you're threatening Greg under your breath, right? I recognize that threat for what it is, I know it for precisely what it is. I suspect that your peer, Fred Whitehurst, also recognizes it for what it is. What I am curious though is how he can simultaneously criticize forensic scientists in government, as you do, yet do things aimed at silencing them? That's akin to you complaining that prosecutors have some sort of anti-Brent conspiracy running, but then call them idiots when they don't manage a decent voire dire when you fall out of some defense attorney's back pocket. I've had a pretty high opinion of him until now, but if he can sidestep your comments to Greg I will see him in a far less than flattering light. I don't doubt the honesty of some of his criticisms of other forensic scientists, but I do doubt his integrity if he doesn't step up to bat where Greg's statements and your threats are concerned. >especially since a lot of the people with my same degree and no hard > other hard science went to work at such places. I just chose not to because > of the tedium. Which is why you left your wife and California, to move to a small island, with a geographically isolated population, many of whom you are suing, while you allege that their friends, relatives and neighbors are all engaged in a massive coverup so they won't have to admit you were an unpaid "sworn" whatever it was you were, right? Business must be particularly brisk these days. Maybe when things let up you can start actually answering a few direct questions with something other than threats and innuendo? Shaun > > > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM > To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary > core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to > meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you > submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it > would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. > > I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, > and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in > a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by > a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you > have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, > training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed > in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, > your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but > it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the > prosecution. Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or > incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense > and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement > suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you > categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person > or group with an agenda. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not > sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and > evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on > the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists > took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology > courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. > > See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. > > I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the > state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which > built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in > part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and > back them up with facts and research." > > So if you would please answer my questions regaring > the following. > > On your website/CV and noticed it stated the > following: > > "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* > > Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. > > Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with > Knowledge Solutions LLC > > Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler > > Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course > development" > > I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your > qualifications that enable you to call yourself a > 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate > degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a > number of chemistry or biology (or any science) > courses within the context of those majors. I guess > the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS > in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a > scientist. Did your MS from the University of New > Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, > chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely > associated with science? > > The following is also directly from your CV - - > > "Education > > Master's of Science in Forensic Science > Advanced Investigation Concentration, > University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut > > B.S. - Psychology > Portland State University, Portland, Oregon > > B.S. - History > Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" > > Exactly what type of science courses does one get when > involved in a program that has an "Advanced > Investigation Concentration"? > > You further state in your CV that - - > > "Professional Activities > Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist > and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or > trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney > clients around the World. The greatest volume of his > casework has focused on the examination and > interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence > relating to the following:" > > Further, could you please comment on how your > "casework has focused on the examination and > interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? > Have you actually performed scientific examinations of > physical evidence utilizing standard forensic > physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at > items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the > field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am > truly confounded as to how someone without an > undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science > could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. > Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling > himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because > he handles money and makes change. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 22:09:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F392Fw029344 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:09:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115030856.39862.qmail@web41405.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:08:56 -0800 (PST) From: L DeShong Subject: Re: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <025a01c3d880$9a7a5db0$25fd0b43@paulwise> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike Wise wrote: I read the Fifth Circut's decision that BT has posted on his website and I am confused. How does that decision substantiate any allegation that Dr Campbell is a fraud? It even mentions the defendant had his own odontolgy expert testify and that expert said he could not rule out the subject as the source of the bite marks. And even more importantly, since there was minor importance of that odontological evidence in the jury's findings, what's the point? A guilty man was executed. This is the problem with much of Mr. Turvey's "Forensic Fraud" area. BTW, I couldn't find any information about Dr. Campbell - although I am familiar with the Spence case - on the link provided. That's no surprise, since none of the pages of testimony of Dr. Richard Walter work, either. There's obviously something that Mr. Turvey wishes to hide. In the Spence case, Dr. Campbell was not "mistaken" and he certainly wasn't committing fraud. If his testimony was "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that is the standard for any medical testimony offered either in civil or criminal cases. David Spence was proven guilty at trial, his direct appeal and post-conviction appeals failed and there has never been one scintilla of actual exculpatory evidence produced that would prove otherwise. Sadly, it appears that Mr. Spence was so inept at contract killing that he didn't even manage to kill the right victims. Most of the "evidence" Mr. Turvey's site offers are newpaper articles - not generally the most objective sources for information. Nor are newpaper articles always accurate. It's interesting that Mr. Turvey has chosen to attack Dr. Campbell. In Mr. Turvey's work on the West Memphis Three case he "discovered" "potential bite mark" evidence on the forehead of one of the 3 young victims in that case. According to the story he told during Paradise Lost II, the "bite mark" practically jumped out at him when he opened the one of three boxes of case evidence forwarded to him by Dan Stidham, the attorney who represented convicted murderer Jessie Miskelley, Jr. Subsequently, Mr. Turvey forwarded the photographs to Dr. Thomas David, who allegedly confirmed that the mark was indeed a bite mark and eliminated the 3 convicted killers as potential sources of that mark. Given the lack of reliability of such identifications (according to Mr. Turvey), even to a reasonable degree of medical certainty (which, I believe, is pretty much the evidentiary standard and limit on any medical testimony whether in a criminal or civil case), the identification of Dr. David and the elimination of the 3 killers should be called into question. What Mr. Turvey and others who support the 3 convicted killers fail to mention is that Dr. David's testimony at Echols' Rule 37 hearing on the bite mark issue was challenged by that of Dr. Harry Mincer, as well as the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsies, the Chief Medical Examiner for the state at the time of the murders and the state's forensic odontologist. Or is it 100% reliable when it exonerates your client's clients, isn't it, Mr. Turvey? L. DeShong --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 22:29:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F3TUCt000359 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:29:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115032924.62006.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:29:24 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <12e.397b9f62.2d37451b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu --- FORENSIC022@aol.com wrote: > I would say that the program is > among the top in the country. > Let's not get hung up on the Advance > Investigation concentration. This > portion of the program is geared toward police > investigators. And the Fire Science > program is geared toward arson investigators. > Graduation from either of > these programs, or any program, for that > matter, does not qualify the graduate to > call themselves a forensic scientist. I just gotta say that a "Fire Science" program that does not qualify its graduates to call themselves forensic scientists falls far short of what I would expect. Fire investigation is an incredibly complex and difficult field where investigators are called upon to make determinations based on chemistry and physics. It is frequently practiced by people with no scientific training, and up to half of the cases I review involve a significant amount of what can most kindly be described as WITCHCRAFT. So what is UNH up to if they graduate "Arson Investigators" without a firm grounding in chemistry and physics? ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 22:36:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F3aJtp000737 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:36:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: RE: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:36:10 -0900 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20040115030856.39862.qmail@web41405.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu It's official. The list has been over-run by lunatics. :) Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of L DeShong Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] For Brent -- on "reasonable medical certainty" Mike Wise wrote: I read the Fifth Circut's decision that BT has posted on his website and I am confused. How does that decision substantiate any allegation that Dr Campbell is a fraud? It even mentions the defendant had his own odontolgy expert testify and that expert said he could not rule out the subject as the source of the bite marks. And even more importantly, since there was minor importance of that odontological evidence in the jury's findings, what's the point? A guilty man was executed. This is the problem with much of Mr. Turvey's "Forensic Fraud" area. BTW, I couldn't find any information about Dr. Campbell - although I am familiar with the Spence case - on the link provided. That's no surprise, since none of the pages of testimony of Dr. Richard Walter work, either. There's obviously something that Mr. Turvey wishes to hide. In the Spence case, Dr. Campbell was not "mistaken" and he certainly wasn't committing fraud. If his testimony was "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that is the standard for any medical testimony offered either in civil or criminal cases. David Spence was proven guilty at trial, his direct appeal and post-conviction appeals failed and there has never been one scintilla of actual exculpatory evidence produced that would prove otherwise. Sadly, it appears that Mr. Spence was so inept at contract killing that he didn't even manage to kill the right victims. Most of the "evidence" Mr. Turvey's site offers are newpaper articles - not generally the most objective sources for information. Nor are newpaper articles always accurate. It's interesting that Mr. Turvey has chosen to attack Dr. Campbell. In Mr. Turvey's work on the West Memphis Three case he "discovered" "potential bite mark" evidence on the forehead of one of the 3 young victims in that case. According to the story he told during Paradise Lost II, the "bite mark" practically jumped out at him when he opened the one of three boxes of case evidence forwarded to him by Dan Stidham, the attorney who represented convicted murderer Jessie Miskelley, Jr. Subsequently, Mr. Turvey forwarded the photographs to Dr. Thomas David, who allegedly confirmed that the mark was indeed a bite mark and eliminated the 3 convicted killers as potential sources of that mark. Given the lack of reliability of such identifications (according to Mr. Turvey), even to a reasonable degree of medical certainty (which, I believe, is pretty much the evidentiary standard and limit on any medical testimony whether in a criminal or civil case), the identification of Dr. David and the elimination of the 3 killers should be called into question. What Mr. Turvey and others who support the 3 convicted killers fail to mention is that Dr. David's testimony at Echols' Rule 37 hearing on the bite mark issue was challenged by that of Dr. Harry Mincer, as well as the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsies, the Chief Medical Examiner for the state at the time of the murders and the state's forensic odontologist. Or is it 100% reliable when it exonerates your client's clients, isn't it, Mr. Turvey? L. DeShong [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 23:13:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F4D2ij001507 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:13:02 -0500 (EST) From: Fossilhund@aol.com Message-ID: <1ad.1e93cfb6.2d376d44@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:12:52 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Southern Labs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [EndPost by Fossilhund@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 14 23:16:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F4GC07001708 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:16:12 -0500 (EST) From: Fossilhund@aol.com Message-ID: <63.271685c8.2d376dff@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:15:59 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Southern Labs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: Fossilhund@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6800 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hey Bob, I remember you when you were first down here in the South!! --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Fossilhund@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 00:18:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F5ITZq002975 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:18:29 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:03:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 05:01:15.0307 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A7377B0:01C3DB24] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu So clarify something for me, Brent, when you stated in the Alex Dale Thomas case that Michelle Montoya consented to sex with your client, what was the scientific basis for your opinion? Another question that is troubling is your expressed scientific opinion in Kansas v. Artis Cobb that your client (remarkable, how many of these are all defense, isn't it?) had falsely confessed to sexually assaulting and murdering that young mother, after which her baby died from the complications of several hundred degree days in an apartment without air conditioning, because of the absence of his DNA on vaginal, oral and anal swabs taken of what remained of the victims body. What was the basis for your scientific opinion that case? Since I'm not an investigator (and neither are you), I asked a few of those folks I know who look into sex crimes and that sort of thing. According to them, donor DNA turns up about a third of all sexual assault. But to be sure, they aren't a forensic scientist like you and they don't testify about scientific tests they didn't do themselves. It would clear up a lot of difficult questions about what kind of scientific work you do if you could actually describe some of it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Brad; > > I think I agree with most of what you have said. However, there are some > criminalists here who are using the term forensic scientist to refer only to > criminalists. That's not how it works. > > A forensic scientist is a person who testifies regarding their scientific > findings in a court of law. A criminalist is a type of forensic scientist. > One type. Bear in mind, also, that I do not call myself a criminalist or > claim any ability in regards to performing analytic tests on evidence. So > the need to prove that I'm not a criminalist is silly, but has nothing to do > with whether or not I'm a forensic scientist. I am trained, and have > continued to get training, as a generalist. That others are unfamiliar with > this concept is not my issue. > > Additionally, I posted a bunch of links about a week ago on the subject of > lab hiring info, showing that some places do not even have a degree > requirement for applying to be a criminalist in their crime lab. And I know > that in certain areas of the south it is particular interesting. > > For example: > > STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Criminalist I > http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/ohr/viewclass?ccode=JA60 > "Minimum Requirements: A high school diploma and experience in law > enforcement. A bachelor's degree may be substituted for the law enforcement > experience." > > > Division of Criminal Investigation/SD State Forensic Lab: Criminalist > http://mafs.net/pdf/sd101703.pdf > "The ideal candidate will possess: a Bachelor's degree from an accredited > college or university with science courses; - vision correctable to 20:20; - > a Fellow member of the American Board of Criminalistics-Trace Evidence - > have or be able to obtain a valid South Dakota driver's license." > > > OSBI crime lab: Level I criminalist > http://www.opm.state.ok.us/jfd/g-specs/g12.htm > "Education and Experience required at this level consists of a bachelor's > degree from an accredited college or university in chemistry, biochemistry, > organic chemistry, criminalistics, chemical engineering, metallurgy, > forensic science, biology, microbiology, zoology or a closely related > scientific field; or an equivalent combination of education and experience, > substituting one year of experience in a forensic crime laboratory > performing scientific and technical analysis of physical evidence from > criminal investigations for each year of the required degree. Experience > can be in drug (CDS) identification, materials identification, trace > evidence analysis, forensic serology, forensic DNA and genetic markers, > toxicology, questioned documents, firearms/toolmarks, latent prints > development and identification, classification and identification of inked > fingerprints manually or with an AFIS and blood alcohol/blood drug content > determination. " > > > Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department: Criminalist I > http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01052.html > "Training: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or > university with major course work in criminalistics, forensic science, > chemistry, biology, or a related field, including 24 semester hours of > chemistry." > > > South Dakota Forensic Laboratory: Criminalist > http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01063.html > "Minimum Qualifications: Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or > university with science courses. Experience in laboratory or law enforcement > preferred but not required. Must have or be able to obtain a valid driver's > license for South Dakota." > > > Hennepin County: Sheriff's Criminalist > http://www7.co.hennepin.mn.us/publications/hrjobclASS.nsf/0/0b7b4ef485410e4f > 86256dd4005a3c46?OpenDocument > "Education and Experience: A Bachelor's degree in forensic science, > chemistry, toxicology, biology, microbiology, biochemistry or closely > related field and one year of professional level experience performing > scientific laboratory analyses of physical evidence gathered in law > enforcement work; OR three years of the above experience, including > providing court testimony regarding the results of such analyses. > Certification as a specialist in a particular field of criminology may be > required." > > The City of St. Paul, MN: CRIMINALIST I > http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/humres/jobclass/titledef.php?code=128 > "Minimum Qualifications - A bachelor's degree in forensic science, > criminalistics, chemistry, biology or a related physical science field." > > Hope this helps > > Brent > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of FORENSIC022@aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:22 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials > > > I agree, Carla. In the past few days I have been bashed, albeit indirectly, > for having a Master of Science Degree, because I earned it at UNH and > because > I work for a state lab. > While we are still on this subject, I would be glad to answer any questions > about the forensic science program at the University of New Haven. Unlike > Brent, I concentrated in Criminalists, which was geared toward laboratory > bench > work. However, I did take several elective courses from the Advanced > Investigation tract, and they were all quality courses with very > well-regarded > instructors. I would say that the program is among the top in the country. > Let's not get hung up on the Advance Investigation concentration. This > portion of the program is geared toward police investigators. And the Fire > Science > program is geared toward arson investigators. Graduation from either of > these programs, or any program, for that matter, does not qualify the > graduate to > call themselves a forensic scientist. But, the core courses common to all > three concentrations provide exposure to all disciplines of forensic > science, > and teach students how to think like a forensic scientist. And this provides > a > distinct advantage when those students go to work for a crime laboratory. If > I were a laboratory administrator, I would much rather hire an applicant > with > a BS in Chemistry with a 3.0 GPA and an MSFS - Advanced Investigation, than > an otherwise equal applicant with a 4.0 GPA but no graduate degree. I have > seen first hand that there would be a great benefit if all labs included in > their requirements at least survey in Forensic Science course. > Brent, if you have some data on the hiring standards of state labs to > support your statement, I'd like to see it. Most state labs are accredited > now, and > having been through a recent ASCLD inspection, if anything the bar is > continuously being raised. I have not worked as a forensic scientist in the > private > sector, and you admittedly have not worked in a state lab, so we are really > not in the position to judge each other. But this is what you do when you > make generalizations. > Finally, while I am employed by a police agency, I work for the people of > the state of New York. I get paid the same regardless of the outcome of my > analyses, and my testimony accurately reflects my results, whether I am > testifying for the prosecution or the defense. Sometimes the attorneys who > subpoena > me don't like what I have to say, but none are in the position to pressure > me > even if they chose to. While I am well aware that several analysts in the > public sector have made the news for their acts of alleged fraud and/or > incompetence, we also know that there are some charlatans in the private > sector. > Let's not stereotype. > Thanks, > Brad Brown > FS II > New York State Police > Forensic Investigation Center > Albany, NY 12226 > _bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us_ (mailto:bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us) > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 00:23:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F5NJ90003230 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:23:19 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:23:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 03:20:53.0139 (UTC) FILETIME=[94F58E30:01C3DB16] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent: You are making a false statement. Neither ASCL nor CJI offered you a job according to the only individuals with hiring authority. Specifically, you have alleged that Dr. Lee Colwell offered you a job. He stated to me for a fact that he never offered you a job that you lacked the requisite training and experience. What part of "you were never offered a job here" don't you understand? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Jack; > > Not exactly. I was actually offered a position at a state lab on exit from > UNH. I definitely chose not to take it. > > Again, too political. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > >have been the primary reason why. > > Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Jack; > > I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all > wasting their money. > > Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students > and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a > hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of > them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. > > The issue here is politics and friends of friends. > > I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > have been the primary reason why. > > Thank you both for making my point. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Same goes for KY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM > To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary > core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to > meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you > submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it > would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. > > I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, > and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in > a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by > a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you > have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, > training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed > in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, > your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but > it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the > prosecution! > . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the > part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death > penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My > suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize > someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group > with an agenda. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not > sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and > evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on > the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists > took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology > courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. > > See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. > > I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the > state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which > built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 00:28:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F5SXJB003691 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:28:33 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:13:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 03:11:01.0719 (UTC) FILETIME=[34720670:01C3DB15] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Jack; > > In Kentucky, The Kentucky State Police Forensic Laboratory is the only state > lab system that exists. You suppose Jack might have room in his car on his trip to UNH? With such keen observations, I'm sure that in a modest eight weeks I too, will be the bane of those unethical prosecutors and their wanton cohorts, such that they quake at the mere mention of my name and have to gather a "blacklist" to try and thwart my efforts for truth, justice and the american way. >Though they are civilian positions, you are still an > employee of a law enforcement agency, making you essentially a police > scientist. Read = Jack is part of the anti-Turvey cabal too. Though you're too young to remember this, Brent, one of our former presidents made an "enemies list" while he was still in the Whitehouse. Funny thing is, you kind of remind me of him in some ways. > I quote from http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/civcareer.htm#civ, which is > available to all - > > CLASS TITLE: FIREARMS AND TOOLMARK EXAMINER I > > EDUCATION: Graduate of a college or university with a bachelor's degree in > the physical, biological or forensic sciences, criminal justice, engineering > or mathematics. Since you don't have a degree in any of those, exactly what's your point? > > EXPERIENCE: None > EDUCATION: None > EXPERIENCE: None > SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS(AGE, LICENSURE, REGULATION, ETC.): None > > Hmmmm... > > Looks like UNH MS students in forensic science from Kentucky needn't start > burning their diplomas just yet. This is a very misleading statement. There are two tracks available, one for forensic scientists and another for non-forensic scientists. Since I was curious, I called and asked. Perhaps you have met the guy I talked with, Thomas Johnson? I asked him point blank if your two year degree would qualify you to make the statement that you were a forensic scientist. He was quite adamant that you would not have been qualified, on the basis of that degree, to call yourself one. On the off chance that as you alleged, he was afraid of FBI retaliation, I asked several other folks without providing them any details that might bias their reply. They too (one was an associate dean) confirmed what he said as being correct. But it's possible they are all part of the conspiracy too. Shaun > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > >have been the primary reason why. > > Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Jack; > > I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all > wasting their money. > > Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students > and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a > hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of > them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. > > The issue here is politics and friends of friends. > > I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > have been the primary reason why. > > Thank you both for making my point. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Same goes for KY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM > To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary > core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to > meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you > submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it > would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. > > I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, > and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in > a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by > a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you > have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, > training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed > in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, > your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but > it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the > prosecution! > . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the > part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death > penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My > suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize > someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group > with an agenda. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not > sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and > evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on > the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists > took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology > courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. > > See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. > > I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the > state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which > built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in > part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and > back them up with facts and research." > > So if you would please answer my questions regaring > the following. > > On your website/CV and noticed it stated the > following: > > "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* > > Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. > > Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with > Knowledge Solutions LLC > > Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler > > Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course > development" > > I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your > qualifications that enable you to call yourself a > 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate > degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a > number of chemistry or biology (or any science) > courses within the context of those majors. I guess > the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS > in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a > scientist. Did your MS from the University of New > Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, > chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely > associated with science? > > The following is also directly from your CV - - > > "Education > > Master's of Science in Forensic Science > Advanced Investigation Concentration, > University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut > > B.S. - Psychology > Portland State University, Portland, Oregon > > B.S. - History > Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" > > Exactly what type of science courses does one get when > involved in a program that has an "Advanced > Investigation Concentration"? > > You further state in your CV that - - > > "Professional Activities > Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist > and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or > trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney > clients around the World. The greatest volume of his > casework has focused on the examination and > interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence > relating to the following:" > > Further, could you please comment on how your > "casework has focused on the examination and > interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? > Have you actually performed scientific examinations of > physical evidence utilizing standard forensic > physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at > items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the > field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am > truly confounded as to how someone without an > undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science > could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. > Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling > himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because > he handles money and makes change. > > Tom Abercrombie > Oakland PD Crime Lab > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us] > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 00:31:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0F5Vw2n003982 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:31:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400625E8.1030703@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:32:24 -0800 From: Bicka Barlow User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu As an attorney who deals with expert witnesses regularly and who has been on this list for around a year just observing, I find your behavior to be infantile at worst and simply laughable at best. I can say that your postings only provide fodder for the other side and that if I should ever need services that either Brent or Shaun provide, I would avoid both of you like the plague. If you have serious concerns regarding ethics etc... then take your complaints to the appropriate bodies such as AAFS. This type of personal back and forth simply has no relevance or interest for anyone but the posters and clutters up the email boxes of everyone else who has legitimate interests in real forensic issues. Bicka Barlow Attorney San Francisco CA [EndPost by Bicka Barlow ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 05:41:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FAfXif008692 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:41:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115104111.71206.qmail@web14705.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:41:11 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: [forens] results wording To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bradley, We report this sort of results as: "A presumptive test for blood, suggestive of traces of blood, was positive on item X." Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas --- Bradley Brown wrote: > I have a question for other serologists on this > list, or anyone with input. When you are performing > a presumptive chemical screening test, (i.e. on a > garment) and you get positive speckles on the filter > paper, but you can't localize the source, how do you > word your results? I'll give you an example: I have > sometimes had to examine bags of clothing. One of > the items in the bag will have obvious blood stains. > Some of the other items will give a positive result > with leucomalachite green, but there are just > speckles on the filter paper. I believe that this is > the result of tiny particles of dried blood which > have flaked off of the stained item. I can not > localize the source of the blood, so I have nothing > to send on to DNA. Because I am seeing a positive > reaction, though, I can't call the results negative. > Past wording that has been used includes > "presumptive screening test for blood positive, > quantity insufficient for DNA analysis". > > Thanks > > Brad > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 06:13:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FBDWdx009431 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:13:32 -0500 (EST) From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: <1a5.1e4832a3.2d37cfcb@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:13:15 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 370 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu snip " just gotta say that a "Fire Science" program that does not qualify its graduates to call themselves forensic scientists falls far short of what I would expect" John, earning a degree in forensic science, at any level, from any institution does not per se make the graduate a Forensic Scientist. When I earned my B.S. in biochemistry, I was not automatically a biochemist either. I was not able to call myself a forensic scientist until I had completed training, competency tests and moot court with my present employer. "So what is UNH up to if they graduate "Arson Investigators" without a firm grounding in chemistry and physics?" Did I say that graduating from the program confers the title of arson investigator? I think what UNH is "up to" is improving the discipline. When I was a detective, I was involved in a serial arson investigation. I was not involved in cause and origin determinations. Unfortunately, those determinations were often left to local Fire Marshals with a high school diploma and a few non-college training classes. There are, fortunately trained fire investigators working for the state, larger municipalities and insurance companies. These are some of the folks who enroll in the MSFS - Fire Science program. I have yet to meet or hear about one of them who calls themselves a forensic scientist. I think what UNH is up to is providing an educational opportunity for these people, and for grauates who want to go into this field. Anyone who calls themselves a forensic scientist based solely on the fact that they earned a degree in the field, at any level, regardless of the concentration, is wrong and misleading. Brad --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/html text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 08:03:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FD3vqJ011375 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:03:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:02:53 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] results wording Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FD3uqL011370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks, Tim >>> Tim Sliter 01/15 5:41 AM >>> Bradley, We report this sort of results as: "A presumptive test for blood, suggestive of traces of blood, was positive on item X." Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas --- Bradley Brown wrote: > I have a question for other serologists on this > list, or anyone with input. When you are performing > a presumptive chemical screening test, (i.e. on a > garment) and you get positive speckles on the filter > paper, but you can't localize the source, how do you > word your results? I'll give you an example: I have > sometimes had to examine bags of clothing. One of > the items in the bag will have obvious blood stains. > Some of the other items will give a positive result > with leucomalachite green, but there are just > speckles on the filter paper. I believe that this is > the result of tiny particles of dried blood which > have flaked off of the stained item. I can not > localize the source of the blood, so I have nothing > to send on to DNA. Because I am seeing a positive > reaction, though, I can't call the results negative. > Past wording that has been used includes > "presumptive screening test for blood positive, > quantity insufficient for DNA analysis". > > Thanks > > Brad > > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 08:28:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FDS9RP012312 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:28:09 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: Subject: [forens] BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [adam.becnel@dps.la.gov] (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:41:25 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:41:10 -0600 Bill, Greg, Brad, Carla, Jack, Lynn and, of course, Brent: I just wanted to let all of you know that, and I thought I'd never say this, I am kind of enjoying this. I feel like I am watching a football game, or at least a tennis match. Everyone knows which team deserves to win, and knows which team will win, but wow, what fun watching it as it runs its course! However, when I read Brent write this about someone else.... "You are way too impressed with yourself. It is this sort of arrogance that routinely gets police criminalists in trouble." I just spit coffee all over my desk. Really rich! So, alas, there has been a casualty in this after all, but only my desk calendar! I'll sign off while I go get some paper towels. (And no Brent, I'll not reply to your expected reply to this.) See Ya'll! PS - Bill, Hope you get down to Orlando in March. Adam Becnel Forensic Scientist III Louisiana State Police Crime Lab 376 East Airport Road Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 (225) 925-6216 Fax: (225) 925-6217 or 925-4401 email: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 08:53:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FDruoe013014 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:53:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:52:56 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FDrtqL013009 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu An average concentration of 250 ng/mL of PSA in male urine sounds high to me. I will have to check our validation study and the literature and get back to you on this. Brad >>> Terry Spear 01/14 12:20 PM >>> It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information about the nature of a particular stain. It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . Terry Spear >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. What about the cross reactivity in other antibody based tests or human DNA hybridization-based quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA test from urine (data reported at places such as in the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than ferrets or weasels being discussed here? To my understanding average PSA in male urine is around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to be every reason to be concerned about a high probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit just as we are discussing here about the meager possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the report and testimony become conclusive in cases using other such tests with similar issues? How do we write it up then? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps even more, > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach disposition without > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have a lot to do with > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced or dropped entirely; > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; lines of > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As several have pointed > out, all this happens in most cases without any of the decision makers > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. For this reason, > our reports really must stand alone and be able to convey not just our > results, but also what they mean or imply about the case in question. > We must make every effort to include explanations in our reports that > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as illuminating as is > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include enough explanatory > detail to minimize the possibility that the results will be > misinterpreted. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, > then we've done our job. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have > to > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases > where > I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. > Lynn Henson > US Army Crime Laboratory > Trace Evidence Division > 4553 N 2ND Street > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't > say > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly > originating > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis > for > examination and comparison? If two items display the same > characteristics, > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the > significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is > not > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results > that > much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. > Common > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless > all > the Trace examiners. > > P. Aviles > Fort Worth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes > I > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be > certain. > "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" > (Edgar > Watson Howe) > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave > Hause) > I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my > instrumental > and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is > consistent > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the > known > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the > known > is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship > that > is worth reporting. > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. > > What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to > suggestions. > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > Sent by: To: > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > owner-forens@statg cc: > > en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] > Hematrace > test for human blood > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > AM > > Please respond to > > forens > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many > years. > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports > and > testimony should be very clear. > > Carla > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > > Live Well > Laugh Often > Love Much > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 09:25:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FEPSrS014051 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:25:28 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [157.182.120.5] X-Originating-Email: [andremoenssens@msn.com] X-Sender: andremoenssens@msn.com From: "Andre Moenssens" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:13:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 14:13:55.0659 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF8FA1B0:01C3DB71] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu These exchanges between Shaun, Brent and Billo are strictly personal, and fill up my mailbox on a daily basis. Could you please address these to the three of you and not to the entire forens list? I, and I am sure a lot of others, would appreciate not having to use the "delete" key on a daily basis so often. I count another dozen or so this morning. What's more, if you have to say something that is actually of interest to the forensic science community, you risk NOT having it read when people just indicriminately delete everything that has your name on it. P.S. I also wonder if you folks don't have jobs? I wouldn't have time to do that amount of writing daily on personal stuff and also do my job. Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law Emeritus University of Missouri - Kansas City Until April 20, 2004, send mail to: Professor Andre Moenssens Visiting William J. Maier Professor of Law West Virginia University School of Law P.O.Box 6130 Morgantown, WV 26506-6130 ----Original Message Follows---- From: "shaun wheeler" Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:23:09 -0800 Brent: You are making a false statement. Neither ASCL nor CJI offered you a job according to the only individuals with hiring authority. Specifically, you have alleged that Dr. Lee Colwell offered you a job. He stated to me for a fact that he never offered you a job that you lacked the requisite training and experience. What part of "you were never offered a job here" don't you understand? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Jack; > > Not exactly. I was actually offered a position at a state lab on exit from > UNH. I definitely chose not to take it. > > Again, too political. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > >have been the primary reason why. > > Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, Jan uary 14, 2004 2:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Jack; > > I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all > wasting their money. > > Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students > and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a > hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of > them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. > > The issue here is politics and friends of friends. > > I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > have been the primary reason why. > > Thank you both for making my point. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:25 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Same goes for KY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM > To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary > core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to > meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you > submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it > would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. > > I know that you may hav e worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, > and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in > a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by > a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you > have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, > training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed > in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, > your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but > it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the > prosecution! > . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the > part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death > penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My > suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize > someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group > with an agenda. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not > sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and > evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on > the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists > took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology > courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. > > See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. > > I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the > state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in Fore nsic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which > built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:00:15 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FF0F5E015042 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:00:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115145954.81843.qmail@web9908.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:59:54 -0800 (PST) From: Sarah Walbridge Subject: [forens] Re: Agreed To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I would have to agree with Mr. Moenssens. I too am tired of deleting all these e-mails. I have only been in this field for 2 years but feel that there are more pertinent issues to discuss. I posted a scientific question a few months back and received no answer. However, it seems as if everyone has more time to discredit one another or discuss a ridiculous television show. Maybe my question went un-answered because I was asking the wrong forum of individuals...it was a GSR question and I don't know everyones background. So maybe you all are DNA people..but I recognize some trace people out there.... The beauty of the internet is to be able to have such discussions but when it gets personal lets not make the rest of it delete 36 messages from their inbox. -Sarah Walbridge Microscopist Andre Moenssens wrote: These exchanges between Shaun, Brent and Billo are strictly personal, and fill up my mailbox on a daily basis. Could you please address these to the three of you and not to the entire forens list? I, and I am sure a lot of others, would appreciate not having to use the "delete" key on a daily basis so often. I count another dozen or so this morning. What's more, if you have to say something that is actually of interest to the forensic science community, you risk NOT having it read when people just indicriminately delete everything that has your name on it. P.S. I also wonder if you folks don't have jobs? I wouldn't have time to do that amount of writing daily on personal stuff and also do my job. Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law Emeritus University of Missouri - Kansas City Until April 20, 2004, send mail to: Professor Andre Moenssens Visiting William J. Maier Professor of Law West Virginia University School of Law P.O.Box 6130 Morgantown, WV 26506-6130 ----Original Message Follows---- From: "shaun wheeler" Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:23:09 -0800 Brent: You are making a false statement. Neither ASCL nor CJI offered you a job according to the only individuals with hiring authority. Specifically, you have alleged that Dr. Lee Colwell offered you a job. He stated to me for a fact that he never offered you a job that you lacked the requisite training and experience. What part of "you were never offered a job here" don't you understand? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Jack; > > Not exactly. I was actually offered a position at a state lab on exit from > UNH. I definitely chose not to take it. > > Again, too political. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > >have been the primary reason why. > > Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, Jan uary 14, 2004 2:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Jack; > > I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all > wasting their money. > > Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students > and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a > hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of > them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. > > The issue here is politics and friends of friends. > > I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > have been the primary reason why. > > Thank you both for making my point. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004! 7:25 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Same goes for KY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM > To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary > core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to > meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you > submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it > would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. > > I know that you may hav e worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, > and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in > a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by > a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you > have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, > training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed > in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, > your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but > it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the > prosecution! ! > . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the > part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death > penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My > suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize > someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group > with an agenda. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not > sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and > evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on > the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists > took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology > courses, and I think at le! ast one other. Difference was that those who > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. > > See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. > > I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the > state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in Fore nsic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which > built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Sarah Walbridge ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:10:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FFAA8r015475 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:10:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004601c3db79$3e9fed60$4cc00150@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: References: <20040115145954.81843.qmail@web9908.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Re: Agreed Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:07:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sarah, If you still need an answer to your GSR question, you may want to try posting it again. If not there have been discussions about GSR on other groups. If it would assist you I will happily forward a couple of them to you so you can check their archives in case they answer your quesry. Hope this helps. Best Wishes Satish ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah Walbridge" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:59 PM Subject: [forens] Re: Agreed > I would have to agree with Mr. Moenssens. I too am tired of deleting all these e-mails. I have only been in this field for 2 years but feel that there are more pertinent issues to discuss. I posted a scientific question a few months back and received no answer. However, it seems as if everyone has more time to discredit one another or discuss a ridiculous television show. Maybe my question went un-answered because I was asking the wrong forum of individuals...it was a GSR question and I don't know everyones background. So maybe you all are DNA people..but I recognize some trace people out there.... > > The beauty of the internet is to be able to have such discussions but when it gets personal lets not make the rest of it delete 36 messages from their inbox. > > -Sarah Walbridge > Microscopist > > Andre Moenssens wrote: > > > > > These exchanges between Shaun, Brent and Billo are strictly personal, and fill up my mailbox on a daily basis. Could you please address these to the three of you and not to the entire forens list? I, and I am sure a lot of others, would appreciate not having to use the "delete" key on a daily basis so often. I count another dozen or so this morning. What's more, if you have to say something that is actually of interest to the forensic science community, you risk NOT having it read when people just indicriminately delete everything that has your name on it. > > P.S. I also wonder if you folks don't have jobs? I wouldn't have time to do that amount of writing daily on personal stuff and also do my job. > > Andre Moenssens > Douglas Stripp Professor of Law Emeritus > University of Missouri - Kansas City > > > Until April 20, 2004, send mail to: > > > Professor Andre Moenssens > Visiting William J. Maier Professor of Law > West Virginia University School of Law > P.O.Box 6130 > Morgantown, WV 26506-6130 > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- From: "shaun wheeler" > Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: > Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:23:09 -0800 Brent: You are making a false statement. Neither ASCL nor CJI offered you a job according to the only individuals with hiring authority. Specifically, you have alleged that Dr. Lee Colwell offered you a job. He stated to me for a fact that he never offered you a job that you lacked the requisite training and experience. What part of "you were never offered a job here" don't you understand? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Jack; > > Not exactly. I was actually offered a position at a state lab on exit from > UNH. I definitely chose not to take it. > > Again, too political. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > >I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > >embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > >have been the primary reason why. > > Plus the fact that you are not qualified may be a reason too. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: Wednesday, Jan > uary 14, 2004 2:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Jack; > > I suggest you write to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are all > wasting their money. > > Are we supposed to take you guys seriously when you suggest that MS students > and forensic science could not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take a > hard look at the people you have working there and ask whether or not any of > them have any master's qualifications, let alone a bachelor's degree. > > The issue here is politics and friends of friends. > > I can say this; I've never desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > embarrassingly low standards of state crime labs and the police-politics > have been the primary reason why. > > Thank you both for making my point. > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004! > 7:25 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Same goes for KY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM > To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary > core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to > meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you > submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it > would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. > > I know that you may hav > e worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, > and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in > a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by > a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you > have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, > training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed > in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, > your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but > it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the > prosecution! ! > > . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the > part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death > penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My > suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize > someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group > with an agenda. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic > discplines, so I'm not > sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and > evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on > the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists > took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology > courses, and I think at le! > ast one other. Difference was that those who > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. > > See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. > > I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the > state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in Fore > nsic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which > built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] > > > ------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------ > Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. > ------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------ > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > text/html (html body -- converted) > --- > [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Sarah Walbridge ] [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:12:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FFCiVO015749 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:12:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115151241.57739.qmail@web21502.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:12:41 -0800 (PST) From: Forensic lawLab Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well the interference/specificity it in the articles mentioned below was not shown to be due to liquid urine but with dried samples of urine on filter paper that were kept at room temperature for up to 3 years and were still shown to be non specific (positive) even after 3 years. In fact the article recommends Seratec test to be used to detect semen in urine. How can someone say such a result to be consistent with Semen? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Spear" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a > stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not > done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to > characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like > blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for > both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, > when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually > has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test > and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the > interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate > to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent > limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests > , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information > about the nature of a particular stain. > > It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results > but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is > it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that > something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks > like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for > human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply > cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force > everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" > with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . > > Terry Spear > > >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> > Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. > What about the cross reactivity in other antibody > based tests or human DNA hybridization-based > quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA > test from urine (data reported at places such as in > the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & > in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April > 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than > ferrets or weasels being discussed here? > > To my understanding average PSA in male urine is > around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the > Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to > be every reason to be concerned about a high > probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit > just as we are discussing here about the meager > possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene > for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has > been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). > > Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other > antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's > desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? > How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the > report and testimony become conclusive in cases using > other such tests with similar issues? How do we write > it up then? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps > even more, > > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach > disposition without > > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have > a lot to do with > > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced > or dropped entirely; > > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; > lines of > > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As > several have pointed > > out, all this happens in most cases without any of > the decision makers > > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. > For this reason, > > our reports really must stand alone and be able to > convey not just our > > results, but also what they mean or imply about the > case in question. > > We must make every effort to include explanations in > our reports that > > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as > illuminating as is > > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include > enough explanatory > > detail to minimize the possibility that the results > will be > > misinterpreted. > > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > > Forensic Chemist > > Indian River Crime Laboratory > > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of > Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > The only human beings that count are the ones > sitting in the jury box, > > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to > explain it to them, > > then we've done our job. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henson, Lynn > [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of > time, our reports have > > to > > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The > percentage of cases > > where > > I actually talk to a human being about my results is > quite low. > > Lynn Henson > > US Army Crime Laboratory > > Trace Evidence Division > > 4553 N 2ND Street > > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking > about what we can't > > say > > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when > it comes to trace > > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item > from possibly > > originating > > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use > that as your basis > > for > > examination and comparison? If two items display > the same > > characteristics, > > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, > and explain the > > significance. If you can't explain and defend your > conclusions, this is > > not > > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it > makes our results > > that > > much more significant when we can't. As a trace > examiner who has been > > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch > phrases also. > > Common > > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that > every day. God bless > > all > > the Trace examiners. > > > > P. Aviles > > Fort Worth > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be > clear. But sometimes > > I > > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you > can rarely ever be > > certain. > > "A reasonable probability is the > only certainty" > > (Edgar > > Watson Howe) > > > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those > reports where I use > > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not > conclusive of..." (Dave > > Hause) > > I am making my point as clear as I can within the > limits of my > > instrumental > > and observational capabilities. I can not say that > a given questioned > > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known > vehicle. It is > > consistent > > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It > could have come from, > > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from > the known,...the > > known > > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All > of these statements > > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of > my capabilites when > > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with > assuance that the > > known > > is a source of the questioned but there is a > significant relationship > > that > > is worth reporting. > > > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, > glass, fibers, hairs... > > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this > inherent uncertainty. > > > > What wording do you suggest to report class > comparisons? I am open to > > suggestions. > > > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > > > Sent by: To: > > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > owner-forens@statg cc: > > > > en.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] > > Hematrace > > test for human blood > > > > > > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > > > AM > > > > Please respond to > > > > forens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace > evidence for many > > years. > > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and > scientific reports > > and > > testimony should be very clear. > > > > Carla > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > Forensic Scientist > > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > > skipncar@aol.com > > > > Live Well > > Laugh Often > > Love Much > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain > confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the > use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use > or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the > communication. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:24:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FFOA7B016385 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:24:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:24:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > P.S. I also wonder if you folks don't have jobs? I wouldn't have time to do that amount of writing daily on personal stuff and also do my job. Funny. When people other people are libeled, it's just personal and everybody should shut up about it. I wonder if you will be so sanguine when your name gets passed around as a fraud in your professional circle. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:28:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FFS9ou016692 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:28:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:28:08 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Andre Moenssens wrote: > > > > > These exchanges between Shaun, Brent and Billo are strictly personal, You will note that I have at no time attacked Brent on his credentials or on doing whatever it is he does. I have *only* addressed his libel of Dr. Campbell. This is not personal. This is all about the cottage industry of professional character assassination that is springing up. You may think it is unimportant to defend your colleagues when they are so attacked, but it *is* important to do so. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:51:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FFpEcb017741 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:51:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115155057.64063.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:50:57 -0800 (PST) From: Forensic lawLab Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well the PSA concentration in urine was found to be 800 ng/ml with this card. You may look it up in Forensic Sci Int. 2002 Jun 25;127(1-2):71-4. I think 250 ng/ml is only the average as reported in the literature. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bradley Brown" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > An average concentration of 250 ng/mL of PSA in male urine sounds high to me. I will have to check our validation study and the literature and get back to you on this. > > Brad > > >>> Terry Spear 01/14 12:20 PM >>> > It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a > stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not > done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to > characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for > both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, > when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually > has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test > and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the > interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate > to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent > limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests > , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information > about the nature of a particular stain. > > It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results > but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is > it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that > something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks > like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for > human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply > cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force > everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" > with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . > > Terry Spear > > >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> > Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. > What about the cross reactivity in other antibody > based tests or human DNA hybridization-based > quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA > test from urine (data reported at places such as in > the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & > in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April > 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than > ferrets or weasels being discussed here? > > To my understanding average PSA in male urine is > around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the > Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to > be every reason to be concerned about a high > probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit > just as we are discussing here about the meager > possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene > for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has > been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). > > Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other > antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's > desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? > How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the > report and testimony become conclusive in cases using > other such tests with similar issues? How do we write > it up then? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps > even more, > > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach > disposition without > > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have > a lot to do with > > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced > or dropped entirely; > > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; > lines of > > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As > several have pointed > > out, all this happens in most cases without any of > the decision makers > > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. > For this reason, > > our reports really must stand alone and be able to > convey not just our > > results, but also what they mean or imply about the > case in question. > > We must make every effort to include explanations in > our reports that > > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as > illuminating as is > > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include > enough explanatory > > detail to minimize the possibility that the results > will be > > misinterpreted. > > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > > Forensic Chemist > > Indian River Crime Laboratory > > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of > Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > The only human beings that count are the ones > sitting in the jury box, > > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to > explain it to them, > > then we've done our job. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henson, Lynn > [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of > time, our reports have > > to > > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The > percentage of cases > > where > > I actually talk to a human being about my results is > quite low. > > Lynn Henson > > US Army Crime Laboratory > > Trace Evidence Division > > 4553 N 2ND Street > > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking > about what we can't > > say > > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when > it comes to trace > > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item > from possibly > > originating > > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use > that as your basis > > for > > examination and comparison? If two items display > the same > > characteristics, > > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, > and explain the > > significance. If you can't explain and defend your > conclusions, this is > > not > > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it > makes our results > > that > > much more significant when we can't. As a trace > examiner who has been > > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch > phrases also. > > Common > > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that > every day. God bless > > all > > the Trace examiners. > > > > P. Aviles > > Fort Worth > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be > clear. But sometimes > > I > > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you > can rarely ever be > > certain. > > "A reasonable probability is the > only certainty" > > (Edgar > > Watson Howe) > > > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those > reports where I use > > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not > conclusive of..." (Dave > > Hause) > > I am making my point as clear as I can within the > limits of my > > instrumental > > and observational capabilities. I can not say that > a given questioned > > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known > vehicle. It is > > consistent > > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It > could have come from, > > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from > the known,...the > > known > > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All > of these statements > > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of > my capabilites when > > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with > assuance that the > > known > > is a source of the questioned but there is a > significant relationship > > that > > is worth reporting. > > > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, > glass, fibers, hairs... > > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this > inherent uncertainty. > > > > What wording do you suggest to report class > comparisons? I am open to > > suggestions. > > > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > > > Sent by: To: > > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > owner-forens@statg cc: > > > > en.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] > > Hematrace > > test for human blood > > > > > > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > > > AM > > > > Please respond to > > > > forens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace > evidence for many > > years. > > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and > scientific reports > > and > > testimony should be very clear. > > > > Carla > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > Forensic Scientist > > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > > skipncar@aol.com > > > > Live Well > > Laugh Often > > Love Much > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain > confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the > use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use > or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the > communication. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 10:56:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FFu8hs018100 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:56:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:55:05 -0800 From: terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear) To: Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Would a urine stain, that did not have semen in it, give a positive AP test? I think that you are right when you question the specificity of these P30 "card" tests. I don't have any experience with the Seratec test for P30(and can not comment on this test) but I do with the ABAcard P30 test. For a number of reasons, I do not consider this a conclusive test for semen and I would never use it as a "stand alone test". However, using properly checked antisera, I found that the older immunological tests for P30 (using agarose gels) are specific for semen. This is probably due to the fact that they simply are not as sensitive as the "card" tests. The real difficult interpretations for most analysts gets down to the dilute stains that don't give a series of clear, cut test results. It is important here to be very careful of the nature of the information you are getting from your test and what that allows you to say. I would agree that based upon only a P30 card test result, I would not conclusively identify a stain as a semen stain. My main concern is that policies get made that take all judgment away from analysts and force them into a corner where all they can say for any set of results for all samples they encounter is effectively: "apparent blood" which may be human. Although there may be circumstances where this would be an appropriate conclusion, it should not be the only conclusion allowed. Terry Spear Terry Spear >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/15/04 07:12AM >>> Well the interference/specificity it in the articles mentioned below was not shown to be due to liquid urine but with dried samples of urine on filter paper that were kept at room temperature for up to 3 years and were still shown to be non specific (positive) even after 3 years. In fact the article recommends Seratec test to be used to detect semen in urine. How can someone say such a result to be consistent with Semen? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Spear" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a > stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not > done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to > characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like > blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for > both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, > when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually > has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test > and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the > interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate > to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent > limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests > , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information > about the nature of a particular stain. > > It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results > but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is > it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that > something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks > like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for > human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply > cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force > everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" > with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . > > Terry Spear > > >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> > Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. > What about the cross reactivity in other antibody > based tests or human DNA hybridization-based > quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA > test from urine (data reported at places such as in > the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & > in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April > 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than > ferrets or weasels being discussed here? > > To my understanding average PSA in male urine is > around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the > Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to > be every reason to be concerned about a high > probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit > just as we are discussing here about the meager > possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene > for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has > been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). > > Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other > antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's > desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? > How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the > report and testimony become conclusive in cases using > other such tests with similar issues? How do we write > it up then? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps > even more, > > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach > disposition without > > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have > a lot to do with > > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced > or dropped entirely; > > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; > lines of > > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As > several have pointed > > out, all this happens in most cases without any of > the decision makers > > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. > For this reason, > > our reports really must stand alone and be able to > convey not just our > > results, but also what they mean or imply about the > case in question. > > We must make every effort to include explanations in > our reports that > > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as > illuminating as is > > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include > enough explanatory > > detail to minimize the possibility that the results > will be > > misinterpreted. > > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > > Forensic Chemist > > Indian River Crime Laboratory > > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of > Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > The only human beings that count are the ones > sitting in the jury box, > > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to > explain it to them, > > then we've done our job. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henson, Lynn > [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of > time, our reports have > > to > > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The > percentage of cases > > where > > I actually talk to a human being about my results is > quite low. > > Lynn Henson > > US Army Crime Laboratory > > Trace Evidence Division > > 4553 N 2ND Street > > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking > about what we can't > > say > > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when > it comes to trace > > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item > from possibly > > originating > > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use > that as your basis > > for > > examination and comparison? If two items display > the same > > characteristics, > > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, > and explain the > > significance. If you can't explain and defend your > conclusions, this is > > not > > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it > makes our results > > that > > much more significant when we can't. As a trace > examiner who has been > > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch > phrases also. > > Common > > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that > every day. God bless > > all > > the Trace examiners. > > > > P. Aviles > > Fort Worth > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be > clear. But sometimes > > I > > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you > can rarely ever be > > certain. > > "A reasonable probability is the > only certainty" > > (Edgar > > Watson Howe) > > > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those > reports where I use > > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not > conclusive of..." (Dave > > Hause) > > I am making my point as clear as I can within the > limits of my > > instrumental > > and observational capabilities. I can not say that > a given questioned > > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known > vehicle. It is > > consistent > > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It > could have come from, > > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from > the known,...the > > known > > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All > of these statements > > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of > my capabilites when > > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with > assuance that the > > known > > is a source of the questioned but there is a > significant relationship > > that > > is worth reporting. > > > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, > glass, fibers, hairs... > > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this > inherent uncertainty. > > > > What wording do you suggest to report class > comparisons? I am open to > > suggestions. > > > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > > > Sent by: To: > > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > owner-forens@statg cc: > > > > en.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] > > Hematrace > > test for human blood > > > > > > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > > > AM > > > > Please respond to > > > > forens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace > evidence for many > > years. > > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and > scientific reports > > and > > testimony should be very clear. > > > > Carla > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > Forensic Scientist > > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > > skipncar@aol.com > > > > Live Well > > Laugh Often > > Love Much > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain > confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the > use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use > or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the > communication. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 11:03:15 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FG3F7p018585 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:03:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006201c3db80$abc33620$4cc00150@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: Subject: [forens] KM Testing Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:00:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FG3F7q018585 List Members, Does pig flesh and bone that has been burned (3.5 hours) contain peroxidase activity? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 11:09:20 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FG9KFR019387 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:09:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007d01c3db81$85fe3740$4cc00150@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: Subject: [forens] Burned Pig & DNA Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:06:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FG9KFS019387 List Members, Has DNA ever been obtained from a pig that has been burned (3.5 hours)? Has it been obtained from a weapon/implement that was used to mutilate or dismember such a pig? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 11:14:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FGEVrW019840 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:14:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:13:29 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FGEUqL019832 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu My lab did the validation of the Seratec membrane. I will look at the validation study, discuss it with the scientist who did the work, and look at the literature, including the journal article that you listed. I will then be able to hopefully provide some answers to the questions posed. >>> Forensic lawLab 01/15 10:50 AM >>> Well the PSA concentration in urine was found to be 800 ng/ml with this card. You may look it up in Forensic Sci Int. 2002 Jun 25;127(1-2):71-4. I think 250 ng/ml is only the average as reported in the literature. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bradley Brown" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > An average concentration of 250 ng/mL of PSA in male urine sounds high to me. I will have to check our validation study and the literature and get back to you on this. > > Brad > > >>> Terry Spear 01/14 12:20 PM >>> > It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a > stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not > done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to > characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for > both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, > when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually > has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test > and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the > interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate > to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent > limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests > , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information > about the nature of a particular stain. > > It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results > but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is > it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that > something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks > like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for > human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply > cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force > everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" > with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . > > Terry Spear > > >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> > Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. > What about the cross reactivity in other antibody > based tests or human DNA hybridization-based > quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA > test from urine (data reported at places such as in > the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & > in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April > 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than > ferrets or weasels being discussed here? > > To my understanding average PSA in male urine is > around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the > Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to > be every reason to be concerned about a high > probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit > just as we are discussing here about the meager > possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene > for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has > been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). > > Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other > antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's > desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? > How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the > report and testimony become conclusive in cases using > other such tests with similar issues? How do we write > it up then? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps > even more, > > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach > disposition without > > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have > a lot to do with > > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced > or dropped entirely; > > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; > lines of > > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As > several have pointed > > out, all this happens in most cases without any of > the decision makers > > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. > For this reason, > > our reports really must stand alone and be able to > convey not just our > > results, but also what they mean or imply about the > case in question. > > We must make every effort to include explanations in > our reports that > > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as > illuminating as is > > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include > enough explanatory > > detail to minimize the possibility that the results > will be > > misinterpreted. > > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > > Forensic Chemist > > Indian River Crime Laboratory > > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of > Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > The only human beings that count are the ones > sitting in the jury box, > > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to > explain it to them, > > then we've done our job. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henson, Lynn > [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of > time, our reports have > > to > > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The > percentage of cases > > where > > I actually talk to a human being about my results is > quite low. > > Lynn Henson > > US Army Crime Laboratory > > Trace Evidence Division > > 4553 N 2ND Street > > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking > about what we can't > > say > > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when > it comes to trace > > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item > from possibly > > originating > > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use > that as your basis > > for > > examination and comparison? If two items display > the same > > characteristics, > > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, > and explain the > > significance. If you can't explain and defend your > conclusions, this is > > not > > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it > makes our results > > that > > much more significant when we can't. As a trace > examiner who has been > > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch > phrases also. > > Common > > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that > every day. God bless > > all > > the Trace examiners. > > > > P. Aviles > > Fort Worth > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be > clear. But sometimes > > I > > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you > can rarely ever be > > certain. > > "A reasonable probability is the > only certainty" > > (Edgar > > Watson Howe) > > > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those > reports where I use > > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not > conclusive of..." (Dave > > Hause) > > I am making my point as clear as I can within the > limits of my > > instrumental > > and observational capabilities. I can not say that > a given questioned > > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known > vehicle. It is > > consistent > > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It > could have come from, > > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from > the known,...the > > known > > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All > of these statements > > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of > my capabilites when > > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with > assuance that the > > known > > is a source of the questioned but there is a > significant relationship > > that > > is worth reporting. > > > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, > glass, fibers, hairs... > > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this > inherent uncertainty. > > > > What wording do you suggest to report class > comparisons? I am open to > > suggestions. > > > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > > > Sent by: To: > > rforens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > owner-forens@statg cc: > > > > en.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] > > Hematrace > > test for human blood > > > > > > > > > > 01/08/2004 08:57 > > > > AM > > > > Please respond to > > > > forens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace > evidence for many > > years. > > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and > scientific reports > > and > > testimony should be very clear. > > > > Carla > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > > Forensic Scientist > > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > > skipncar@aol.com > > > > Live Well > > Laugh Often > > Love Much > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Aviles, Phil J." > ] > > > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain > confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the > use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use > or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the > communication. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] > > [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus [EndPost by Forensic lawLab ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 11:42:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FGgUBe021291 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00bd01c3db86$258b69a0$4cc00150@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: Subject: [forens] Flesh & Bone Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:38:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FGgUBf021291 List Members, Does flesh and/or bone contain amylase activity? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 11:51:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FGpSBk021837 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:51:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040115165107.14478.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:51:07 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Re: Agreed To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <20040115145954.81843.qmail@web9908.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Andre is right about the Shaun and Brent show. It is tiresome and does not belong here. Billo is a different story, because he was responding to a perceived injustice, and the link to Brent's page, as well as Dr. Campbell's name was posted on this list. Billo did not attack Brent's credentials. That started when Jack jumped in, followed by Shaun. I usually just delete both Brent and Shaun, respond to neither, and urge others to ignore their tiresome name calling. I will take my chances on missing the one percent of their posts that might tell me something other than Brent hates Shaun and Shaun hates Brent. (Reminds me of the two leprechauns:Patrick Fitzmichael and Michael Fitzpatrick). But I usually pay attention to what Billo says because he is a thoughtful well respected member of our group (as is Andre and most everyone else). Even so, Billo has probably gotten all that he is going to get from Brent, and it is time to move on,or take it off the list. --- Sarah Walbridge wrote: > I would have to agree with Mr. Moenssens. I > too am tired of deleting all these e-mails. I > have only been in this field for 2 years but > feel that there are more pertinent issues to > discuss. I posted a scientific question a few > months back and received no answer. However, > it seems as if everyone has more time to > discredit one another or discuss a ridiculous > television show. Maybe my question went > un-answered because I was asking the wrong > forum of individuals...it was a GSR question > and I don't know everyones background. So maybe > you all are DNA people..but I recognize some > trace people out there.... > > The beauty of the internet is to be able to > have such discussions but when it gets personal > lets not make the rest of it delete 36 messages > from their inbox. > > -Sarah Walbridge > Microscopist > > Andre Moenssens wrote: > > > > > These exchanges between Shaun, Brent and Billo > are strictly personal, and fill up my mailbox > on a daily basis. Could you please address > these to the three of you and not to the entire > forens list? I, and I am sure a lot of others, > would appreciate not having to use the "delete" > key on a daily basis so often. I count another > dozen or so this morning. What's more, if you > have to say something that is actually of > interest to the forensic science community, you > risk NOT having it read when people just > indicriminately delete everything that has your > name on it. > > P.S. I also wonder if you folks don't have > jobs? I wouldn't have time to do that amount of > writing daily on personal stuff and also do my > job. > > Andre Moenssens > Douglas Stripp Professor of Law Emeritus > University of Missouri - Kansas City > > > Until April 20, 2004, send mail to: > > > Professor Andre Moenssens > Visiting William J. Maier Professor of Law > West Virginia University School of Law > P.O.Box 6130 > Morgantown, WV 26506-6130 > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- From: "shaun > wheeler" > Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: > Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Wed, 14 > Jan 2004 21:23:09 -0800 Brent: You are making a > false statement. Neither ASCL nor CJI offered > you a job according to the only individuals > with hiring authority. Specifically, you have > alleged that Dr. Lee Colwell offered you a job. > He stated to me for a fact that he never > offered you a job that you lacked the requisite > training and experience. What part of "you were > never offered a job here" don't you understand? > Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent > Turvey" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:38 AM > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Jack; > > > Not exactly. I was actually offered a position > at a state lab on exit from > UNH. I definitely > chose not to take it. > > Again, too political. > > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf > Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: > Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:18 AM > To: > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] > Credentials > > > >I can say this; I've never > desired to work at a state crime lab - and the > > >embarrassingly low standards of state crime > labs and the police-politics > >have been the > primary reason why. > > Plus the fact that you > are not qualified may be a reason too. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey > [mailto:bturvey@corpus-delicti.com] > Sent: > Wednesday, Jan > uary 14, 2004 2:05 PM > To: > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] > Credentials > > > Jack; > > I suggest you write > to UNH and tell that the MS students at UNH are > all > wasting their money. > > Are we supposed > to take you guys seriously when you suggest > that MS students > and forensic science could > not be hired at entry level in your labs? Take > a > hard look at the people you have working > there and ask whether or not any of > them have > any master's qualifications, let alone a > bachelor's degree. > > The issue here is > politics and friends of friends. > > I can say > this; I've never desired to work at a state > crime lab - and the > embarrassingly low > standards of state crime labs and the > police-politics > have been the primary reason > why. > > Thank you both for making my point. > > > Brent > > -----Original Message----- > From: > owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf > Of > Jack.Reid@mail.state.ky.us > Sent: > Wednesday, January 14, 2004! > 7:25 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > > > Same > goes for KY > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Laskowski > [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: > Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:01 AM > To: > bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] > Credentials > > > Brent, > > This is not meant > to offend but your list of courses and degree > would not > qualify you to be a criminalist or > forensic scientist for any county or > > municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be > specific, you lack the necessary > core > physical science course work and undergraduate > and graduate degree to > meet the basic > qualifications for such a position. To be > practical, if you > submitted an application to > our personnel division along with your CV, it > > would be rejected simply because you don't meet > the basic qualifications. > > I know that you > may hav > e worked hard to obtain the degree that you > received, > and the course list appears > impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not > in > a true physical science, and that is what > limits your ability to be hired by > a > government agency as well as some private > companies. It appears that you > have done > quite well for yourself despite these > limitations. I suppose you > can call yourself > a forensic scientist based upon some of your > course work, > training, and job experience, > but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you > > lack the specific foundations to earn the title > criminalist or forensic > scientist. I prefer > to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". > > Remember, a scientist must be honest and > objective and should be well versed > in > letters, arts and above all science. And here, > unfortunately is the rub, > your web site > displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and > incompetence, but > it only lists the > misadventures of public servants or witnesses > hired by the > prosecution! ! > > . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, > fraud or incompetence on the > part of > independent experts. Your alliance with defense > and anti death > penalty advocacy groups makes > your motives and your judgement suspect. My > > suggestion, is that you be a little more fair > minded when you categorize > someones work > based uponm the musings or rantings of some > person or group > with an agenda. > > Gregory > E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major > Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, > 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office > Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) > 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> > bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM > >>> > Tom; > > Thanks for writing. > > I have a > master's of Science in Forensic Science. This > alone exceeds the > minimum qualification for > entry into to most forensic > discplines, so I'm not > sure where your > confusion on this issue is. I examine case > material and > evidence and render scientific > opinions about that evidence in a court of > > law. This is the distinguishing feature of a > forensic scientist. > > I have qulaified in > court many times and have written an > authotative text on > the subject, conducted > and published research on the subject in peer > > reviewed forums. > > But no, I do not do lab > work, nor do I put myself out there as > criminalist. > > I spent my first years as an > undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a > > bit of hard science under my belt. It was a > mix of a lot of chemistry and a > lot of > biology. Many if not all of these courses > required a hourd and hours > of lab work, from > the chemistry to the biology. I was > undergraduate from > 88-94. > > My core courses > at UNH were the same courses that that the > criminalists > took. However, I did not take > the microscopy courses or the toxicology > > courses, and I think at le! > ast one other. Difference was that those who > > wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab > or for a PD evidence unit, > and did more lab > work. I interned with a serial rape homicide > task force. > > See: > http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html > > > The AI concentration, it was explained to > me by the then chair Dr. Bob > Gaensslen, is a > generalist track. Looking back I agree that it > was. > > I took and passed the following > courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in > > Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, > taught by personnel from the > state ME's > office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about > half of these when I > was there. Bob Gaenslen > taught the other half. > > Survey of Forensic > Science > Advanced Criminalistics I > Advanced > Criminalistics II > Advanced Crime Scene > Investigation > Advanced Investigation I > > Advanced Investigation II > Physical Analysis > in Forensic Science > Biomedical Methods in > Fore > nsic Science > Medicolegal Investigation and > Identification > Law and Evidence > Fire Scene > Investigation and Arson Analysis > > I hope > everyone enjoyed this as much as I. > > BTW - > while still in High School, I took the advanced > Anatomy course which > built up to spending a > week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. > > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of > Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > > > ************************************************************************ > > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth > you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr > Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by > "shaun wheeler" ] > > > ------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------ > Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, > from McAfee. > ------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------ > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > text/html (html body -- converted) > --- > [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" > Sweepstakes > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Sarah Walbridge ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 11:55:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FGt1WL022103 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:55:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20040115165454.008c3938@pop.ncf.ca > X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.ca (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:54:54 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: [forens] Question: Brent Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Brent; In http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html You write; "In one case, Dr. Campbell claimed to identify to a medical certainty the body of Melody Cutlip; the real Melody Cutlip was later found alive and well in Florida." Can you cite the trial transcripts of Dr. Campbell's actual testimony that can confirm what you say? Thanks, Marilyn [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 13:30:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FIUQnW024930 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:30:26 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <89.148c93a.2d38363b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:30:19 EST Subject: [forens] Bravo, Andre To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5101 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well said, Andre. It takes most of my free time to press the 'delete' key. When do they have time to work? Or eat? Or ....? Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 14:09:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FJ9chM026031 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:09:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "French, Tim" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Bravo, Andre Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:09:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You know it's not that hard to set your e-mail handler to just automatically delete or block any e-mail from certain senders (I already have about 4 from this list). I do not even know there is a mud flinging contest going on until someone else gets tired of it and complains. Even if they were to have something of interest to add as Professor Moenssens suggests "...if you have to say something that is actually of interest to the forensic science community, you risk NOT having it read when people just indicriminately delete everything that has your name on it." is it really worth sorting through the hundreds of bad ones? Tim French Criminalist II CMPD Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 -----Original Message----- From: SkipnCar@aol.com [mailto:SkipnCar@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 1:30 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Bravo, Andre Well said, Andre. It takes most of my free time to press the 'delete' key. When do they have time to work? Or eat? Or ....? Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 14:12:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FJC43I026370 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:12:04 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [157.182.120.5] X-Originating-Email: [andremoenssens@msn.com] X-Sender: andremoenssens@msn.com From: "Andre Moenssens" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:09:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 18:09:44.0637 (UTC) FILETIME=[C10256D0:01C3DB92] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bill: You're right! I should not have joined your name to the two others. John Lentini set me straight on that, too. And deservedly so. I apologize. Andre ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 15:24:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FKOEBW029216 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:24:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard Smith" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:24:58 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Please drop -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Andre Moenssens Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:10 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Bill: You're right! I should not have joined your name to the two others. John Lentini set me straight on that, too. And deservedly so. I apologize. Andre ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] [EndPost by "Richard Smith" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 15:46:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FKkxdf000123 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:46:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <160EFE5C63929A478393701146FDD8A40171CBE7@1-shq-mail.lasd.org> From: "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:37:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available to you? Ken Lee Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Scientific Services Bureau [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 15:56:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FKur9u000658 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:56:53 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:56:51 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Thread-Index: AcPbqRXQ3cxRiiiLToi+oclJBx1euAAAHGTw From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FKuqqL000653 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu After seven years and counting I have never seen it in Idaho. Not sure why we would. I have not heard of a process that uses it, at least for the production of meth. I have used it to etch glass though. -----Original Message----- From: Lee, Chien-Hsing K. [mailto:CKLee@lasd.org] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:38 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available to you? Ken Lee Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Scientific Services Bureau [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] [EndPost by "Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 16:24:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FLOceu001645 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:24:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:24:35 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid In-Reply-To: <160EFE5C63929A478393701146FDD8A40171CBE7@1-shq-mail.lasd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well, this is out of my field, other than as a passing interest in WMD while at the AFIP... The only thing I have ever heard of was using it for a form of home-made nerve gas -- home-made di-isopropyl fluorophosphate. A quick check on the web shows a swedish site that says it is found in clandestine meth labs: http://www.hnnsweden.com/0002/04apr2002/02apr12-003.htm billo On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Lee, Chien-Hsing K. wrote: > Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have > investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available > to you? > > Ken Lee > Senior Criminalist > Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. > Scientific Services Bureau > [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 16:53:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FLruRr002635 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:53:56 -0500 (EST) From: "James T. Price" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:04:28 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401151604.29003.tprice@ionet.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The cheif danger in HFl burns is to assume HFl is like other mineral acids and can be treated as such. No matter how appropriate the first aid is the person exposed should be taken to an ER or office that has experience in HFl exposure. JTP On Thursday 15 January 2004 15:24, Bill Oliver wrote: > Well, this is out of my field, other than as a passing > interest in WMD while at the AFIP... > > The only thing I have ever heard of was using it for a form > of home-made nerve gas -- home-made di-isopropyl > fluorophosphate. > > A quick check on the web shows a swedish site that says it > is found in clandestine meth labs: > > http://www.hnnsweden.com/0002/04apr2002/02apr12-003.htm > > > billo > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Lee, Chien-Hsing K. wrote: > > Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you > > have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have > > available to you? > > > > Ken Lee > > Senior Criminalist > > Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. > > Scientific Services Bureau > > [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "James T. Price" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 17:23:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FMN3MP003757 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:23:03 -0500 (EST) From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: <144.2070d35d.2d386cbc@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:22:52 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 370 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Ken. Are you finding any red phosphorous with the Hydrofluoric acid? Brad --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/html text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 17:27:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FMRCug004211 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:27:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:25:54 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FMRCuh004211 Ken, We have seen HF in some seizures from clan labs up here in Kern on about two separate occasions. In one instance, a task force deputy had skin contact with the material on one of his hands and since took a disability retirement. Now that we do everything as part of a sate/conty task force, the only thing that has been added to the first aid kits is calcium gluconate ointments. Else, you get rushed straight to the hospital if there is dermal contact. Safety measures in the "Hot Zones" mandate double gloving with nitrile gloves, wearing sealed sealed Saranax suits with nitrile boots, and wearing full face APRs. Being aware that caustic and corrosive chemicals exist is paramount to maintaining safety while working in a hazardous environment. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> CKLee@lasd.org 1/15/2004 12:37:49 PM >>> Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available to you? Ken Lee Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Scientific Services Bureau [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 17:45:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FMjC5s005126 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:45:12 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:45:02 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5002 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/15/2004 12:32:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, bicbar@mindspring.com writes: If you have serious concerns regarding ethics etc... then take your complaints to the appropriate bodies such as AAFS. Bicka - the AAFS cannot become involved with allegations about individuals who are NOT an AAFS member. This is true of all other member organizations. I am not sure which list member you refer to, and do not know the affiliations of any of the list members (save a few personal acquaintances). David Epstein --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 17:46:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FMko5A005315 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:46:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:50:33 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010701c3dbb9$fbcf5ed0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12A3@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 22:46:49.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[762F7440:01C3DBB9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lynn, regarding what you wrote below: "1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75" I'm confused by your answers here. 1 in 2 = 50% probability, 1 in 100 = 1% probability, 1 in 50 = 2% probability, and 1 in 75 = 1.3% probability. That's not what you meant, is it? Something that is "probable" should be more likely than something that is "possible" should it not? As a lone word, "probable" means "more likely than not", and so would have to have a greater than 50% chance of being true (more than 1 in 2, or 51 [or more] in 100). Conversely, "possible" in the vernacular is any chance greater than zero. Can you explain what you meant? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:02 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a position where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES) Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are reported back to the list. 1. good chance - 1 in 10 2. same as - 1 in 1 3. congruency - 4. indistinguishable - 1 in 1 5. consistent - 1 in 1 6. matched - 1 in 1 Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two compared items shared a common source expressed by the following words and phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. 1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75 Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following hypothetical: In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using a peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. 1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) I'm interpreting this as 1 in 1 is identity. 3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis for some constructive discussion. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 18:00:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FN0vs2006128 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:00:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:04:39 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010f01c3dbbb$f3ff54b0$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 23:00:55.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E5B4B70:01C3DBBB] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well, human DNA isn't "consistent" with blood from a chimpanzee or gorilla or anything else but humans. But as for the other tests, isn't it misleading to describe the results only as "human blood" if you say there are in fact other possibilities? If species other than human would give the same results, it seems to me that either a caveat or a less specific reported result is called for. Why not instead report the results as "anthropoid blood" or "human or other anthropoid species," or at least a brief notation that blood from another anthropoid species is a remote possibility? (If only apes, not monkeys, give the same results, then we could substitute "hominoid" for "anthropoid"). Granted, any alternative is likely to be very far fetched, but it seems disingenuous to imply absolute identification as human blood if there are in fact other possibilities, no matter how remote. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Terry Spear Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:20 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood It look to me like people tend to lose sight of the fact that when a stain is "identified" as containing either blood or semen, this is not done based upon a single test or observation. Typically, to characterize something as blood, most analysts require that it look like blood, give a positive presumptive test for blood and test positive for both human protein (most likely albumin) and/or human DNA. Similarly, when an analyst characterizes a stain as containing semen, it usually has to have the physical appearance of semen, give a positive AP test and be found to contain either sperm cells or P30 [problems with the interference of urine with the specificity of P30 tests usually relate to liquid urine samples]. Each of these examinations has inherent limitations but assuming clear, cut positive results for all these tests , this set of results represents pretty good scientific information about the nature of a particular stain. It is clear that we need to communicate the limitations of our results but I ask you, considering the need to be both "concise and clear", is it reasonable to force the scientists in our field to conclude that something is "apparent" blood when they have found a stain that looks like blood, gives a positive presumptive test for blood, is positive for human albumin and /or human DNA ? I think that this stance simply cripples our profession's ability to communicate clearly. Why not force everybody to always explain that this set of results is "consistent" with a bloodstain from a chimpanzee and also a gorilla or . . . Terry Spear >>> forensiclawlab@yahoo.com 01/14/04 05:54AM >>> Let's not limit this discussion to hemoglobin test. What about the cross reactivity in other antibody based tests or human DNA hybridization-based quantitation tests e.g. false positive in Seratec PSA test from urine (data reported at places such as in the Forensic Science Intl , June 2002 issue by Mukai & in the FBI's Forensic Science Communication, April 2003 issue). Isn't urine more commonly found than ferrets or weasels being discussed here? To my understanding average PSA in male urine is around 250 ng/ml whereas the sensitivity of the Seratec PSA kit is below 0.7 ng/ml , so there ought to be every reason to be concerned about a high probability of a false positive in the Seratec PSA kit just as we are discussing here about the meager possibility of a ferret or a weasel at a crime scene for a hemoglobin test? In fact, even female urine has been shown to contain 1.06 ng/ml PSA (Breul et al). Any thoughts? Has the potential issue with other antibody/DNA hybridization tests not crossed ASCLD's desk? Doesn't this issue then apply across the board? How are we addressing it in such cases? How does the report and testimony become conclusive in cases using other such tests with similar issues? How do we write it up then? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > I must disagree. The vast majority (95-99%, perhaps even more, > depending on jurisdiction) of criminal cases reach disposition without > ever proceeding to trial. Our reported results have a lot to do with > whether or not charges are filed, added to, reduced or dropped entirely; > guilty pleas are entered; pleas bargains are made; lines of > investigation are pursued or abandoned, etc. As several have pointed > out, all this happens in most cases without any of the decision makers > picking up the phone to discuss our reports with us. For this reason, > our reports really must stand alone and be able to convey not just our > results, but also what they mean or imply about the case in question. > We must make every effort to include explanations in our reports that > are reasonably concise and clear, but also as illuminating as is > practical. At minimum, we must strive to include enough explanatory > detail to minimize the possibility that the results will be > misinterpreted. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:05 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > The only human beings that count are the ones sitting in the jury box, > if it gets that far. If we make every effort to explain it to them, > then we've done our job. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henson, Lynn [mailto:Lynn.henson@usacil.army.mil] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:59 AM > To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > I think the concern is that the vast majority of time, our reports have > to > stand alone and no one asks us what we mean. The percentage of cases > where > I actually talk to a human being about my results is quite low. > Lynn Henson > US Army Crime Laboratory > Trace Evidence Division > 4553 N 2ND Street > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 > Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] > On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:54 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > Here's a thought. We spend soo much time talking about what we can't > say > conclusively, that we forget what we can say, when it comes to trace > evidence. We can conclusively eliminate an item from possibly > originating > from a particular source, can't we? So why not use that as your basis > for > examination and comparison? If two items display the same > characteristics, > say so in your report, and then turn to the jury, and explain the > significance. If you can't explain and defend your conclusions, this is > not > the business to be in. If we try to eliminate, it makes our results > that > much more significant when we can't. As a trace examiner who has been > around since the big flood, I've used all the catch phrases also. > Common > sense always prevails. Walter McCrone proved that every day. God bless > all > the Trace examiners. > > P. Aviles > Fort Worth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jenny Smith [mailto:smithj@mshp.state.mo.us] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:32 AM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood > > > > Carla, I agree totally that our reports should be clear. But sometimes > I > am clearly uncertain. With class comparisons you can rarely ever be > certain. > "A reasonable probability is the only certainty" > (Edgar > Watson Howe) > > I like Marks comments about "likelihoods". In those reports where I use > the term "consistent" or "consistent but not conclusive of..." (Dave > Hause) > I am making my point as clear as I can within the limits of my > instrumental > and observational capabilities. I can not say that a given questioned > 3-layer paint transfer came from a certain known vehicle. It is > consistent > in chemical and physical characteristics to, ...It could have come from, > ...is it likely that the questioned originated from the known,...the > known > cannot be eliminated as a source of...... etc. All of these statements > suggest "probably". That is the absolute limit of my capabilites when > dealing with class comparisons. I cannot say with assuance that the > known > is a source of the questioned but there is a significant relationship > that > is worth reporting. > > Trace chemists do many class comparisons, paint, glass, fibers, hairs... > etc. Our reports must reflect or allow for this inherent uncertainty. > > What wording do you suggest to report class comparisons? I am open to > suggestions. > > Jenny Smith, Criminalist III > Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab > 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 > ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 > > > > > > SkipnCar@aol.com > > Sent by: To: > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > owner-forens@statg cc: > > en.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] > Hematrace > test for human blood >01/08/2004 08:57 AM > > > > Jenny, I don't know about Brad but I examined trace evidence for many > years. > Trace evidence examiners are still scientists, and scientific reports > and > testimony should be very clear. > > Carla > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS > Forensic Scientist > 8513 Northwest 47 Street > Coral Springs, FL 33067 > 954-796-8063, telephone & fax > skipncar@aol.com > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 18:04:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FN4LR5006412 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:04:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Scientist Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:08:04 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <011001c3dbbc$6e40c920$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2004 23:04:20.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[E89C98D0:01C3DBBB] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu All the below is true, including what my good friend Peter DeForest had to say about "generalists." However, the forensic sciences today are so complex and diverse that I do not believe it is possible for anyone to be a competent true generalist these days (i.e., competent to carry out the actual work of a wide variety of what are now specialties). Rather, all specialists need some "generalist" knowledge; i.e., enough knowledge about other specialties to recognize what other types of evidence may be present and what types of other specialty testing might be applied, how to recognize, separate and preserve that other evidence when it is present, and how to avoid inadvertently interfering with those other future tests while conducting their own tests. This is the basic philosophy of the ABC's certification program. For supervisors, additional "generalist" knowledge is needed, sufficient to fulfill the role that Peter describes - i.e., not to perform all those types of specialties themselves, but to direct varied specialists in the overall general analysis of a case. Specialization is an absolute necessity today (the axiom "A Jack of All Trades is a master of none" applies, as I have oft noted), but specialists must nevertheless remain cognizant of the other specialties as well as their own. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:47 PM To: Forens@Statgen.Ncsu.Edu Subject: [forens] Forensic Scientist Members; An interesting issue has been raised by other members: What is the definition of a forensic scientist? Dr. John Thornton discusses a very good definition and its context (Thornton,1997): "What then, of the forensic scientist? The single feature that distinguishes forensic scientists from any other scientist is the certain expectation that they will appear in court and testify to their findings and offer an opinion as to the significance of those findings. The forensic scientist will testify not only to what things are, hut to what things mean. Forensic science is science exercised on behalf of the law in the just resolution of conflict. It is therefore expected to be the handmaiden of the law, but at the same time this expectation may very well be the marina from which is launched the tension that exists between the two disciplines." Thornton goes on to explain that if there is no science (in a particular method or practice), then there can be no forensic science. Forensic science is science exercised on behalf of the law. A forensic scientist is defined by the presentation and explanation of their scientific work-product in court. A forensic scientist is not defined by their affiliations, crime scene presence or experience. There are in fact many kinds of forensic scientists, not just one kind. There are criminalists: forensic scientists of various specialties performing objective examinations and tests on particular kinds of physical evidence. There are forensic dentists & odontologists: forensic scientists who specialize in comparing teeth and the impressions they leave behind. There are forensic pathologists: forensic scientists who who specialize in determining cause and manner of death. An exhaustive list would be tremendous. Less commonly known or discussed in this era of specialization (and overspecialization) is the forensic generalist. As defined in DeForest, P. & Gaennslen, R.E. & Lee, H. (1987) Forensic Science: An Introduction to Criminalistics, McGraw-Hill (p.17): "There can be serious problems... with overspecialization. Persons who have a working knowledge of a broad range of criminalistics problems and techniques are also necessary. These people are called generalists. The value of generalists lies in their ability to look at all aspects of a complex case and decide what needs to be done, which specialists should be involved, and in which order to carry out the examinations." The term criminalist is often used synonymously with the term forensic scientist. Though, one can actually be a forensic scientist without being a criminalist. Other thoughts? REFS Thornton, J. I. "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," in Faigman, D., Kaye, D., Saks, M. & Sanders, J. (Eds.) (1997) Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2, St. Paul, Mn: West Publishing Co. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 18:04:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FN4YPx006453 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:04:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <160EFE5C63929A478393701146FDD8A40171CBEA@1-shq-mail.lasd.org> From: "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:55:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brad, No, in the LA area, we are still seeing mostly the Red P/HI method. I was just interested in seeing if anyone was seeing HF(l), and what people were using for first aid, if anything. Obviously, if one were to come in contact with HF(l) a trip to ER would be necessary. For those interested in the medical treatment of HF exposure\contact (see attached). Ken -----Original Message----- From: FORENSIC022@aol.com [mailto:FORENSIC022@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:23 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Ken. Are you finding any red phosphorous with the Hydrofluoric acid? Brad --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/html text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/octet-stream --- [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 18:07:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FN7PFE006890 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:07:25 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Thread-Index: AcPbt1aeqGROWT5RQ6yXrTOwN22TYgAA9jMg From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FN7PqL006885 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This group of postings has me in a quandary. What is the use of the HF (or at least the stated use of it). I can't find it anywhere on my list of possible ingredients or byproducts. Or is this like the charcoal and bluing method that some cooks swear by but we all know is bunk? -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:26 PM To: CKLee@lasd.org; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Ken, We have seen HF in some seizures from clan labs up here in Kern on about two separate occasions. In one instance, a task force deputy had skin contact with the material on one of his hands and since took a disability retirement. Now that we do everything as part of a sate/conty task force, the only thing that has been added to the first aid kits is calcium gluconate ointments. Else, you get rushed straight to the hospital if there is dermal contact. Safety measures in the "Hot Zones" mandate double gloving with nitrile gloves, wearing sealed sealed Saranax suits with nitrile boots, and wearing full face APRs. Being aware that caustic and corrosive chemicals exist is paramount to maintaining safety while working in a hazardous environment. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> CKLee@lasd.org 1/15/2004 12:37:49 PM >>> Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available to you? Ken Lee Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Scientific Services Bureau [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 18:33:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0FNXv4b007853 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:33:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:32:17 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: RE: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0FNXv4c007853 It seems to me that the cooks/crooks gather materials because it sounds similar to a particular reagent that they would normally use. Tf they are in short supply of one thing, perhaps another of similar phonetic sounding name is just as good. from what Ihave ssen in some of these clan labs, it is definitely not rocket science practiced. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> dave.sincerbeaux@isp.state.id.us 1/15/2004 3:07:23 PM >>> This group of postings has me in a quandary. What is the use of the HF (or at least the stated use of it). I can't find it anywhere on my list of possible ingredients or byproducts. Or is this like the charcoal and bluing method that some cooks swear by but we all know is bunk? -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:26 PM To: CKLee@lasd.org; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Ken, We have seen HF in some seizures from clan labs up here in Kern on about two separate occasions. In one instance, a task force deputy had skin contact with the material on one of his hands and since took a disability retirement. Now that we do everything as part of a sate/conty task force, the only thing that has been added to the first aid kits is calcium gluconate ointments. Else, you get rushed straight to the hospital if there is dermal contact. Safety measures in the "Hot Zones" mandate double gloving with nitrile gloves, wearing sealed sealed Saranax suits with nitrile boots, and wearing full face APRs. Being aware that caustic and corrosive chemicals exist is paramount to maintaining safety while working in a hazardous environment. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> CKLee@lasd.org 1/15/2004 12:37:49 PM >>> Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available to you? Ken Lee Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Scientific Services Bureau [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 19:06:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0G06lxB008661 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:06:47 -0500 (EST) From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: <124.29e16a52.2d38850d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:06:37 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 370 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I am not a drug chemist. However, after reading Ken's initial post, I went and dug up a research paper that I did for a drug chem class. I was wondering if the aptly described rocket scientists are trying to use Hydrofluoric Acid in place of Hydriotic acid with red phosphorous to reduce ephedrine, in the so-called "cold cook" method. ref: Kansas Bureau of Investigation, "Methamphetamine Manufacture, 1996-1997", p.2. In: Clandestine Laboratory Response Training, manual. Brad Brown --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 19:09:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0G091HO008830 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:09:01 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <20040115165107.14478.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Re: Agreed Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:11:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2004 00:08:55.0574 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE5E5B60:01C3DBC4] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John: So, in a nutshell, calling into question somebody's credibility or conclusions is bad, when I do it, but attacking them without bothering to read what they write is okay, when you do it. Have I missed anything? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Re: Agreed > Andre is right about the Shaun and Brent show. > It is tiresome and does not belong here. > > Billo is a different story, because he was > responding to a perceived injustice, and the link > to Brent's page, as well as Dr. Campbell's name > was posted on this list. > > Billo did not attack Brent's credentials. That > started when Jack jumped in, followed by Shaun. > > I usually just delete both Brent and Shaun, > respond to neither, and urge others to ignore > their tiresome name calling. I will take my > chances on missing the one percent of their posts > that might tell me something other than Brent > hates Shaun and Shaun hates Brent. (Reminds me of > the two leprechauns:Patrick Fitzmichael and > Michael Fitzpatrick). > > But I usually pay attention to what Billo says > because he is a thoughtful well respected member > of our group (as is Andre and most everyone > else). > > Even so, Billo has probably gotten all that he is > going to get from Brent, and it is time to move > on,or take it off the list. > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 20:25:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0G1PUgh010232 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:25:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Helix Biotech, Inc." To: Subject: [forens] NaF and DNA profiling Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:25:30 -0600 Message-ID: <000601c3dbcf$a42cd2a0$7f010a0a@helixpc> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I attempted to extract DNA from grey topped Vacutainer tubes (NaF) using DNA-IQ and amplified using PowerPlex 16; it bombed. I checked with Promega and they say they never validated using grey topped tubes. Does anyone have any experience with grey topped tubes or suggestions? Alan L. Friedman, PhD Helix Biotech, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:25 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Well, this is out of my field, other than as a passing interest in WMD while at the AFIP... The only thing I have ever heard of was using it for a form of home-made nerve gas -- home-made di-isopropyl fluorophosphate. A quick check on the web shows a swedish site that says it is found in clandestine meth labs: http://www.hnnsweden.com/0002/04apr2002/02apr12-003.htm billo On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Lee, Chien-Hsing K. wrote: > Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have > investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available > to you? > > Ken Lee > Senior Criminalist > Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. > Scientific Services Bureau > [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Helix Biotech, Inc." ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 15 21:46:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0G2ksu7011449 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:46:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:38:18 +1100 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: [forens] Presumptive test To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <40074E98.CEBEC62B@vifm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I would make the following comments about the debate on tests for human blood. Screening tests for blood have usually been based on the peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin. But I am sure we all know that a wide range of substances also give a positive result to such tests. This is why, having located an area by the screening test, the scientist is obliged to do a test which is specific for blood (if he/she wishes to report blood was present). In my view it would be a great mistake to put screening results in a report as they will almost certainly be taken as "blood was present" when there may not be any. The greatest example of this was the Chamberlain case in Australia ("the dingo ate my baby case") where the use of a screening test to define the presence of blood was heavily criticised by scientists in a high level inquiry. The Hematrace test has the potential advantage that it uses antibodies against human hemoglobin and therefore one could say human blood was present. Of course it is expected to react against other primates, but I am surprised it reacts against ferret blood. The antibodies being used appear not to be a specific and therefore a definite statement should not be made. I would have thought the reaction against ferrets and other primates is not a large issue although it might be advisable to at least include a rider in the report to explain the non-specificity. I assume the people validating the test used a number substances (not just blood) to ensure that it did not give false reactions. A screening test for blood combined with a test for human DNA does not say that human blood was present. Exactly the same results would be obtained with a stain of animal blood ( or any other substance with peroxidase like activity) and human saliva. If it is a dried stain then we cannot tell when the substances were deposited. To get around this, some labs might report only that "human DNA" was present, but this may become an issue if the presence of a person's blood, and not say his saliva, at a crime scene is important. Regards Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 06:45:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GBjZof019875 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:45:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12B9@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:45:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You're right. I'm not accustomed to discussing probabilities as 1 in X and I keep spinning myself around. If I say something could have originated from K, then I am confident that I can eliminate 99% of the other potential donors. So how would I express this as a 1 in X? The likelihood Q actually came from K is ???? -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:51 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Lynn, regarding what you wrote below: "1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75" I'm confused by your answers here. 1 in 2 = 50% probability, 1 in 100 = 1% probability, 1 in 50 = 2% probability, and 1 in 75 = 1.3% probability. That's not what you meant, is it? Something that is "probable" should be more likely than something that is "possible" should it not? As a lone word, "probable" means "more likely than not", and so would have to have a greater than 50% chance of being true (more than 1 in 2, or 51 [or more] in 100). Conversely, "possible" in the vernacular is any chance greater than zero. Can you explain what you meant? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:02 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a position where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES) Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are reported back to the list. 1. good chance - 1 in 10 2. same as - 1 in 1 3. congruency - 4. indistinguishable - 1 in 1 5. consistent - 1 in 1 6. matched - 1 in 1 Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two compared items shared a common source expressed by the following words and phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. 1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75 Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following hypothetical: In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using a peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. 1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) I'm interpreting this as 1 in 1 is identity. 3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis for some constructive discussion. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 09:04:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GE4x0R021823 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:04:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:03:38 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0GE4wqL021818 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Ken, I talked to one of our drug chemists who responds to clan labs. He has not seen any HF in this area (upstate NY). Brad >>> "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." 01/15 5:55 PM >>> Brad, No, in the LA area, we are still seeing mostly the Red P/HI method. I was just interested in seeing if anyone was seeing HF(l), and what people were using for first aid, if anything. Obviously, if one were to come in contact with HF(l) a trip to ER would be necessary. For those interested in the medical treatment of HF exposure\contact (see attached). Ken -----Original Message----- From: FORENSIC022@aol.com [mailto:FORENSIC022@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:23 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Ken. Are you finding any red phosphorous with the Hydrofluoric acid? Brad --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/html text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/octet-stream --- [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 09:06:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GE6LuS021955 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:06:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040116055739.02532298@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:04:18 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12B9@usacil2.forscom.arm y.mil> References: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12B9@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In this case, you can simply say "the properties of Q are present in 99% of the things like K." The trick is defining the population. Do we know the Q red paint is from a 19566 Chevy Malibu, or just that it is red paint that has the same visual color as the K paint we have (which happens to be a 1956 Chevy Malibu). Biological stain analysts have it easy - the population is pretty easy to define and to sample. The job for the TE analyst is *much* more difficult. Even defining the population is very difficult, and sampling that defined population gets even harder. But that is the job, and the TE analyst has the responsibility to do it. Otherwise, no one can intelligently use the association that is made (an elimination is, of course, rather trivial - if it is correct). Pete Barnett At 03:45 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote: >You're right. I'm not accustomed to discussing probabilities as 1 in X and >I keep spinning myself around. >If I say something could have originated from K, then I am confident that I >can eliminate 99% of the other potential donors. So how would I express >this as a 1 in X? The likelihood Q actually came from K is ???? > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] >On Behalf Of Robert Parsons >Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:51 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > >Lynn, regarding what you wrote below: > >"1. might have - 1 in 2 > 2. could have - 1 in 100 > 3. possible - 1 in 50 > 4. probable - 1 in 75" > >I'm confused by your answers here. 1 in 2 = 50% probability, 1 in 100 >= 1% probability, 1 in 50 = 2% probability, and 1 in 75 = 1.3% >probability. That's not what you meant, is it? > >Something that is "probable" should be more likely than something that >is "possible" should it not? As a lone word, "probable" means "more >likely than not", and so would have to have a greater than 50% chance of >being true (more than 1 in 2, or 51 [or more] in 100). Conversely, >"possible" in the vernacular is any chance greater than zero. Can you >explain what you meant? > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >Ft. Pierce, FL > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >[mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn >Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:02 AM >To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' >Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > >Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a >position >where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES) > >Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items > >are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it >in >the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express >your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are >reported back to the list. > >1. good chance - 1 in 10 > >2. same as - 1 in 1 > >3. congruency - > >4. indistinguishable - 1 in 1 > >5. consistent - 1 in 1 > >6. matched - 1 in 1 > >Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two >compared >items shared a common source expressed by the following words and >phrases. >Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the >temptation to express your opinions in words. > >1. might have - 1 in 2 > >2. could have - 1 in 100 > >3. possible - 1 in 50 > >4. probable - 1 in 75 > >Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following >hypothetical: > >In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a >common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using >a >peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several >independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and >compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference >between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. > >1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent >class >characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as >probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? > >NO > >2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common >origin is: > > b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) I'm interpreting this as 1 >in >1 is identity. > >3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class > >characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as >probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? > >NO > >4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common >origin is: > b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) > >Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at >azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il > >Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis > >for some constructive discussion. > >Shalom from Jerusalem, >Azriel Gorski > >******************************************************************** >Azriel Gorski >Forensic Science > >Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre >The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > >http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ > >"Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge > that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach > >If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up >with the rain. - Steven Wright > >Man must exist in a state of balance between risk >and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure >safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival >and progress. - Unknown >******************************************************************** > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] >[EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] > >[EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] >[EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 11:13:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GGDX2p025904 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:13:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40080D64.FD34253B@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:42:21 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 15 January 2004 Dear List, I have to prepare a post-graduate lecture on products liability in relation to drugs prescribed by doctors. During literature search I came across "Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability". I am told that this is the law which mainly guides the products liability in relation to prescribed drugs. It was approved by American Law Institute (ALI) in 1997, and perhaps adopted in 1998. I am also told it has 21 sections in all. I am looking for the text of all 21 sections. Can someone in the list please send me these sections (by Email), or perhaps let me know some URL which I can visit. I would also be very interested in any other matter which the list may want to provide me in relation to products liability as it concerns prescribed drugs (case law etc). During my literature search I also discovered that the first Restatement of Torts was done in 1923, and the second in 1965. Is there a fourth restatement too? Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 11:33:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GGXjHQ026648 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:33:45 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:18:47 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:20:19 -0400 From: "Peter W. Mullen" Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Ken, I'm not familiar with HF in the clandestine laboratory context nor do I pretend to be an expert concerning first aid measures. I do know a bit, however, about its toxicology. HF (in either solution or gaseous form) is a nasty substance (as I'm sure you're aware) which, depending upon the route of exposure and dose, can cause both local and/or systemic toxicity. Compared to HCl, HF is a relatively weak acid but like HCl, due to its water solubility, it tends to affect mainly the upper respiratory tract (since a person in contact with HF will try to avoid further exposure to its highly irritating effects). Of course, deep lung injury can occur in a person who is incapacitated in the presence of HF. Skin exposure to concentrated HF (>50%) typically results in immediate and severe pain. Skin exposure to dilute HF solutions (< 10%) usually causes a delayed (e.g. 6 to 24 hours) onset of pain (again, severe). Compared to other acids, HF penetrates deeply and can even reach bone and the circulation leading readily to systemic toxicity. Regardless of the site of action, HF acts mainly by precipitating out calcium and magnesium (as the fluoride salts). Systemic toxic effects, therefore, may include serious cardiac dysrhythmias (e.g. torsades), tetany and/or seizures. The principal antidotes for HF poisoning are solutions of calcium gluconate (2.5 to 10 % for topical, s.c. or i.v. administration) or calcium chloride (10% for systemic, I.V. administration only!). Consult any good clinical toxicology text for more details. Regards, Peter Peter W. Mullen, PhD, FCSFS KEMIC BIORESEARCH Kentville Nova Scotia, B4N 4H8 Tel.: 902-678-8195 Fax: 902-678-2839 Email: pmullen@kemic.com On Thur., 15 Jan 2004, Lee, Chien-Hsing K. wrote: > Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have > investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available > to you? > > Ken Lee > Senior Criminalist > Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. > Scientific Services Bureau > [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 12:31:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GHV5Si028920 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:31:05 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:30:30 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6C16C0481R079791-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0GHV4qL028915 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Off the list, some advice from a friend; give it up Greg. He just wants to drag people down in the mud with him. What is it that they say about teaching a pig to sing. You'll just get muddy and the pig will just get mad? It is clear from the time he was in school that he just is in it to promote himself as "the expert" as soon as he was out of the program he had opened a "school" and written "an authoritative book." What blows my mind is that Nora Rudin, Keith Inman and Jerry Chisum maintain a connection with him. He will continue to put himself forward as what he wants people to see him as no mater what you say and he will do his best to take you down to his level. He took a swip at me just because I told him Liz Devine know a hell of a lot more about crime scene analysis than he did, even though it is obvious that he has only college classes, no training in the field. So just let it go, until it needs to be addressed in a forum that will reach a decision at least. Have a great weekend. Jim >>> glaskows@co.kern.ca.us 01/14/04 05:02PM >>> Brent, As I perused the job description for the Criminalist I position as officially issued by the Kern County Personnel Department, not a prosecutorial agency, it does indeed state that course work in quantitative chemistry is required unless one is pursuing the DNA criminalist track where molecular biology, biochemistry, and genetics are required. If one was applying and in the process of taking such a course, they might be considered, but most likely not high on the list of candidates. They most likely would not make it through the initial personnel department screening process. That is how government works. It has nothing to do with me. As to booting you from qualifying for employment at our lab, again I may or may not have any say in that. All I was attempting to demonstrate to you that the use of the term forensic scientist and the possession of an advanced degree from a particular institution may not qualify you for employment in a given lab, despite your protestations to the contrary. Course work and degree status does make a difference, especially to those of us who work in the field, and are questioned by counsel on these matters while on the witness stand. So qualifications are extremely important despite your misgivings. As for embarrassing the citizens of Kern County and the state of California, I'll let them be the judge. It is true that I don't work with the people. I work for the PEOPLE! I swore an oath to that and I swear oaths that I will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don't have to justify my boss to you. He is a dedicated public servant, who has been duly elected by the people to the Office of District Attorney in overwhelming numbers and has run unopposed for several four year terms. Perhaps you should read the official KCDA reply to Hume's book. Let's be objective here! Although my boss is the Kern County District Attorney's Office, my pay check is issued by the County of Kern. I do minimal consulting for civil litigation, and I am infrequently called by public defenders, as well as private defense counsel to give testimony in court or in depositions. I don't have to hide who my clientele is. Mine is a matter of public record. You don't know me so your invectives are meaningless. I have seen the big picture, and I've watched all sorts of experts, real and charlatans. In my twenty seven years in this job, my experience has shown me things that you can only read about in books, so don't lecture me on what you don't know. Again, Brent you are not being entirely truthful. I've seen the University of New Haven's course outline. There are three so-called Master in Forensic Science programs offered - one in Crminalistics, which has hard science course work in one form or another - one in Fire Science, - and one in Advanced Investigation. Very few, if any hard science courses with laboratory analysis as part of the curriculum. Now, you tell me what hard science courses did you take? How many with laboratories, and how many laboratory hours? I think those of us who have official job titles and testify in court as criminalists or forensic scientists would want to know. If I am wrong as to your qualifications, I'll admit here on this list. I haven't condemned you, but you have taken my inquiries as an insult, then continue to belittle those of us who work in "police' laboratories. You say, "But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab." While that may or may be true, ! it sure as hell is tough to do. Hard to do QA/QC work not done in a laboratory environment. It's time to get off your high horse, because I know a number of independent examiners, many on this list, and they are forensic scientists. To paraphrase from a former vice-presidential candidate, "I know forensic scientists, and you are no forensic scientist, at least your listed course work and degree work doesn't support your contention. Prove me wrong. Your last statement intrigues me. Because all the great forensic scientists that are recognized have some sort of advanced degree and have a chemistry background of some sort. As to me not having a say as to the hiring of criminalists outside of Kern County, you are wrong again, because I am often asked to sit on personnel boards in neighboring jurisdictions to ensure that laboratories get well qualified candidates in their employee pool. I will close now, and let you collect your thoughts. If you can demonstrate that you have the necessary course work in the hard sciences to establish yourself as "forensic scientist" without simply usurping the title because it is chic, then by all means do so. I have had my say on this issue because when the horse is dead, I know when to get off. Good evening, Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 3:16:28 PM >>> Greg; Since your lab's hiring documents say nothing about the quantitative analysis part I guess we'll have to take your word for that. Though I agree with higher standards, I think you're splitting hairs. If there was someone you wanted but they didn't have one class, it seems they could go and get it taken care of during their probationary period. This is a common enough practice in labs. Just check out Houston PD. But again, recall that you seem to be the one wanting to boot me from qualification from your lab though I've expressed no interest in it or any other criminalist position, ever. To what end I have no idea. As for what the citizens of Kern county, let alone California, do or do not want - do not embarrass yourself by speaking on their behalf. You work in a lab and with the police. You do not work with "the people." In any case, I think that your boss' record speaks for itself. See: http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/kernlist.shtml You are a criminalist whose boss is a prosecutor. I am an independent forensic scientist with civil and criminal attorney clients and law enforcement clients. Objectivity doesn't mean working for only one side. It means working for no side and advocating good science, which is what our archives are meant to do. I've only encountered a very small number of forensic scientists that have had a problem with it, and mostly because, as in the case of Billo, friends were listed. Otherwise, the response from the forensic science community has been strong and supportive. Unfortunately, this list has a very few vocal detractors who, owing to the absence of other voices, are confused into thinking that they are a majority. That's the way it is online. Those who speak are those who get counted. Again, as I've told you before, I think you will see a great many new things if you are ever able to retire from state work and go in to private practice. The view you get of your cases will be much more complete. So try to chip away at my CV all you want. Pretend that an MS degree in forensic science isn't a hard science degree all you want. Imagine that you have the power to decide who is or is not a forensic scientist. Outside of perhaps deciding who works at your lab, you don't. But one may certainly practice forensic science outside of a lab. Alas, all of this nonsense over qualifications is useless, anyway. I know forensic analysts in crime labs with no college and no chemistry that are better criminalists than most people will ever be. I know them by the quality of their work. And that is how a forensic scientist is known. The credential issue is typically raised to exclude people when someone disagrees with their work but can't find anything wrong with it. My work product is a matter of public record, and I stand by it. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:26 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if your 24 hours of chemistry did not include course work in quantitative analysis, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. As to the so-called Masters in Forensic Science with an Emphasis in Advanced Investigation (certain degrees), it is my opinion that it would not be accepted. Again, I stress, one must have a hard science background, a baccalaureate degree in history and psychology do not qualify despite having some minimal coursework in a hard science. In this instance the door remains shut. We have hired individuals who have degrees in criminalistics from accredited university, but they met the minimum chemistry qualifcations. This is something that has to do with forensic alcohol testing licensing within the state of California. As for your double entendre regarding hiring someone with your background, Ill respectfully decline to comment. As for your concern regarding my testimony on the witness stand, you need not worry. My mandated court testimony monitor says I do great. What does yours say? As for your sarcasm, I am sure that the citizens of the County of Kern as well as the State of California are relieved that you did not apply. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/14/2004 12:19:25 PM >>> Greg; According to http://www.co.kern.ca.us/da/fsanalyticalunits.asp#org_staff: "Every Criminalist employed in the lab has, at a minimum, earned a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited university in a physical or biological science. Certain degrees in forensic science or criminalistics are also acceptable." So that opens the door for someone with my background at your lab--- And this swings it wide: "CRIMINALIST I Employment Standards Graduation from an accredited college or university with a baccalaureate degree in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, criminalistics, forensic science, biology, or a closely related laboratory science field. Course work must have included 18 semester hours of chemistry including a course in quantitative analysis OR a baccalaureate degree in a physical or biological science with specific coursework in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology." Since I have only 24 hours of undregraduate chemistry and at least that much in biology coursework, I'm pretty sure I'm safe. Geez. I hope you don't do this on the stand some time. It could be embarassing. What you really meant to say is that your lab wouldn't hire me. Not someone with my background. Just me. That is something I think that we can both live with. Especially since, again, I didn't apply. Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution! . Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 12:47:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GHlJcU029679 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:47:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040116174713.53470.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:47:13 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete and Billo make some good arguments, but what's a judge to do? Whether we like it or not, expert testimony is subject to a relaibility inquiry, and Daubert and its progengy charge the trial court judge to act as gatekeeper. Maybe fire investigation is a special case, but I don't think so. NOnetheless, I will use an example from fire investigation, because that's what I know. Suppose we have two fire experts: Expert A says the fire is incendiary (arson). Expert B says the fire was accidental. (This scenario happens a lot) They can't both be right. Faced with these competing proffers, the judge knows that one of these experts is wrong and therefore one of them is proposing to present irrelevant, unrelaible evidence that is definitely not helpful to the jury. The Supremes have told him it's his job to keep that testiomony out. He can ignore the responsibility and let the jury sort it out. The jury will believe the best witness, regardless of whether that witness has the correct opinion or the incorrect opinion. They may choose to disbelieve the defense expert, because he is getting paid, (unlike the prosecution witness who works for free;-) Surely, the judge would be better off to hire his own expert to advise the court. That expert could be jointly agreed to by the parties, or some other equitable way could be worked out to select the special master (this is truly the dicey part). I have had the privelege of serving the role of special master on two occasions, and found the atmosphere refreshing. There was no need to overcome adversary pressure (which, believe it or not happens even to public servants), because there was none. Failing to come up with a way for the judge to decide which expert is right, we should at least make sure that when the forensic science is contested, the court approves funds for the defense to hire its own expert. This happens more frequently than it used to, but is still rare in most non-capital cases. --- Bill Oliver wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Peter Barnett wrote: > > > I certainly agree with Billo. There is not > much that forensic scientists > > do that is too difficult for the average > juror to comprehend. When someone > > asks "Why should I believe you??", my usual > response is "It is not your job > > to believe me, it is my job to convince you." > > > Heh. This reminds me of one Daubert hearing I > had on some patterned > injury interpretation involving image > processing and image enhancement. > The defense objected to the use of image > enhancement, but it was > allowed on the basis that I was using it for > illustration rather > than conclusion and that I could point to every > feature I discussed > in the original image. Then they objected to > my doing patterned > injury analysis at all because it was not > really "science". After > I went through the principles of > perception-based image analysis and > how it is used in things like intelligence, > after I went through > my testimony and what my conclusions were and > how I came to > my conclusions, the defense then objected > because my findings > were based in basic science but were > essentially "common sense." > However, since my findings were ones that > anybody could easily > see, it was inappropriate to have an expert > present them... > > > > > > > > So what it comes down to is that forensic > scientists have to practice good > > science (and a large part of that is proving > their case, not simply stating > > it) ... > > > Actually, I think that forensic scientists > should get over the idea > that they are doing Science with a big "S." > This is one of the > problems with this whole thing. I remember a > lecture given by Fred > Brooks at the Computer Science department at > UNC. He was being given a > lifetime achievment award by the Association > for Computing Machinery > Special Interest Group on Graphics (ACM > SIGGRAPH) and presented a > plenary lecture. One of the things he noted > was that "Computer > Science" was not really science at all. It was > engineering. Oh sure, > engineers use scientific techniques, but > successful computer scientists > realized that they were, first and foremost, > designers. Similarly, > forensic scientists are primarily > technologists; sure, we use > scientific techniques, but we are not > Scientists in the pure sense for > the most part. Intelligence image analyists > *use* science, but they > are analysts, not scientists. Physicians mix > the art and science of > medicine freely, and there is no clear border > between them. That > doesn't invalidate the practice of medicine -- > including forensic > medicine. > > The biggest problem with "forensic science" is > that people are trying > to shove multiple disciplines into one > cubbyhole that fits none of > them. > > billo > > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 12:51:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GHpULt000026 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:51:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:22:38 -0800 From: terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear) To: Subject: Re: [forens] Presumptive test/Hematrace test for human Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This is in response to both Bob Parson's and Bentley Atchison's earlier posts. It is true that the literature reports that there are a number of substances, other than blood, that will give a positive presumptive test for blood. However, if you take the time and test these substances with the various chemical tests for blood (e.g. a two step test using leucomalachite green, Kastle-Meyer or o.tol. reagent) I think you will find that the reactions you obtain from them look very different than what you would get from blood. Either the color develops before the addition of the hydrogen peroxide or the reaction is a different color than you would obtain from blood. Vegetable peroxidases can give reactions that resemble blood but a piece of horseradish in no way resembles a bloodstain. Although these are presumptive tests, I think if an analyst is discriminating in the appearance of what is tested and the way these tests are interpreted, they are very good indication of whether or not you have blood present. The other important factor in bloodstain characterization is the physical appearance of the stain. A bloodstain is fairly unique in appearance (especially if time is taken to view it under a stereo microscope). I don't know the technical details about the Chamberlain case but I would guess that if there was a documented problem in the human bloodstain determination, it was probably because there was not a visible or characteristic looking bloodstain and a weak and unclear "positive" presumptive test. It is true that one could conceive of scenarios that could cause an analyst to mis-interpret a set of results to mean that it was human blood when it was actually something else: ferret blood that has been uniformly mixed with human saliva or a drop of chimp blood. I would agree that if these stains were discovered in a zoo or a primate center (or somewhere else that you actually might encountered this type of animal blood), it would be important to spell out the limitations of the tests results. However, short of that context, I do not believe you are being misleading when you express an opinion that your testing has lead you to believe that you have identified human blood. Terry Spear >>> bentleya@vifm.org 01/15/04 06:38PM >>> I would make the following comments about the debate on tests for human blood. Screening tests for blood have usually been based on the peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin. But I am sure we all know that a wide range of substances also give a positive result to such tests. This is why, having located an area by the screening test, the scientist is obliged to do a test which is specific for blood (if he/she wishes to report blood was present). In my view it would be a great mistake to put screening results in a report as they will almost certainly be taken as "blood was present" when there may not be any. The greatest example of this was the Chamberlain case in Australia ("the dingo ate my baby case") where the use of a screening test to define the presence of blood was heavily criticised by scientists in a high level inquiry. The Hematrace test has the potential advantage that it uses antibodies against human hemoglobin and therefore one could say human blood was present. Of course it is expected to react against other primates, but I am surprised it reacts against ferret blood. The antibodies being used appear not to be a specific and therefore a definite statement should not be made. I would have thought the reaction against ferrets and other primates is not a large issue although it might be advisable to at least include a rider in the report to explain the non-specificity. I assume the people validating the test used a number substances (not just blood) to ensure that it did not give false reactions. A screening test for blood combined with a test for human DNA does not say that human blood was present. Exactly the same results would be obtained with a stain of animal blood ( or any other substance with peroxidase like activity) and human saliva. If it is a dried stain then we cannot tell when the substances were deposited. To get around this, some labs might report only that "human DNA" was present, but this may become an issue if the presence of a person's blood, and not say his saliva, at a crime scene is important. Regards Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 13:34:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GIYDOD001302 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:34:13 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <9524D8FA-4852-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:33:02 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:32:46 -0800 From: Torrey Johnson Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid To: CKLee@lasd.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have seen it two or three times in the "olden days" (late 80's maybe) in labs in N. California. We never figured out if it was being used for drug mfg or was left overs from gold assaying or processing (lots of Au stuff in CA). Do recall one of our Narc Agents collecting a sample of HF in the usual glass sample bottle. As the glass began to frost over, obviously reacting, the agent decided maybe he better check with a chemist. We ended up neutralizing the sample with base but as I recall, left the HF at the scene because our waste hauler wouldn't take it. Torrey Johnson, Las Vegas Metro PD (formerly with CA Dept of Justice Lab - Sacramento) >>> CKLee@lasd.org 01/15/04 12:37PM >>> Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available to you? Ken Lee Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Scientific Services Bureau [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 14:10:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GJAXM9003104 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:10:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:10:05 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Posterior probabilities and evidence The discussion on numbers has concerned me. Some of the fundamental pronciples appear to have been lost. Specifically the probability that two objects have a common source is based on two factors: the forensic evidence and all the other evidence. The question cannot be answered from the forensic evidence alone. Let us take up the paint example that is being discussed. Suppose that 100% of samples from the same source would match on these tests. 1% of random samples from some suitable database would also match. Hence the match is 100 times more likely IF the samples come from the same source that if they do not. So what is the probability that they come from the same source? Posterior odds = 100 * prior odds The answer is that I cannot tell you. I still need the prior odds. But I can tell you that the evidence makes it 100 times more probable than it was before we did the tests. John Buckleton ESR New Zealand ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 15:15:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GKFqtB004807 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:15:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040116201546.54566.qmail@web41413.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:15:46 -0800 (PST) From: L DeShong Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mr. Turvey, Perhaps you should note the ABFO's terms before you accuse Dr. Campbell or anyone else of ignoring them. http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines.htm#The%20Link%20Between%20the%20Bitemark%20and%20Suspect The Link Between the Bitemark and Suspect Terms Connotation reasonable medical certainty extremely probable high degree of certainty virtual certainty; no reasonable or practical possibility that someone else did itvery probably probably most likely more likely than notpossible consistent (with) can’t exclude could be; may or may not be; can’t be ruled out --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 15:17:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GKHJ2F005101 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:17:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000301c3dc6d$402f6620$336dff3e@sekar> From: "satish.sekar" To: References: <20040116174713.53470.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:35:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I don't know if this happens in the USA, but another possible problem is that both the prosecution and defence have specific and directly competing interests. Each set of lawyers not only want only to establish what suits their case, but can thrive on grey areas. In a case that I am dealing with the tests that were conducted established that staining was possibly blood and that DNA was human. The prosecution lawyers then said that the DNA came from the blood of the deceased. It might have, but that was not conclusively proved. Confirmation tests were not carried out. The defence expert raised the possibility of a mixture of animal blood and the deceased's saliva. That might have happened as well, but it was not conclusively demonstrated to be the case. Both experts were correct in so far as the tests that were carried out as were their interpretations of what those results could mean. The prosecution could potentially have disproved the defence hypothesis by further testing. It did not do so. The defence could potentially have disproved the prosecution case by further testing. It chose not to do so. Both prosecution and defence preferred to thrive in the grey area of not risking disproving its own hypothesis rather than trying to establish it by further testing. Is this fair on the jury? How are they to be protected from possibly making a terrible mistake in circumstances where the truth could easily have been established? Significantly, neither the prosecution nor defence wanted to try to establish the truth definitively. In such circumstances at least the judge should be entitled to have these issues resolved for the jury by using an independent expert, preferrably with the agreement of both sides, but without it if necessary. The alternative is that the truth will not be established because it is not in the strategic interests of either prosecution or defence to do so. This cannot be acceptable. Best Wishes Satish ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts > Pete and Billo make some good arguments, but > what's a judge to do? Whether we like it or not, > expert testimony is subject to a relaibility > inquiry, and Daubert and its progengy charge the > trial court judge to act as gatekeeper. > > Maybe fire investigation is a special case, but I > don't think so. NOnetheless, I will use an > example from fire investigation, because that's > what I know. > > Suppose we have two fire experts: Expert A says > the fire is incendiary (arson). Expert B says > the fire was accidental. (This scenario happens a > lot) They can't both be right. Faced with these > competing proffers, the judge knows that one of > these experts is wrong and therefore one of them > is proposing to present irrelevant, unrelaible > evidence that is definitely not helpful to the > jury. > > The Supremes have told him it's his job to keep > that testiomony out. > > He can ignore the responsibility and let the jury > sort it out. The jury will believe the best > witness, regardless of whether that witness has > the correct opinion or the incorrect opinion. > They may choose to disbelieve the defense expert, > because he is getting paid, (unlike the > prosecution witness who works for free;-) > > Surely, the judge would be better off to hire his > own expert to advise the court. That expert > could be jointly agreed to by the parties, or > some other equitable way could be worked out to > select the special master (this is truly the > dicey part). > > I have had the privelege of serving the role of > special master on two occasions, and found the > atmosphere refreshing. There was no need to > overcome adversary pressure (which, believe it or > not happens even to public servants), because > there was none. > > Failing to come up with a way for the judge to > decide which expert is right, we should at least > make sure that when the forensic science is > contested, the court approves funds for the > defense to hire its own expert. This happens > more frequently than it used to, but is still > rare in most non-capital cases. > > > > > > > > --- Bill Oliver wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Peter Barnett wrote: > > > > > I certainly agree with Billo. There is not > > much that forensic scientists > > > do that is too difficult for the average > > juror to comprehend. When someone > > > asks "Why should I believe you??", my usual > > response is "It is not your job > > > to believe me, it is my job to convince you." > > > > > > Heh. This reminds me of one Daubert hearing I > > had on some patterned > > injury interpretation involving image > > processing and image enhancement. > > The defense objected to the use of image > > enhancement, but it was > > allowed on the basis that I was using it for > > illustration rather > > than conclusion and that I could point to every > > feature I discussed > > in the original image. Then they objected to > > my doing patterned > > injury analysis at all because it was not > > really "science". After > > I went through the principles of > > perception-based image analysis and > > how it is used in things like intelligence, > > after I went through > > my testimony and what my conclusions were and > > how I came to > > my conclusions, the defense then objected > > because my findings > > were based in basic science but were > > essentially "common sense." > > However, since my findings were ones that > > anybody could easily > > see, it was inappropriate to have an expert > > present them... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what it comes down to is that forensic > > scientists have to practice good > > > science (and a large part of that is proving > > their case, not simply stating > > > it) ... > > > > > > Actually, I think that forensic scientists > > should get over the idea > > that they are doing Science with a big "S." > > This is one of the > > problems with this whole thing. I remember a > > lecture given by Fred > > Brooks at the Computer Science department at > > UNC. He was being given a > > lifetime achievment award by the Association > > for Computing Machinery > > Special Interest Group on Graphics (ACM > > SIGGRAPH) and presented a > > plenary lecture. One of the things he noted > > was that "Computer > > Science" was not really science at all. It was > > engineering. Oh sure, > > engineers use scientific techniques, but > > successful computer scientists > > realized that they were, first and foremost, > > designers. Similarly, > > forensic scientists are primarily > > technologists; sure, we use > > scientific techniques, but we are not > > Scientists in the pure sense for > > the most part. Intelligence image analyists > > *use* science, but they > > are analysts, not scientists. Physicians mix > > the art and science of > > medicine freely, and there is no clear border > > between them. That > > doesn't invalidate the practice of medicine -- > > including forensic > > medicine. > > > > The biggest problem with "forensic science" is > > that people are trying > > to shove multiple disciplines into one > > cubbyhole that fits none of > > them. > > > > billo > > > > > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > [EndPost by John Lentini ] > [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 16:19:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GLJ4gq007660 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:19:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20040116211853.008daf04@pop.ncf.ca > X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:18:53 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu What were the guidelines/terms at the time that Dr. Campbell testified in court? Were they the same as now? >Perhaps you should note the ABFO's terms before you accuse Dr. Campbell or anyone else of ignoring them. > >http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines .htm#The%20Link%20Between%20the%20Bitemark%20and%20Suspect [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 18:41:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0GNfXdH012906 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:41:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:41:31 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: <20040116174713.53470.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > Pete and Billo make some good arguments, but > what's a judge to do? Whether we like it or not, > expert testimony is subject to a relaibility > inquiry, and Daubert and its progengy charge the > trial court judge to act as gatekeeper. > > Maybe fire investigation is a special case, but I > don't think so. NOnetheless, I will use an > example from fire investigation, because that's > what I know. > > Suppose we have two fire experts: Expert A says > the fire is incendiary (arson). Expert B says > the fire was accidental. (This scenario happens a > lot) They can't both be right. Faced with these > competing proffers, the judge knows that one of > these experts is wrong and therefore one of them > is proposing to present irrelevant, unrelaible > evidence that is definitely not helpful to the > jury. > > The Supremes have told him it's his job to keep > that testiomony out. You miscast the purpose of Daubert as making it the primary job of the judge to keep stuff *out.* That's not the case. Once again, the Daubert decision was to let stuff *in* that a traditional Special Master would not let in. If the idea was to limit testimony to that provided by orthodox methods, we would have stayed with Frye -- which essentially was an embodiment of the Special Master attitude. You are begging the question. You have stated as axiomatic that two people, both of whom use the scientific method, cannot come up with different conclusions. *Every* scientific discipline is rife with counterexamples -- the belief that this cannot be true is one of the great mistakes of the current witchunting hysteria in forensic science. Sometimes the reason is because the tools and knowledge and not definative, and people extrapolate differently from what is known to be true. Thus, for instance, in the 1980s there were many candidates for the etiologic agent of AIDS. I remember some very good arguments, for instance, that EBV (Epstein Barr Virus) causes AIDS. Sure, evidence for HIV has become overwhelming, but it was not so in 1985. Sometimes it is because the basic orthodoxy underlying the conclusions is wrong. This is what happened with Galileo. A perfect example of what would happen with Special Masters is what happened to him. Unorthodox methods and conclusions would not be allowed, no matter the validity. Sometimes it is because the discipline involves art and craft as well as "pure" empiricism. I can remember a patterned injury analysis case in which I identified an object used to bludgeon a man to death in Quebec. It was the ratchet from a socket wrence. This case went from the local constabulary to the RCMP to the FBI to me, and I got it right -- not because I was such a great computer scientist, not because I was such a great forensic pathologist, not because I was such a great image analyst, but because, of all the people who had looked at the case I was the only one who worked on my own car and had intimate experience with socket wrenches. OK, John, let's pretend that you are a forensic pathologist and there is a question about looking at a patterned injury. There are linear marks on a man's abdomen, and the question is whether or not a certain car made those marks. On one side is Vincent DiMaio, a man who has, literally, "written the book," in forensic pathology, who has done tens of thousands of autopsies, who has demonstrated that he has an excellent diagnostic eye for this kind of thing, and who has trained hundreds of people who *also* have demonstrated abilities. He states that he believes that the marks probably came from the grille of a car that was not the car in question. On the other side is William Oliver, a man who has much less hands-on experience in forensic pathology, who has a more limited corpus, but who has specialized training in image processing and enhancement and while he has not "written the book," at least has "written a chapter." He states he believes that the mark comes from the tire in question, and provides shape and photogrammetric measures. You know Vince's history and his abilities, and have great respect for his diagnostic abilities. You know that much of forensic pathology is exactly perceptually-based -- it is not a matter of measuring the area under a graph but of having a "trained eye" and making use of one's experience. This photogrammetry stuff is new and innovative and has been used in other areas as an adjunct to perceptually-based techniques, but this Oliver guy clearly doesn't have the experience base that DiMaio has. Who do you allow to testify? > > He can ignore the responsibility and let the jury > sort it out. The jury will believe the best > witness, regardless of whether that witness has > the correct opinion or the incorrect opinion. > They may choose to disbelieve the defense expert, > because he is getting paid, (unlike the > prosecution witness who works for free;-) > No. Under Daubert his responsibility is, as much as possible, *to* let the jury sort it out. It has been a perversion of Daubert that judges, because they are not competent and know it, have decided to err on the "safe" side -- and start trying to fit everything into the wet lab/area-under-the-graph paradigm. Everything doesn't fit there. One important difference between you and I is in our regard for the jury. I actually have much more respect for the abilities of juries than do you. I believe that they, for the large part, do a pretty good job of telling the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the "good" scientist to *also* present the data in a coherent manner to the jury. You are essentially arguing that a Special Master should be appointed because the scientist can't be bothered to learn how to give courtroom testimony and the lawyer shouldn't have to bother to work with the witness to make sure he is properly prepared. > Surely, the judge would be better off to hire his > own expert to advise the court. Surely not. You have *no* reason to believe that this one expert is the "right" one and not the "wrong" one. That's the one thing you have not addressed. > That expert > could be jointly agreed to by the parties, or > some other equitable way could be worked out to > select the special master (this is truly the > dicey part). > It's dicey because it is fundamentally unfair. > I have had the privelege of serving the role of > special master on two occasions, and found the > atmosphere refreshing. There was no need to > overcome adversary pressure (which, believe it or > not happens even to public servants), because > there was none. Yes, and I like to tesify in front of grand juries because there is no defense counsel to challenge me. But that's not the way to have a fair trial, which is why we don't convict people on the basis of grand jury indictments. The same principle extends to special masters. Certainly if both parties agree to one special master, then there is no challenge. But just because it's more fun not to be challenged doesn't mean it's not right to be challenged. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 19:37:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0H0bvpF013877 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:37:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40088409.7050402@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:38:33 -0800 From: Keith Inman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials References: In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2004 00:37:46.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[20759AA0:01C3DC92] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0H0bvqL013872 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jim, You obviously intended to post your message privately to Greg, but because you posted it to the list, we would like to respond. Unfortunately, you appear to have made the same error that others have accused Brent of making. You seem to have made an assumption about our affiliation with an individual, you failed to check that with us, the source, and then you passed on your assumption as fact. For the edification of the list, we maintain no association with Brent Turvey himself, professional or otherwise. We do teach classes under the auspices of Knowledge Solutions, a company in which Brent is a partner and for which he teaches classes. The company is ably administered by Barbara Troyer. She is the public face of the company and the person with whom we interface. No one at KS has any involvement in the substance of our classes. They are totally under our control and we hold formal copyright to them. The association is purely administrative. Anyone who has interacted with either of us professionally, or read our books or articles, knows that our approach to forensic science is very different from Brent's. Anyone who is not sure is welcome to speak with us directly or read our writings (specifically, see /CACNews/, Second Quarter, 2003, pg.7 at http://www.cacnews.org/pdfs/2ndq03/.pdf). As we teach in all of our classes, it is those assumptions that will get us every time, both in forensic science and in life. Let the Friday follies begin, and be done with this. We wish you all a pleasant weekend. James Roberts wrote: >Off the list, some advice from a friend; give it up Greg. He just wants to drag people down in the mud with him. What is it that they say about teaching a pig to sing. You'll just get muddy and the pig will just get mad? It is clear from the time he was in school that he just is in it to promote himself as "the expert" as soon as he was out of the program he had opened a "school" and written "an authoritative book." What blows my mind is that Nora Rudin, Keith Inman and Jerry Chisum maintain a connection with him. He will continue to put himself forward as what he wants people to see him as no mater what you say and he will do his best to take you down to his level. He took a swip at me just because I told him Liz Devine know a hell of a lot more about crime scene analysis than he did, even though it is obvious that he has only college classes, no training in the field. So just let it go, until it needs to be addressed in a forum that will reach a decision at least. > >Have a great weekend. >Jim > > > [EndPost by Keith Inman ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 19:46:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0H0kJR7014287 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:46:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40088604.9060007@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:47:00 -0800 From: Keith Inman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials References: <40088409.7050402@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <40088409.7050402@ix.netcom.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2004 00:46:13.0893 (UTC) FILETIME=[4EEC7B50:01C3DC93] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Keith Inman wrote: > snip... > or read our writings (specifically, see /CACNews/, Second Quarter, > 2003, pg.7 at http://www.cacnews.org/pdfs/2ndq03/.pdf). Sorry, I was close. The correct URL is http://www.cacnews.org/pdfs/2ndq03.pdf [EndPost by Keith Inman ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 19:52:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0H0qVAr014554 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:52:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:52:30 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials In-Reply-To: <40088409.7050402@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Keith Inman wrote: > > For the edification of the list, we maintain no association with Brent > Turvey himself, professional or otherwise. We do teach classes under > the auspices of Knowledge Solutions, a company in which Brent is a > partner... You do realize that these two statements are mutually exclusive, don't you? billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 16 23:25:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0H4Pk2q017401 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:25:46 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:40:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2004 03:38:30.0238 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FDD8FE0:01C3DCAB] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Only if you use them on a "regular basis". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Oliver" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Keith Inman wrote: > > > > > For the edification of the list, we maintain no association with Brent > > Turvey himself, professional or otherwise. We do teach classes under > > the auspices of Knowledge Solutions, a company in which Brent is a > > partner... > > You do realize that these two statements are mutually exclusive, don't > you? > > billo > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 03:22:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0H8MVWC020538 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:22:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:21:37 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (misquote of Mark Twain) In-reply-to: X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117095050.01b00978@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 References: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John, I agree with you. It is **my opinion** that any attempt to build a statistical model that accurately and quantitatively represents all the factors, especially the ones of human vagrancies, involved in any actions is futile. BUT, forensic scientists may be able to build a limited model, with definite stated limitations, that can give the court some idea of the weight of the tests we did. I feel that is our job, and we should stop there. A minor key that I hear recurring in a lot of this "statistical discussions" worries me. I had stressed to me when I first stepped into a crime laboratory that we (judges, juries, attorneys, forensic scientists, etc.) all have defined roles to play in the system. The determination of guilt or innocence is not the forensic scientists job. That rests with the trier of the facts, be it judge/s or a jury. We (the forensic scientists) should not get into it. Many statistical discussions I have seen here and in the literature do get into matters which I feel are not in our purview. Azriel Gorski At 21:10 16/01/2004, you wrote: >Posterior probabilities and evidence > >The discussion on numbers has concerned me. Some of the fundamental >pronciples appear to have been lost. Specifically the probability that two >objects have a common source is based on two factors: the forensic evidence >and all the other evidence. The question cannot be answered from the >forensic evidence alone. > >Let us take up the paint example that is being discussed. Suppose that 100% >of samples from the same source would match on these tests. 1% of random >samples from some suitable database would also match. Hence the match is >100 times more likely IF the samples come from the same source that if they >do not. So what is the probability that they come from the same source? > >Posterior odds = 100 * prior odds > >The answer is that I cannot tell you. I still need the prior odds. But I >can tell you that the evidence makes it 100 times more probable than it was >before we did the tests. > >John Buckleton >ESR >New Zealand > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or >privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, >used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are >not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and >delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email >are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of >the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > >The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any >attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be >free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the >recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received >externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that >may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > >Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited >http://www.esr.cri.nz >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >[EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 11:37:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0HGbkP6027535 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:37:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040117163739.22929.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:37:39 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Forensic document examiners have struggled with report wording for years. There is still some dispute about the levels of certainty that they use to express their opinions. Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners (copyright ASTM) There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a "nine point scale." Some document examiners cut this down to seven, five or even three (did, did not, inconclusive) While maybe not universally applicable to all questions of identity of source, these consensus definitions shed some light on how one discipline has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is long, but, hey, it's a big subject) 4.1 Recommended Terms: identification (definite conclusion of identity)—this is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known material actually wrote the writing in question. Examples—It has been concluded that John Doe wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. strong probability (highly probable, very probable)—the evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same individual. Examples—There is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material very probably wrote the questioned material. DISCUSSION—Some examiners doubt the desirability of differentiating between strong probability and probable, and certainly they may eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire “gray scale” of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. probable—the evidence contained in the andwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of the“ virtually certain” degree of confidence. Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material. indications (evidence to suggest)—a body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing. Examples—There is evidence which indicates (or suggests) that the John Doe of the known material may have written the questioned material but the evidence falls far short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion. DISCUSSION—This is a very weak opinion, and a report may be misinterpreted to be an identification by some readers if the report simply states, “The evidence indicates that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.” There should always be additional limiting words or phrases (such as “may have” or “but the evidence is far from conclusive”) when this opinion is reported, to ensure that the reader understands that the opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, and certainly they cannot be criticized if they eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire “gray scale” of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)—This is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner does not have even a leaning one way or another. Examples—No conclusion could be reached as to whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or I could not determine whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. indications did not—this carries the same weight as the indications term that is, it is a very weak opinion. Examples—There is very little significant evidence present in the comparable portions of the questioned and known writings, but that evidence suggests that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or I found indications that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material but the evidence is far from conclusive. See Discussion after indications. probably did not—the evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the evidence is not quite up to the “virtually certain” range. Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSION—Some examiners prefer to state this opinion: “It is unlikely that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.” There is no strong objection to this, as “unlikely” is merely the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of “improbable”. strong probability did not—this carries the same weight as strong probability on the identification side of the scale; that is, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. Examples—There is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or in my opinion (or conclusion or determination) it is highly probable that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSION—Certainly those examiners who choose to use “unlikely” in place of “probably did not” may wish to use “highly unlikely” here. elimination—this, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed by the document examiner in handwriting comparisons. By using this expression the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSION—This is often a very difficult determination to make in handwriting examinations, especially when only requested exemplars are available, and extreme care should be used in arriving at this conclusion. 4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, there is usually a necessity for additional comments, consisting of such things as reasons for qualification (if the available evidence allows that determination), suggestions for remedies (if any are known), and any other comments that will shed more light on the report. The report should stand alone with no extra explanations necessary. 4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: 4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by document examiners are troublesome because they may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly inane (such as “make/no make”) that they will not be discussed. The use of others is discouraged because they are incomplete or misused. These expressions include: possible/could have—these terms have no place in expert opinions on handwriting because the examiner’s task is to decide to what degree of certainty it can be said that a handwriting sample is by a specific person. If the evidence is so limited or unclear that no definite or qualified opinion can be expressed, then the proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the suspect “could have written the material in question” says nothing about probability and is therefore meaningless to the reader or to the court. The examiner should be clear on the different meanings of “possible” and “probable,” although they are often used interchangeably in everyday speech. consistent with—there are times when this expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when “evidence consistent with disguise is present” or “evidence consistent with a simulation or tracing is present, but “the known writing is consistent with the questioned writing” has no intelligible meaning. could not be identified/cannot identify—these terms are objectionable not only because they are ambiguous but also because they are biased; they imply that the examiner’s task is only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or not the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms is used, it should always be followed by “or eliminate[d]”. similarities were noted/differences as well as similarities—these expressions are meaningless without an explanation as to the extent and significance of the similarities or differences between the known and questioned material. These terms should never be substituted for gradations of opinions. cannot be associated/cannot be connected—these terms are too vague and may be interpreted as reflecting bias as they have no counterpart suggesting that the writer cannot be eliminated either. no identification—this expression could be understood to mean anything from a strong probability that the suspect wrote the questioned writing; to a complete elimination. It is not only confusing but also grammatically incorrect when used informally in sentences such as.“ I no identified the writer” or “I made a no ident in this case.” inconclusive—this is commonly used synonymously with no conclusion when the examiner is at the zero point on the scale of confidence. A potential problem is that some people understand this term to mean something short of definite (or conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, and the examiner should be aware of this ambiguity. positive identification—This phrase is nappropriate because it seems to suggest that some identifications are more positive than others. [strong] reason to believe—there are too many definitions of believe and belief that lack certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to our conclusion (or determination or expert opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term in a report? qualified identification—An identification is not qualified. However, opinions may be qualified when the evidence falls short of an identification or elimination. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 11:51:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0HGpY58028106 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:51:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040117083012.02526008@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:38:58 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: Re: [forens] Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (misquote of Mark Twain) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117095050.01b00978@mail.netvision.net.il> References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117095050.01b00978@mail.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu As I have always understood John Buckleton's position in the use of statistics, it is his opinion that it IS the role of the forensic scientist to assess the prior probability and to put the forensic evidence in the context of the prior probability - of something, I am not sure what that probability is. Azriel, it his response to John, says, "I agree with you." But then seems to say that he does not feel it is generally possible, and not within the role of the forensic scientist, to make such assessments of the prior probability. Is it the role of the forensic scientist to go beyond the frequency data and estimate, somehow, the prior odds, than state the posterior odds? Or is it only the role of the forensic scientist to give the frequency with which the evidence might be expected to occur in the relevant population. I guess my question boils down to "Is there a real difference between Azriel's and John's view of the role of the forensic scientist, or not?" Pete Barnett At 12:21 AM 1/17/2004, you wrote: >John, > >I agree with you. > >It is **my opinion** that any attempt to build a statistical model that >accurately and quantitatively represents all the factors, especially the >ones of human vagrancies, involved in any actions is futile. > >BUT, forensic scientists may be able to build a limited model, with >definite stated limitations, that can give the court some idea of the >weight of the tests we did. I feel that is our job, and we should stop there. > >A minor key that I hear recurring in a lot of this "statistical >discussions" worries me. I had stressed to me when I first stepped into a >crime laboratory that we (judges, juries, attorneys, forensic scientists, >etc.) all have defined roles to play in the system. The determination of >guilt or innocence is not the forensic scientists job. That rests with the >trier of the facts, be it judge/s or a jury. We (the forensic scientists) >should not get into it. Many statistical discussions I have seen here and >in the literature do get into matters which I feel are not in our purview. > >Azriel Gorski > >At 21:10 16/01/2004, you wrote: >>Posterior probabilities and evidence >> >>The discussion on numbers has concerned me. Some of the fundamental >>pronciples appear to have been lost. Specifically the probability that two >>objects have a common source is based on two factors: the forensic evidence >>and all the other evidence. The question cannot be answered from the >>forensic evidence alone. >> >>Let us take up the paint example that is being discussed. Suppose that 100% >>of samples from the same source would match on these tests. 1% of random >>samples from some suitable database would also match. Hence the match is >>100 times more likely IF the samples come from the same source that if they >>do not. So what is the probability that they come from the same source? >> >>Posterior odds = 100 * prior odds >> >>The answer is that I cannot tell you. I still need the prior odds. But I >>can tell you that the evidence makes it 100 times more probable than it was >>before we did the tests. >> >>John Buckleton >>ESR >>New Zealand >> >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or >>privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, >>used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are >>not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and >>delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email >>are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of >>the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). >> >>The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any >>attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be >>free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the >>recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received >>externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that >>may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. >> >>Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited >>http://www.esr.cri.nz >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >>[EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] > >******************************************************************** >Azriel Gorski >Forensic Science > >Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre >The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > >http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ > >"Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge > that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach > >If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up >with the rain. - Steven Wright > >Man must exist in a state of balance between risk >and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure >safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival >and progress. - Unknown >******************************************************************** > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 12:00:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0HH0NH3028449 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:00:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040117084927.0251d848@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:01:50 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings In-Reply-To: <20040117163739.22929.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040117163739.22929.qmail@web41011.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu One of the criticism of forensic science often heard, and specifically with respect to document examiners, is the inability to give anything more than a subjective opinion. Whether this is a valid criticism or not, or whether there is a [potential] solution or not, if it is possible to be more quantitative than less, shouldn't we make the effort? When dealing with individualization of trace evidence I think there are things that can be done to assist the users of our work to assess its significance. If you have a blue fiber case, you can go out and collect as many blue fibers as you want, subject them to the same analyses as the evidence, and make a statement. If you have a class characteristic match with a toolmark and a screwdriver, you can go to the screw driver store and see how many indistinguishable screwdrivers you can find. If you have a glass fragment, you can look at all the other glass fragments that you have analyzed (or, even better, that have been analyzed by other forensic scientists) and make some statement. Much of this type of information has been reported in the literature from time to time. We should be able to say more than "the Q and K samples could be from the same source, or any other source with those properties." I don't see how anyone can make a decision based on that information. And in all cases, as forensic scientists we do know more than that statement implies. We should tell our clients. Pete Barnett At 08:37 AM 1/17/2004, you wrote: >Forensic document examiners have struggled with >report wording for years. There is still some >dispute about the levels of certainty that they >use to express their opinions. [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 12:16:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0HHGbaM028895 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:16:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40096DEC.8050602@syr.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:16:28 -0500 From: "William M. Shields" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (misquote of Mark Twain) References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117095050.01b00978@mail.netvision.net.il> <6.0.0.22.2.20040117083012.02526008@mail.fsalab.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040117083012.02526008@mail.fsalab.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2004 17:16:30.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[A62EA250:01C3DD1D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter, I should let John B. answer for himself but I think that you confuse the two kinds of statements and in fact the forensic scientist should never consider the prior odds in any way as this is invalid logically and especially legally. The prior probability stems from any evidence other than that produced by the forensic scientist and is the purview of the trier of fact as John noted. Whether this is judge or jury the forensic scientist can only speak to the change in likelihood- the likelihood ratio- that their evidence provides to specific hypotheses if these can be agreed upon. This can be done in formal LR language as John noted it is 100 times more likely- if this can be quantified. If the alternative hypotheses cannot be stated or agreed upon it is enough to provide a simple frequency if one can, for example the frequency of similar objects in the pool of all objects of this type is 1 in 100 and let the trier of fact make the logical leap themselves (which I believe many are quite capable of doing). I think what you are remembering is the possibility that one could provide a table of potential prior probabilities and show how the LR resulting from a particular forensic test would change them to a posterior probability. The practical problem with this is how one chooses the priors to use and the difficulty of explaining what it all means. Bill Shields [EndPost by "William M. Shields" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 12:22:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0HHMIuH029163 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:22:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:21:17 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (misquote of Mark Twain) X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117191345.01b0fd08@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have been correctly called on the above title, and thank you for the correction. While Mark Twain did use the quote he "borrowed" it, with later attribution, from Benjamin Disraeli. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 12:41:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0HHfOeF029692 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:41:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:40:36 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (misquote of Mark Twain) In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.2.20040117083012.02526008@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117192319.01b15ca8@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040117095050.01b00978@mail.netvision.net.il> <6.0.0.22.2.20040117083012.02526008@mail.fsalab.com> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I will deal with only my part of Peter's comment. First for those who don't know my back ground, it is trace, specifically fibers to include hairs. All we can or should do is deal with is the ability of our analyses to associate, or perhaps better discriminate, two like objects. I think that is our role. I think we can do that. That is my opinion, and one that I know is and has been hotly and eloquently discussed by many of my eminent colleagues to include John Buckleton. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski At 18:38 17/01/2004, you wrote: >As I have always understood John Buckleton's position in the use of >statistics, it is his opinion that it IS the role of the forensic >scientist to assess the prior probability and to put the forensic evidence >in the context of the prior probability - of something, I am not sure what >that probability is. Azriel, it his response to John, says, "I agree with >you." But then seems to say that he does not feel it is generally >possible, and not within the role of the forensic scientist, to make such >assessments of the prior probability. > >Is it the role of the forensic scientist to go beyond the frequency data >and estimate, somehow, the prior odds, than state the posterior odds? Or >is it only the role of the forensic scientist to give the frequency with >which the evidence might be expected to occur in the relevant population. > >I guess my question boils down to "Is there a real difference between >Azriel's and John's view of the role of the forensic scientist, or not?" > >Pete Barnett ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 17 21:29:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0I2TJ4s006938 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:29:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:29:15 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040117084927.0251d848@mail.fsalab.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Peter Barnett wrote: > One of the criticism of forensic science often heard, and specifically with > respect to document examiners, is the inability to give anything more than > a subjective opinion. Whether this is a valid criticism or not, or whether > there is a [potential] solution or not, if it is possible to be more > quantitative than less, shouldn't we make the effort? Not when the quantitation is fundamentally meaningless. If a "probability" simply means some numerical representation of a subjective feeling of confidence, then it *more* misleading than a qualitative answer because it implies a mensurand when there is none. There are some things that are fundamentally subjective even though they involve expert knowledge and represent important knowledge. Consider an image analyst looking at satellite photographs of Cuba. That analyst sees what look an awful lot like missile construction sites. He tells his boss who tells his boss who tells the President and suddenly we have a missile crisis. In fact, that analyst was right, and his knowledge, from staring at surveillance photographs of Soviet missile construction sites for 10 years, is quite real. Any estimate of "probability" is merely another way of saying "how do you feel?" Even the most successfull attempts at quantifying things like this, such as the NIIRS (National Image Interpretabily Rating Scale), are at best *predictors* of how a given group of experts will subjectively rate a given imate, and any reduction of this to some formula based on image features, such as the General Image Quality Equation, is at best a predictor of a predictor. It doesn't really work all that well backwards... billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 09:45:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0IEjOAl017811 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:45:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:45:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:08:31 -0800 (PST) From: L DeShong Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud & Misadventure To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Marilyn, Spence was convicted in July, 1984. Therefore, you've raised a valid question as to whether or not the standards Mr. Turvey alleges Dr. Campbell violated were even in effect. It appears, however, that the long and short of it is that Dr. Campbell didn't violate any standards of the ABFO (making Mr. Turvey's allegations on this list entirely false), as the listing (I apologize for the table not lining up properly) includes "reasonable medical certainty" as acceptable language. Additionally, Mr. Turvey's allegations against Dr. Campbell are based on unsubstantiated allegations made by a convicted murderer's post-conviction counsel in a Petition for Habeas Corpus and an anti-death penalty group. Had Mr. Turvey bothered to read the decisions of the state appellate courts as to Mr. Spence's direct and post conviction appeals and the decisions of the US District Court and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on his habeas appeals, he would realize not only that Mr. Spence was most definitely guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted (thereby rendering the allegations of his attorneys and the anti-death penalty group false), but also that there has never been a judicial finding of any wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Campbell or with regard to Dr. Campbell's testimony. Thanks, L. DeShong Marilyn Harris wrote: What were the guidelines/terms at the time that Dr. Campbell testified in court? Were they the same as now? >Perhaps you should note the ABFO's terms before you accuse Dr. Campbell or anyone else of ignoring them. > >http://www.forensicdentistryonline.org/Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines .htm#The%20Link%20Between%20the%20Bitemark%20and%20Suspect [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 14:56:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0IJuxom022366 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:56:59 -0500 (EST) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Message-ID: <1ef.179cea0d.2d3c3f01@aol.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:56:49 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Is Match Consistent With a Weasel Word? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10578 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I was thrilled no end that John Lentini would drop document examiner's terminology into this discussion (and even do it with a hint of approval). So, never one to leave well enough alone, let me add a bit about the way "match" is used in the ASTM ink standards. I know that there is no real limit on the number of meanings and misunderstandings that can dance on the head of a match, but the word "match" should be considered as only the start of a phrase (just like the word "bull"). The full meaning should always be understood to be "match at this level of analysis". In ASTM standard E1422 (Standard Guide for Writing Ink Identification) a goodly number of optical and chemical analyses are described, starting with looking at the ink samples being compared ("You can observe a lot by looking" - L. "Yogi" Berra). Peter B. noted that red paint chips can be the same color of red and be said to match, but certainly Peter would report his results in properly, that is stating that the Q & K matched at the level of visual inspection by one observer under one set of viewing conditions. This would allow for the possibility that the red samples are metamers (and I never met a mer I didn't like). [Metamers - specimens differing in spectral reflectance but having colors that match in light of one spectral composition, when viewed by one observer, but may not match in light of other spectral compositions, or when viewed by another observer.] That is the visual match might not hold up under different viewing conditions (e.g., going from the cool white fluorescent lights of the windowless lab to the redder, but relatively continuous spectrum, tungsten illumination of the 100 watt bulb in the janitor's closet, and then to the bluer light of a northern exposure window at mid-day). Then there is the observer. There are two slightly different peaks of long wave (red) sensitivity, genetically determined and roughly evenly split in the male population with normal color vision. An observer with the higher sensitivity might be able to distinguish those red samples where slightly differently genetically enabled observer might not. Oh, and there are some forensic types who are color blind (and perhaps a few more who don't know that they are). Of course, if one sample is red and the other blue (and there is no good explanation like fading or repainting for the obvious difference), then the samples don't match and the examiner can go back to important stuff like flaming some fool on forens. Peter certainly would move beyond the quick look-see level of match to do some other form(s) of optical and perhaps chemical testing, but barring an old fashioned fracture fit of some kind, even after the most sophisticated tests kicking the molecules apart with the most expensive toys, it is still just a match at some level of analysis. Anyhow, the definition of "match" from the terminology section of E1422 goes like this: Match between ink samples - the inability to distinguish between ink samples at a given level of analysis. Of perhaps more interest is the discussion in the reporting section. 9. Reporting Conclusions 9.1 Conclusions resulting from the comparison of two ink samples may be reached once sufficient examinations have been conducted. In reporting conclusions the tests performed shall be listed. The number of necessary tests is dependent on the ink(s) involved. 9.2 Differentiation: 9.2.1 If significant, reproducible, inexplicable differences between ink samples are found at any level of the physical, or chemical analyses, or both, it may be concluded that the inks do not have a common origin. 9.2.2 However, when inks give differing test results, the possibility of batch-to-batch variation must be considered. HPLC or FTIR may detect batch-to-batch variation. The potential influences of interfering factors that can alter the composition of an ink sample must also be considered. (see Section 5) 9.3 Matches: 9.3.1 When the comparison of two or more ink samples by optical or chemical analyses or both reveals no significant, reproducible, inexplicable differences and there is significant agreement in all observable aspects of the results, it may be concluded that the ink samples match at that level of analysis and that the results of the examination indicate that the ink samples are of the same formula or of two similar formulas with the same components. The possibility that other analytical techniques might be able to differentiate the samples should be considered. 9.3.2 This conclusion does not eliminate the possibility that the ink samples being compared are from different manufacturing batches or from different writing or marking instruments. 9.3.3 Reports of conclusions should never state that two ink samples are identical or the same ink. Statements must be within the limits of 9.3.1. Reasons for the careful limitation of match in ink work may be found in other sections of E1422, which you can find in the free annual volume of ASTM standards that you get upon joining ASTM. Check with John Lentini for membership details, or go to www.ASTM.org. Peter Tytell, NYC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by ForensicRe@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 14:57:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0IJv2X3022381 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:57:02 -0500 (EST) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Message-ID: <6b.20c7ca77.2d3c3f03@aol.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:56:51 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Consistent With is consistent with Weasel Words--Sometimes To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10578 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The text for this morning is from Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. "Is there any thing whereof it may be said, "See, this is new?" - it hath been already of old time, which was before us. "There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after." I am old enough to remember (though perhaps too old to remember exactly) that about two or three decades back the use of "consistent" or "consistent with" was hotly debated in an interesting exchange in the letters-to-the-editor section of J. Forensic Sciences (or was it the old J. Crim. Law, Criminology & Police Sci.). Yes, Kiddies, that was how such things were often done back then, before the internet and lists like this one. It was much slower, but there was somewhat less chatter and cat-fighting in public, and thoughts tended to be edited down into concise (and often grammatically correct) form, probably due to the effort required to carve the words into stone and load the ox carts for the long journey. It might be interesting to reread those letters in light of the current discussion. Moving back to this millennium, it would be way cool to have an online index that could locate those letters and be able to download them. Perhaps it was a reflection of that exchange of letters or just the debate then current (and now current, and undoubtedly future current) that over a dozen years ago persuaded the ad hoc committee on opinion terminology of the Questioned Document section of the Amer. Acad. of Forensic Sci. to address the use of this term. (McAlexander, T.V., Beck, J., and Dick, R. "The Standardization of Handwriting Opinion Terminology." Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 2, March 1991, pp. 311-319.) Their work was adopted as recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by the QD Section of the Academy and the Amer. Board of Forensic Document Examiners (among others) and also served as the basis for ASTM Standard E1658, Standard Guide for Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners. the treatment of "consistent with" by McAlexander, Beck, and Dick is still in the Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions section of E1658, and could be considered fair and balanced, or a mealy-mouthed fence straddling cop out, or overly opinionated to the point of hubris - depending on your view of these things (a situation often consistent with achieving consensus on a standard). "consistent with - There are times when this expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when "evidence consistent with disguise is present" or "evidence consistent with a simulation or tracing is present", but "the known writing is consistent with the questioned writing" has no intelligible meaning." There is a proposal to delete the entire Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions section from this standard. It is argued that this will emphasize the recommended terminology (previously sent out by John Lentini), which should be used by all, and which should supplant other terms. I am concerned, however, that human nature, Gresham's Law, and the current threads on current practice (or malpractice) in reporting opinions argue against that deletion. One might even say that the current discussion is evidence consistent with the need to keep the Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions section in the standard. Here endeth the lesson. Peter Tytell, NYC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by ForensicRe@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 15:04:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0IK4not022999 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:03:36 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] Consistent With is consistent with Weasel Words--Sometimes In-reply-to: <6b.20c7ca77.2d3c3f03@aol.com> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040118220250.01badef0@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 References: <6b.20c7ca77.2d3c3f03@aol.com> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Peter, And while you are back there, find my old letter to the editor on "Proficiency Tests" Azriel At 21:56 18/01/2004, you wrote: >The text for this morning is from Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 > >"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done >is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. >"Is there any thing whereof it may be said, "See, this is new?" - it hath >been already of old time, which was before us. >"There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any >remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after." > >I am old enough to remember (though perhaps too old to remember exactly) that >about two or three decades back the use of "consistent" or "consistent with" >was hotly debated in an interesting exchange in the letters-to-the-editor >section of J. Forensic Sciences (or was it the old J. Crim. Law, >Criminology & >Police Sci.). > >Yes, Kiddies, that was how such things were often done back then, before the >internet and lists like this one. It was much slower, but there was somewhat >less chatter and cat-fighting in public, and thoughts tended to be edited >down >into concise (and often grammatically correct) form, probably due to the >effort required to carve the words into stone and load the ox carts for >the long >journey. > >It might be interesting to reread those letters in light of the current >discussion. Moving back to this millennium, it would be way cool to have >an online >index that could locate those letters and be able to download them. > >Perhaps it was a reflection of that exchange of letters or just the debate >then current (and now current, and undoubtedly future current) that over a >dozen >years ago persuaded the ad hoc committee on opinion terminology of the >Questioned Document section of the Amer. Acad. of Forensic Sci. to >address the use >of this term. (McAlexander, T.V., Beck, J., and Dick, R. "The Standardization >of Handwriting Opinion Terminology." Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, >No. 2, March 1991, pp. 311-319.) > >Their work was adopted as recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by >the QD Section of the Academy and the Amer. Board of Forensic Document >Examiners (among others) and also served as the basis for ASTM Standard >E1658, >Standard Guide for Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic >Document >Examiners. > >the treatment of "consistent with" by McAlexander, Beck, and Dick is still in >the Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions section of E1658, and could be >considered fair and balanced, or a mealy-mouthed fence straddling cop out, or >overly opinionated to the point of hubris - depending on your view of these >things (a situation often consistent with achieving consensus on a standard). > >"consistent with - There are times when this expression is perfectly >appropriate, such as when "evidence consistent with disguise is present" >or "evidence >consistent with a simulation or tracing is present", but "the known >writing is >consistent with the questioned writing" has no intelligible meaning." > >There is a proposal to delete the entire Deprecated and Discouraged >Expressions section from this standard. It is argued that this will >emphasize the >recommended terminology (previously sent out by John Lentini), which >should be used >by all, and which should supplant other terms. I am concerned, however, that >human nature, Gresham's Law, and the current threads on current practice (or >malpractice) in reporting opinions argue against that deletion. One might >even >say that the current discussion is evidence consistent with the need to keep >the Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions section in the standard. > >Here endeth the lesson. > >Peter Tytell, NYC > > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by ForensicRe@aol.com] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 19:02:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0J0233S026063 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:02:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040119000156.8548.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:01:56 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Is Match Consistent With a Weasel Word? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <1ef.179cea0d.2d3c3f01@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mr. Tytell's discussion of weasel words is the kind of post that makes me stay a subscriber! Magfnificent! ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 19:17:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0J0H0hI026549 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:17:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040118160802.0251e780@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:18:29 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: Re: [forens] Consistent With is consistent with Weasel Words--Sometimes In-Reply-To: <6b.20c7ca77.2d3c3f03@aol.com> References: <6b.20c7ca77.2d3c3f03@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 11:56 AM 1/18/2004, Peter Tytell wrote: >"consistent with - There are times when this expression is perfectly >appropriate, such as when "evidence consistent with disguise is present" >or "evidence >consistent with a simulation or tracing is present", but "the known >writing is >consistent with the questioned writing" has no intelligible meaning." If one said "the questioned writing is consistent with the known writing", would that be "perfectly appropriate?" Or would, "features noted in the questioned writing are consistent with the known writing" be "perfectly appropriate?" What is the objection to the use of the term "consistent with?" My answer to that question is that it provides no information, either about the observed features of the evidence or the exemplar material, nor does it provide any information about the examiner's opinion on the relevant question ("Is the writing disguised, simulated, traced or genuine?"). Pete Barnett [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 21:23:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0J2NsnH027846 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:23:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" , "Chisnall, Wayne" , "Bedford, Keith" Subject: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update and Bill Thompson et al's paper Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:25:25 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear colleagues, there has been a discussion on this group about fraud and errors. Deliberate fraud is, in my view, very unlikely in the forensic scientists that I know. However I have been concerned for some time about the inadvertent biases that we, who work largely for the prosecusion, may develop. At ESR in New Zealand we have developed a policy that is intended to work towards reinforcing the natural tendancies of forensic scientists towards objective and impartial science. In part this involves a code of professional practice. But we also require employess to make themselves aware of the sort of observer biases that may occur. In this regard may I call the gouups attention to 1 Risinger, D.M., Saks, M.J., Thompson, W.C., and Rosenthal, R., The Daubert/Kuhmo implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 2002. 90(1): p. 1-56. 2 Saks, M.J., Risinger, D.M., Rosenthal, R., and Thompson, W.C., Context Effects in Forensic Science: A Review and Application of the Science of Science to Crime Laboratory Practice in the United States. S & J, 2003. 43(2): p. 77-90. John Buckleton, ESR New Zealand ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 21:37:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0J2bGKT028416 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:37:16 -0500 (EST) From: Fossilhund@aol.com Message-ID: <57.26d8c13d.2d3c9cd5@aol.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:37:09 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update and Bill Thompson et al's paper To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [EndPost by Fossilhund@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 18 21:45:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0J2jVCK028761 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:45:31 -0500 (EST) From: Fossilhund@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:45:21 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update and Bill Thompson et al's paper To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: Fossilhund@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6800 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear John, Some years ago I was at a meeting where you asked for help in the matter of folks testing Nuclear Weapons Near Your Home. If you did not receive help, and these Weapons are Still Being Tested Near Your Home, please email me at Fossilhund@aol,com, and I,ll see what I can do. Have a nice day. Fossilhund --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Fossilhund@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 00:02:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0J52V6I001519 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:02:31 -0500 (EST) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Message-ID: <144.20a54e21.2d3cbedc@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:02:20 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Consistent With is consistent with Weasel Words--Sometimes To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5003 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Peter, I think that my own feelings on this subject are not inconsistent with yours. (If I flat out said that I agree with you, we would both start to worry.) On balance, the potential for misunderstanding probably outweighs the phrases usefulness in describing a "match" of class characteristics in criminalistics work, the significance of which can be conveyed with the "... could have had a common origin" wording John Lentini suggested. For QD it would be better (if far from easier) to use the terms defined in the main part of E1658 to express an opinion of appropriate strength about the disguise issue. Alternatively, the document examiner might say that the features of the handwriting enumerated in the findings section of the report provide "limited support", or "strong support", or "very strong support", or "conclusive support" for the proposition that the writing was disguised. That is if you could find a document examiner who wanted to be a Bayesian. (Personally, when it comes to Bayes, I'm all at sea.) (I've been siting on my posterior odds so long that I'm developing an odd posterior, but that's another tale.) Perhaps if that section is taken out of standard E1658 "consistent with" will be forever banished to the outer edges of intergalactic space, never to be seen again (especially since the Hubbell space telescope, which is the surveillance camera for that neighborhood, is going to be trashed to free up a paltry bit of funding for a blind stab at the vision thing -- even a New Yorker's cynicism has trouble keeping up, but the pun possibilities might be a good distraction). See ya, Peter Tytell, NYC In a message dated 1/18/04 7:19:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, pbarnett@fsalab.com writes: If one said "the questioned writing is consistent with the known writing", would that be "perfectly appropriate?" Or would, "features noted in the questioned writing are consistent with the known writing" be "perfectly appropriate?" What is the objection to the use of the term "consistent with?" My answer to that question is that it provides no information, either about the observed features of the evidence or the exemplar material, nor does it provide any information about the examiner's opinion on the relevant question ("Is the writing disguised, simulated, traced or genuine?"). Pete Barnett --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by ForensicRe@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 07:48:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0JCmeM3007700 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:48:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040119144203.00a23be0@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:43:53 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, John.Buckleton@esr.cri.nz From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update and Bill Thompson et al's paper In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thank you for the citations. I am enjoying reading the one in the California Law Review. Sci Justice can't be found anywhere on the web or in my country. I will not worry too much as the first one is quiet expansive. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel At 15:25 19/01/04 +1300, you wrote: >Dear colleagues, there has been a discussion on this group about fraud and >errors. Deliberate fraud is, in my view, very unlikely in the forensic >scientists that I know. However I have been concerned for some time about >the inadvertent biases that we, who work largely for the prosecusion, may >develop. At ESR in New Zealand we have developed a policy that is intended >to work towards reinforcing the natural tendancies of forensic scientists >towards objective and impartial science. In part this involves a code of >professional practice. But we also require employess to make themselves >aware of the sort of observer biases that may occur. In this regard may I >call the gouups attention to > >1 Risinger, D.M., Saks, M.J., Thompson, W.C., and Rosenthal, R., The >Daubert/Kuhmo implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden >problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 2002. 90(1): >p. 1-56. > >2 Saks, M.J., Risinger, D.M., Rosenthal, R., and Thompson, W.C., >Context Effects in Forensic Science: A Review and Application of the Science >of Science to Crime Laboratory Practice in the United States. S & J, 2003. >43(2): p. 77-90. > > >John Buckleton, >ESR >New Zealand > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or >privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, >used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are >not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and >delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email >are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of >the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > >The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any >attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be >free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the >recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received >externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that >may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > >Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited >http://www.esr.cri.nz >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >[EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 08:13:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0JDDSbr008646 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:13:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update and Bill Thompson et al's paper Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:13:41 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040119144203.00a23be0@mail.netvision.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu As the editor of Science & Justice, I am very happy whenever a new Institute purchases a subscription for their library. Further, members of the Forensic Science Society get a subscription as a benefit of membership. CAC members can elect to receive it as a benefit of CAC membership. Details are on the ForSciSoc web site at http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/journal.html and http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/member.html Robert Forrest -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Azriel Gorski Sent: 19 January 2004 12:44 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; John.Buckleton@esr.cri.nz Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Archive update and Bill Thompson et al's paper Thank you for the citations. I am enjoying reading the one in the California Law Review. Sci Justice can't be found anywhere on the web or in my country. I will not worry too much as the first one is quiet expansive. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel At 15:25 19/01/04 +1300, you wrote: >Dear colleagues, there has been a discussion on this group about fraud and >errors. Deliberate fraud is, in my view, very unlikely in the forensic >scientists that I know. However I have been concerned for some time about >the inadvertent biases that we, who work largely for the prosecusion, may >develop. At ESR in New Zealand we have developed a policy that is intended >to work towards reinforcing the natural tendancies of forensic scientists >towards objective and impartial science. In part this involves a code of >professional practice. But we also require employess to make themselves >aware of the sort of observer biases that may occur. In this regard may I >call the gouups attention to > >1 Risinger, D.M., Saks, M.J., Thompson, W.C., and Rosenthal, R., The >Daubert/Kuhmo implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden >problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 2002. 90(1): >p. 1-56. > >2 Saks, M.J., Risinger, D.M., Rosenthal, R., and Thompson, W.C., >Context Effects in Forensic Science: A Review and Application of the Science >of Science to Crime Laboratory Practice in the United States. S & J, 2003. >43(2): p. 77-90. > > >John Buckleton, >ESR >New Zealand > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or >privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, >used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are >not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and >delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email >are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of >the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). > >The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any >attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be >free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the >recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received >externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that >may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. > >Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited >http://www.esr.cri.nz >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >[EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 13:42:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0JIg81g017911 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:42:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:41:26 -0700 From: "LARRY Pederson" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0JIg7qL017906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In this discussion of terms I'm surprised there's been no mention (that I've seen) of my favorite term ... "indistinguishable". This can be used for the different steps of the examination/analysis. If, at the end of the examinations and analyses, the examiner has not been able to distinguish between the two items in a meaningful way, then they are "indistinguishable," given what the examiner has done. If the examiner finds meaningful differences along the path of examinations and analyses, then they are "distinctly different", my second favorite term. I think they give the clearest impression to the reader IF a conclusive result has been reached. In paint comparisons there are maybe more cases where conclusive results are reached compared with documents. However, in areas of trace evidence where staticstical information regarding the relationship between two items isn't available, the degree of certainty of an "inclusion" is related to the discriminating ability of each test done. For instance, for one-layer pieces of paint, a result that states "microscopic examination showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable in color and texture" is meaningful but superficial. Add to that that "analysis by IR showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives a greater degree of confidence. Next "analysis by pyrolysis/GC/FID showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives greater confidence. Next "pyrolysis/GC/MS ... " gives even greater confidence to the analyst of a conclusive result. And finally, "analysis by SEM/EDXF showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives most analysts a great degree of confidence that the two paints are indistinguishable. The conclusion in the report regarding the comparison would then articulate the technology applied to the comparison, and that the two items were "indistinguishable." However, the fact remains that I can't say conclusively they are absolutely the same paint. But this report would allow someone with a basic knowledge of paint comparison technology to assess the meaningfulness of my "indistinguishable" conclusion. If my conclusion were based on color and texture under a microscope, there may be a lot for a defense expert to question about the result. If I've done the whole nine yards on the two items, there may not be much to question about the conclusion. If they were "distinctly different," I would articulate the testing that had been completed, but say definitively which analytical method led me to my conclusion. I'm throwing this out for discussion without dealing with any grey areas, such as defining "meaningful differences." Soooooo, what does everyone think? Later, Larry Pederson >>> John Lentini 01/17/04 09:37AM >>> Forensic document examiners have struggled with report wording for years. There is still some dispute about the levels of certainty that they use to express their opinions. Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners (copyright ASTM) There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a "nine point scale." Some document examiners cut this down to seven, five or even three (did, did not, inconclusive) While maybe not universally applicable to all questions of identity of source, these consensus definitions shed some light on how one discipline has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is long, but, hey, it's a big subject) 4.1 Recommended Terms: identification (definite conclusion of identity)ùthis is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using the word ôfact,ö the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known material actually wrote the writing in question. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that John Doe wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. strong probability (highly probable, very probable)ùthe evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same individual. ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material very probably wrote the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùSome examiners doubt the desirability of differentiating between strong probability and probable, and certainly they may eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. probableùthe evidence contained in the andwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of theô virtually certainö degree of confidence. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material. indications (evidence to suggest)ùa body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing. ExamplesùThere is evidence which indicates (or suggests) that the John Doe of the known material may have written the questioned material but the evidence falls far short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion. DISCUSSIONùThis is a very weak opinion, and a report may be misinterpreted to be an identification by some readers if the report simply states, ôThe evidence indicates that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.ö There should always be additional limiting words or phrases (such as ômay haveö or ôbut the evidence is far from conclusiveö) when this opinion is reported, to ensure that the reader understands that the opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, and certainly they cannot be criticized if they eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)ùThis is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner does not have even a leaning one way or another. ExamplesùNo conclusion could be reached as to whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or I could not determine whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. eandwriting comparisons. The examiner has indications did notùthis carries the same weight as the indications term that is, it is a very weak opinion. ExamplesùThere is very little significant evidence present in the comparable portions of the questioned and known writings, but that evidence suggests that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or I found indications that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material but the evidence is far from conclusive. See Discussion after indications. probably did notùthe evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the evidence is not quite up to the ôvirtually certainö range. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùSome examiners prefer to state this opinion: ôIt is unlikely that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.ö There is no strong objection to this, as ôunlikelyö is merely the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ôimprobableö. strong probability did notùthis carries the same weight as strong probability on the identification side of the scale; that is, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or in my opinion (or conclusion or determination) it is highly probable that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùCertainly those examiners who choose to use ôunlikelyö in place of ôprobably did notö may wish to use ôhighly unlikelyö here. eliminationùthis, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed by the document examiner in handwriting comparisons. By using this expression the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùThis is often a very difficult determination to make in handwriting examinations, especially when only requested exemplars are available, and extreme care should be used in arriving at this conclusion. 4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, there is usually a necessity for additional comments, consisting of such things as reasons for qualification (if the available evidence allows that determination), suggestions for remedies (if any are known), and any other comments that will shed more light on the report. The report should stand alone with no extra explanations necessary. 4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: 4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by document examiners are troublesome because they may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly inane (such as ômake/no makeö) that they will not be discussed. The use of others is discouraged because they are incomplete or misused. These expressions include: possible/could haveùthese terms have no place in expert opinions on handwriting because the examinerÆs task is to decide to what degree of certainty it can be said that a handwriting sample is by a specific person. If the evidence is so limited or unclear that no definite or qualified opinion can be expressed, then the proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the suspect ôcould have written the material in questionö says nothing about probability and is therefore meaningless to the reader or to the court. The examiner should be clear on the different meanings of ôpossibleö and ôprobable,ö although they are often used interchangeably in everyday speech. consistent withùthere are times when this expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when ôevidence consistent with disguise is presentö or ôevidence consistent with a simulation or tracing is present, but ôthe known writing is consistent with the questioned writingö has no intelligible meaning. could not be identified/cannot identifyùthese terms are objectionable not only because they are ambiguous but also because they are biased; they imply that the examinerÆs task is only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or not the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms is used, it should always be followed by ôor eliminate[d]ö. similarities were noted/differences as well as similaritiesùthese expressions are meaningless without an explanation as to the extent and significance of the similarities or differences between the known and questioned material. These terms should never be substituted for gradations of opinions. cannot be associated/cannot be connectedùthese terms are too vague and may be interpreted as reflecting bias as they have no counterpart suggesting that the writer cannot be eliminated either. no identificationùthis expression could be understood to mean anything from a strong probability that the suspect wrote the questioned writing; to a complete elimination. It is not only confusing but also grammatically incorrect when used informally in sentences such as.ô I no identified the writerö or ôI made a no ident in this case.ö inconclusiveùthis is commonly used synonymously with no conclusion when the examiner is at the zero point on the scale of confidence. A potential problem is that some people understand this term to mean something short of definite (or conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, and the examiner should be aware of this ambiguity. positive identificationùThis phrase is nappropriate because it seems to suggest that some identifications are more positive than others. [strong] reason to believeùthere are too many definitions of believe and belief that lack certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to our conclusion (or determination or expert opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term in a report? qualified identificationùAn identification is not qualified. However, opinions may be qualified when the evidence falls short of an identification or elimination. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 15:24:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0JKOZae021745 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:24:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:23:40 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Words - was - Words, numbers and meanings In-reply-to: X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040119221421.01b00a70@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 References: 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0JKOZaf021745 Larry, A very pointed question meant with the best of intentions. Are any two different piece of material ever really indistinguishable. One surface may be scratched and the other not. One IR can have slight differences in peak intensity. If there were no differences, say in IR, I would wonder if someone pushed the button twice with the same sample. But are these differences meaningful, or artifacts of activities or sample preparation that have nothing to do with the comparison. I understand and support your reasoning, but I think "indistinguishable" has its own set of problems. Then it ain't a perfect world. Azriel Gorski At 20:41 19/01/2004, you wrote: >In this discussion of terms I'm surprised there's been no mention (that >I've seen) of my favorite term ... "indistinguishable". This can be used >for the different steps of the examination/analysis. If, at the end of the >examinations and analyses, the examiner has not been able to distinguish >between the two items in a meaningful way, then they are >"indistinguishable," given what the examiner has done. > >If the examiner finds meaningful differences along the path of >examinations and analyses, then they are "distinctly different", my second >favorite term. > >I think they give the clearest impression to the reader IF a conclusive >result has been reached. In paint comparisons there are maybe more cases >where conclusive results are reached compared with documents. However, in >areas of trace evidence where staticstical information regarding the >relationship between two items isn't available, the degree of certainty of >an "inclusion" is related to the discriminating ability of each test done. > >For instance, for one-layer pieces of paint, a result that states >"microscopic examination showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable in color >and texture" is meaningful but superficial. >Add to that that "analysis by IR showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" >gives a greater degree of confidence. >Next "analysis by pyrolysis/GC/FID showed #1 and #2 were >indistinguishable" gives greater confidence. >Next "pyrolysis/GC/MS ... " gives even greater confidence to the analyst >of a conclusive result. >And finally, "analysis by SEM/EDXF showed #1 and #2 were >indistinguishable" gives most analysts a great degree of confidence that >the two paints are indistinguishable. > >The conclusion in the report regarding the comparison would then >articulate the technology applied to the comparison, and that the two >items were "indistinguishable." However, the fact remains that I can't say >conclusively they are absolutely the same paint. But this report would >allow someone with a basic knowledge of paint comparison technology to >assess the meaningfulness of my "indistinguishable" conclusion. If my >conclusion were based on color and texture under a microscope, there may >be a lot for a defense expert to question about the result. If I've done >the whole nine yards on the two items, there may not be much to question >about the conclusion. > >If they were "distinctly different," I would articulate the testing that >had been completed, but say definitively which analytical method led me to >my conclusion. > >I'm throwing this out for discussion without dealing with any grey areas, >such as defining "meaningful differences." > >Soooooo, what does everyone think? > >Later, >Larry Pederson > > >>> John Lentini 01/17/04 09:37AM >>> > >Forensic document examiners have struggled with >report wording for years. There is still some >dispute about the levels of certainty that they >use to express their opinions. > >Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, >Standard Terminology for >Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document >Examiners (copyright ASTM) > >There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a >"nine point scale." Some document examiners cut >this down to seven, five or even three (did, did >not, inconclusive) > >While maybe not universally applicable to all >questions of identity of source, these consensus >definitions shed some light on how one discipline >has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is >long, but, hey, it's a big subject) > >4.1 Recommended Terms: > >identification (definite conclusion of >identity)ùthis is the highest degree of >confidence expressed by document examiners in >handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no >reservations whatever, and although prohibited >from using >the word ôfact,ö the examiner is certain, based >on evidence contained in the handwriting, that >the writer of the known material actually wrote >the writing in question. > >ExamplesùIt has been concluded that John Doe >wrote the questioned material, or it is my >opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the >known material wrote the questioned material. > > >strong probability (highly probable, very >probable)ùthe evidence is very persuasive, yet >some critical feature or quality is missing so >that an identification is not in order; >however, the examiner is virtually certain that >the questioned and known writings were written by >the same individual. > >ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the >John Doe of the known material wrote the >questioned material, or it is my opinion (or >conclusion or determination) that the John Doe >of the known material very probably wrote the >questioned material. > >DISCUSSIONùSome examiners doubt the desirability >of differentiating between strong probability and >probable, and certainly they may eliminate this >terminology. But those examiners who are trying >to >encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of >confidence may wish to use this or a similar >term. > >probableùthe evidence contained in the andwriting >points rather strongly toward the questioned and >known writings having been written by the same >individual; however, it falls short of theô >virtually certainö degree of confidence. > >ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe >of the known material probably wrote the >questioned material, or it is my opinion (or >conclusion or determination) that the John >Doe of the known material probably wrote the >questioned material. > >indications (evidence to suggest)ùa body of >writing has few features which are of >significance for handwriting comparison >purposes, but those features are in agreement >with >another body of writing. > >ExamplesùThere is evidence which indicates (or >suggests) that the John Doe of the known material >may have written the questioned material but the >evidence falls far short of that necessary to >support a definite conclusion. > >DISCUSSIONùThis is a very weak opinion, and a >report may be misinterpreted to be an >identification by some readers if the report >simply states, ôThe evidence indicates that the >John Doe of the known material wrote the >questioned material.ö There should always be >additional limiting words or phrases (such as >ômay haveö or ôbut the evidence is far from >conclusiveö) when this opinion is reported, to >ensure that the reader understands that the >opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the >desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, >and certainly they cannot be criticized if they >eliminate this terminology. But those examiners >who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray >scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use >this or a similar term. > >no conclusion (totally inconclusive, >indeterminable)ùThis is the zero point of the >confidence scale. It is used when there >are significantly limiting factors, such as >disguise in the questioned and/or known writing >or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner >does not have even a leaning one way or another. >ExamplesùNo conclusion could be reached as to >whether or not the John Doe of the known material >wrote the questioned material, or I could not >determine whether or not the John Doe of the >known material wrote the questioned material. >eandwriting comparisons. The examiner has >indications did notùthis carries the same weight >as the indications term that is, it is a very >weak opinion. > >ExamplesùThere is very little significant >evidence present in the comparable portions of >the questioned and known writings, but that >evidence suggests that the John Doe of the >known material did not write the questioned >material, or I found indications that the John >Doe of the known material did not write the >questioned material but the evidence is far >from conclusive. See Discussion after >indications. > >probably did notùthe evidence points rather >strongly against the questioned and known >writings having been written by the same >individual, but, as in the probable range above, >the evidence is not quite up to the ôvirtually >certainö range. > >ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe >of the known material probably did not write the >questioned material, or it is my opinion (or >conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of >the known material probably did not write the >questioned material. > >DISCUSSIONùSome examiners prefer to state this >opinion: ôIt is unlikely that the John Doe of the >known material wrote the questioned material.ö >There is no strong objection to this, as >ôunlikelyö is merely >the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ôimprobableö. > >strong probability did notùthis carries the same >weight as strong probability on the >identification side of the scale; that >is, the examiner is virtually certain that the >questioned and known writings were not written by >the same individual. > >ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the >John Doe of the known material did not write the >questioned material, or in my opinion (or >conclusion or determination) it is highly >probable that the John Doe of the known material >did not write the questioned material. > >DISCUSSIONùCertainly those examiners who choose >to use ôunlikelyö in place of ôprobably did notö >may wish to use ôhighly unlikelyö here. > >eliminationùthis, like the definite conclusion of >identity, is the highest degree of confidence >expressed by the document examiner in handwriting >comparisons. By using this expression >the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that >the questioned and known writings were not >written by the same individual. >ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe >of the known material did not write the >questioned material, or it is my opinion (or >conclusion or determination) that the John >Doe of the known material did not write the >questioned material. > >DISCUSSIONùThis is often a very difficult >determination to make in handwriting >examinations, especially when only requested >exemplars are available, and extreme care should >be used in arriving at this conclusion. > >4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, >there is usually a necessity for additional >comments, consisting of such things as reasons >for qualification (if the available evidence >allows that determination), suggestions for >remedies (if any are known), and any other >comments that will shed more light on the report. >The report should stand alone with no extra >explanations necessary. > >4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: > >4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by >document examiners are troublesome because they >may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of >clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is >deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly >inane (such as ômake/no makeö) that they will not >be discussed. The use of others is discouraged >because they are incomplete or misused. > >These expressions include: > >possible/could haveùthese terms have no place in >expert opinions on handwriting because the >examinerÆs task is to decide to what degree of >certainty it can be said that a handwriting >sample is by a specific person. If the evidence >is >so limited or unclear that no definite or >qualified opinion can be expressed, then the >proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the >suspect ôcould have written the material in >questionö says nothing about probability and is >therefore meaningless to the reader or to the >court. The examiner should be clear on the >different meanings of ôpossibleö and >ôprobable,ö although they are often used >interchangeably in everyday speech. > >consistent withùthere are times when this >expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when >ôevidence consistent with disguise is presentö or >ôevidence consistent with a >simulation or tracing is present, but ôthe known >writing is consistent with the questioned >writingö has no intelligible meaning. > >could not be identified/cannot identifyùthese >terms are objectionable not only because they are >ambiguous but also because they are biased; they >imply that the examinerÆs task is only to >identify the suspect, not to decide whether or >not >the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms >is used, it should always be followed by ôor >eliminate[d]ö. > >similarities were noted/differences as well as >similaritiesùthese expressions are meaningless >without an explanation as to the extent and >significance of the similarities or differences >between the known and questioned material. These >terms should never be substituted for gradations >of opinions. > >cannot be associated/cannot be connectedùthese >terms are too vague and may be interpreted as >reflecting bias as they have no counterpart >suggesting that the writer cannot be >eliminated either. > >no identificationùthis expression could be >understood to mean anything from a strong >probability that the suspect wrote the questioned >writing; to a complete elimination. It is >not only confusing but also grammatically >incorrect when used informally in sentences such >as.ô I no identified the >writerö or ôI made a no ident in this case.ö > >inconclusiveùthis is commonly used synonymously >with no conclusion when the examiner is at the >zero point on the scale of confidence. A >potential problem is that some people understand >this term to mean something short of definite (or >conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, >and the examiner should be aware of this >ambiguity. > >positive identificationùThis phrase is >nappropriate because it seems to suggest that >some identifications are more positive than >others. > >[strong] reason to believeùthere are too many >definitions of believe and belief that lack >certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to >our conclusion (or determination or expert >opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term >in a report? > >qualified identificationùAn identification is not >qualified. However, opinions may be qualified >when the evidence falls short of an >identification or elimination. > > > > > >===== >Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. >John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com >Certified Fire Investigator >Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics >http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 >[EndPost by John Lentini ] > >[EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 16:26:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0JLQHB9023278 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:26:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:26:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:27:17 -0500 From: Marilyn Harris Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message >Had Mr. Turvey bothered to read the decisions of the state appellate courts as to Mr. Spence's direct and post conviction appeals and the decisions of the US District Court and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on his habeas appeals, he would realize not only that Mr. Spence was most definitely guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted (thereby rendering the allegations of his attorneys and the anti-death penalty group false), but also that there has never been a judicial finding of any wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Campbell or with regard to Dr. Campbell's testimony. Hi L. DeShong, Yes, in Mr. Turvey's Sources & Further Information section on his Forensic Misadventures page (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html) the first link leads to the District Attorney's page http://www.vicfeazell.com/news.shtml?art20.html in which it is stated that there was no violation of fundamental fairness under the due process clause shown: SPENCE v. JOHNSON David Wayne SPENCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee. Nos. 94-20212, 94-20213. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. March 29, 1996. [...] Spence is simply trying to relitigate this aspect of his defense eleven years too late. At trial, Spence introduced his own forensic odontologist, Dr. Gerald Vale, a leading expert in the field. Dr. Vale spiritedly criticized Dr. Campbell's methodology and conclusions, although, critically, Dr. Vale admitted he could not rule out Spence's teeth as the source of the bite marks. Because this evidentiary issue was fully and competently aired in the state courts, no violation of fundamental fairness under the due process clause has been shown. Bailey v. Procunier, 744 F.2d 1166, 1168 (5th Cir.1984). [...] Marilyn [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 19 23:59:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0K4xAKc000510 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:59:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040120045903.42798.qmail@web41613.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:59:03 -0800 (PST) From: Anthony Romano Subject: [forens] ReSET Seeking Volunteers To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: elg01@starpower.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ReSET is seeking scientists who are retired and live in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area. ReSET, Retired Scientists, Engineers and Technicians, recruits retired scientists to volunteer to teach six sessions on the scientific subject of their choice to elementary school classes in DC or Montgomery County, Maryland. Volunteers receive training and support from ReSET. For more information and to sign up, please see their Web site at www.resetonline.org or contact E. Laura Golberg, ReSET Assistant Director elg01@starpower.net directly. Thanks. Anthony Romano "Justice through Science" --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Anthony Romano ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 06:17:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0KBHPvI005953 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:17:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040120120232.009f4280@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:18:46 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Opinion - back to basics Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu A long long time ago in a land far away, this neophyte first entered with trepidation into the anointed space of a crime laboratory. One of the elders of the land, one of stature, great imparted wisdom to those that would draw near and hear. From the steps of the temple of knowledge and experience, he imparted that "Forensic Testimony is Opinion Testimony." ZIP ---- today As we pontificate on the meaning of words, differences of professional opinion, and who is "good" and who is "evil", I think it is proper, every once in awhile, that we take a deep breath, look around and remember some of the basics that our profession is built on. Shalom from Jerusalem Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 06:17:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0KBHTZs005983 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:17:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040120125346.00a1d480@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:16:36 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Results - Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Below are the results of the survey I sent out last week. I received only two responses. This may be due to the length or the convoluted way I wrote it. In the first part, I changed the results I received to percentages for ease of understanding. Comments are included if there were any. The survey is resent in whole, with the results after each question in blue and in italics to ease discrimination. I thank those that took the effort to respond. Shalom from Jerusalem Azriel Gorski In an effort to get a "handle" on the diversity and the "weight" of words used in forensic reports, I ask the list members help by answering the following questions. To standardise the reporting of results, please give your answers in the requested form, adding comments and thoughts sparingly and only after you have given the requested answer. Results will be reported back to the list. This is an attempt to gauge the feelings of the profession, so please do not defer to dictionary or probability theory definitions. Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a position where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES or NO (Results will be reported separately for the YES and NO categories) Yes, Yes Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are reported back to the list. 1. good chance - 75%, 50% 2. same as - 100%, 100% 3. congruency - No answer, 40% 4. indistinguishable - 100%, 80% 5. consistent - 100%, 50% 6. matched - 100%, 100% Comment: The answers would vary depending on what characteristics we are looking at. Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two compared items shared a common source expressed by the following words and phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. 1. might have - 51%, 33 1/3 % 2. could have - 95%, 33 1/3 % 3. possible - 51%, 50% 4. probable - 90 to 99 %, 66 2/3 % Comment: The answers would vary depending on what characteristics we are looking at. Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following hypothetical: In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using a peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. 1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? YES or NO No, No 2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common origin is: a. Better than 1 in 2 (1 in 2.1 or higher) b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) b, b Comments: I'm interpreting this as 1 in 1 is identity. This will depend on the object analyzed and the characteristics analyzed. It is a very difficult question to answer like that. 3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? YES or NO No, No 4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common origin is: a. Better than 1 in 2 (1 in 2.1 or higher) b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) b, b Comment: Definitely Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis for some constructive discussion. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 10:49:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0KFnw1r013376 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:49:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:49:17 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0KFnw1s013376 Keith, Sorry that you you unintentionally got involved in the post war with Brent. It was never my intention to involve anyone but Brent in the questions regarding his credentials as a forensic scientist. What turned out to be a question and in addition a statement about job duty educational requirements on my part became a verbal melee. If you are still interested in presesetning something regarding DNA or Laboratory Science at the IAI conference in St. Louis, MO at the end of August, I am forwarding the URL to the IAI website as well as the program chairman's e-mail address. http://www.theiai.org/ http://www.theiai.org/conference/2004/presentationapp1.php mailto:edplanner@theiai.org Again, I apologize for your and Norah's indirect involvement in an issue that you palyed no part. Sincerely, >>> kinman@ix.netcom.com 1/16/2004 4:47:00 PM >>> Keith Inman wrote: > snip... > or read our writings (specifically, see /CACNews/, Second Quarter, > 2003, pg.7 at http://www.cacnews.org/pdfs/2ndq03/.pdf). Sorry, I was close. The correct URL is http://www.cacnews.org/pdfs/2ndq03.pdf [EndPost by Keith Inman ] Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 11:03:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0KG3WvB014308 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:03:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:01:12 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0KG3WvC014308 Larry, Sounds like your two paint samples are consistent with sharing a common source. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> lpederson@co.weld.co.us 1/19/2004 10:41:26 AM >>> In this discussion of terms I'm surprised there's been no mention (that I've seen) of my favorite term ... "indistinguishable". This can be used for the different steps of the examination/analysis. If, at the end of the examinations and analyses, the examiner has not been able to distinguish between the two items in a meaningful way, then they are "indistinguishable," given what the examiner has done. If the examiner finds meaningful differences along the path of examinations and analyses, then they are "distinctly different", my second favorite term. I think they give the clearest impression to the reader IF a conclusive result has been reached. In paint comparisons there are maybe more cases where conclusive results are reached compared with documents. However, in areas of trace evidence where staticstical information regarding the relationship between two items isn't available, the degree of certainty of an "inclusion" is related to the discriminating ability of each test done. For instance, for one-layer pieces of paint, a result that states "microscopic examination showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable in color and texture" is meaningful but superficial. Add to that that "analysis by IR showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives a greater degree of confidence. Next "analysis by pyrolysis/GC/FID showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives greater confidence. Next "pyrolysis/GC/MS ... " gives even greater confidence to the analyst of a conclusive result. And finally, "analysis by SEM/EDXF showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives most analysts a great degree of confidence that the two paints are indistinguishable. The conclusion in the report regarding the comparison would then articulate the technology applied to the comparison, and that the two items were "indistinguishable." However, the fact remains that I can't say conclusively they are absolutely the same paint. But this report would allow someone with a basic knowledge of paint comparison technology to assess the meaningfulness of my "indistinguishable" conclusion. If my conclusion were based on color and texture under a microscope, there may be a lot for a defense expert to question about the result. If I've done the whole nine yards on the two items, there may not be much to question about the conclusion. If they were "distinctly different," I would articulate the testing that had been completed, but say definitively which analytical method led me to my conclusion. I'm throwing this out for discussion without dealing with any grey areas, such as defining "meaningful differences." Soooooo, what does everyone think? Later, Larry Pederson >>> John Lentini 01/17/04 09:37AM >>> Forensic document examiners have struggled with report wording for years. There is still some dispute about the levels of certainty that they use to express their opinions. Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners (copyright ASTM) There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a "nine point scale." Some document examiners cut this down to seven, five or even three (did, did not, inconclusive) While maybe not universally applicable to all questions of identity of source, these consensus definitions shed some light on how one discipline has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is long, but, hey, it's a big subject) 4.1 Recommended Terms: identification (definite conclusion of identity)ùthis is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using the word ôfact,ö the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known material actually wrote the writing in question. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that John Doe wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. strong probability (highly probable, very probable)ùthe evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same individual. ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material very probably wrote the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùSome examiners doubt the desirability of differentiating between strong probability and probable, and certainly they may eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. probableùthe evidence contained in the andwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of theô virtually certainö degree of confidence. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned material. indications (evidence to suggest)ùa body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing. ExamplesùThere is evidence which indicates (or suggests) that the John Doe of the known material may have written the questioned material but the evidence falls far short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion. DISCUSSIONùThis is a very weak opinion, and a report may be misinterpreted to be an identification by some readers if the report simply states, ôThe evidence indicates that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.ö There should always be additional limiting words or phrases (such as ômay haveö or ôbut the evidence is far from conclusiveö) when this opinion is reported, to ensure that the reader understands that the opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, and certainly they cannot be criticized if they eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term. no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)ùThis is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner does not have even a leaning one way or another. ExamplesùNo conclusion could be reached as to whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material, or I could not determine whether or not the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material. eandwriting comparisons. The examiner has indications did notùthis carries the same weight as the indications term that is, it is a very weak opinion. ExamplesùThere is very little significant evidence present in the comparable portions of the questioned and known writings, but that evidence suggests that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or I found indications that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material but the evidence is far from conclusive. See Discussion after indications. probably did notùthe evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the evidence is not quite up to the ôvirtually certainö range. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of the known material probably did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùSome examiners prefer to state this opinion: ôIt is unlikely that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.ö There is no strong objection to this, as ôunlikelyö is merely the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ôimprobableö. strong probability did notùthis carries the same weight as strong probability on the identification side of the scale; that is, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or in my opinion (or conclusion or determination) it is highly probable that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùCertainly those examiners who choose to use ôunlikelyö in place of ôprobably did notö may wish to use ôhighly unlikelyö here. eliminationùthis, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed by the document examiner in handwriting comparisons. By using this expression the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual. ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe of the known material did not write the questioned material. DISCUSSIONùThis is often a very difficult determination to make in handwriting examinations, especially when only requested exemplars are available, and extreme care should be used in arriving at this conclusion. 4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, there is usually a necessity for additional comments, consisting of such things as reasons for qualification (if the available evidence allows that determination), suggestions for remedies (if any are known), and any other comments that will shed more light on the report. The report should stand alone with no extra explanations necessary. 4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: 4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by document examiners are troublesome because they may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly inane (such as ômake/no makeö) that they will not be discussed. The use of others is discouraged because they are incomplete or misused. These expressions include: possible/could haveùthese terms have no place in expert opinions on handwriting because the examinerÆs task is to decide to what degree of certainty it can be said that a handwriting sample is by a specific person. If the evidence is so limited or unclear that no definite or qualified opinion can be expressed, then the proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the suspect ôcould have written the material in questionö says nothing about probability and is therefore meaningless to the reader or to the court. The examiner should be clear on the different meanings of ôpossibleö and ôprobable,ö although they are often used interchangeably in everyday speech. consistent withùthere are times when this expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when ôevidence consistent with disguise is presentö or ôevidence consistent with a simulation or tracing is present, but ôthe known writing is consistent with the questioned writingö has no intelligible meaning. could not be identified/cannot identifyùthese terms are objectionable not only because they are ambiguous but also because they are biased; they imply that the examinerÆs task is only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or not the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms is used, it should always be followed by ôor eliminate[d]ö. similarities were noted/differences as well as similaritiesùthese expressions are meaningless without an explanation as to the extent and significance of the similarities or differences between the known and questioned material. These terms should never be substituted for gradations of opinions. cannot be associated/cannot be connectedùthese terms are too vague and may be interpreted as reflecting bias as they have no counterpart suggesting that the writer cannot be eliminated either. no identificationùthis expression could be understood to mean anything from a strong probability that the suspect wrote the questioned writing; to a complete elimination. It is not only confusing but also grammatically incorrect when used informally in sentences such as.ô I no identified the writerö or ôI made a no ident in this case.ö inconclusiveùthis is commonly used synonymously with no conclusion when the examiner is at the zero point on the scale of confidence. A potential problem is that some people understand this term to mean something short of definite (or conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, and the examiner should be aware of this ambiguity. positive identificationùThis phrase is nappropriate because it seems to suggest that some identifications are more positive than others. [strong] reason to believeùthere are too many definitions of believe and belief that lack certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to our conclusion (or determination or expert opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term in a report? qualified identificationùAn identification is not qualified. However, opinions may be qualified when the evidence falls short of an identification or elimination. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 14:42:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0KJg3RI022688 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:42:03 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:41:29 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6C135BE51RO82285-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0KJg2qL022683 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete, I tend to agree with Bill on this. You give some examples but I would suggest that they are so simplistic that they would tend to mislead people even more than a non statistically supported statement. For example you say: "If you have a class characteristic match with a toolmark and a screwdriver, you can go to the screw driver store and see how many indistinguishable screwdrivers you can find." I know you were just trying to give a rough example but I think some may take it as valid. So with that, which "screwdriver store" do you suggest I go to? I am sure I can get quite different results going to my local supermarket (which I'm sure some regard as a valid place to buy their screwdrivers) or to the hardware store (which I suspect might be what you were thinking of if you even thought about a choice) or Sear's or to Junior's Tools (a tools only chain store), or a Snap-on dealer or Brownell's (a gunsmith supply co.) or the McMaster-Karr Catalog (one of the most extensive tool listings around), or the local museum that has only historically interesting tools (which could be more in line with the screwdriver you have depending on what it looks like, I think I still have a hand forged screw driver or two in my toolboxes and gave away quite a few more to a museum some time back; having grown up on a ranch where my father and grandfather and great-grandfather did a little forge work and kept tools forever). Maybe, there is no store involved and your "store" should be to go to the list of all tools stolen locally, then what is locally and of course some might consider it prejudicial to suggest our suspect might have gotten his tools in other than an honest way. But then what if in fact had been burglarized had been a antique store with a lot of old tools that aren't on the market any more but aren't old enough to make it to your local museum. Your results will differ greatly in the choice of "store". If you go to one of these you change the results in one way if you go to several you change them in another and if you go to all of them you get a third set of numbers. How do you decide what is the appropriate "universe" for your study? Once you have settled on a set of numbers then aren't going to have to translate that set of numbers to what a jury really understands. And won't that set of numbers give a false suggestion of a precision that do esn't exist. Isn't it just as appropriate to tell the jury, I can't say it made the mark nor can I say it didn't and let them look at it and collectively put together their wisdom about how common the screwdriver is. Jim >>> pbarnett@fsalab.com 01/17/04 09:01AM >>> One of the criticism of forensic science often heard, and specifically with respect to document examiners, is the inability to give anything more than a subjective opinion. Whether this is a valid criticism or not, or whether there is a [potential] solution or not, if it is possible to be more quantitative than less, shouldn't we make the effort? When dealing with individualization of trace evidence I think there are things that can be done to assist the users of our work to assess its significance. If you have a blue fiber case, you can go out and collect as many blue fibers as you want, subject them to the same analyses as the evidence, and make a statement. If you have a class characteristic match with a toolmark and a screwdriver, you can go to the screw driver store and see how many indistinguishable screwdrivers you can find. If you have a glass fragment, you can look at all the other glass fragments that you have analyzed (or, even better, that have been analyzed by other forensic scientists) and make some statement. Much of this type of information has been reported in the literature from time to time. We should be able to say more than "the Q and K samples could be from the same source, or any other source with those properties." I don't see how anyone can make a decision based on that information. And in all cases, as forensic scientists we do know more than that statement implies. We should tell our clients. Pete Barnett At 08:37 AM 1/17/2004, you wrote: >Forensic document examiners have struggled with >report wording for years. There is still some >dispute about the levels of certainty that they >use to express their opinions. [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 15:11:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0KKBsIc023832 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:11:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20040120201147.008c8ee8@pop.ncf.ca > X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:11:47 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: [forens] New Question for Brent Turvey Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Brent; I have been able to locate a person who can get copies of Dr. Campbell's (and the defence expert's) testimony in the Spence trial. What I did was click on one of your links on your new "misadventures" page and email the website owner (Vic Feazell, DA, 1993). He said he is busy now but can try and get that material after the end of February if I send him a reminder email. He only has paper copies of course. Interestingly, like billo, he mentioned the post-conviction "blind survey" of the defence lawyers' 5 or so odontologists who did not see ALL the evidence before giving their recommendations/conclusions. Would you be interested in obtaining and reading this material? Marilyn [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 20:13:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0L1DTYB000589 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:13:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040120165703.024e68a0@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:07:35 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 11:41 AM 1/20/2004, you wrote: >Pete, > >I tend to agree with Bill on this. You give some examples but I would >suggest that they are so simplistic that they would tend to mislead people >even more than a non statistically supported statement. > >For example you say: "If you have a class characteristic match >with a toolmark and a screwdriver, you can go to the screw driver store and >see how many indistinguishable screwdrivers you can find." Isn't it just >as appropriate to tell the jury, I can't say it made the mark nor can I >say it didn't and let them look at it and collectively put together their >wisdom about how common the screwdriver is. OK - that is a valid approach, I guess. But would that work to show a jury the IR spectrum of two paint samples? Aren't firearms examiners willing to go into a firearms database and evaluate the population in that database to get some idea of how common a particular set of class characteristics is? Why shouldn't other forensic scientists be willing to establish relevant databases for other kinds of evidence? In fact, these exist for glass, at least. I certainly do not say this is a trivial exercise, but not to do it is to abdicate the forensic scientist's responsibility to people who (1)may not understand what the forensic scientist is saying, and (2)probably don't have the same experience or understanding of the problem that the forensic scientist does. And most of the time, their is no opportunity to explain. Pete Barnett [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 20 20:47:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0L1ll7x001640 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:47:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000b01c3dfc0$d72755a0$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> From: "John Bowden" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:49:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Greg, What do you mean by a "common source?" Is it that the paint came from the same factory, where modern quality control measures assure a relatively uniform product? Perhaps the same batch (usually thousands of gallons)? Could it mean that the paint came from the same can, but how would one can determine if one can was different from another? Does that mean that the two samples came from the same painted object? The tests listed by Larry would seem to determine only the batch at best. Granted a multilayered paint might provide greater discrimination, but are not a large number of objects, say automobiles for example, finished using the same undercoat, primers, and overcoats? At least those of the same color produced at one plant. A refinished coating would not doubt limit the number of possibilities. The only time I was able to say absolutely that a paint chip came from a particular automobile was when a physical match was determined. A sharp eyed CHP officer saw a small (less than 1/8" x 1/8") chip at the scene of a hit and run fatality. Its curved shape aided in identifying the exact location, under the hood of the suspect vehicle. Of course other evidence was present: fibers embedded in the cracked windshield microscopically and chemically indistinguishable from the victims sweater; an impression in the hood which had the same pattern as the victims Levi's, including the outline of a square shape consistent with the die on a key chain in the victim's pocket; and so on. By the way, the victim was blind. Other than the physical match, the evidence consisted of a number of linked probabilities, many of which were ill defined. This often is the case. To say that two, or more, articles came from the "same source" provides little true information. Just another log on the fire. John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Laskowski" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > Larry, > > Sounds like your two paint samples are consistent with sharing a common source. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lpederson@co.weld.co.us 1/19/2004 10:41:26 AM >>> > In this discussion of terms I'm surprised there's been no mention (that I've seen) of my favorite term ... "indistinguishable". This can be used for the different steps of the examination/analysis. If, at the end of the examinations and analyses, the examiner has not been able to distinguish between the two items in a meaningful way, then they are "indistinguishable," given what the examiner has done. > > If the examiner finds meaningful differences along the path of examinations and analyses, then they are "distinctly different", my second favorite term. > > I think they give the clearest impression to the reader IF a conclusive result has been reached. In paint comparisons there are maybe more cases where conclusive results are reached compared with documents. However, in areas of trace evidence where staticstical information regarding the relationship between two items isn't available, the degree of certainty of an "inclusion" is related to the discriminating ability of each test done. > > For instance, for one-layer pieces of paint, a result that states "microscopic examination showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable in color and texture" is meaningful but superficial. > Add to that that "analysis by IR showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives a greater degree of confidence. > Next "analysis by pyrolysis/GC/FID showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives greater confidence. > Next "pyrolysis/GC/MS ... " gives even greater confidence to the analyst of a conclusive result. > And finally, "analysis by SEM/EDXF showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives most analysts a great degree of confidence that the two paints are indistinguishable. > > The conclusion in the report regarding the comparison would then articulate the technology applied to the comparison, and that the two items were "indistinguishable." However, the fact remains that I can't say conclusively they are absolutely the same paint. But this report would allow someone with a basic knowledge of paint comparison technology to assess the meaningfulness of my "indistinguishable" conclusion. If my conclusion were based on color and texture under a microscope, there may be a lot for a defense expert to question about the result. If I've done the whole nine yards on the two items, there may not be much to question about the conclusion. > > If they were "distinctly different," I would articulate the testing that had been completed, but say definitively which analytical method led me to my conclusion. > > I'm throwing this out for discussion without dealing with any grey areas, such as defining "meaningful differences." > > Soooooo, what does everyone think? > > Later, > Larry Pederson > > >>> John Lentini 01/17/04 09:37AM >>> > > Forensic document examiners have struggled with > report wording for years. There is still some > dispute about the levels of certainty that they > use to express their opinions. > > Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, > Standard Terminology for > Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document > Examiners (copyright ASTM) > > There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a > "nine point scale." Some document examiners cut > this down to seven, five or even three (did, did > not, inconclusive) > > While maybe not universally applicable to all > questions of identity of source, these consensus > definitions shed some light on how one discipline > has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is > long, but, hey, it's a big subject) > > 4.1 Recommended Terms: > > identification (definite conclusion of > identity)ùthis is the highest degree of > confidence expressed by document examiners in > handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no > reservations whatever, and although prohibited > from using > the word ôfact,ö the examiner is certain, based > on evidence contained in the handwriting, that > the writer of the known material actually wrote > the writing in question. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that John Doe > wrote the questioned material, or it is my > opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material. > > > strong probability (highly probable, very > probable)ùthe evidence is very persuasive, yet > some critical feature or quality is missing so > that an identification is not in order; > however, the examiner is virtually certain that > the questioned and known writings were written by > the same individual. > > ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the > John Doe of the known material wrote the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John Doe > of the known material very probably wrote the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùSome examiners doubt the desirability > of differentiating between strong probability and > probable, and certainly they may eliminate this > terminology. But those examiners who are trying > to > encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of > confidence may wish to use this or a similar > term. > > probableùthe evidence contained in the andwriting > points rather strongly toward the questioned and > known writings having been written by the same > individual; however, it falls short of theô > virtually certainö degree of confidence. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material probably wrote the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John > Doe of the known material probably wrote the > questioned material. > > indications (evidence to suggest)ùa body of > writing has few features which are of > significance for handwriting comparison > purposes, but those features are in agreement > with > another body of writing. > > ExamplesùThere is evidence which indicates (or > suggests) that the John Doe of the known material > may have written the questioned material but the > evidence falls far short of that necessary to > support a definite conclusion. > > DISCUSSIONùThis is a very weak opinion, and a > report may be misinterpreted to be an > identification by some readers if the report > simply states, ôThe evidence indicates that the > John Doe of the known material wrote the > questioned material.ö There should always be > additional limiting words or phrases (such as > ômay haveö or ôbut the evidence is far from > conclusiveö) when this opinion is reported, to > ensure that the reader understands that the > opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the > desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, > and certainly they cannot be criticized if they > eliminate this terminology. But those examiners > who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray > scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use > this or a similar term. > > no conclusion (totally inconclusive, > indeterminable)ùThis is the zero point of the > confidence scale. It is used when there > are significantly limiting factors, such as > disguise in the questioned and/or known writing > or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner > does not have even a leaning one way or another. > ExamplesùNo conclusion could be reached as to > whether or not the John Doe of the known material > wrote the questioned material, or I could not > determine whether or not the John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material. > eandwriting comparisons. The examiner has > indications did notùthis carries the same weight > as the indications term that is, it is a very > weak opinion. > > ExamplesùThere is very little significant > evidence present in the comparable portions of > the questioned and known writings, but that > evidence suggests that the John Doe of the > known material did not write the questioned > material, or I found indications that the John > Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material but the evidence is far > from conclusive. See Discussion after > indications. > > probably did notùthe evidence points rather > strongly against the questioned and known > writings having been written by the same > individual, but, as in the probable range above, > the evidence is not quite up to the ôvirtually > certainö range. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material probably did not write the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of > the known material probably did not write the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùSome examiners prefer to state this > opinion: ôIt is unlikely that the John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material.ö > There is no strong objection to this, as > ôunlikelyö is merely > the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ôimprobableö. > > strong probability did notùthis carries the same > weight as strong probability on the > identification side of the scale; that > is, the examiner is virtually certain that the > questioned and known writings were not written by > the same individual. > > ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the > John Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material, or in my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) it is highly > probable that the John Doe of the known material > did not write the questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùCertainly those examiners who choose > to use ôunlikelyö in place of ôprobably did notö > may wish to use ôhighly unlikelyö here. > > eliminationùthis, like the definite conclusion of > identity, is the highest degree of confidence > expressed by the document examiner in handwriting > comparisons. By using this expression > the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that > the questioned and known writings were not > written by the same individual. > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material did not write the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John > Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùThis is often a very difficult > determination to make in handwriting > examinations, especially when only requested > exemplars are available, and extreme care should > be used in arriving at this conclusion. > > 4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, > there is usually a necessity for additional > comments, consisting of such things as reasons > for qualification (if the available evidence > allows that determination), suggestions for > remedies (if any are known), and any other > comments that will shed more light on the report. > The report should stand alone with no extra > explanations necessary. > > 4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: > > 4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by > document examiners are troublesome because they > may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of > clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is > deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly > inane (such as ômake/no makeö) that they will not > be discussed. The use of others is discouraged > because they are incomplete or misused. > > These expressions include: > > possible/could haveùthese terms have no place in > expert opinions on handwriting because the > examinerÆs task is to decide to what degree of > certainty it can be said that a handwriting > sample is by a specific person. If the evidence > is > so limited or unclear that no definite or > qualified opinion can be expressed, then the > proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the > suspect ôcould have written the material in > questionö says nothing about probability and is > therefore meaningless to the reader or to the > court. The examiner should be clear on the > different meanings of ôpossibleö and > ôprobable,ö although they are often used > interchangeably in everyday speech. > > consistent withùthere are times when this > expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when > ôevidence consistent with disguise is presentö or > ôevidence consistent with a > simulation or tracing is present, but ôthe known > writing is consistent with the questioned > writingö has no intelligible meaning. > > could not be identified/cannot identifyùthese > terms are objectionable not only because they are > ambiguous but also because they are biased; they > imply that the examinerÆs task is only to > identify the suspect, not to decide whether or > not > the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms > is used, it should always be followed by ôor > eliminate[d]ö. > > similarities were noted/differences as well as > similaritiesùthese expressions are meaningless > without an explanation as to the extent and > significance of the similarities or differences > between the known and questioned material. These > terms should never be substituted for gradations > of opinions. > > cannot be associated/cannot be connectedùthese > terms are too vague and may be interpreted as > reflecting bias as they have no counterpart > suggesting that the writer cannot be > eliminated either. > > no identificationùthis expression could be > understood to mean anything from a strong > probability that the suspect wrote the questioned > writing; to a complete elimination. It is > not only confusing but also grammatically > incorrect when used informally in sentences such > as.ô I no identified the > writerö or ôI made a no ident in this case.ö > > inconclusiveùthis is commonly used synonymously > with no conclusion when the examiner is at the > zero point on the scale of confidence. A > potential problem is that some people understand > this term to mean something short of definite (or > conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, > and the examiner should be aware of this > ambiguity. > > positive identificationùThis phrase is > nappropriate because it seems to suggest that > some identifications are more positive than > others. > > [strong] reason to believeùthere are too many > definitions of believe and belief that lack > certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to > our conclusion (or determination or expert > opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term > in a report? > > qualified identificationùAn identification is not > qualified. However, opinions may be qualified > when the evidence falls short of an > identification or elimination. > > > > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > [EndPost by John Lentini ] > > [EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 05:44:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LAilUH009709 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:44:47 -0500 (EST) From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:44:35 EST Subject: [forens] PSA membrane (was Hematrace test for Human bloo) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 420 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Here are two references pertaining to the Seratec validation: Eastman, A.E., Morris, S. Simich,J., Duceman, B. 1999. Forensic Validation of Rapid Screening Tests for Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). American Academy of Forensic Sciences 5:46 Morris, S., Biss, T., Eastman, A.E. 1999. Forensic Validation of a Rapid Screening Test for Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA): supplemental studies. Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists 25th Anniversary Meeting, October 14-16. Brad Brown --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 08:24:51 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LDOpBd014013 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:24:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: "Jenny Smith" Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:24:43 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GHQPROD/MSHP400(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/21/2004 07:24:43 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0LDOoqL014008 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I stopped using the wording "could have a common origin" when a defense attorney told the jury in his closing remarks that I had testified that the questioned paint was from a common source, as in very ordinary, not unusual, abundant....... Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 "John Bowden" .net> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 01/20/2004 07:49 PM Please respond to forens Greg, What do you mean by a "common source?" Is it that the paint came from the same factory, where modern quality control measures assure a relatively uniform product? Perhaps the same batch (usually thousands of gallons)? Could it mean that the paint came from the same can, but how would one can determine if one can was different from another? Does that mean that the two samples came from the same painted object? The tests listed by Larry would seem to determine only the batch at best. Granted a multilayered paint might provide greater discrimination, but are not a large number of objects, say automobiles for example, finished using the same undercoat, primers, and overcoats? At least those of the same color produced at one plant. A refinished coating would not doubt limit the number of possibilities. The only time I was able to say absolutely that a paint chip came from a particular automobile was when a physical match was determined. A sharp eyed CHP officer saw a small (less than 1/8" x 1/8") chip at the scene of a hit and run fatality. Its curved shape aided in identifying the exact location, under the hood of the suspect vehicle. Of course other evidence was present: fibers embedded in the cracked windshield microscopically and chemically indistinguishable from the victims sweater; an impression in the hood which had the same pattern as the victims Levi's, including the outline of a square shape consistent with the die on a key chain in the victim's pocket; and so on. By the way, the victim was blind. Other than the physical match, the evidence consisted of a number of linked probabilities, many of which were ill defined. This often is the case. To say that two, or more, articles came from the "same source" provides little true information. Just another log on the fire. John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Laskowski" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > Larry, > > Sounds like your two paint samples are consistent with sharing a common source. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lpederson@co.weld.co.us 1/19/2004 10:41:26 AM >>> > In this discussion of terms I'm surprised there's been no mention (that I've seen) of my favorite term ... "indistinguishable". This can be used for the different steps of the examination/analysis. If, at the end of the examinations and analyses, the examiner has not been able to distinguish between the two items in a meaningful way, then they are "indistinguishable," given what the examiner has done. > > If the examiner finds meaningful differences along the path of examinations and analyses, then they are "distinctly different", my second favorite term. > > I think they give the clearest impression to the reader IF a conclusive result has been reached. In paint comparisons there are maybe more cases where conclusive results are reached compared with documents. However, in areas of trace evidence where staticstical information regarding the relationship between two items isn't available, the degree of certainty of an "inclusion" is related to the discriminating ability of each test done. > > For instance, for one-layer pieces of paint, a result that states "microscopic examination showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable in color and texture" is meaningful but superficial. > Add to that that "analysis by IR showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives a greater degree of confidence. > Next "analysis by pyrolysis/GC/FID showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives greater confidence. > Next "pyrolysis/GC/MS ... " gives even greater confidence to the analyst of a conclusive result. > And finally, "analysis by SEM/EDXF showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives most analysts a great degree of confidence that the two paints are indistinguishable. > > The conclusion in the report regarding the comparison would then articulate the technology applied to the comparison, and that the two items were "indistinguishable." However, the fact remains that I can't say conclusively they are absolutely the same paint. But this report would allow someone with a basic knowledge of paint comparison technology to assess the meaningfulness of my "indistinguishable" conclusion. If my conclusion were based on color and texture under a microscope, there may be a lot for a defense expert to question about the result. If I've done the whole nine yards on the two items, there may not be much to question about the conclusion. > > If they were "distinctly different," I would articulate the testing that had been completed, but say definitively which analytical method led me to my conclusion. > > I'm throwing this out for discussion without dealing with any grey areas, such as defining "meaningful differences." > > Soooooo, what does everyone think? > > Later, > Larry Pederson > > >>> John Lentini 01/17/04 09:37AM >>> > > Forensic document examiners have struggled with > report wording for years. There is still some > dispute about the levels of certainty that they > use to express their opinions. > > Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, > Standard Terminology for > Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document > Examiners (copyright ASTM) > > There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a > "nine point scale." Some document examiners cut > this down to seven, five or even three (did, did > not, inconclusive) > > While maybe not universally applicable to all > questions of identity of source, these consensus > definitions shed some light on how one discipline > has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is > long, but, hey, it's a big subject) > > 4.1 Recommended Terms: > > identification (definite conclusion of > identity)ùthis is the highest degree of > confidence expressed by document examiners in > handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no > reservations whatever, and although prohibited > from using > the word ôfact,ö the examiner is certain, based > on evidence contained in the handwriting, that > the writer of the known material actually wrote > the writing in question. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that John Doe > wrote the questioned material, or it is my > opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material. > > > strong probability (highly probable, very > probable)ùthe evidence is very persuasive, yet > some critical feature or quality is missing so > that an identification is not in order; > however, the examiner is virtually certain that > the questioned and known writings were written by > the same individual. > > ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the > John Doe of the known material wrote the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John Doe > of the known material very probably wrote the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùSome examiners doubt the desirability > of differentiating between strong probability and > probable, and certainly they may eliminate this > terminology. But those examiners who are trying > to > encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of > confidence may wish to use this or a similar > term. > > probableùthe evidence contained in the andwriting > points rather strongly toward the questioned and > known writings having been written by the same > individual; however, it falls short of theô > virtually certainö degree of confidence. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material probably wrote the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John > Doe of the known material probably wrote the > questioned material. > > indications (evidence to suggest)ùa body of > writing has few features which are of > significance for handwriting comparison > purposes, but those features are in agreement > with > another body of writing. > > ExamplesùThere is evidence which indicates (or > suggests) that the John Doe of the known material > may have written the questioned material but the > evidence falls far short of that necessary to > support a definite conclusion. > > DISCUSSIONùThis is a very weak opinion, and a > report may be misinterpreted to be an > identification by some readers if the report > simply states, ôThe evidence indicates that the > John Doe of the known material wrote the > questioned material.ö There should always be > additional limiting words or phrases (such as > ômay haveö or ôbut the evidence is far from > conclusiveö) when this opinion is reported, to > ensure that the reader understands that the > opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the > desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, > and certainly they cannot be criticized if they > eliminate this terminology. But those examiners > who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray > scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use > this or a similar term. > > no conclusion (totally inconclusive, > indeterminable)ùThis is the zero point of the > confidence scale. It is used when there > are significantly limiting factors, such as > disguise in the questioned and/or known writing > or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner > does not have even a leaning one way or another. > ExamplesùNo conclusion could be reached as to > whether or not the John Doe of the known material > wrote the questioned material, or I could not > determine whether or not the John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material. > eandwriting comparisons. The examiner has > indications did notùthis carries the same weight > as the indications term that is, it is a very > weak opinion. > > ExamplesùThere is very little significant > evidence present in the comparable portions of > the questioned and known writings, but that > evidence suggests that the John Doe of the > known material did not write the questioned > material, or I found indications that the John > Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material but the evidence is far > from conclusive. See Discussion after > indications. > > probably did notùthe evidence points rather > strongly against the questioned and known > writings having been written by the same > individual, but, as in the probable range above, > the evidence is not quite up to the ôvirtually > certainö range. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material probably did not write the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of > the known material probably did not write the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùSome examiners prefer to state this > opinion: ôIt is unlikely that the John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material.ö > There is no strong objection to this, as > ôunlikelyö is merely > the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ôimprobableö. > > strong probability did notùthis carries the same > weight as strong probability on the > identification side of the scale; that > is, the examiner is virtually certain that the > questioned and known writings were not written by > the same individual. > > ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the > John Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material, or in my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) it is highly > probable that the John Doe of the known material > did not write the questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùCertainly those examiners who choose > to use ôunlikelyö in place of ôprobably did notö > may wish to use ôhighly unlikelyö here. > > eliminationùthis, like the definite conclusion of > identity, is the highest degree of confidence > expressed by the document examiner in handwriting > comparisons. By using this expression > the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that > the questioned and known writings were not > written by the same individual. > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material did not write the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John > Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùThis is often a very difficult > determination to make in handwriting > examinations, especially when only requested > exemplars are available, and extreme care should > be used in arriving at this conclusion. > > 4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, > there is usually a necessity for additional > comments, consisting of such things as reasons > for qualification (if the available evidence > allows that determination), suggestions for > remedies (if any are known), and any other > comments that will shed more light on the report. > The report should stand alone with no extra > explanations necessary. > > 4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: > > 4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by > document examiners are troublesome because they > may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of > clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is > deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly > inane (such as ômake/no makeö) that they will not > be discussed. The use of others is discouraged > because they are incomplete or misused. > > These expressions include: > > possible/could haveùthese terms have no place in > expert opinions on handwriting because the > examinerÆs task is to decide to what degree of > certainty it can be said that a handwriting > sample is by a specific person. If the evidence > is > so limited or unclear that no definite or > qualified opinion can be expressed, then the > proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the > suspect ôcould have written the material in > questionö says nothing about probability and is > therefore meaningless to the reader or to the > court. The examiner should be clear on the > different meanings of ôpossibleö and > ôprobable,ö although they are often used > interchangeably in everyday speech. > > consistent withùthere are times when this > expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when > ôevidence consistent with disguise is presentö or > ôevidence consistent with a > simulation or tracing is present, but ôthe known > writing is consistent with the questioned > writingö has no intelligible meaning. > > could not be identified/cannot identifyùthese > terms are objectionable not only because they are > ambiguous but also because they are biased; they > imply that the examinerÆs task is only to > identify the suspect, not to decide whether or > not > the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms > is used, it should always be followed by ôor > eliminate[d]ö. > > similarities were noted/differences as well as > similaritiesùthese expressions are meaningless > without an explanation as to the extent and > significance of the similarities or differences > between the known and questioned material. These > terms should never be substituted for gradations > of opinions. > > cannot be associated/cannot be connectedùthese > terms are too vague and may be interpreted as > reflecting bias as they have no counterpart > suggesting that the writer cannot be > eliminated either. > > no identificationùthis expression could be > understood to mean anything from a strong > probability that the suspect wrote the questioned > writing; to a complete elimination. It is > not only confusing but also grammatically > incorrect when used informally in sentences such > as.ô I no identified the > writerö or ôI made a no ident in this case.ö > > inconclusiveùthis is commonly used synonymously > with no conclusion when the examiner is at the > zero point on the scale of confidence. A > potential problem is that some people understand > this term to mean something short of definite (or > conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, > and the examiner should be aware of this > ambiguity. > > positive identificationùThis phrase is > nappropriate because it seems to suggest that > some identifications are more positive than > others. > > [strong] reason to believeùthere are too many > definitions of believe and belief that lack > certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to > our conclusion (or determination or expert > opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term > in a report? > > qualified identificationùAn identification is not > qualified. However, opinions may be qualified > when the evidence falls short of an > identification or elimination. > > > > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > [EndPost by John Lentini ] > > [EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 10:03:51 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LF3p38017323 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:03:51 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [forens] Reference Fibers Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:03:49 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Reference Fibers Thread-Index: AcPgL8adsSEotpa7QHKzjNO1qIW5XA== From: "Laycock, Dave" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0LF3pqL017318 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Since CTS and National Bureau of Standards no longer provide fiber reference materials, where can we obtain fibers to build a reference collection? Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics [EndPost by "Laycock, Dave" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 10:50:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LFoGH9019293 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:50:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:49:53 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0LFoGHA019293 John, That's why it consistent. All the tests conducted could not distinguish between paints as described. So we are left with manufacturer, batch, can, etc. Simply put, there is nothing to eliminate the paint as having a common source, but because of large batch processing, it is simply impossible to specifically identify it unless there was a unique taggant present, which is not described in this scenario. So, despite the rhetoric and the displeasure against the word "consistent", I find no better alternative unless one qualifies it with a statement as to whatever physical and chmical properties it has in common, in addition to instrumental tests one conducts. Juries, will accept the basic premise that the paint can't be eliminated and you did the best of your ability to do so. Wordsmiths, on the other hand may never be satisfied. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> jbowden45@comcast.net 1/20/2004 5:49:42 PM >>> Greg, What do you mean by a "common source?" Is it that the paint came from the same factory, where modern quality control measures assure a relatively uniform product? Perhaps the same batch (usually thousands of gallons)? Could it mean that the paint came from the same can, but how would one can determine if one can was different from another? Does that mean that the two samples came from the same painted object? The tests listed by Larry would seem to determine only the batch at best. Granted a multilayered paint might provide greater discrimination, but are not a large number of objects, say automobiles for example, finished using the same undercoat, primers, and overcoats? At least those of the same color produced at one plant. A refinished coating would not doubt limit the number of possibilities. The only time I was able to say absolutely that a paint chip came from a particular automobile was when a physical match was determined. A sharp eyed CHP officer saw a small (less than 1/8" x 1/8") chip at the scene of a hit and run fatality. Its curved shape aided in identifying the exact location, under the hood of the suspect vehicle. Of course other evidence was present: fibers embedded in the cracked windshield microscopically and chemically indistinguishable from the victims sweater; an impression in the hood which had the same pattern as the victims Levi's, including the outline of a square shape consistent with the die on a key chain in the victim's pocket; and so on. By the way, the victim was blind. Other than the physical match, the evidence consisted of a number of linked probabilities, many of which were ill defined. This often is the case. To say that two, or more, articles came from the "same source" provides little true information. Just another log on the fire. John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Laskowski" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > Larry, > > Sounds like your two paint samples are consistent with sharing a common source. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor > Bakersfield, CA 93301 > Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 > Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 > Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > >>> lpederson@co.weld.co.us 1/19/2004 10:41:26 AM >>> > In this discussion of terms I'm surprised there's been no mention (that I've seen) of my favorite term ... "indistinguishable". This can be used for the different steps of the examination/analysis. If, at the end of the examinations and analyses, the examiner has not been able to distinguish between the two items in a meaningful way, then they are "indistinguishable," given what the examiner has done. > > If the examiner finds meaningful differences along the path of examinations and analyses, then they are "distinctly different", my second favorite term. > > I think they give the clearest impression to the reader IF a conclusive result has been reached. In paint comparisons there are maybe more cases where conclusive results are reached compared with documents. However, in areas of trace evidence where staticstical information regarding the relationship between two items isn't available, the degree of certainty of an "inclusion" is related to the discriminating ability of each test done. > > For instance, for one-layer pieces of paint, a result that states "microscopic examination showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable in color and texture" is meaningful but superficial. > Add to that that "analysis by IR showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives a greater degree of confidence. > Next "analysis by pyrolysis/GC/FID showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives greater confidence. > Next "pyrolysis/GC/MS ... " gives even greater confidence to the analyst of a conclusive result. > And finally, "analysis by SEM/EDXF showed #1 and #2 were indistinguishable" gives most analysts a great degree of confidence that the two paints are indistinguishable. > > The conclusion in the report regarding the comparison would then articulate the technology applied to the comparison, and that the two items were "indistinguishable." However, the fact remains that I can't say conclusively they are absolutely the same paint. But this report would allow someone with a basic knowledge of paint comparison technology to assess the meaningfulness of my "indistinguishable" conclusion. If my conclusion were based on color and texture under a microscope, there may be a lot for a defense expert to question about the result. If I've done the whole nine yards on the two items, there may not be much to question about the conclusion. > > If they were "distinctly different," I would articulate the testing that had been completed, but say definitively which analytical method led me to my conclusion. > > I'm throwing this out for discussion without dealing with any grey areas, such as defining "meaningful differences." > > Soooooo, what does everyone think? > > Later, > Larry Pederson > > >>> John Lentini 01/17/04 09:37AM >>> > > Forensic document examiners have struggled with > report wording for years. There is still some > dispute about the levels of certainty that they > use to express their opinions. > > Printed below is an excerpt from ASTM E 1658, > Standard Terminology for > Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document > Examiners (copyright ASTM) > > There are nine terms, frequently referred to as a > "nine point scale." Some document examiners cut > this down to seven, five or even three (did, did > not, inconclusive) > > While maybe not universally applicable to all > questions of identity of source, these consensus > definitions shed some light on how one discipline > has dealt with reporting conclusions.(This is > long, but, hey, it's a big subject) > > 4.1 Recommended Terms: > > identification (definite conclusion of > identity)ùthis is the highest degree of > confidence expressed by document examiners in > handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no > reservations whatever, and although prohibited > from using > the word ôfact,ö the examiner is certain, based > on evidence contained in the handwriting, that > the writer of the known material actually wrote > the writing in question. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that John Doe > wrote the questioned material, or it is my > opinion [or conclusion] that John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material. > > > strong probability (highly probable, very > probable)ùthe evidence is very persuasive, yet > some critical feature or quality is missing so > that an identification is not in order; > however, the examiner is virtually certain that > the questioned and known writings were written by > the same individual. > > ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the > John Doe of the known material wrote the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John Doe > of the known material very probably wrote the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùSome examiners doubt the desirability > of differentiating between strong probability and > probable, and certainly they may eliminate this > terminology. But those examiners who are trying > to > encompass the entire ôgray scaleö of degrees of > confidence may wish to use this or a similar > term. > > probableùthe evidence contained in the andwriting > points rather strongly toward the questioned and > known writings having been written by the same > individual; however, it falls short of theô > virtually certainö degree of confidence. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material probably wrote the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John > Doe of the known material probably wrote the > questioned material. > > indications (evidence to suggest)ùa body of > writing has few features which are of > significance for handwriting comparison > purposes, but those features are in agreement > with > another body of writing. > > ExamplesùThere is evidence which indicates (or > suggests) that the John Doe of the known material > may have written the questioned material but the > evidence falls far short of that necessary to > support a definite conclusion. > > DISCUSSIONùThis is a very weak opinion, and a > report may be misinterpreted to be an > identification by some readers if the report > simply states, ôThe evidence indicates that the > John Doe of the known material wrote the > questioned material.ö There should always be > additional limiting words or phrases (such as > ômay haveö or ôbut the evidence is far from > conclusiveö) when this opinion is reported, to > ensure that the reader understands that the > opinion is weak. Some examiners doubt the > desirability of reporting an opinion this vague, > and certainly they cannot be criticized if they > eliminate this terminology. But those examiners > who are trying to encompass the entire ôgray > scaleö of degrees of confidence may wish to use > this or a similar term. > > no conclusion (totally inconclusive, > indeterminable)ùThis is the zero point of the > confidence scale. It is used when there > are significantly limiting factors, such as > disguise in the questioned and/or known writing > or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner > does not have even a leaning one way or another. > ExamplesùNo conclusion could be reached as to > whether or not the John Doe of the known material > wrote the questioned material, or I could not > determine whether or not the John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material. > eandwriting comparisons. The examiner has > indications did notùthis carries the same weight > as the indications term that is, it is a very > weak opinion. > > ExamplesùThere is very little significant > evidence present in the comparable portions of > the questioned and known writings, but that > evidence suggests that the John Doe of the > known material did not write the questioned > material, or I found indications that the John > Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material but the evidence is far > from conclusive. See Discussion after > indications. > > probably did notùthe evidence points rather > strongly against the questioned and known > writings having been written by the same > individual, but, as in the probable range above, > the evidence is not quite up to the ôvirtually > certainö range. > > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material probably did not write the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of > the known material probably did not write the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùSome examiners prefer to state this > opinion: ôIt is unlikely that the John Doe of the > known material wrote the questioned material.ö > There is no strong objection to this, as > ôunlikelyö is merely > the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ôimprobableö. > > strong probability did notùthis carries the same > weight as strong probability on the > identification side of the scale; that > is, the examiner is virtually certain that the > questioned and known writings were not written by > the same individual. > > ExamplesùThere is strong probability that the > John Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material, or in my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) it is highly > probable that the John Doe of the known material > did not write the questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùCertainly those examiners who choose > to use ôunlikelyö in place of ôprobably did notö > may wish to use ôhighly unlikelyö here. > > eliminationùthis, like the definite conclusion of > identity, is the highest degree of confidence > expressed by the document examiner in handwriting > comparisons. By using this expression > the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that > the questioned and known writings were not > written by the same individual. > ExamplesùIt has been concluded that the John Doe > of the known material did not write the > questioned material, or it is my opinion (or > conclusion or determination) that the John > Doe of the known material did not write the > questioned material. > > DISCUSSIONùThis is often a very difficult > determination to make in handwriting > examinations, especially when only requested > exemplars are available, and extreme care should > be used in arriving at this conclusion. > > 4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, > there is usually a necessity for additional > comments, consisting of such things as reasons > for qualification (if the available evidence > allows that determination), suggestions for > remedies (if any are known), and any other > comments that will shed more light on the report. > The report should stand alone with no extra > explanations necessary. > > 4.2 4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions: > > 4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by > document examiners are troublesome because they > may be misinterpreted to imply bias, lack of > clarity, or fallaciousness and their use is > deprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly > inane (such as ômake/no makeö) that they will not > be discussed. The use of others is discouraged > because they are incomplete or misused. > > These expressions include: > > possible/could haveùthese terms have no place in > expert opinions on handwriting because the > examinerÆs task is to decide to what degree of > certainty it can be said that a handwriting > sample is by a specific person. If the evidence > is > so limited or unclear that no definite or > qualified opinion can be expressed, then the > proper answer is no conclusion. To say that the > suspect ôcould have written the material in > questionö says nothing about probability and is > therefore meaningless to the reader or to the > court. The examiner should be clear on the > different meanings of ôpossibleö and > ôprobable,ö although they are often used > interchangeably in everyday speech. > > consistent withùthere are times when this > expression is perfectly appropriate, such as when > ôevidence consistent with disguise is presentö or > ôevidence consistent with a > simulation or tracing is present, but ôthe known > writing is consistent with the questioned > writingö has no intelligible meaning. > > could not be identified/cannot identifyùthese > terms are objectionable not only because they are > ambiguous but also because they are biased; they > imply that the examinerÆs task is only to > identify the suspect, not to decide whether or > not > the suspect is the writer. If one of these terms > is used, it should always be followed by ôor > eliminate[d]ö. > > similarities were noted/differences as well as > similaritiesùthese expressions are meaningless > without an explanation as to the extent and > significance of the similarities or differences > between the known and questioned material. These > terms should never be substituted for gradations > of opinions. > > cannot be associated/cannot be connectedùthese > terms are too vague and may be interpreted as > reflecting bias as they have no counterpart > suggesting that the writer cannot be > eliminated either. > > no identificationùthis expression could be > understood to mean anything from a strong > probability that the suspect wrote the questioned > writing; to a complete elimination. It is > not only confusing but also grammatically > incorrect when used informally in sentences such > as.ô I no identified the > writerö or ôI made a no ident in this case.ö > > inconclusiveùthis is commonly used synonymously > with no conclusion when the examiner is at the > zero point on the scale of confidence. A > potential problem is that some people understand > this term to mean something short of definite (or > conclusive), that is, any degree of probability, > and the examiner should be aware of this > ambiguity. > > positive identificationùThis phrase is > nappropriate because it seems to suggest that > some identifications are more positive than > others. > > [strong] reason to believeùthere are too many > definitions of believe and belief that lack > certitude. It is more appropriate to testify to > our conclusion (or determination or expert > opinion) than to our belief, so why use that term > in a report? > > qualified identificationùAn identification is not > qualified. However, opinions may be qualified > when the evidence falls short of an > identification or elimination. > > > > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > [EndPost by John Lentini ] > > [EndPost by "LARRY Pederson" ] > > BEGIN:VCARD > VERSION:2.1 > X-GWTYPE:USER > FN:Greg Laskowski > TEL;WORK:868-5659 > ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division > TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 > EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN > N:Laskowski;Greg > TITLE:Supervising Criminalist > END:VCARD > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/plain (text body -- kept) > --- > [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] > > [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 13:26:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LIQiqI023073 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:26:44 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <5D7B9BB1-4C3F-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:18:25 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Melissa.O'Meara@pol.state.ma.us Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:14:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrogen carrier gas We did try to use Hydrogen as a carrier gas for our MS, and we did purchase a Whatman Hydrogen Generator so we wouldn't even have to buy the gas tanks. But we found after a month's use, it was not as sensitive as helium, and have changed back to Helium. In fact, all of our labs, the Drug Unit, Toxicology, all tried to use hydrogen gas as a carrier, and all of those units have since switched back to helium. Now we only use the hydrogen generator for our FID in Arson and Tox. [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 13:27:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LIROoR023119 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:27:24 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <7557102D-4C3F-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:07:15 -0500 (EST) To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" Subject: [forens] Hydrogen carrier gas Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:05:03 -0500 List, Does anyone use hydrogen gas as a carrier for GC? Can you use it with a GC/MS? I have been given conflicting information with regards to the compatibility of hydrogen with the MS. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 26 Hospital St. Augusta, ME 04333 P: 207-624-7028 F: 207-624-7123 [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 15:13:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LKDI9T026903 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:13:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002001c3e05b$48af4e40$0100000a@attbi.comDEST> From: "John Bowden" To: References: <7557102D-4C3F-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:15:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gretchen, et al. In the CCI training laboratories, we used hydrogen as the carrier gas for our GC's, but continued to use helium in the GC/MS instruments. We used UHP hydrogen as the carrier and a lower grade for the FID detectors. According to Walter Jennings (co-founder of J & W Scientific and world recognized authority), "hydrogen is the preferred carrier gas for capillary columns because it yields better overall separations and shorter analysis times." [Jennings, Mittlefehldt & Stemple, "Analytical Gas Chromatography, 2nd Ed.Academic Press, 1997, p 60]. Flow conditions may need to be modified from those used for helium. This can be seen from a plot of the Van Deemter curves. Of course, the flammability of hydrogen does introduce some safety concerns. Since the inert helium normally gives nearly as good results, it is often used. I have been told, and perhaps some of our European colleagues can comment, that helium is not as easily attainable in other countries. The major source of helium is in the US. A great deal of information is available at the J&W website: http://www.jandw.com which actually logs on to an Agilent site as they now own J&W. John Bowden ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:07 AM Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) > > > > From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" > > Subject: [forens] Hydrogen carrier gas > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:05:03 -0500 > > > List, > > Does anyone use hydrogen gas as a carrier for GC? Can you use it with a > GC/MS? I have been given conflicting information with regards to the > compatibility of hydrogen with the MS. > > Thanks in advance. > > Sincerely, > > Gretchen D. Hicks > Forensic Chemist II > Maine State Police Crime Laboratory > 26 Hospital St. > Augusta, ME 04333 > P: 207-624-7028 > F: 207-624-7123 > > [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "John Bowden" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 16:59:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LLxH25029637 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:59:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7E23@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> References: <8A8F2B3AD27F454695C6129172BD2E4C02BF7E23@dps-sphqasmail1.ps.state.me.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Message-Id: <00C33E2A-4C5D-11D8-A5DE-000A95DBA89C@mac.com> From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrogen carrier gas Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:58:53 -0500 To: "Hicks, Gretchen D" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gretchen, It is perfectly fine to use hydrogen as a carrier gas with a GC/MS. However, the main concern you have to address is the pumping capacity of your vacuum pump. You will probably have to replace your pump by a much more powerful one, and usually it is recommended to use a diffusion pump rather than a turbomolecular pump, since the last one is not very efficient at pumping hydrogen. Hope this helps, Regards, Eric On Jan 21, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Hicks, Gretchen D wrote: > List, > > Does anyone use hydrogen gas as a carrier for GC? Can you use it with > a > GC/MS? I have been given conflicting information with regards to the > compatibility of hydrogen with the MS. > > Thanks in advance. > > Sincerely, > > Gretchen D. Hicks > Forensic Chemist II > Maine State Police Crime Laboratory > 26 Hospital St. > Augusta, ME 04333 > P: 207-624-7028 > F: 207-624-7123 > > -------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer, MS, D-ABC, CFEI Senior Forensic Scientist MME Forensic Services 1039 Industrial Court Suwanee, GA 30024 USA Office + 1 (678) 730 2000 Cell + 1 (404) 663 3611 Fax + 1 (678) 482 9677 Email estauffer@mmelab.com Web http://www.mmelab.com [EndPost by Eric Stauffer ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 21 17:45:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0LMjt33000800 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:45:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:42:17 -0800 From: josh.spatola@doj.ca.gov (Josh Spatola) To: Subject: [forens] Hydrogen carrier gas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gretchen, We (CA DOJ, Central Valley Lab) experimented in using hydrogen as carrier gas for the GC/MS. We used H2 generators in the experimentation. We did not get promising results. The resolution was not as good as with helium and there were some issues with the flow. >>"hydrogen is the preferred carrier gas for capillary columns because it yields better overall separations and shorter analysis times." The quote above is the reason why we tried it. However, in our experimentation we determined that the current setup for the 5973 Agilent GC/MS doesn't have appropriate temp ramping and flow capabilities to sustain the desired "Fast GC" results. We never left the experimentation phase of the process. Our lab, at this time, has completed it's evaluation of the H2 as carrier gas. We have been and are still currently using helium. According to Agilent there may also be issues w/ hydrogen as the carrier gas in an MS system in that it can act as a chemical ionization agent and may produce varying spectra. Hope this helps, Josh ***************************************** Joshua S. Spatola, Criminalist California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services Central Valley Laboratory 1306 Hughes Lane Ripon, CA 95366 ***************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. [EndPost by josh.spatola@doj.ca.gov (Josh Spatola)] From forens-owner Thu Jan 22 18:52:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0MNqcZt001479 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:52:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:56:21 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <014801c3e143$560480e0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2004 23:52:31.0726 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCD750E0:01C3E142] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, No offense, but with regard to your Forensic "fraud and misadventure" site, Greg does have a point regarding the fact that you only seem interested in publicizing the missteps of public employees. The number of charlatans, incompetents, and miscreants in private practice who testify as expert witnesses in "forensic science" are legion, and far surpass those who exist in public service. It seems like anyone can have a business card printed and hire themselves out to attorneys as a well-paid inexpert "expert" witness these days. These liars, frauds, and/or gross incompetents obstruct justice and defraud courts; they also tarnish the good reputations of the many legitimate forensic scientists in private practice, just as people like Fred Zain tarnish the reputations of legitimate forensic scientists who are public servants. The private frauds and incompetents deserve at least as much of your attention, and I'd say far more of it because there are so many more of them. I don't think Greg was out of line when he asked you to be fair by listing all those who stray, not just those on the public payroll. By only listing public strays, you quite understandably give the impression of having an anti-government, pro-defense bias, and I'm sure that is not the impression you want to make. Think about it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:59 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: Greg Laskowski Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Greg; Have I applied your crime lab to be a criminalist? I think not. This causes me to wonder at the true motives behind your post... Moreover, my undergraduate hard (biology & chemistry) science is fairly well packed and present. Perhaps 2-3 years worth. I just didn't post it because I don't have the transcripts in front of me. My suggestion to you is, don't use your public position at a crime lab to try and take the wind out of someone's online arguments by stating that you wouldn't hire them for job that they didn't apply to. You are a police scientist. Of course this is what you must say to someone that regularly testifies for the defense in your state. Also, I have no alliance with the defence or with defense advocacy groups. I work with law enforcement and the defense and civil attorneys. I just don't advertise my law enforcement clients because if I did, they would be harassed by law enforcement aligned detractors and prosecutors looking to keep me out of court. It's called black-listing, which is why many experts who speak to defense groups do so under condition of anonymity - the police-prosecutorial community loves a good black list. Especially in California. I do note, however, that your boss is a prosecutor. I list the malfeasance of prosecutors and forensic scientists alike, yes. I do not see how this compromises my integrity or objectivity. What it does is educate the public. If you have a problem with any of the content, I invite you help me make it better or more informed by writing me outside of the public forum to discuss it, without grandstanding. PS - I find it quite laughable that anyone would suggest that an MS in forensic science would not be enough to get them in the door at many crime labs, especially since a lot of the people with my same degree and no hard other hard science went to work at such places. I just chose not to because of the tedium. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:01 AM To: bturvey@corpus-delicti.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, This is not meant to offend but your list of courses and degree would not qualify you to be a criminalist or forensic scientist for any county or municipal agency in my jurisdiction. To be specific, you lack the necessary core physical science course work and undergraduate and graduate degree to meet the basic qualifications for such a position. To be practical, if you submitted an application to our personnel division along with your CV, it would be rejected simply because you don't meet the basic qualifications. I know that you may have worked hard to obtain the degree that you received, and the course list appears impressive, but your bachelor's degree is not in a true physical science, and that is what limits your ability to be hired by a government agency as well as some private companies. It appears that you have done quite well for yourself despite these limitations. I suppose you can call yourself a forensic scientist based upon some of your course work, training, and job experience, but, and I mean this in all sincerity, you lack the specific foundations to earn the title criminalist or forensic scientist. I prefer to think of you as a "Forensic Investigator". Remember, a scientist must be honest and objective and should be well versed in letters, arts and above all science. And here, unfortunately is the rub, your web site displays issues of fraud, malfeasance, and incompetence, but it only lists the misadventures of public servants or witnesses hired by the prosecution. Nowhere do I see evidence of malfeasance, fraud or incompetence on the part of independent experts. Your alliance with defense and anti death penalty advocacy groups makes your motives and your judgement suspect. My suggestion, is that you be a little more fair minded when you categorize someones work based uponm the musings or rantings of some person or group with an agenda. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> bturvey@corpus-delicti.com 1/13/2004 6:37:56 PM >>> Tom; Thanks for writing. I have a master's of Science in Forensic Science. This alone exceeds the minimum qualification for entry into to most forensic discplines, so I'm not sure where your confusion on this issue is. I examine case material and evidence and render scientific opinions about that evidence in a court of law. This is the distinguishing feature of a forensic scientist. I have qulaified in court many times and have written an authotative text on the subject, conducted and published research on the subject in peer reviewed forums. But no, I do not do lab work, nor do I put myself out there as criminalist. I spent my first years as an undergrad premed, so I've actually got quite a bit of hard science under my belt. It was a mix of a lot of chemistry and a lot of biology. Many if not all of these courses required a hourd and hours of lab work, from the chemistry to the biology. I was undergraduate from 88-94. My core courses at UNH were the same courses that that the criminalists took. However, I did not take the microscopy courses or the toxicology courses, and I think at least one other. Difference was that those who wanted to become criminalists interned in a lab or for a PD evidence unit, and did more lab work. I interned with a serial rape homicide task force. See: http://www.newhaven.edu/psps/gradforensicscience.html The AI concentration, it was explained to me by the then chair Dr. Bob Gaensslen, is a generalist track. Looking back I agree that it was. I took and passed the following courses. The lowest grade I got was a B+ in Medicolegal Investigation and Identification, taught by personnel from the state ME's office. Henry Lee taught or co-taught about half of these when I was there. Bob Gaenslen taught the other half. Survey of Forensic Science Advanced Criminalistics I Advanced Criminalistics II Advanced Crime Scene Investigation Advanced Investigation I Advanced Investigation II Physical Analysis in Forensic Science Biomedical Methods in Forensic Science Medicolegal Investigation and Identification Law and Evidence Fire Scene Investigation and Arson Analysis I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I. BTW - while still in High School, I took the advanced Anatomy course which built up to spending a week at OHSU dissecting donated cadavers. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Tom Abercrombie Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brent, In your response to Cathy O'Reilly, you stated (in part) " . . . I am not afraid to give my opinions and back them up with facts and research." So if you would please answer my questions regaring the following. On your website/CV and noticed it stated the following: "Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae* Name: Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Current Employer: Full Partner and Instructor with Knowledge Solutions LLC Title: Forensic Scientist & Criminal Profiler Duties: Casework, course instructor, & course development" I'm really curious regarding what constitutes your qualifications that enable you to call yourself a 'Forensic Scientist'?? Since your undergraduate degrees are in Psychology and History, did you take a number of chemistry or biology (or any science) courses within the context of those majors. I guess the BS degrees in Psychology and History (though a BS in History puzzles me a bit) must make you a scientist. Did your MS from the University of New Haven have any lecture/lab courses in biology, chemistry, physics or anything else even remotely associated with science? The following is also directly from your CV - - "Education Master's of Science in Forensic Science Advanced Investigation Concentration, University of New Haven, West Haven, Connecticut B.S. - Psychology Portland State University, Portland, Oregon B.S. - History Portland State University, Portland, Oregon" Exactly what type of science courses does one get when involved in a program that has an "Advanced Investigation Concentration"? You further state in your CV that - - "Professional Activities Mr. Turvey has participated as a forensic scientist and /or criminal profiler in the investigative or trial phase for both law enforcement and attorney clients around the World. The greatest volume of his casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical and behavioral evidence relating to the following:" Further, could you please comment on how your "casework has focused on the examination and interpretation of physical . . . evidence . . . "?? Have you actually performed scientific examinations of physical evidence utilizing standard forensic physico-chemical means, or have you simply looked at items of evidence? I mean, I've been working in the field of forensic science for over 25 years, but am truly confounded as to how someone without an undergraduate degree in a physical or natural science could call themselves a 'Scientist' of any type. Maybe it's like a cashier at a local 7-11 calling himself a 'Financial Coordinator' or 'Banker' because he handles money and makes change. Tom Abercrombie Oakland PD Crime Lab [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 22 18:53:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0MNrG4O001517 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:53:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:57:05 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <014901c3e143$7009e160$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <17a.24c33ca5.2d372876@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2004 23:53:15.0398 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6DF2260:01C3E142] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well said, Carla. An MS certainly is NOT "what you get when you can't achieve a PhD" as someone said (or words to that effect). A legitimate MS degree is NOT merely a stepping stone to a PhD - it is a significant accomplishment in and of itself. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:19 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Credentials Discussions which probe into alternative solutions are healthy. Bashing is not. The statement by one person on the list about folks who received an MS was unfair. Many of us who have them worked darned hard for them. I received mine at age 40, holding a full time job, with two teenagers and a husband who owned his own businesses. What I had was a wonderfully supportive husband and children. Easy? A piece of cake? You decide. Should I compare that situation with a person who receives an MS right after receiving their BS, still supported by his parents? No, because I am not into bashing nor trivializing an accomplishment. Any foray into the educational system, done with motivation and drive, should be applauded. Pat yourselves on the back all you MSers! Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 22 19:00:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0N00o8S002035 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:00:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:04:38 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <015101c3e144$7dd06160$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 00:00:48.0007 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4A5C970:01C3E143] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, I'm sorry, you're wrong about the credentials thing. No one will be hired as a criminalist without a college degree today, and no one outside of firearms or latent prints will be hired by a crime lab as an analyst without a science degree. These requirements as ubiquitous, as you would see if you delved a little further into job advertisements, instead of relying on what appear to be outdated basic descriptions in state classification listings. Actual job descriptions within the state classifications detail the additional qualifications required that you seem to be missing. For example, the web page you listed for the South Carolina Crim I position isn't even a current address for the state web site, so I doubt it's been updated. If you go to the root address " http://www.state.sc.us" you will find the site has been moved and will be forwarded to the new site with current information. There is currently a Crim I job being advertised (this one in toxicology) and here are the minimum requirements: ---------------------------------------------- " State of South Carolina Minimum Training and Experience Requirements: (NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE APPLICABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS IN THE EMPLOYING AGENCY.) A high school diploma and experience in law enforcement. A bachelor's degree may be substituted for the law enforcement experience. Additional Requirements: BACCALAUREATE DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY WITH MINIMUM OF THIRTY (30) SEMESTER HOURS (OR ITS EQUIVALENT) OF CHEMISTRY FROM ACCREDITED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY. NOTE: BACCALAUREATE DEGREE IN RELATED SCIENCE FROM ACCREDITED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH SIGNIFICANT LAB EXPERIENCE. UPON SELECTION, SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE MUST BE ABLE TO COMPLETE BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING AT THE SC CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY AND PERFORM DAILY JOB FUNCTIONS (I.E. CASEWORK) WITH LIMITED SUPERVISION. NECESSARY SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: KNOWLEDGE OF FORENSIC LABORATORY TECHNIQUES, INCLUDING MASS SPECTROSCOPY, GAS AND LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY, IMMUNOASSAYS, AND EXTRACTIONS (SOLID AND LIQUID PHASE); KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN COMPOUNDS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON HUMANS, THE ABILITY TO INTERPRET FINDINGS, PREPARE SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY AND TESTIFY EFFECTIVELY IN COURT. CONDITIONAL SELECTION WILL BE BASED ON ORAL INTERVIEWS, BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS, WRITTEN TESTS FOR SPECIAL AGENT APPLICANTS AND/OR SKILL EXERCISES FOR CERTAIN NON-AGENT POSITIONS. Note: If any additional requirements are listed above applicants must also meet those Additional Requirements to be considered for the position. " ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ http://www.state.sc.us/jobs/positions/P000131088.html So you see, a BS in chemistry is actually required and a BS in a related SCIENCE may be considered "with significant lab experience." Yes, even here in "the South," college degrees are absolutely required to work as a criminalist, and for most positions that degree must be in science. Your first listing from South Dakota implies that a science degree is required also, although the details are not viewable because the web page is again not a current one (broken link). It also implies that ABC certification is desirable, which absolutely requires a science degree. Your second listing from SD clearly says a college degree is required, along with science coursework. It is also an old ad from 2001, and I suspect that those requirements have since been raised. Currently SC has one forensic chemist position available (they don't seem to use the title "criminalist" anymore), and although the job posting doesn't mention educational requirements, the other qualifications would necessitate a college science degree: ------------------------- FORENSIC CHEMIST Pierre, SD Requisition #: 40031 Position Purpose: Performs detailed laboratory tests, designs and validates testing methods and procedures, and testifies in court on the substances and amount found and the effects of that substance on an individual. The forensic chemist is an expert witness relative to the court system. Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities: Knowledge of: scientific methodology; principles of analytical chemistry and different areas of science such as biology, physics, and human anatomy; alcohol and drug physiological effects; laboratory facilities, methods, equipment, and materials; safe laboratory practices. Ability to: interpret complex scientific data by taking into account several elements; deal tactfully with adversity; carry out research projects; keep legible, clear, and adequate records of analytical and quality control procedures and maintenance; assemble material and present data or findings with scientific accuracy; prepare and present scientific reports; testify in court proceedings; observe and practice safety precautions; maintain an effective working relationship with others. Comments: Experience with gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry is desired. Must be willing to travel and testify in court. Must be a good communicator. Must be willing to undergo a background investigation if required. Works with toxic chemicals, solvents, pressurized gases, and high temperature equipment; may come in contact with disease-causing microorganisms, and biological hazards. -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.state.sd.us/applications/pr47jobs/JobDescription.asp?ReqNum=4 0031 Your job quote at OSBI (Oklahoma) indicates that a BS in science is required, with the possible substitution of one year of experience as a forensic scientist for each year of college, but today you can't get that experience without getting the degree first. So the exception would apply only to old, experienced analysts, and I doubt it would be granted today even though it remains in the job description. I don't know of anyone hired in any crime lab in the nation in the last decade who wasn't required to have at least a bachelor's degree. There may be some, but I'd bet they are either firearms examiners or latent print examiners (some labs also have polygraph examiners on their staff, but they are certainly not forensic scientists, much less criminalists). Your quote for the job in Las Vegas requires a science degree "or equivalent" and must include chemistry. If you look at the actual job requirements on the site, you find: -------------------------------------------------------- Criminalist I Knowledge of: Theoretical and analytical principles of natural and physical sciences including organic, inorganic, bio-chemistry and physical chemistry, biology and other applicable fields and sub-disciplines. Complex mathematic principles and statistics. Laboratory testing procedures and methods. Equipment and supplies used in a chemistry laboratory. Proper procedures and standard laboratory rules and safety precautions regarding chemicals, toxins and biological substances. --------------------------------------------------------- I submit that the only way to obtain this knowledge (and the 24 hrs of chemistry coursework) is to earn a science degree. There is no "equivalent" that is feasible. The Hennepin County ad also indicates that a BS in science is required, allowing substitution of three years of experience as a criminalist in a crime lab. Again, you can't get that experience today without the degree, and even if you had the experience you'd be unlikely to be competitive for the job without the degree. Note again that certification (mistakenly referred to as "criminology" - "criminalistics" was intended) is desired, and you again can't get that without the degree. BTW, this is not a current announcement either (another broken link). Hennepin County has no current openings for criminalists, so we can't check the requirements of a current ad. Finally, the St. Paul ad unequivocally states that a science degree is required (in fact, the web page adds that " No substitution for education" is permitted). So Brent, I don't see anything in your examples that really disputes our contention that to get a job in a forensic lab today you absolutely MUST have a college degree from an accredited institution, and that in almost all cases (with rare exceptions) that degree must be in science. Again, I haven't heard of anyone who was hired without meeting this standard within my memory, and I've been in this field for almost 23 years. I'm sure it was possible in the past, but not anymore. I'm sorry Brent, but you're simply wrong on this one. As for masters degrees, they are certainly significant accomplishments, provided they are in an applicable discipline. Lab directors aren't much impressed by degree titles, as titles do not necessarily indicate anything about the program content. Forensic science employers will closely scrutinize the content of degree programs - if a program doesn't contain enough "hard science," the degree won't qualify one for the position, no matter what it's called or what level of degree it is (even a PhD is worthless if it doesn't cover the appropriate subject matter). Now I am not demeaning the UNH forensic science program, not at all. It seems to have a good reputation. The point I am making is that the area of concentration DOES matter, and in my opinion the "Advanced Investigations" option would not satisfy the requirements of most lab directors for analytical positions in their labs, but the "Criminalistics" option would. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:38 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials Brad; I think I agree with most of what you have said. However, there are some criminalists here who are using the term forensic scientist to refer only to criminalists. That's not how it works. A forensic scientist is a person who testifies regarding their scientific findings in a court of law. A criminalist is a type of forensic scientist. One type. Bear in mind, also, that I do not call myself a criminalist or claim any ability in regards to performing analytic tests on evidence. So the need to prove that I'm not a criminalist is silly, but has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a forensic scientist. I am trained, and have continued to get training, as a generalist. That others are unfamiliar with this concept is not my issue. Additionally, I posted a bunch of links about a week ago on the subject of lab hiring info, showing that some places do not even have a degree requirement for applying to be a criminalist in their crime lab. And I know that in certain areas of the south it is particular interesting. For example: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Criminalist I http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/ohr/viewclass?ccode=JA60 "Minimum Requirements: A high school diploma and experience in law enforcement. A bachelor's degree may be substituted for the law enforcement experience." Division of Criminal Investigation/SD State Forensic Lab: Criminalist http://mafs.net/pdf/sd101703.pdf "The ideal candidate will possess: a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses; - vision correctable to 20:20; - a Fellow member of the American Board of Criminalistics-Trace Evidence - have or be able to obtain a valid South Dakota driver's license." OSBI crime lab: Level I criminalist http://www.opm.state.ok.us/jfd/g-specs/g12.htm "Education and Experience required at this level consists of a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, criminalistics, chemical engineering, metallurgy, forensic science, biology, microbiology, zoology or a closely related scientific field; or an equivalent combination of education and experience, substituting one year of experience in a forensic crime laboratory performing scientific and technical analysis of physical evidence from criminal investigations for each year of the required degree. Experience can be in drug (CDS) identification, materials identification, trace evidence analysis, forensic serology, forensic DNA and genetic markers, toxicology, questioned documents, firearms/toolmarks, latent prints development and identification, classification and identification of inked fingerprints manually or with an AFIS and blood alcohol/blood drug content determination. " Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department: Criminalist I http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01052.html "Training: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in criminalistics, forensic science, chemistry, biology, or a related field, including 24 semester hours of chemistry." South Dakota Forensic Laboratory: Criminalist http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/JOB01063.html "Minimum Qualifications: Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with science courses. Experience in laboratory or law enforcement preferred but not required. Must have or be able to obtain a valid driver's license for South Dakota." Hennepin County: Sheriff's Criminalist http://www7.co.hennepin.mn.us/publications/hrjobclASS.nsf/0/0b7b4ef48541 0e4f 86256dd4005a3c46?OpenDocument "Education and Experience: A Bachelor's degree in forensic science, chemistry, toxicology, biology, microbiology, biochemistry or closely related field and one year of professional level experience performing scientific laboratory analyses of physical evidence gathered in law enforcement work; OR three years of the above experience, including providing court testimony regarding the results of such analyses. Certification as a specialist in a particular field of criminology may be required." The City of St. Paul, MN: CRIMINALIST I http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/humres/jobclass/titledef.php?code=128 "Minimum Qualifications - A bachelor's degree in forensic science, criminalistics, chemistry, biology or a related physical science field." Hope this helps Brent -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of FORENSIC022@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials I agree, Carla. In the past few days I have been bashed, albeit indirectly, for having a Master of Science Degree, because I earned it at UNH and because I work for a state lab. While we are still on this subject, I would be glad to answer any questions about the forensic science program at the University of New Haven. Unlike Brent, I concentrated in Criminalists, which was geared toward laboratory bench work. However, I did take several elective courses from the Advanced Investigation tract, and they were all quality courses with very well-regarded instructors. I would say that the program is among the top in the country. Let's not get hung up on the Advance Investigation concentration. This portion of the program is geared toward police investigators. And the Fire Science program is geared toward arson investigators. Graduation from either of these programs, or any program, for that matter, does not qualify the graduate to call themselves a forensic scientist. But, the core courses common to all three concentrations provide exposure to all disciplines of forensic science, and teach students how to think like a forensic scientist. And this provides a distinct advantage when those students go to work for a crime laboratory. If I were a laboratory administrator, I would much rather hire an applicant with a BS in Chemistry with a 3.0 GPA and an MSFS - Advanced Investigation, than an otherwise equal applicant with a 4.0 GPA but no graduate degree. I have seen first hand that there would be a great benefit if all labs included in their requirements at least survey in Forensic Science course. Brent, if you have some data on the hiring standards of state labs to support your statement, I'd like to see it. Most state labs are accredited now, and having been through a recent ASCLD inspection, if anything the bar is continuously being raised. I have not worked as a forensic scientist in the private sector, and you admittedly have not worked in a state lab, so we are really not in the position to judge each other. But this is what you do when you make generalizations. Finally, while I am employed by a police agency, I work for the people of the state of New York. I get paid the same regardless of the outcome of my analyses, and my testimony accurately reflects my results, whether I am testifying for the prosecution or the defense. Sometimes the attorneys who subpoena me don't like what I have to say, but none are in the position to pressure me even if they chose to. While I am well aware that several analysts in the public sector have made the news for their acts of alleged fraud and/or incompetence, we also know that there are some charlatans in the private sector. Let's not stereotype. Thanks, Brad Brown FS II New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center Albany, NY 12226 _bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us_ (mailto:bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 22 19:03:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0N03kBM002277 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:03:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:07:35 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <015201c3e144$e778b860$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 00:03:45.0273 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E4E6E90:01C3E144] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Your suggestions at the end sound great to me, Bill, but isn't that the same sort of thing I and others were recommending? How is the "special master" you propose different from the court-appointed forensic science advisors we were discussing, whose role would be to advise the judge on the legitimacy of proposed experts and expert testimony? I agree that judges should ask more questions themselves, rather than just let attorneys battle over who gets to mislead the jury, but it seems they fear that those who do a lot of that kind of questioning risk censure (or at least having their trial results overruled) if the questions seem to favor one side over the other. I think that questioning witnesses is properly part of the role of a judge, but the general view of the legal profession seems to be that judges should stay out of it and let the better attorneys win, lest they help the lesser attorneys with questions those attorneys failed to come up with on their own and therefore seem biased toward the lesser attorneys. Frankly, after the advocates are done, I think both the judge and the jurors should be allowed to question the witness, if for no other reason than to answer questions in their own minds that neither advocate addressed. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:20 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > > Question, Bill. How then do you propose we resolve the problem? You've > stated that judges are not necessarily competent to judge scientific > evidence, and I agree (although I think juries are even less well > prepared than judges - at least all judges have graduated from high > school and gone to college, something that is not true of all jurors, > probably not even of the average juror). Yet judges have been given the > duty to do exactly that. They are tasked to be "gatekeepers" for > scientific testimony even though we (and they) agree they often lack the > background needed to fulfill that role effectively. Court appointed > experts could provide them with guidance, but you worry that if the > court chooses its experts poorly, the guidance will be poor. > > So what's the solution? How else can judges obtain the information they > need to fulfill their duties as gatekeepers? While I share your concern > about how judges pick their advisors, that concern could be addressed in > various ways. How else can a judge obtain that information if not > through court-appointed consultants? At least the judge would have a > source of scientific information they know is neutral (not called by > either litigant) to use in making the decisions about expert testimony > that they are required to make. > Well, one thing would be to do what the Supremes actually intended with Daubert. The purpose of Daubert was not to *limit* what went before a jury, but instead to allow *more* stuff before a jury. Remember that the problem was that the "expert" against Dow was denied the ability to testify in the lower court-- and that was what was overturned. Instead, the result of Daubert has been the exact opposite of what was intended (at least at the time). By establishing arbitrary and inappropriate criteria, the Supremes created a monster that disallows good science and allows bad science. Now ( after Kumho Tire) a plumber who needs to testify on whether a garbage disposal was properly installed must (theoretically) show that he or she engaging in some sort of wacky "plumbing science." The correct way would be to allow both the prosecution and defense to call whomever they damned well pleased, to voir dire the bejezus out of everybody, and let the jury ask questions. Bullshit isn't all that hard to spot (as anybody reading Brent's ethical jitterbug, or Fred's convenient absence can see). The problem is in letting experts lecture the jury without having to face what are usually simple questions that prove the emperor has no clothes. It's the simple things that bring the real bullshitters down. Chief Justice Rhenquist was prescient when he dissented in Daubert that: I defer to no one in my confidence in federal judges; but I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its "falsifiability," and I suspect some of them will be, too. I [do not doubt that Rule 702 confides to the judge some gatekeeping responsibility] in deciding questions of the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. But I do not think it imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become amateur scientists in order to perform that role... Well, the role of amateur scientist is exactly what *has* been imposed. Since we are not going to be successful at making judges good amateur scientists then we should have special masters as *advisers* rather than as the only expert who can testify. We could have a special master who is not an expert for the purpose testimony but for two other purposes: First kill all the lawyers. No, that's not right. Let me try again. First, kill all the lawyers. Hmm... Gotta do something about that twitch. One more time. First, let the judge ask questions -- not as to the facts in trial, but as to scientific validity. Then: a) Use the special master to coach the judge in asking questions during voir dire. b) Use the special master to coach the judge to ask procedural/scientific questions of the expert, and to provide specific procedural commentary on the methodology used. There would have to be a process to vet what such commentary can address and whether or not a repsonse would be allowed, etc. But that can evolve. That would be my suggestion. You can bring in any idiot profiler you want (for example) to say that the killer had to be a one-legged Lithuanian weightlifter with a penchant for wearing French ticklers, but that idiot profiler will be grilled in front of the jury on how and why he or she says that, and someone with real credentials will comment on the method (without commenting on the facts). billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 22 19:11:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0N0BIcg002691 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:11:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:15:04 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <015801c3e145$f336be30$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 00:11:14.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A08A3D0:01C3E145] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Jenny, I fully appreciate the difficulty of stating qualitative results for trace evidence in ways that minimize the possibility of misunderstanding by lay readers without turning reports into dissertations - it's a difficult task. But playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I can still see potential problems with the phrase "in color, chemical and physical properties" when joined with the terms "consistent with" or "indistinguishable from." I think "indistinguishable from" gives the layperson (non-scientist) an even stronger impression of "identical to" or "the same" than "consistent with" does, unless it is explained further than in your example. I believe the layperson will assume that "chemical and physical properties" means ALL chemical and physical properties (rather than just the properties that were compared) - and therefore conclude that this is an absolute identification rather than simply an inclusion. After all, what way can the two items be different if not in a chemical or physical property? What other properties are there? This impression is reinforced, rather than weakened, by the description "same source... or any other source with paint exactly like it." "Exactly" implies identical in all ways, but what was really meant was "identical in all the ways tested," not necessarily in every way. Can you see what I'm getting at? Your example includes the phrase "COULD have come from the same source," (emphasis added) which correctly implies that it is possible for the two items to have different sources, but that correct implication may be lost in the incorrect contrary impressions the other wording may convey to the layperson. To avoid this problem, I think it's important to explain what specific properties were compared and how significant unity in those properties is with regard to the possibility of common origin. A corollary to Murphy's Law applies: "If it CAN be misconstrued, it WILL be misconstrued, by someone at some time" so we need to try to minimize any possibility of misunderstanding. I would suggest instead (and please forgive my imprecision, I'm not a trace analyst), something like: "The questioned paint (A) is consistent with (similar to, indistinguishable from) the known vehicle paint (B) with regard to: apparent color; solubility characteristics in water, alcohol, acetone, and chloroform; pyrolytic combustion products detectible via pyrolysis gas chromatography with flame ionization detection; and gas phase infrared spectrum absorptivity" [and/or "mass spectrum"]. "Therefore, paint A could have come from the same source as paint B, or from any other source of paint exhibiting these same properties. These exact properties would be shared by all paints of the same color and formulation as the samples tested." (or the same batch lot, or same manufacturer, or however else you are able to narrow the possibilities). If appropriate data is known, some description of how common this particular color/formulation of paint is would be very helpful in framing the significance of these comparison results. The analytical terminology in my example is of course over the head of the lay reader, but it still conveys the idea that the samples were compared in a thorough but limited number of ways, avoiding the impression of "identical in every possible way." The small descriptive addition also would be instructive for any opposing expert hired to review your report, and could avoid the necessity for lengthy discovery procedures pursued to reveal exactly how the items were compared. The expounded explanation at the end serves to guide the lay reader's understanding by providing some indication of how significant the "match" is, and how likely a common origin is as opposed to alternate sources, assuming that narrowing of possibilities is possible. If no narrowing is possible, then I think it's still important to at least point out that an alternate source remains possible, instead of simply relying on the single word "could" to convey that idea. What do you think? Is this a tenable solution (or at least a clarification), or would it create further misunderstandings that I have not anticipated? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Jenny Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:59 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test for human blood) Bob, your point is well stated as always. "The questioned paint (A) is consistent with (similar to, indistinguishable from) the known vehicle paint (B) in color, chemical and physical properties. Therefore, paint A could have come from the same source as paint B or any other source with paint exactly like it." In my experience in Trace evidence the above example is somewhat common verbage. I usually use the "similar to" nomenclature myself. Some people may go on to explain that probabilities are not available for the liklihood that ...... etc. Jenny Smith, Criminalist III Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab 1510 East Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 ph: 573-526-6134 ex 282 "Robert Parsons" > cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [forens] "consistant" (was: Hematrace test owner-forens@statg for human blood) en.ncsu.edu 01/13/2004 06:00 PM Please respond to forens The problem with the term "consistent" is that it is a qualitative, not a quantitative, description that may be misconstrued by the layperson unless its use is properly explained. Of course, not all forensic tests, by their nature, can be quantified. Some are necessarily qualitative, and this term can be properly used in discussing the results of such qualitative testing, so long as its intended meaning is explained. As used by forensic scientists, it means the tested item reacts in the same way as the thing it is said to be "consistent with," in regard to whatever test result is being reported, but that doesn't necessarily mean the analyte is identical (the same as) the thing it is compared to, only that it exhibits the same characteristics under the conditions of the test or tests in question. There may be a great many different things that exhibit those same characteristics, or only a few, or only one. Two things can be "consistent" in one way or many ways, and yet still not be the same thing. Two things may be indistinguishable ("consistent with" each other) under some tests, but clearly different under others. If everyone instinctively understood this, there would be no problem with use of the term without further explanation. The problem of course is that others may interpret "consistent with" to mean "identical to" or "identified as," and that is not a correct interpretation. Therefore, if one uses the term "consistent with," then in order to avoid any misunderstanding I think one is obligated to explain in what way the analyte is "consistent with" something else, and what the limitations of that consistency are (i.e., how significant the consistency is, how common that characteristic is and how discriminating the test is). The explanation should answer the question "does this mean the two are proven to be the same or to have a common origin?" because that is the question that will be formed in the lay reader's mind when they read "consistent with." Usually, the answer to that question is "no, not necessarily," so the other possibilities and their relative likelihoods should be addressed somehow. "Consistent with," to me, implies that the reported result is not an identification but rather an inclusion, with other possibilities also existing, i.e., "X was consistent with Y as to parameter Z; X therefore cannot be excluded as Y, and either is Y, or is some other item with these same characteristics as to parameter Z" (if Y is more likely than other possibilities, it should be explained in what way and to what extent it is more likely). If the result is an identification (proven to be the same to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty), then it should be reported as such, i.e., "X was identified as Y," not simply "consistent with Y." The term "consistent with" can be properly used if properly explained, but because of its inherent ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation, I feel it is better to use more descriptive terms whenever possible, such as "the two items gave the same result to the (whatever) test," or "shared the following similarities," or "were alike in the following characteristics," followed by an enumeration of the positive comparative parameters and an explanation of their significance. While more specific result terminology has less potential to be pejorative or misleading than the simple phrase "consistent with," in both cases an explanation of the results is still needed. All test results need to be placed in the proper perspective for the reader to properly understand their import. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of SkipnCar@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Hematrace test for human blood Brad- I have been reading that Hematrace also gives a positive with ferrets, so it was a double entendre. The use of the word 'consistent' has been bantered about for some time. Scientists should speak and write clearly, in terms which cannot be ambiguous and in terms which are easily understood by a layperson. The word 'consistent' is not clear, is ambiguous and is not understood by juries, attorneys, judges or law enforcement. What exactly does 'consistent' mean? 1. (archaic) possessing firmness or coherence 2. marked by harmony, regularity or steady continuity 3. compatible 4. showing steady conformity to character 5. tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition To my mind, none of these definitions are clear enough to use 'consistent' in a scientific report. You queried the list for ways to report the results. Let's see what they use instead of consistent. What do you folks think about 'consistent'? If my memory serves, the Tulsa PD laboratory reported, "Human blood detected." I retired in 2000 so, since the ferret, they may have changed. Carla In a message dated 1/7/2004 11:40:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: Carla - Gee, and this test also purportedly gives a positive reaction with weasel blood -- how appropriate. If you have any suggestions for more appropriate wording for a positive Hematrace result I am all ears. Brad >>> 01/07 11:12 AM >>> 'Consistent' is such a weasel word and really means absolutely nothing. Juries do not understand it either. Carla ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com Live Well Laugh Often Love Much In a message dated 1/7/2004 9:57:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, bbrown@troopers.state.ny.us writes: "Results consistent with human blood" Brad Brown FSII NYSP Forensic Investigation center >>> "Hicks, Gretchen D" 01/07 9:43 AM >>> List, As a follow up to Mr. Sliter's question regarding reporting of HemaTrace results, I am wondering how other labs report the results of the HemaTrace test. Thanks in advance, Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Lab [EndPost by "Hicks, Gretchen D" ] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Bradley Brown" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Jenny Smith" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 22 21:59:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0N2xjwP006159 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:59:45 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <015101c3e144$7dd06160$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Subject: Re: [forens] Credentials Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:59:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 02:59:37.0273 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFC9DA90:01C3E15C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob: They can always get on as a contract instructor with the FBI if full time employment proves to be elusive. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:04 PM Subject: RE: [forens] Credentials > Brent, > > I'm sorry, you're wrong about the credentials thing. No one will be > hired as a criminalist without a college degree today, and no one > outside of firearms or latent prints will be hired by a crime lab as an > analyst without a science degree. [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 07:43:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NChhlN015566 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:43:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:43:41 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) In-Reply-To: <015201c3e144$e778b860$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > Your suggestions at the end sound great to me, Bill, but isn't that the > same sort of thing I and others were recommending? How is the "special > master" you propose different from the court-appointed forensic science > advisors we were discussing, whose role would be to advise the judge on > the legitimacy of proposed experts and expert testimony? The difference is that you and the others are suggesting that special masters be used to decide whether or not to *allow* testimony. I have no problem with a special master engaging in some sort of third party cross examination (which is essentially what I am talking about). I have a problem with a special master deciding who is "right" and who is "wrong" ahead of time and allowing the jury to see only one opinion. > Frankly, after the advocates are > done, I think both the judge and the jurors should be allowed to > question the witness, if for no other reason than to answer questions in > their own minds that neither advocate addressed. > This, I think, is really the key. Not the special master thing. Juries are pretty good, in my experience, in detecting bullshit as long as they get to ask the obvious questions. In addition, a "real" expert should not be in the position of having to lecture to a jury without any idea of whether or not he or she is getting across the main points. Sometimes I will go over testimony with my wife or with a neighbor, and they commonly say things like "Bill, nobody will know what the epiglottis is. Don't just say it was enlarged, tell them what it is." It's unfortunate that a jury member can't say "Hey, what's an epiglottis, doc?" Counsel is *supposed* to ask those kinds of questions for the jury, but they don't always do a good job. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:30:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNUfk2001736 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:30:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:34:29 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00e101c3e209$727aa850$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:30:38.0929 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8C42410:01C3E208] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Nah! Jerseyites (or Jerseyans, as some prefer) say "Jersey." Only New Yorkers (as in New York City) say "Joisey." Well, New Yorkers and people from "Joisey City" - but the rest of Jersey considers Jersey City to be the sixth borough of New York City anyway! Actually, I grew up believing that I had no accent at all (after all, only hicks had accents, right?), until I moved to Florida and mentioned my amusement with native Floridian accents to some of my coworkers. They then pointed out that, while I certainly never said "Joisey" (because I'm not from New York or Jersey City), I DID have a tendency to say "dis" and "dat," and to "ax" people questions, LOL! I never even realized it until it was pointed out to me. So much for the conceits of youth! After more than 25 years as a Yankee Southerner (i.e., a Florida transplant), I am happy to say I have lost 99% of my Jersey accent (no more dis or dat, and my only ax is used on firewood). I have, however developed some mild Southern affectations (including an occasional "y'all"), which provide no end of amusement to my relatives back in Jersey! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Lynn Coceani Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Don't you mean "transplanted Joiseyite"! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 11:18 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Howdy, Lynn - come on now, darlin', take yer shoes off an' rest a spell! Contrar to pop'lur percepshin, Flarda DO be in th' South, shore 'nuf, and we stills got plenty 'em home-grown rurl taipes we 'fectshintly call "rednecks." But it be true that tuhday the muhjarty of we'all Flardans be transplant'd "damn Yankees." (atho ah must say it don't take abody no time a'tall teh pick up that there Suthern axint!) Hay there, Dan-boy, Ah'd sure'n like to hep y'all wid' that there crop gatherin', but I got me teh get them hogs slopped! An' wud sumbuddy puhLESE clean up th' cow maknowre in th' instruhmint rum? Ah almost slipped an broke mah brand spankin' new CB radio, consarn it! Ah thankie kindly. Heppy Friday Follies, y'all! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (and transplanted Jerseyite) Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:57 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) Dan, Everybody knows Florida is not in the south! :-) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:22 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] bounced message (Modified by basten) From: "dnippes" To: Subject: Rural South and ATF Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:56 -0500 Geez...two insults in the same mail. This is in response to Brent Turvey's advice on educational requirements for forensic science laboratories. Like Barbara Simmons of ATF, I read, learn and sometimes laugh from the list, but rarely respond. And like Barbara, this one also caused me to bite my tongue. She clearly responded to the misinformed information re/ high ATF turnover, so I thought I'd address the forensic science qualifications in the rural south. I can do this 'cause I are one (rural and south). We recently lost a drug chemist as she relocated when her husband was transferred out west (she had a PhD). In search of a replacement I advertised for a MS degree w/ forensic drug chemistry experience. Silly me! I could have hired a high school alum to run our GCs, IR, UV and GC-MSs, and work with the LIMS system. Just curious about the experience/authority to advise re/ our rural south forensic qualifications? Checked my membership directories of ASCLD, AAFS, MAAFS, SAFS and ABC, and didn't see the author's name listed. Gotta' run now. Have to get the staff together to get the crops in before sundown! Happy Friday. Daniel C. Nippes Director, Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 South 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 Phone (772) 462-3645 Fax (772) 462-3642 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Turvey Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:39 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Education aka Where to go from here....?? Noelle; I'd recommend that you go on to get your master's in FS if you are serious. This will make you quite competitive. However... Many crime labs advertise entry level criminalist positions for which a BS in chemistry, biology, OR forensic science meets and even exceeds the minimum requirement. Others seem to believe and even proclaim boldly that this is not so. The entry level requirements for criminalist positions around the country are not all that prohibitive. Not that everyone is hiring, mind you. Though ATF always seems to have slots open owing to their very high turnover rate. There are even labs that do not require a hard science degree, or let alone a college degree at all. You just have to be willing to move to a more rural or southern state. This because many courting law enforcement personnel who may not be able to meet the degree requirement. [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:43:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNhvxf002120 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:43:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:47:46 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00e901c3e20b$4d7b26e0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <63.271685c8.2d376dff@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:43:55.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3C984A0:01C3E20A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Now you're dating yourself! 1975 was a looong time ago. That's the year I first came to Florida from New Jersey, to attend college. I entered the forensic science field in 1981, after some time on active duty with the US Army. Where do we know each other from? I don't recognize your screen name. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Fossilhund@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:16 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: Fossilhund@aol.com Subject: Re: [forens] Southern Labs Hey Bob, I remember you when you were first down here in the South!! --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Fossilhund@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:45:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNjIws002353 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:45:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] NaF and DNA profiling Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:49:07 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00ea01c3e20b$7d65b140$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <000601c3dbcf$a42cd2a0$7f010a0a@helixpc> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:45:16.0273 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3B43610:01C3E20A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Actually, grey-topped tubes contain both an anticoagulant and a preservative, the usual pairing being NaF with either potassium oxalate or disodium EDTA. I wonder if either of the anticoagulants could be inhibiting the process? There is also a grey-topped tube used for activated clotting time determination which contains only diatomatic earth, but the blood would be clotted. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Helix Biotech, Inc. Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:26 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] NaF and DNA profiling I attempted to extract DNA from grey topped Vacutainer tubes (NaF) using DNA-IQ and amplified using PowerPlex 16; it bombed. I checked with Promega and they say they never validated using grey topped tubes. Does anyone have any experience with grey topped tubes or suggestions? Alan L. Friedman, PhD Helix Biotech, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:25 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: Re: [forens] Hydrofluoric Acid Well, this is out of my field, other than as a passing interest in WMD while at the AFIP... The only thing I have ever heard of was using it for a form of home-made nerve gas -- home-made di-isopropyl fluorophosphate. A quick check on the web shows a swedish site that says it is found in clandestine meth labs: http://www.hnnsweden.com/0002/04apr2002/02apr12-003.htm billo On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Lee, Chien-Hsing K. wrote: > Has anyone seen hydrofluoric acid at a clandestine laboratory that you have > investigated recently? If so, what first aid measures do you have available > to you? > > Ken Lee > Senior Criminalist > Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. > Scientific Services Bureau > [EndPost by "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." ] > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Helix Biotech, Inc." ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:46:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNk9eK002546 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:46:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:49:58 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00eb01c3e20b$9c000330$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D12B9@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:46:07.0617 (UTC) FILETIME=[124EAF10:01C3E20B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu If you can eliminate 99% of other sources, then your probability of finding the result you did is 1% or 1 in 100. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 6:46 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings You're right. I'm not accustomed to discussing probabilities as 1 in X and I keep spinning myself around. If I say something could have originated from K, then I am confident that I can eliminate 99% of the other potential donors. So how would I express this as a 1 in X? The likelihood Q actually came from K is ???? -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:51 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Lynn, regarding what you wrote below: "1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75" I'm confused by your answers here. 1 in 2 = 50% probability, 1 in 100 = 1% probability, 1 in 50 = 2% probability, and 1 in 75 = 1.3% probability. That's not what you meant, is it? Something that is "probable" should be more likely than something that is "possible" should it not? As a lone word, "probable" means "more likely than not", and so would have to have a greater than 50% chance of being true (more than 1 in 2, or 51 [or more] in 100). Conversely, "possible" in the vernacular is any chance greater than zero. Can you explain what you meant? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:02 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a position where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES) Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are reported back to the list. 1. good chance - 1 in 10 2. same as - 1 in 1 3. congruency - 4. indistinguishable - 1 in 1 5. consistent - 1 in 1 6. matched - 1 in 1 Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two compared items shared a common source expressed by the following words and phrases. Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the temptation to express your opinions in words. 1. might have - 1 in 2 2. could have - 1 in 100 3. possible - 1 in 50 4. probable - 1 in 75 Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following hypothetical: In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using a peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. 1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) I'm interpreting this as 1 in 1 is identity. 3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? NO 4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common origin is: b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis for some constructive discussion. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:46:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNkO45002650 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:46:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:50:11 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00ec01c3e20b$a40981f0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040116055739.02532298@mail.fsalab.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:46:21.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A582DD0:01C3E20B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete, Lynn said she could ELIMINATE 99% of other sources, so that should be "the properties of Q are present in 1% of the things like K," shouldn't it? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Barnett Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings In this case, you can simply say "the properties of Q are present in 99% of the things like K." The trick is defining the population. Do we know the Q red paint is from a 19566 Chevy Malibu, or just that it is red paint that has the same visual color as the K paint we have (which happens to be a 1956 Chevy Malibu). Biological stain analysts have it easy - the population is pretty easy to define and to sample. The job for the TE analyst is *much* more difficult. Even defining the population is very difficult, and sampling that defined population gets even harder. But that is the job, and the TE analyst has the responsibility to do it. Otherwise, no one can intelligently use the association that is made (an elimination is, of course, rather trivial - if it is correct). Pete Barnett At 03:45 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote: >You're right. I'm not accustomed to discussing probabilities as 1 in X and >I keep spinning myself around. >If I say something could have originated from K, then I am confident that I >can eliminate 99% of the other potential donors. So how would I express >this as a 1 in X? The likelihood Q actually came from K is ???? > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] >On Behalf Of Robert Parsons >Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:51 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > >Lynn, regarding what you wrote below: > >"1. might have - 1 in 2 > 2. could have - 1 in 100 > 3. possible - 1 in 50 > 4. probable - 1 in 75" > >I'm confused by your answers here. 1 in 2 = 50% probability, 1 in 100 >= 1% probability, 1 in 50 = 2% probability, and 1 in 75 = 1.3% >probability. That's not what you meant, is it? > >Something that is "probable" should be more likely than something that >is "possible" should it not? As a lone word, "probable" means "more >likely than not", and so would have to have a greater than 50% chance of >being true (more than 1 in 2, or 51 [or more] in 100). Conversely, >"possible" in the vernacular is any chance greater than zero. Can you >explain what you meant? > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >Ft. Pierce, FL > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >[mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Henson, Lynn >Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 9:02 AM >To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' >Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings > >Part A - Do you work, or have you worked in the last 5 years, in a >position >where you analyzed, reported and testified on physical evidence? YES) > >Part B - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two items > >are the same expressed by the following words or phrases. Please do it >in >the format of 1 in X. Give numbers, and avoid the temptation to express >your opinions in words. We can better do that after the results are >reported back to the list. > >1. good chance - 1 in 10 > >2. same as - 1 in 1 > >3. congruency - > >4. indistinguishable - 1 in 1 > >5. consistent - 1 in 1 > >6. matched - 1 in 1 > >Part C - Give your opinion as to the chance (probability) that two >compared >items shared a common source expressed by the following words and >phrases. >Please do it in the format of 1 in X. Use only numbers, and avoid the >temptation to express your opinions in words. > >1. might have - 1 in 2 > >2. could have - 1 in 100 > >3. possible - 1 in 50 > >4. probable - 1 in 75 > >Part D - Respond to the questions below based on the following >hypothetical: > >In an attempt to reach a conclusion on likely hood of the two having a >common origin, you analyzed a known sample and a questioned sample using >a >peer accepted series of methods In this analysis you analyzed several >independent class characteristics of the items. You could classify and >compare all of them successfully. No apparently meaningful difference >between the class characteristics results of the two items was found. > >1. Based on a comparison of the results of the series of independent >class >characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as >probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? > >NO > >2. If you answered NO to question 1, the chance of them having a common >origin is: > > b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) I'm interpreting this as 1 >in >1 is identity. > >3. Based on a comparison of the results of only one of independent class > >characteristics, is it your opinion that the chances are 1 in 2 (as >probable as not) that the two items have a common origin? > >NO > >4. If you answered NO to question 3, the chance of them having a common >origin is: > b. Less than 1 in 2 (1 in 1.9 or lower) > >Please feel free to respond in the list, or directly to me at >azrielg@cc.huji.ac.il > >Thank you for your attention to this, and hopefully it will be the basis > >for some constructive discussion. > >Shalom from Jerusalem, >Azriel Gorski > >******************************************************************** >Azriel Gorski >Forensic Science > >Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre >The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > >http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ > >"Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge > that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach > >If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up >with the rain. - Steven Wright > >Man must exist in a state of balance between risk >and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure >safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival >and progress. - Unknown >******************************************************************** > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] >[EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] > >[EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] >[EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:47:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNl6sA002935 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:47:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:50:55 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00ed01c3e20b$be39ea10$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <40080D64.FD34253B@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:47:05.0039 (UTC) FILETIME=[348895F0:01C3E20B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 1998 appears to be the current edition, with a 2003 supplement. The document is available on the ALI web site for $95 hardbound, $43.50 softbound, and $29 for the supplement. Go to www.ali.org, click on ALI Library, then on "Checklist of Restatement of the Law Volumes and Pocket Parts," and then scroll down to nearly the bottom of the page. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Professor Anil Aggrawal Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:12 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability 15 January 2004 Dear List, I have to prepare a post-graduate lecture on products liability in relation to drugs prescribed by doctors. During literature search I came across "Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability". I am told that this is the law which mainly guides the products liability in relation to prescribed drugs. It was approved by American Law Institute (ALI) in 1997, and perhaps adopted in 1998. I am also told it has 21 sections in all. I am looking for the text of all 21 sections. Can someone in the list please send me these sections (by Email), or perhaps let me know some URL which I can visit. I would also be very interested in any other matter which the list may want to provide me in relation to products liability as it concerns prescribed drugs (case law etc). During my literature search I also discovered that the first Restatement of Torts was done in 1923, and the second in 1965. Is there a fourth restatement too? Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:50:34 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNoYCu003370 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:50:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Presumptive test/Hematrace test for human Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:54:22 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010701c3e20c$398861b0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:50:31.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFD734A0:01C3E20B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu For me the issue revolves around suggesting a definitive determination if we know it is not truly definitive. This is a simple matter of proven factuality. If there is any reasonable possibility of an alternative source, then I feel that possibility must be mentioned or the reported result is misleading in its implications. Even if the conclusion regarding identification of an unknown is factually correct, if other reasonable possibilities remain then we have not PROVEN to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the conclusion is correct and should not make statements that imply we have proven it. So then, what is "reasonable" certainty and what are "reasonable" possibilities? That's a judgment call, I guess, and since blood stain identification is not my field I am not qualified to make that judgment. However, I do have an opinion (which I am sure surprises no one), however inexpert it may be. In my personal opinion as a non-expert, if simian blood remains a possibility, even though unlikely, then I think it should be mentioned. Simian blood can conceivably be found outside of zoos and primate centers. There are traveling circuses and carnivals, for example, and particularly in wealthy areas, primates can occasionally be found as pets in private ownership. These possibilities I would think can be easily checked on and eliminated, but unless the possibility is mentioned investigators won't know to check on them. Ferrets and weasels are more problematic, because ferrets are commonly sold in pet shops, while weasels exist in the wild in significant numbers, and are not uncommon even in residential suburban settings in some parts of the country. I agree all these alternatives are longs shots for origins, but they are not implausible ones, especially if no human DNA determination was done. So unless they have been accounted for and refuted, shouldn't they at least be mentioned as unlikely possibilities? It just seems to me that a statement of specific and exclusive identification cannot be justifiably made if any reasonable (even if implausible) possibility of an alternative remains. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Terry Spear Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:23 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Presumptive test/Hematrace test for human This is in response to both Bob Parson's and Bentley Atchison's earlier posts. It is true that the literature reports that there are a number of substances, other than blood, that will give a positive presumptive test for blood. However, if you take the time and test these substances with the various chemical tests for blood (e.g. a two step test using leucomalachite green, Kastle-Meyer or o.tol. reagent) I think you will find that the reactions you obtain from them look very different than what you would get from blood. Either the color develops before the addition of the hydrogen peroxide or the reaction is a different color than you would obtain from blood. Vegetable peroxidases can give reactions that resemble blood but a piece of horseradish in no way resembles a bloodstain. Although these are presumptive tests, I think if an analyst is discriminating in the appearance of what is tested and the way these tests are interpreted, they are very good indication of whether or not you have blood present. The other important factor in bloodstain characterization is the physical appearance of the stain. A bloodstain is fairly unique in appearance (especially if time is taken to view it under a stereo microscope). I don't know the technical details about the Chamberlain case but I would guess that if there was a documented problem in the human bloodstain determination, it was probably because there was not a visible or characteristic looking bloodstain and a weak and unclear "positive" presumptive test. It is true that one could conceive of scenarios that could cause an analyst to mis-interpret a set of results to mean that it was human blood when it was actually something else: ferret blood that has been uniformly mixed with human saliva or a drop of chimp blood. I would agree that if these stains were discovered in a zoo or a primate center (or somewhere else that you actually might encountered this type of animal blood), it would be important to spell out the limitations of the tests results. However, short of that context, I do not believe you are being misleading when you express an opinion that your testing has lead you to believe that you have identified human blood. Terry Spear >>> bentleya@vifm.org 01/15/04 06:38PM >>> I would make the following comments about the debate on tests for human blood. Screening tests for blood have usually been based on the peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin. But I am sure we all know that a wide range of substances also give a positive result to such tests. This is why, having located an area by the screening test, the scientist is obliged to do a test which is specific for blood (if he/she wishes to report blood was present). In my view it would be a great mistake to put screening results in a report as they will almost certainly be taken as "blood was present" when there may not be any. The greatest example of this was the Chamberlain case in Australia ("the dingo ate my baby case") where the use of a screening test to define the presence of blood was heavily criticised by scientists in a high level inquiry. The Hematrace test has the potential advantage that it uses antibodies against human hemoglobin and therefore one could say human blood was present. Of course it is expected to react against other primates, but I am surprised it reacts against ferret blood. The antibodies being used appear not to be a specific and therefore a definite statement should not be made. I would have thought the reaction against ferrets and other primates is not a large issue although it might be advisable to at least include a rider in the report to explain the non-specificity. I assume the people validating the test used a number substances (not just blood) to ensure that it did not give false reactions. A screening test for blood combined with a test for human DNA does not say that human blood was present. Exactly the same results would be obtained with a stain of animal blood ( or any other substance with peroxidase like activity) and human saliva. If it is a dried stain then we cannot tell when the substances were deposited. To get around this, some labs might report only that "human DNA" was present, but this may become an issue if the presence of a person's blood, and not say his saliva, at a crime scene is important. Regards Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by terry.spear@doj.ca.gov (Terry Spear)] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:51:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNptgF003569 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:51:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:55:45 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010801c3e20c$6aae0420$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:51:54.0367 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0FC88F0:01C3E20B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The problem, as others have pointed out, is that it is impossible to determine the prior odds with most trace evidence, since the characterization of the entire sample set ("all the other evidence"), i.e., all the possible sources that would exhibit the same characteristics, is not known. Some have said that the variety of trace evidence materials, even of the same basic type, is too large and formulations change too rapidly to make any database comprehensive enough to be valid for determining odds. Dr. Buckleton's approach to describing the possibilities involved in this kind of "match" seems reasonable and appropriate to me. But how about another curve - what if no "suitable" database exists to determine the random match rate? How do we know when a database is large enough and inclusive enough (in relation to all the existing variations in sample types) to base a probability statement on? If no suitable database can be reliably established, then we are back to simply enumerating and describing the individual points of similarity/characteristic in common, and perhaps making some subjective qualitative description (without numbers, because there would no basis for determining numbers) of the strength of association, assuming there is some justified basis for even a subjective evaluation. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Buckleton, John Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:10 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Posterior probabilities and evidence The discussion on numbers has concerned me. Some of the fundamental pronciples appear to have been lost. Specifically the probability that two objects have a common source is based on two factors: the forensic evidence and all the other evidence. The question cannot be answered from the forensic evidence alone. Let us take up the paint example that is being discussed. Suppose that 100% of samples from the same source would match on these tests. 1% of random samples from some suitable database would also match. Hence the match is 100 times more likely IF the samples come from the same source that if they do not. So what is the probability that they come from the same source? Posterior odds = 100 * prior odds The answer is that I cannot tell you. I still need the prior odds. But I can tell you that the evidence makes it 100 times more probable than it was before we did the tests. John Buckleton ESR New Zealand ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 18:58:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0NNwVYh004177 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:02:15 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010901c3e20d$53605420$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <000301c3dc6d$402f6620$336dff3e@sekar> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2004 23:58:24.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9AD5250:01C3E20C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This is an inherent weakness in the adversarial system of justice. Blowing smoke and legal maneuvering is part and parcel of the system, where winning becomes more important than revealing the truth. The Prosecution's only duties to "truth" in court are to not knowingly present any false evidence and to reveal any exculpatory evidence it discovers to the defense. Information which merely helps the defense's case but which is not of itself exculpatory need not be revealed. The Defense has no duty to the truth whatsoever, only to their client. They are free to offer or withhold any "evidence" (real or merely alleged) they like, so long as they do not knowingly suborn perjury. This is intended to "balance the scales" against the greater resources of the government compared to the accused, but it is easily abused. No, it's not fair to the jury, nor is it fair to society, to the victims, or to the defendants. In my philosophy, the first duty of both prosecution and defense should be to make certain that all the evidence known to either side is revealed to the jury, and just as importantly, to make certain that no theories known to be false are presented to the jury, so that the jury may make the best and most just decision possible. All attorneys' jobs should be not to win for their side, but to ensure that all trials are fair and judicious, revealing and taking into consideration all facts known to either side. Only when all known facts are presented (and all untruths withheld) is the greatest opportunity for achieving justice realized. But under the adversarial system, neither side is required to make the other side's job any easier, save for the prosecution's responsibility to reveal exculpatory evidence. This is intended as a protection against tyranny of government, but the privilege is easily abused by both sides. The adversarial system of justice is a terrible system for finding the truth; but unfortunately, it's also a far better system than any other yet devised (someone once said that it was the worst possible system of justice - except for all the others; was it Mark Twain?). The system could be improved, in my opinion, in various ways discussed here in the past (court-appointed experts, special masters, professional juries, mandatory full disclosure, etc.), but fundamental changes are very difficult to make due to constitutional provisions and the traditional interpretations of those provisions. Such changes would also be risky, and could make things worse instead of better if they were not implemented wisely, with appropriate controls and safeguards. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of satish.sekar Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:35 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts Importance: High I don't know if this happens in the USA, but another possible problem is that both the prosecution and defence have specific and directly competing interests. Each set of lawyers not only want only to establish what suits their case, but can thrive on grey areas. In a case that I am dealing with the tests that were conducted established that staining was possibly blood and that DNA was human. The prosecution lawyers then said that the DNA came from the blood of the deceased. It might have, but that was not conclusively proved. Confirmation tests were not carried out. The defence expert raised the possibility of a mixture of animal blood and the deceased's saliva. That might have happened as well, but it was not conclusively demonstrated to be the case. Both experts were correct in so far as the tests that were carried out as were their interpretations of what those results could mean. The prosecution could potentially have disproved the defence hypothesis by further testing. It did not do so. The defence could potentially have disproved the prosecution case by further testing. It chose not to do so. Both prosecution and defence preferred to thrive in the grey area of not risking disproving its own hypothesis rather than trying to establish it by further testing. Is this fair on the jury? How are they to be protected from possibly making a terrible mistake in circumstances where the truth could easily have been established? Significantly, neither the prosecution nor defence wanted to try to establish the truth definitively. In such circumstances at least the judge should be entitled to have these issues resolved for the jury by using an independent expert, preferrably with the agreement of both sides, but without it if necessary. The alternative is that the truth will not be established because it is not in the strategic interests of either prosecution or defence to do so. This cannot be acceptable. Best Wishes Satish ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts > Pete and Billo make some good arguments, but > what's a judge to do? Whether we like it or not, > expert testimony is subject to a relaibility > inquiry, and Daubert and its progengy charge the > trial court judge to act as gatekeeper. > > Maybe fire investigation is a special case, but I > don't think so. NOnetheless, I will use an > example from fire investigation, because that's > what I know. > > Suppose we have two fire experts: Expert A says > the fire is incendiary (arson). Expert B says > the fire was accidental. (This scenario happens a > lot) They can't both be right. Faced with these > competing proffers, the judge knows that one of > these experts is wrong and therefore one of them > is proposing to present irrelevant, unrelaible > evidence that is definitely not helpful to the > jury. > > The Supremes have told him it's his job to keep > that testiomony out. > > He can ignore the responsibility and let the jury > sort it out. The jury will believe the best > witness, regardless of whether that witness has > the correct opinion or the incorrect opinion. > They may choose to disbelieve the defense expert, > because he is getting paid, (unlike the > prosecution witness who works for free;-) > > Surely, the judge would be better off to hire his > own expert to advise the court. That expert > could be jointly agreed to by the parties, or > some other equitable way could be worked out to > select the special master (this is truly the > dicey part). > > I have had the privelege of serving the role of > special master on two occasions, and found the > atmosphere refreshing. There was no need to > overcome adversary pressure (which, believe it or > not happens even to public servants), because > there was none. > > Failing to come up with a way for the judge to > decide which expert is right, we should at least > make sure that when the forensic science is > contested, the court approves funds for the > defense to hire its own expert. This happens > more frequently than it used to, but is still > rare in most non-capital cases. > > > > > > > > --- Bill Oliver wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Peter Barnett wrote: > > > > > I certainly agree with Billo. There is not > > much that forensic scientists > > > do that is too difficult for the average > > juror to comprehend. When someone > > > asks "Why should I believe you??", my usual > > response is "It is not your job > > > to believe me, it is my job to convince you." > > > > > > Heh. This reminds me of one Daubert hearing I > > had on some patterned > > injury interpretation involving image > > processing and image enhancement. > > The defense objected to the use of image > > enhancement, but it was > > allowed on the basis that I was using it for > > illustration rather > > than conclusion and that I could point to every > > feature I discussed > > in the original image. Then they objected to > > my doing patterned > > injury analysis at all because it was not > > really "science". After > > I went through the principles of > > perception-based image analysis and > > how it is used in things like intelligence, > > after I went through > > my testimony and what my conclusions were and > > how I came to > > my conclusions, the defense then objected > > because my findings > > were based in basic science but were > > essentially "common sense." > > However, since my findings were ones that > > anybody could easily > > see, it was inappropriate to have an expert > > present them... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what it comes down to is that forensic > > scientists have to practice good > > > science (and a large part of that is proving > > their case, not simply stating > > > it) ... > > > > > > Actually, I think that forensic scientists > > should get over the idea > > that they are doing Science with a big "S." > > This is one of the > > problems with this whole thing. I remember a > > lecture given by Fred > > Brooks at the Computer Science department at > > UNC. He was being given a > > lifetime achievment award by the Association > > for Computing Machinery > > Special Interest Group on Graphics (ACM > > SIGGRAPH) and presented a > > plenary lecture. One of the things he noted > > was that "Computer > > Science" was not really science at all. It was > > engineering. Oh sure, > > engineers use scientific techniques, but > > successful computer scientists > > realized that they were, first and foremost, > > designers. Similarly, > > forensic scientists are primarily > > technologists; sure, we use > > scientific techniques, but we are not > > Scientists in the pure sense for > > the most part. Intelligence image analyists > > *use* science, but they > > are analysts, not scientists. Physicians mix > > the art and science of > > medicine freely, and there is no clear border > > between them. That > > doesn't invalidate the practice of medicine -- > > including forensic > > medicine. > > > > The biggest problem with "forensic science" is > > that people are trying > > to shove multiple disciplines into one > > cubbyhole that fits none of > > them. > > > > billo > > > > > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > [EndPost by John Lentini ] > [EndPost by "satish.sekar" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 19:02:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0O02onp004606 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:02:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:06:38 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010f01c3e20d$eff63c50$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2004 00:02:47.0460 (UTC) FILETIME=[66429E40:01C3E20D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >> He can ignore the responsibility and let the jury >> sort it out. The jury will believe the best >> witness, regardless of whether that witness has >> the correct opinion or the incorrect opinion. >> They may choose to disbelieve the defense expert, >> because he is getting paid, (unlike the >> prosecution witness who works for free;-) >> > >No. Under Daubert his responsibility is, as much as possible, *to* >let the jury sort it out. It has been a perversion of Daubert that >judges, because they are not competent and know it, have decided to err >on the "safe" side -- and start trying to fit everything into the wet l>ab/area-under-the-graph paradigm. Everything doesn't fit there. > >One important difference between you and I is in our regard for >the jury. I actually have much more respect for the abilities >of juries than do you. I believe that they, for the large part, >do a pretty good job of telling the wheat from the chaff. > >Indeed, it is the responsibility of the "good" scientist to *also* present >the data in a coherent manner to the jury. You are essentially arguing >that a Special Master should be appointed because the scientist can't >be bothered to learn how to give courtroom testimony and the lawyer >shouldn't have to bother to work with the witness to make sure he >is properly prepared. I agree with your interpretation of the purpose of Daubert, but the problem is that juries are even less well equipped to "sort it out" than the Judge is. If, after all the experts have displayed all their skills in "coherently offering testimony," the judge still can't properly "sort out" who's testimony is more reliable, how in the world can you expect the jury to do it? The judge at least has a post-secondary education and some knowledge of the games lawyers play with witnesses. The average juror has only a high-school education (if that), little or no knowledge of science whatsoever (beyond what they have "learned" on TV), and little more knowledge of lawyers' games (except again what they "learned" by watching TV). They haven't a clue about how to sort out the scientific testimony being presented, and so make their judgments based not on the quality of the science presented but rather on which expert witness seems more credible (which means more skilled in testifying, not more skilled in science). At worst, they get so confused by conflicting "expert" testimony that they ignore all of it and make their decision based on other, far less reliable, evidence (like eyewitness testimony). They are easily bamboozled by smoke and mirrors in scientific areas and are in fact bamboozled on a regular basis. I have great respect for jurors in terms of common sense and the desire to render a just verdict, but here we are asking them here to do something for which they are woefully ill prepared - to judge the reliability of scientific testimony. Like judges (except more so), on average they simply don't have the proper education needed to do that. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 6:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Special Masters in courts On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > Pete and Billo make some good arguments, but > what's a judge to do? Whether we like it or not, > expert testimony is subject to a relaibility > inquiry, and Daubert and its progengy charge the > trial court judge to act as gatekeeper. > > Maybe fire investigation is a special case, but I > don't think so. NOnetheless, I will use an > example from fire investigation, because that's > what I know. > > Suppose we have two fire experts: Expert A says > the fire is incendiary (arson). Expert B says > the fire was accidental. (This scenario happens a > lot) They can't both be right. Faced with these > competing proffers, the judge knows that one of > these experts is wrong and therefore one of them > is proposing to present irrelevant, unrelaible > evidence that is definitely not helpful to the > jury. > > The Supremes have told him it's his job to keep > that testiomony out. You miscast the purpose of Daubert as making it the primary job of the judge to keep stuff *out.* That's not the case. Once again, the Daubert decision was to let stuff *in* that a traditional Special Master would not let in. If the idea was to limit testimony to that provided by orthodox methods, we would have stayed with Frye -- which essentially was an embodiment of the Special Master attitude. You are begging the question. You have stated as axiomatic that two people, both of whom use the scientific method, cannot come up with different conclusions. *Every* scientific discipline is rife with counterexamples -- the belief that this cannot be true is one of the great mistakes of the current witchunting hysteria in forensic science. Sometimes the reason is because the tools and knowledge and not definative, and people extrapolate differently from what is known to be true. Thus, for instance, in the 1980s there were many candidates for the etiologic agent of AIDS. I remember some very good arguments, for instance, that EBV (Epstein Barr Virus) causes AIDS. Sure, evidence for HIV has become overwhelming, but it was not so in 1985. Sometimes it is because the basic orthodoxy underlying the conclusions is wrong. This is what happened with Galileo. A perfect example of what would happen with Special Masters is what happened to him. Unorthodox methods and conclusions would not be allowed, no matter the validity. Sometimes it is because the discipline involves art and craft as well as "pure" empiricism. I can remember a patterned injury analysis case in which I identified an object used to bludgeon a man to death in Quebec. It was the ratchet from a socket wrence. This case went from the local constabulary to the RCMP to the FBI to me, and I got it right -- not because I was such a great computer scientist, not because I was such a great forensic pathologist, not because I was such a great image analyst, but because, of all the people who had looked at the case I was the only one who worked on my own car and had intimate experience with socket wrenches. OK, John, let's pretend that you are a forensic pathologist and there is a question about looking at a patterned injury. There are linear marks on a man's abdomen, and the question is whether or not a certain car made those marks. On one side is Vincent DiMaio, a man who has, literally, "written the book," in forensic pathology, who has done tens of thousands of autopsies, who has demonstrated that he has an excellent diagnostic eye for this kind of thing, and who has trained hundreds of people who *also* have demonstrated abilities. He states that he believes that the marks probably came from the grille of a car that was not the car in question. On the other side is William Oliver, a man who has much less hands-on experience in forensic pathology, who has a more limited corpus, but who has specialized training in image processing and enhancement and while he has not "written the book," at least has "written a chapter." He states he believes that the mark comes from the tire in question, and provides shape and photogrammetric measures. You know Vince's history and his abilities, and have great respect for his diagnostic abilities. You know that much of forensic pathology is exactly perceptually-based -- it is not a matter of measuring the area under a graph but of having a "trained eye" and making use of one's experience. This photogrammetry stuff is new and innovative and has been used in other areas as an adjunct to perceptually-based techniques, but this Oliver guy clearly doesn't have the experience base that DiMaio has. Who do you allow to testify? > > He can ignore the responsibility and let the jury > sort it out. The jury will believe the best > witness, regardless of whether that witness has > the correct opinion or the incorrect opinion. > They may choose to disbelieve the defense expert, > because he is getting paid, (unlike the > prosecution witness who works for free;-) > No. Under Daubert his responsibility is, as much as possible, *to* let the jury sort it out. It has been a perversion of Daubert that judges, because they are not competent and know it, have decided to err on the "safe" side -- and start trying to fit everything into the wet lab/area-under-the-graph paradigm. Everything doesn't fit there. One important difference between you and I is in our regard for the jury. I actually have much more respect for the abilities of juries than do you. I believe that they, for the large part, do a pretty good job of telling the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the "good" scientist to *also* present the data in a coherent manner to the jury. You are essentially arguing that a Special Master should be appointed because the scientist can't be bothered to learn how to give courtroom testimony and the lawyer shouldn't have to bother to work with the witness to make sure he is properly prepared. > Surely, the judge would be better off to hire his > own expert to advise the court. Surely not. You have *no* reason to believe that this one expert is the "right" one and not the "wrong" one. That's the one thing you have not addressed. > That expert > could be jointly agreed to by the parties, or > some other equitable way could be worked out to > select the special master (this is truly the > dicey part). > It's dicey because it is fundamentally unfair. > I have had the privelege of serving the role of > special master on two occasions, and found the > atmosphere refreshing. There was no need to > overcome adversary pressure (which, believe it or > not happens even to public servants), because > there was none. Yes, and I like to tesify in front of grand juries because there is no defense counsel to challenge me. But that's not the way to have a fair trial, which is why we don't convict people on the basis of grand jury indictments. The same principle extends to special masters. Certainly if both parties agree to one special master, then there is no challenge. But just because it's more fun not to be challenged doesn't mean it's not right to be challenged. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 19:05:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0O05ULr004925 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:05:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:09:17 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <011001c3e20e$4f24d7e0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <7557102D-4C3F-11D8-967E-0003930DFAA4@statgen.ncsu.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2004 00:05:27.0148 (UTC) FILETIME=[C57112C0:01C3E20D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You can certainly use hydrogen with GC/MS, but except in very exoteric applications (none of them likely to be found in the forensic lab) I can't see any analytical advantage in doing so. In fact, I can see a distinct disadvantage with regard to safety, since helium is inert while hydrogen is highly explosive Hydrogen does provide the greatest column efficiency in terms of theoretical plates per second (four times better on average than nitrogen), but its advantage over helium is negligible for most applications, and certainly for any application routinely found in crime labs. High purity hydrogen is cheaper than high purity helium, but in my opinion that economic advantage is easily outweighed by the advantages in safety and ease of handling that helium provides. Helium in the carrier of choice in most crime labs (actually, in every one that I'm familiar with). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:07 AM To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message (Modified by basten) > From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" Subject: [forens] Hydrogen carrier gas Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:05:03 -0500 List, Does anyone use hydrogen gas as a carrier for GC? Can you use it with a GC/MS? I have been given conflicting information with regards to the compatibility of hydrogen with the MS. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 26 Hospital St. Augusta, ME 04333 P: 207-624-7028 F: 207-624-7123 [EndPost by owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 23 20:14:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0O1EwoK006354 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:14:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: <010f01c3e20d$eff63c50$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > > I agree with your interpretation of the purpose of Daubert, but the > problem is that juries are even less well equipped to "sort it out" than > the Judge is. As far as I can tell, this is a statement of faith, not fact. Once again, I have always been favorably impressed by juries, especially when they are allowed to ask questions. As far as I can see, the only special qualification a judge has is his or her pretentions. The article I quoted backs that perception up. > If, after all the experts have displayed all their skills > in "coherently offering testimony," the judge still can't properly "sort > out" who's testimony is more reliable, how in the world can you expect > the jury to do it? Because most of this isn't all that hard at the level of testimony. > The judge at least has a post-secondary education > and some knowledge of the games lawyers play with witnesses... Once again, I don't hold juries in the same low esteem as do you. One might as well argue that we should do away with the jury system altogether, since the hoi polloi are not fit to make judgements at all. Your position, quite frankly, is the same that anti-republicans used in defense of divine right and monarchy in the face of democracy and mob rule. In fact, the hoi polloi, particularly when acting in concert, are pretty good at finding out the right solutions. I simply do not agree that the divine right of judges is any better. On the contrary, for every stupid jury trick you bring up, I could easily bring up a stupid judge trick. And the same goes for outright illegal activity. It wasn't a jury that traded sex for child custody judgements... billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 24 10:30:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0OFUjap019037 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:30:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:30:44 -0500 (EST) From: Basten Message-Id: <200401241530.i0OFUiRu019030@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> To: forens Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'm forwarding two messges from Charles Brenner. -Chris From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings At 06:55 PM 1/23/2004 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >The problem, as others have pointed out, is that it is impossible to >determine the prior odds with most trace evidence, since the >characterization of the entire sample set ("all the other evidence"), >i.e., all the possible sources that would exhibit the same >characteristics, is not known. The terminology is mixed up. As an analogy consider a diagnostic test, like a test for syphilis. For the sake of the example, assume that it never gives a false negative -- the sensitivity is 100%. But the specificity -- the rate of false positives -- is 2%. The ratio 100%/2% is the likelihood ratio favoring syphilis for a person who tests positive. Suppose a random S.Korean is given the test. The prevalence of syphilis in that country is 0.2%. Then it is plausible to take 0.2% as the prior probability, or 0.2% / 99.8% = 1/500 as the prior odds. Note that this has nothing to do with the diagnostic test. To end the disease case, the posterior odds are calculated as John said: multiply the prior odds by the likelihood ratio. In this case, (1/500) x 50 = 1/10. For every 11 people who test positive, 1 is afflicted, 10 are healthy. Any person who tests positive has 1:10 odds against (a 1/11 chance of) being afflicted. This is a conclusion that you can reach by common sense. As formulas though: posterior odds = (prior odds) x (likelihood ratio), where (prior odds) = prevalence / (1-prevalence) and (likelihood ratio) = sensitivity / specificity By analogy, in the case of a criminal hit-and-run where a paint chip at the scene is presumed to come from the car that ran, whose owner has been arrested as a suspect, the prior probability refers to the chance that the suspect's car really did the hitting. That has nothing to do with the chance of other cars having similar paint. The meaning of PRIOR is "prior to consideration of the scientific evidence in question." The prior odds (or probability) are what one guesses based on behavior, etc., on "anecdotal evidence." So I think possibly you meant that the specificity is hard to determine. The prior odds may also be hard to estimate, but that's the court's problem, not ours. Charles Brenner From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed speaking of terminology messed up ... I dully wrote >But the specificity -- the rate of false positives -- is 2%. The ratio >100%/2% is the likelihood ratio favoring syphilis for a person who tests >positive. If the rate of false positives is 2%, I guess that makes the specificity 98% (http://teaching.ucdavis.edu/nut118/handouts/sensitivity04.pdf). Similarly, >(likelihood ratio) = sensitivity / specificity repeats the same mistake; the denominator should be (1-specificity). Charles Brenner [EndPost by Basten ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 00:56:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0P5uW4r002172 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:56:32 -0500 (EST) From: Gismort@aol.com Message-ID: <12e.3a27e6a4.2d44b480@aol.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:56:16 EST Subject: [forens] forensic autopsy question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi all, I was wondering if any one knows whether New York State requires a second witnessing physician in a forensic autopsy (of a homicide) if the dissecting physician is a forensic pathologist. If so, what is the authority? I have been unable to locate any statute pertaining to this. Appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gismort@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 02:58:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0P7wC21003992 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:58:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040125091343.00a58b40@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:23:27 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, dave.laycock@isp.state.id.us From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] Reference Fibers Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu No easy answers. One of the reasons many trace examiners will "die" to protect their reference libraries. Suggestions: The CTS standards are dated, but of value. You could contact a laboratory near you (in another state) that has a set, ask them if you can take part of their samples, then go with a lot of little glassine envelopes and pick and label. Photo copy the book. Plan on spending at least a day or two there. McCrone Associates in Chicago sells fiber sample sets. These sample sets contain exemplars of types of fibers, and do not contain a great assortment of each fiber type. But they also contain natural fibers. Yes folks they are still in use! Then there is the old way, which is to go to mills and fabric stores, read labels, confirm with your own tests, and then make them standards. Good luck in your search. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski At 08:03 21/01/04 -0700, you wrote: >Since CTS and National Bureau of Standards no longer provide fiber >reference materials, where can we obtain fibers to build a reference >collection? > >Dave Laycock >Idaho State Police Forensics > >[EndPost by "Laycock, Dave" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 02:58:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0P7wCrf003997 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:58:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040125093549.00a5ba40@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:42:01 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: References: <010f01c3e20d$eff63c50$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have worked in USA with juries and also in Israel where there are no juries. In Israel a judge in minor cases or a panel of three judges in more major cases are the "triers of the facts." I find the latter system better. By the way in Israel there is no "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police can be disciplined, but evidence can be considered. Judges can hear it all, weigh what is admissible and probative, and come to a reasoned decision. ie the "theatrics" are less of a factor. My two agarot worth. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski >Once again, I don't hold juries in the same low esteem as do you. One >might as well argue that we should do away with the jury system >altogether, since the hoi polloi are not fit to make judgements at >all. Your position, quite frankly, is the same that anti-republicans >used in defense of divine right and monarchy in the face of democracy >and mob rule. ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 13:18:15 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0PIIFKN013774 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:18:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:18:13 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] forensic autopsy question In-Reply-To: <12e.3a27e6a4.2d44b480@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 Gismort@aol.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering if any one knows whether New York State requires a second > witnessing physician in a forensic autopsy (of a homicide) if the dissecting > physician is a forensic pathologist. If so, what is the authority? I have been > unable to locate any statute pertaining to this. Appreciate any help. Thanks > in advance. > I have never heard of it, and I seriously doubt that this would be the case. The cost would be prohibitive. The problem in most jurisdictions is that forensic pathologists are grotesquely overworked. Most mistakes occur when forensic pathologists start cutting corners because of the overwhelming workload. Every place I have ever worked and every place I have ever been and every place I have ever looked at all do some sort of triage on how and when autopsies are performed because resources do not meet needs. The idea that they would be working half-time is appealing, but unlikely. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 13:27:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0PIRaNK014359 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:27:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:27:34 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040125093549.00a5ba40@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Azriel Gorski wrote: > I have worked in USA with juries and also in Israel where there are no > juries. In Israel a judge in minor cases or a panel of three judges in more > major cases are the "triers of the facts." I find the latter system better. > > By the way in Israel there is no "fruit of the poisoned tree". Police can > be disciplined, but evidence can be considered. > > Judges can hear it all, weigh what is admissible and probative, and come to > a reasoned decision. ie the "theatrics" are less of a factor. > > My two agarot worth. > > Shalom from Jerusalem, > Azriel Gorski > To each his own, of course, but in general the people in the US would not find many of the civil liberties policies of Isreal appealing. If one were to draw a graph of civil liberties vs reliance on juries for most nations, I suspect you would find a strong positive correlation. The US is certainly heading towards a centralized socialist state, and judge-directed proceedings are characteristic of them. I still have that silly idea that the average citizenry can make pretty reasonable decisions when allowed to do so. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 14:06:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0PJ6OHw015107 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:06:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Gerrit Volckeryck" To: "ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group" , "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" , "ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups. com" Subject: [forens] Toolmarks - literature lists Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear collegues, We're preparing, in collaboration with the university of Gent, a research project on toolmarks. The first phase would be a literature-study. I would be grateful if you could send me your list of articles, textbooks, etc. regarding any kind of toolmark examination. Thanks, Gerrit Volckeryck Federale Politie Gerechtelijke Dienst Laboratorium voor Technische en Wetenschappelijke Politie Simon Bolivarlaan 30 1000 Brussel Belgium tel. +32 2 208 48 48 fax. +32 2 208 48 50 [EndPost by "Gerrit Volckeryck" ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 16:22:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0PLMJhT017300 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:22:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040125212213.21778.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:22:13 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I’m moving in the direction of Billo’s argument against specials masters who decide which of two experts is “right,” but not because of my faith in juries. Our differences on this issue come from playing in different sandboxes. I still think forensic scientists responsible to no client but the judge have value in advising the court, assuming the court has an interest in fulfilling its gate-keeping obligation. The scenario pitting Vince DiMaio against William Oliver is a classic example to two knowledgeable experts, disagreeing over the scientific interpretation of the same evidence. And one where a special master would provide no additional assistance. In my sandbox, there is often one knowledgeable expert and one not-so-knowledgeable (usually a public servant type who lacks even a bachelor's degree) expert, but the latter may have a credential that the other expert lacks—a badge. His “30 years of experience” may play better with the jury than the scientific method, especially as practiced by a “hired gun.” (Everyone knows that public servants work for free). But in such a case, if the scientist cannot overcome the mythology, defense counsel has made a poor choice of scientist, and probably wouldn’t have the insight to ask for a special master in any case. In the worst cases, the defendant trusts the system, defense counsel gets no expert, and the mythology goes completely unchallenged. Again, a lawyer too dumb to seek his own expert is unlikely to urge a judge to get one. These are the cases that I don’t see until after the conviction, and where I wish that someone, anyone, had the insight and the sense to tell the judge that the arson expert was peddling unscientific garbage. There are four kinds of knowledge: 1. Things you know that you know 2. Things you don’t know that you know 3. Things you know that you don’t know 4. Things you don’t know that you don’t know. Judges, having at least 7 years of post secondary education, are more likely to be aware of what they don’t know (3) and seek expert help, especially when the expert “opinion” that is proffered does not pass their smell test. Juries, unfortunately, are specifically NOT allowed to seek expert help. If a juror gets caught seeking expert help, a mistrial is declared. Jurors have to decide who is right based solely on what they hear from the witness stand. And that may include garbage opinions from an expert who sounds great because he has no clue about what he doesn’t know (4). He is a true believer, and consequently is capable of giving credible (if false) testimony. I disagree that Daubert was meant to let more testimony “in.” While arguably more “liberal” than Frye, in that it gives courts more than one way to evaluate proffered expert testimony, Daubert emphasized the gate-keeping function. Far more testimony has been excluded under Daubert in 10 years than was excluded under Frye in 75. To suggest that this was not the court’s intent is to ignore its own subsequent interpretations of Daubert in Joiner and Kumho. The Supremes recognized the aura of credibility that accompanies the court’s admission of expert opinion testimony, and explicitly made it the trial court’s job to keep the garbage out. Judges who take this responsibility seriously should, in my view, not be hesitant to seek expert help for themselves when they recognize that they are out of their depth, or, when they need some political cover. Sure it would be nice if judges asked more questions. I don’t understand why they don’t do so more often. And it would be nice if jurors could ask questions. I have truly enjoyed testifying in courts martial, where the members are allowed to ask the witnesses anything they want. In Tennessee, jurors get to write questions that have to pass muster with the judge. Also a good thing. There are alternatives to special masters. Courts could go a long way toward preventing disasters if they would merely see to it that, in cases where the forensic evidence is in dispute, BOTH sides have access to the adequate assistance of experts. They could hold more pretrial hearings and conferences to help them sort the wheat from the chaff. And they could allow for more open discovery in criminal cases, such as occurs in Florida, where just like in civil cases, the parties have the chance to truly confront the evidence against them.(More open discovery probably requires legislation, and we know how that might make lawmakers seem soft on crime, so don't hold your breath). I guess the long and short of it is that what the system needs is more peer review, in whatever form. Bill sees an understandable disagreement between colleagues, and thinks it’s okay to let the jury sort it out, and bets they will correctly figure out who is right and who is wrong most of the time. I’ve seen juries fall for some unbelievable garbage (AZ v Girdler, PA v Lee). Peer review of any kind would likely have prevented these miscarriages. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 20:12:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0Q1CIYj021374 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:12:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:12:17 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: <20040125212213.21778.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0Q1CIqL021369 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > > > There are four kinds of knowledge: > > 1. Things you know that you know > 2. Things you don’t know that you know > 3. Things you know that you don’t know > 4. Things you don’t know that you don’t know. > > Judges, having at least 7 years of post secondary > education, are more likely to be aware of what > they don’t know (3) and seek expert help, > especially when the expert “opinion” that is > proffered does not pass their smell test. Unless, of course, just the opposite is true. It has been my experience that successful people with MAs and PhDs in Medieval Literature, Political Science, or European History, or MBAs are more likely to think they know a lot more than they really do. In fact, that's a common administrative attitude -- that a good administrator needs no technical competence in the area they are administering. A classic example was the FBI labs a few years ago, where only SAs were allowed to be department heads. Hey, you got a MA or JD, you don't need no steenkin' science. It has been *my* experience in dealing with families that I get CSI syndrome from the better-educated people, not the less educated ones. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jan 25 21:44:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0Q2iZbA023053 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:44:35 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:46:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2004 02:44:28.0799 (UTC) FILETIME=[5188F8F0:01C3E3B6] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Novel theory that John has there. I suppose if it's accurate then the doctors who comprise the thriving trade of medical malpractice are the ones who didn't pay attention, despite having many more years of post-secondary education? Or does that only apply to jurists? If it applies to jurists, I don't suppose he'd care to explain how Judge Joe Brown decided that he should become a ballistics expert in the Dr. MLK Jr civil trial, would he? There was a time that I probably would have agreed with the notion that administrators/managers didn't need a solid background in the discipline they are expected to manage, but not any more. It is often impossible to summarize things to a level that they, in turn, can argue persuasively for budget, training or other things when they don't have the underlying expertise to understand the issues. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Oliver" To: Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > > > > > > > There are four kinds of knowledge: > > > > 1. Things you know that you know > > 2. Things you don't know that you know > > 3. Things you know that you don't know > > 4. Things you don't know that you don't know. > > > > Judges, having at least 7 years of post secondary > > education, are more likely to be aware of what > > they don't know (3) and seek expert help, > > especially when the expert "opinion" that is > > proffered does not pass their smell test. > > > Unless, of course, just the opposite is true. It has been my > experience that successful people with MAs and PhDs in Medieval > Literature, Political Science, or European History, or MBAs are more > likely to think they know a lot more than they really do. In fact, > that's a common administrative attitude -- that a good administrator > needs no technical competence in the area they are administering. A > classic example was the FBI labs a few years ago, where only SAs were > allowed to be department heads. Hey, you got a MA or JD, you don't > need no steenkin' science. > > It has been *my* experience in dealing with families that I get > CSI syndrome from the better-educated people, not the > less educated ones. > > > > billo > > > [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 26 07:18:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0QCI1hE000696 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:18:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3EB1FF6BBCDC3149A11D3C034D922693071DF28A@atf-hq-excha.ad.msnet.atf.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Toolmarks - literature lists Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:17:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gerrit, Good luck on your study. A good place to start your literature search is in the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) Journals. Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-Washington 6000 Ammendale Road Ammendale, MD 20705 Desk: (240) 264-3846 FAX: (240) 264-1498 Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: Gerrit Volckeryck [mailto:gerrit.volckeryck@planetinternet.be] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:06 AM To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group; Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com; ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups. com Subject: [forens] Toolmarks - literature lists Dear collegues, We're preparing, in collaboration with the university of Gent, a research project on toolmarks. The first phase would be a literature-study. I would be grateful if you could send me your list of articles, textbooks, etc. regarding any kind of toolmark examination. Thanks, Gerrit Volckeryck Federale Politie Gerechtelijke Dienst Laboratorium voor Technische en Wetenschappelijke Politie Simon Bolivarlaan 30 1000 Brussel Belgium tel. +32 2 208 48 48 fax. +32 2 208 48 50 [EndPost by "Gerrit Volckeryck" ] [EndPost by Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] From forens-owner Mon Jan 26 08:53:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0QDrfk6002103 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:53:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040126135334.47462.qmail@web41009.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:53:34 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <00e101c3e209$727aa850$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu --- Robert Parsons wrote: > After more than 25 years as a Yankee Southerner > (i.e., a Florida > transplant), C'mon Bob: You know that the correct terminology for a Yankee that doesn't go back up north is not "Yankee Southerner"--it's "Damn Yankee!" My children, who are native Atlantans, take much joy in pointing this out to me and my wife, just as we take pride in the appellation. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 26 10:55:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0QFtTBn005491 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:55:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Melissa Jacob" To: "Forensic Email List" Subject: [forens] Routine tox screening in autopsies Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:58:30 -0600 Message-ID: <001401c3e425$3e366160$5da74a82@MRJDell> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-UofMississippi-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0QFtTBo005491 Hi, I was wondering if there is a reference (book, internet) that discusses the items screenined for routinely during an autopsy. Are these items different from state to state? Are there different "tiers", meaning, if poison is suspected, but not found in the routine screen, is there a secondary screen applied? Thanks in advance, Melissa Jacob, Ph.D Associate Research Scientist National Center for Natural Products Research Thad Cochran Center School of Pharmacy University of Mississippi University, MS 38677 Ph: 662-915-7860 Fax: 662-915-7062 Email: mjacob@olemiss.edu --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Melissa Jacob" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 26 12:21:19 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0QHLJof008833 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:21:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:21:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ferenc, Michael" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] forensic autopsy question Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:23:35 -0500 The 1918 (or some year near that) statute that created the NYC Medical Examiner Office had a provision in it that required their autopsies to be performed with two pathologists present. It was not routinely observed while I worked there, and in the borough offices- like Staten Island where there was only one pathologist- it was impossible to follow! I was talking with the NYC OCME chief investigator last week, and she mentioned that that provision of the law was still on the books. Michael J Ferenc Maine Office of Chief Medical Examiner 37 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333 1-207-624-7180 [fax 1-207-624-7178] Michael.Ferenc@Maine.gov -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:18 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] forensic autopsy question On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 Gismort@aol.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering if any one knows whether New York State requires a second > witnessing physician in a forensic autopsy (of a homicide) if the dissecting > physician is a forensic pathologist. If so, what is the authority? I have been > unable to locate any statute pertaining to this. Appreciate any help. Thanks > in advance. > I have never heard of it, and I seriously doubt that this would be the case. The cost would be prohibitive. The problem in most jurisdictions is that forensic pathologists are grotesquely overworked. Most mistakes occur when forensic pathologists start cutting corners because of the overwhelming workload. Every place I have ever worked and every place I have ever been and every place I have ever looked at all do some sort of triage on how and when autopsies are performed because resources do not meet needs. The idea that they would be working half-time is appealing, but unlikely. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 26 15:21:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0QKLmmK015782 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:21:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:01:16 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] Toolmarks - literature lists Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0QKLmmL015782 Gerrit, I recall that I received a compilation of bibliographies on toolmark identification from the FBI. I would refer you to Dom Denio. His e-mail is in the members listing at AFTE. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> gerrit.volckeryck@planetinternet.be 1/25/2004 11:06:22 AM >>> Dear collegues, We're preparing, in collaboration with the university of Gent, a research project on toolmarks. The first phase would be a literature-study. I would be grateful if you could send me your list of articles, textbooks, etc. regarding any kind of toolmark examination. Thanks, Gerrit Volckeryck Federale Politie Gerechtelijke Dienst Laboratorium voor Technische en Wetenschappelijke Politie Simon Bolivarlaan 30 1000 Brussel Belgium tel. +32 2 208 48 48 fax. +32 2 208 48 50 [EndPost by "Gerrit Volckeryck" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Mon Jan 26 17:01:49 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0QM1njY018529 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:01:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA8501BACBB8@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Reference Fibers Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:48:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dave, You can order a fiber reference collection from Microtrace. Information is available at Microtracescientific.com/ Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division 2679 Palmer Street Missoula, MT 59808 -----Original Message----- From: Laycock, Dave [mailto:dave.laycock@isp.state.id.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:04 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Reference Fibers Since CTS and National Bureau of Standards no longer provide fiber reference materials, where can we obtain fibers to build a reference collection? Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics [EndPost by "Laycock, Dave" ] [EndPost by "Ammen, Alice" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 12:21:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0RHLjA1012512 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:21:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:21:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Request Info on Hair Deposition Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:54:02 -0800 From: I am looking for any reference material that addresses how many hairs would remain in a shower after its use. Is anyone aware of any published work and/or test experiments that have been conducted to determine how many hairs many be shed during the process of taking a shower and then how many hairs would remain on the shower floor/drain after the shower is completed. =20 =20 You can reply directly to me or back to the group. Thanks for your help. =20 Kim Duddy WA State Patrol Crime Lab=20 kim.duddy@wsp.wa.gov =20 206-262-6095=20 =20 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 12:33:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0RHX6rN012942 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:33:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40166CE8.A8F5733@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:21:36 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] EGIS Explosives Detector Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 27 January 2004 Dear list, Lately I have been reading about EGIS Explosives Detector, which is a "field portable" instrument, and can detect many high explosive residues such as those of TNT, RDX, PETN, NG and EDGN. An EGIS explosives detector was used in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation. Basically this instrument uses high-speed gas chromatography, coupled with highly specific chemiluminescent detection, to identify explosive compounds. What I have not been able to find is the full form of this acronym (EGIS). Can someone help me please? Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 13:36:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0RIaEGF015209 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:36:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:35:33 +0200 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Hairs in the shower X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Kim.duddy@swp.wa.gov Message-id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040127202822.01b03098@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I am not aware of any published work or experiment on this subject. But the experiment seems easy enough to set up. Assuming that the shower in question was used by people of "normal hygiene", I don't think you would have too much trouble finding people willing to have their showers cleaned, take a shower, and then have it cleaned again. Of course you would need several test, but I don't think you would need hundreds to get data which would be of use. Good luck, and if you do, I know I would be interested in reading the results. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski At 19:21 27/01/2004, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Subject: Request Info on Hair Deposition >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:54:02 -0800 >From: > >I am looking for any reference material that addresses how many hairs >would remain in a shower after its use. Is anyone aware of any >published work and/or test experiments that have been conducted to >determine how many hairs many be shed during the process of taking a >shower and then how many hairs would remain on the shower floor/drain >after the shower is completed. =20 > >=20 > >You can reply directly to me or back to the group. Thanks for your >help. > >=20 > >Kim Duddy > >WA State Patrol Crime Lab=20 > >kim.duddy@wsp.wa.gov =20 > >206-262-6095=20 > >=20 > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- > >[EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ "Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes" - Richard Bach If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain. - Steven Wright Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies survival and progress. - Unknown ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 13:53:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0RIr6sv015668 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:53:06 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:50:43 EST Subject: Re: [forens] EGIS Explosives Detector To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10712 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/27/2004 1:21:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, dr_anil@hotmail.com writes: > Subj:[forens] EGIS Explosives Detector > Date:1/27/2004 1:21:00 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dr_anil@hotmail.com > Reply-to:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > 27 January 2004 > Dear list, > > Lately I have been reading about EGIS Explosives Detector, which is a > "field portable" instrument, and can detect many high explosive residues > such as those of TNT, RDX, PETN, NG and EDGN. An EGIS explosives > detector was used in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation. Basically > this instrument uses high-speed gas chromatography, coupled with highly > specific chemiluminescent detection, to identify explosive compounds. > > What I have not been able to find is the full form of this acronym > (EGIS). Can someone help me please? Thanks. > > Sincerely > Professor Anil Aggrawal > Professor of Forensic Medicine > Maulana Azad Medical College > S-299 Greater Kailash-1 > New Delhi-110048 > INDIA Anil The EGIS explosives detector was built by Thermedics Corporation in Woburn, Mass. It was first tested in the summer of 1986 by the FBI at Quantico, Va. It is a field portable GC/chemiluminescence detector. From about 1986 until about 1993 it was being developed with private and government funding. In the early days it had a number of problems but overcame those problems by the time of the first World Trade Center bombing. As you have noted, the instrument detects TNT, DNT, NG, EGDN, RDX and PETN. It is very sensitive down to the low picogram quantities of explosives. It does however have a false positive error rate and, according to the literature authored by Dr. David Fine, the results of the detection must be confirmed by other technologies. I was at the first test conducted by the FBI at Quantico and witnessed the naming of the instrument. Through the years individuals have asked the same question as you have here. What do the letters EGIS stand for. At the test the company explained that there is no meaning, it is just the name. The last contact I had with company representatives that was still the situation. If you would like copies of some of the early papers as well as further information about the instrument I would be glad to talk with you off list. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 14:35:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0RJZ18E016880 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:35:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:34:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu cc: Kim.duddy@swp.wa.gov Subject: Re: [forens] Hairs in the shower In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040127202822.01b03098@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Azriel Gorski wrote: > I am not aware of any published work or experiment on this subject. But the > experiment seems easy enough to set up. Assuming that the shower in > question was used by people of "normal hygiene", I don't think you would > have too much trouble finding people willing to have their showers cleaned, > take a shower, and then have it cleaned again. Of course you would need > several test, but I don't think you would need hundreds to get data which > would be of use. > > Good luck, and if you do, I know I would be interested in reading the results. > > Shalom from Jerusalem, > Azriel Gorski >From personal anecdotal experience, the rate of hairs in the shower is in part a function of age and, unfortunately, not monotonic. bill(not-quite-chrome-dome)o [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 21:44:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0S2iRqc025136 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:44:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8346751.1075257865022.JavaMail.cvmorton@mac.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:44:25 -0800 From: Charles Morton To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Hairs in the shower Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Kim.duddy@swp.wa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0S2iQC4025131 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There is some literature out there that discusses the daily loss of hair. I will have to see if I can locate some of it. In the 60’s while a student of Paul Kirk I collected my daily loss of hair for over a month. I shampooed my hair each day using a plastic scrubber with small teeth and collected the accumulated hairs from the scrubber. These were telogen hairs which came out in the normal shampooing of the hair. These would presumably have been lost if not collected in the scrubber. They were collected and counted and amounted to approximately 100 hairs per day. As I recall (hey, its been 40 years!) this was comparable to what I found in the limited literature at the time. Despite the fact that it was Berkeley in the 60’s my hair was 1-3 inches in length so I suspect that most were caught in the scrubber. There are health conditions which may lead to accelerated loss of hair. The normal process of hair growth and loss results from follicles producing hair, going through a stage in which growth stops and the hair falls out and a new hair starts growing in the same follicle which goes through the same anagen-catagen-telogen cycle which results in the loss of the hair. The loss of hair results normally not from an increased loss of hair but from the failure of more and more follicles to produce a new hair once the hair from the follicle has been lost. As many out there are painfully aware this is not necessarily relate to age. The names Longhetti and Barnett quickly and affectionately pop to mind (sorry Pete). I hope this is of some help. On Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 11:34AM, Bill Oliver wrote: [EndPost by Charles Morton ] From forens-owner Tue Jan 27 22:46:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0S3kvYu026495 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:46:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:46:48 -0500 From: dillonqd@netscape.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Kim.duddy@swp.wa.gov Subject: Re: [forens] Hairs in the shower MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6B190532.28318C34.0096AFD7@netscape.net> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 67.126.22.45 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Chuck, So this is what you did at Berkeley in the 60's. To quote an elderly radio commentator - " and know we know the rest of the story!" Duayne Dillon Charles Morton wrote: > There is some literature out there that discusses the daily loss of hair. I will have to see if I can locate some of it. In the 60’s while a student of Paul Kirk I collected my daily loss of hair for over a month. I shampooed my hair each day using a plastic scrubber with small teeth and collected the accumulated hairs from the scrubber. These were telogen hairs which came out in the normal shampooing of the hair. These would presumably have been lost if not collected in the scrubber. They were collected and counted and amounted to approximately 100 hairs per day. As I recall (hey, its been 40 years!) this was comparable to what I found in the limited literature at the time. Despite the fact that it was Berkeley in the 60’s my hair was 1-3 inches in length so I suspect that most were caught in the scrubber. > >There are health conditions which may lead to accelerated loss of hair. The normal process of hair growth and loss results from follicles producing hair, going through a stage in which growth stops and the hair falls out and a new hair starts growing in the same follicle which goes through the same anagen-catagen-telogen cycle which results in the loss of the hair. The loss of hair results normally not from an increased loss of hair but from the failure of more and more follicles to produce a new hair once the hair from the follicle has been lost. As many out there are painfully aware this is not necessarily relate to age. The names Longhetti and Barnett quickly and affectionately pop to mind (sorry Pete). > >I hope this is of some help. > >On Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 11:34AM, Bill Oliver wrote: > > > >[EndPost by Charles Morton ] > __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Netscape Internet Service. Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need. [EndPost by dillonqd@netscape.net] From forens-owner Wed Jan 28 02:04:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0S74m1V000705 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:04:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Peter J. Ophoven" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Hairs in the shower Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:05:01 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c3e56d$0eda9d70$0200a8c0@luten2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5859898.1075261649893.JavaMail.root@sniper.marix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Duayne, Wasn't it Paul Harvey? -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of dillonqd@netscape.net Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:47 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Kim.duddy@swp.wa.gov Subject: Re: [forens] Hairs in the shower Chuck, So this is what you did at Berkeley in the 60's. To quote an elderly radio commentator - " and know we know the rest of the story!" Duayne Dillon Charles Morton wrote: > There is some literature out there that discusses the daily loss of hair. I will have to see if I can locate some of it. In the 60's while a student of Paul Kirk I collected my daily loss of hair for over a month. I shampooed my hair each day using a plastic scrubber with small teeth and collected the accumulated hairs from the scrubber. These were telogen hairs which came out in the normal shampooing of the hair. These would presumably have been lost if not collected in the scrubber. They were collected and counted and amounted to approximately 100 hairs per day. As I recall (hey, its been 40 years!) this was comparable to what I found in the limited literature at the time. Despite the fact that it was Berkeley in the 60's my hair was 1-3 inches in length so I suspect that most were caught in the scrubber. > >There are health conditions which may lead to accelerated loss of hair. The normal process of hair growth and loss results from follicles producing hair, going through a stage in which growth stops and the hair falls out and a new hair starts growing in the same follicle which goes through the same anagen-catagen-telogen cycle which results in the loss of the hair. The loss of hair results normally not from an increased loss of hair but from the failure of more and more follicles to produce a new hair once the hair from the follicle has been lost. As many out there are painfully aware this is not necessarily relate to age. The names Longhetti and Barnett quickly and affectionately pop to mind (sorry Pete). > >I hope this is of some help. > >On Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 11:34AM, Bill Oliver wrote: > > > >[EndPost by Charles Morton ] > __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Netscape Internet Service. Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need. [EndPost by dillonqd@netscape.net] [EndPost by "Peter J. Ophoven" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 28 02:30:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0S7UtDl001399 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:30:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040127203814.02506830@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:39:36 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Barnett Subject: Re: [forens] Hairs in the shower In-Reply-To: <8346751.1075257865022.JavaMail.cvmorton@mac.com> References: <8346751.1075257865022.JavaMail.cvmorton@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 06:44 PM 1/27/2004, Charles wrote: > The loss of hair results normally not from an increased loss of hair but > from the failure of more and more follicles to produce a new hair once > the hair from the follicle has been lost. As many out there are painfully > aware this is not necessarily relate to age. The names Longhetti and > Barnett quickly and affectionately pop to mind (sorry Pete). > >I hope this is of some help. It doesn't help me, or Tony. Pete Barnett [EndPost by Peter Barnett ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 28 12:20:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0SHKwVk016981 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:20:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A6E2@dasmthgsh666.amedd.army.mil> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Routine tox screening in autopsies Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:17:36 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You might use DiMaio's Forensic Pathology text for a general outline. Unfortunately, what "routine autopsy toxicology" includes is pretty idiosyncratic. If "poison" is suspected, you have to tell your tox lab what you suspect if you expect to get meaningful answers. Ideally, you should consult with the tox lab BEFORE the autopsy to make sure you get the right specimens. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@us.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I was wondering if there is a reference (book, internet) that discusses the items screenined for routinely during an autopsy. Are these items different from state to state? Are there different "tiers", meaning, if poison is suspected, but not found in the routine screen, is there a secondary screen applied? Melissa Jacob, Ph.D [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Wed Jan 28 20:58:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0T1wHYH001776 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:58:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:58:02 -0500 From: dillonqd@netscape.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hairs in the shower MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2670579F.62E9929D.0096AFD7@netscape.net> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 63.205.70.149 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter, Ye he uses that phrase but I don't like to introduce names into the mix when they not part of the profession and when most readiers are likely to say to themselves,"who the Heck is Paul Harvey and what lab does he work in?" Duayne "Peter J. Ophoven" wrote: >Dear Duayne, > >Wasn't it Paul Harvey? > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >[mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of >dillonqd@netscape.net >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:47 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Kim.duddy@swp.wa.gov >Subject: Re: [forens] Hairs in the shower > >Chuck, >So this is what you did at Berkeley in the 60's. To quote an elderly >radio commentator - " and know we know the rest of the story!" >Duayne Dillon > >Charles Morton wrote: > >> There is some literature out there that discusses the daily loss of >hair. I will have to see if I can locate some of it. In the 60's while a >student of Paul Kirk I collected my daily loss of hair for over a month. >I shampooed my hair each day using a plastic scrubber with small teeth >and collected the accumulated hairs from the scrubber. These were >telogen hairs which came out in the normal shampooing of the hair. These >would presumably have been lost if not collected in the scrubber. They >were collected and counted and amounted to approximately 100 hairs per >day. As I recall (hey, its been 40 years!) this was comparable to what I >found in the limited literature at the time. Despite the fact that it >was Berkeley in the 60's my hair was 1-3 inches in length so I suspect >that most were caught in the scrubber. >> >>There are health conditions which may lead to accelerated loss of hair. >The normal process of hair growth and loss results from follicles >producing hair, going through a stage in which growth stops and the hair >falls out and a new hair starts growing in the same follicle which goes >through the same anagen-catagen-telogen cycle which results in the loss >of the hair. The loss of hair results normally not from an increased >loss of hair but from the failure of more and more follicles to produce >a new hair once the hair from the follicle has been lost. As many out >there are painfully aware this is not necessarily relate to age. The >names Longhetti and Barnett quickly and affectionately pop to mind >(sorry Pete). >> >>I hope this is of some help. >> >>On Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 11:34AM, Bill Oliver >wrote: >> >> >> >>[EndPost by Charles Morton ] >> > >__________________________________________________________________ >New! Unlimited Netscape Internet Service. >Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register >Act now to get a personalized email address! > >Netscape. Just the Net You Need. >[EndPost by dillonqd@netscape.net] > >[EndPost by "Peter J. Ophoven" ] > __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Netscape Internet Service. Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need. [EndPost by dillonqd@netscape.net] From forens-owner Thu Jan 29 08:22:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0TDMAKs013049 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:22:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:22:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jamie" Subject: Tea and the Duquenois test Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:15:27 -0700 Has anyone heard tea giving a false positve with the duquenois levine = test?? I have had several reports out here that agencies are seeing it with = several different brands of test kits. They are also saying that they have had drug dogs hit on the tea as = well. They have used several different brands of tea and got the same = results. James B Crippin - Director Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (WFLETC) "I would rather be = irresponsible & right,=20 CSP-Pueblo, Chem Dept. rather than = responsible and wrong." 2200 Bonforte Blvd Pueblo, CO 81001 Winston = Churchill (719) 549-2568 Dept Office 2580 Dept fax = =20 (719) 544-1011 Home office 0037 Home fax =20 251-9215 cell ph 546-8841 pgr --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Thu Jan 29 18:52:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0TNq8dX002556 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:52:08 -0500 (EST) From: WBowers105@aol.com Message-ID: <13.2785adb5.2d4af697@aol.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:51:51 EST Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10705 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 1/29/2004 8:30:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu writes: > Has anyone heard tea giving a false positve with the duquenois levine = > test?? > > I have had several reports out here that agencies are seeing it with = > several different brands of test kits. > > They are also saying that they have had drug dogs hit on the tea as = > well. They have used several different brands of tea and got the same = > results. > > James B Crippin - Director > Western Forensic Law Enforcement > Training Center (WFLETC) "I would rather be = > irresponsible & right,=20 > CSP-Pueblo, Chem Dept. rather than = > responsible and wrong." > 2200 Bonforte Blvd > Pueblo, CO 81001 Winston = > Churchill > (719) 549-2568 Dept Office 2580 Dept fax = > =20 > (719) 544-1011 Home office 0037 Home fax =20 > 251-9215 cell ph 546-8841 pgr > We have had positive Duquenois-Levine tests with some teas. They are usually some sort of flavored tea, orange or something like that. William Bowers KSP Laboratory --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by WBowers105@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 04:40:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0U9eWsS021554 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:40:32 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: [forens] Oh no! Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:37:48 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Thread-Index: AcPnFLNKZoW8VSCCQgOYt39XXc9w1w== Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state and be done with! Take care Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 07:03:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UC3RDq024171 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:03:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3EB1FF6BBCDC3149A11D3C034D922693071DF2B1@atf-hq-excha.ad.msnet.atf.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:02:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Oh, come on, they aren't finished until they cover all "4 corners"! After CSI NY, there HAS to be CSI NW (North West). Just think of how FAST those CSI guys will work say in Seattle, with a few cups of espresso! Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-Washington 6000 Ammendale Road Ammendale, MD 20705 Desk: (240) 264-3846 FAX: (240) 264-1498 Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:38 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Oh no! Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state and be done with! Take care Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 07:22:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UCM9E4024880 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:22:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA030D1315@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'Forens-l'" Subject: [forens] DNA Position announcement Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:22:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu www.usajobs.opm.gov BM__Hlt504445554 - you should be able to find this using the announcement # as a keyword. Vacancy Announcement UNITED STATES ARMY OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY Vacancy Announcement Number: X-BL-04-6048-BL Opening Date: February 3, 2004 Closing Date: February 24, 2004 Position: Biologist (Forensic Examiner), GS-0401-09/11/12/13 Remarks: Forms requests will not be honored. (086) Applications must be postmarked by the closing date to receive consideration. (070) Incumbent must be able to obtain Secret Clearance. Applicants for this position must pass a pre-employment medical examination. (071) Travel for this position will be 15%. Visual acuity and correct color perception required. PCS (Permanent Change of Station) expenses will be paid. NOTE: This position may be filled at either the GS-09, 11, 12, OR 13 grade level. Please indicate on your application, the lowest level you will accept. If you do not indicate a grade level, your application will be evaluated for all grades. THERE ARE TWO VACANCIES. Salary: GS-09: $40,198 to $52,260 GS-11: $48,637 to $63,228 GS-12: $58,293 to $75,784 GS-13: $69,320 to $90,112 Promotion Potential: GS-13 Duty Location: Two vacancies at USA Criminal Investigation Laboratory Laboratory Service Serology / DNA Division Forest Park, Fort McPherson, GA Applications will be accepted from: All US Citizens Lynn Henson US Army Crime Laboratory Trace Evidence Division 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 404-469-7265 DSN 797-7265 Lynn.Henson@usacil.army.mil --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Henson, Lynn" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 07:48:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UCmlCv025508 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:48:47 -0500 (EST) From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: <182.25f8b52c.2d4baca3@aol.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:48:35 EST Subject: Re: [forens] Oh no! To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5100 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I'd like to see "CSI - Upstate NY" -13 degrees F we can't get to work 'cause the highway's backed up --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 09:34:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UEYS3X028246 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:34:28 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:38 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <3EB1FF6BBCDC3149A11D3C034D922693071DF2B1@atf-hq-excha.ad.msnet.atf.gov> Thread-Index: AcPnKWuEiP8dHJkOTluBm2weSh4IiQAFGIQg Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hee, hee! I like that! At least living in Australia they would have as many capital cities to cover! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert.Thompson@atf.gov Sent: Friday, 30 January 2004 11:03 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Oh, come on, they aren't finished until they cover all "4 corners"! After CSI NY, there HAS to be CSI NW (North West). Just think of how FAST those CSI guys will work say in Seattle, with a few cups of espresso! Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-Washington 6000 Ammendale Road Ammendale, MD 20705 Desk: (240) 264-3846 FAX: (240) 264-1498 Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:38 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Oh no! Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state and be done with! Take care Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 10:43:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UFhmIw000268 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:43:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002f01c3e747$c739e3e0$68bde380@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Oh no! Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:42:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Scanned-By: NERDC Open Systems Group (http://open-systems.ufl.edu/services/virus-scan/) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I think their plan is to take over state by state and ursurp our industry. Just like calling Roto-Rooter as such for plumbing needs, just call on your local CSI when you got a body just lying around. Forget about those pesky cops, (that show's been be played out anyway!). The local CSI will come dressed to impress, swiftly conduct there business faster than the speed of scientific inquiry, and are quirky to boot. So come one, and come all, try out your local CSI...but just make sure you don't commit the crime because your local CSI has a clearance rate of 110% Happy Friday (I know I could do a better job on this one, but it's been a rough week), besides...this gives me more to study! See some of you soon in Dallas Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:37 AM Subject: [forens] Oh no! > Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't > we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state > and be done with! > > Take care > > > Lynn > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 10:49:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UFnwji000649 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:49:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5A866AA333A83A4BBA4BBF73727EEA85A04E04@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Long, Julie" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:49:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu and of course you all saw the tabloid article of Montana Highway Patrol shooting Bigfoot and the carcass is at a "secret location"....hilarious. They could do a good number on that one. Julie Long Montana QA -----Original Message----- From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov [mailto:Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:03 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Oh, come on, they aren't finished until they cover all "4 corners"! After CSI NY, there HAS to be CSI NW (North West). Just think of how FAST those CSI guys will work say in Seattle, with a few cups of espresso! Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-Washington 6000 Ammendale Road Ammendale, MD 20705 Desk: (240) 264-3846 FAX: (240) 264-1498 Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:38 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Oh no! Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state and be done with! Take care Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] [EndPost by "Long, Julie" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 16:46:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0ULka9s012568 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:46:36 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:45:00 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <002f01c3e747$c739e3e0$68bde380@davelaptop> Thread-Index: AcPnSBJ3wLDdzcm/Q9uNg6IbJhr5bAAMf5JQ Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu It's getting like that isn't it, Dave? I think they'll finish up overdoing it. Hmmm, rub it in why don't you - how can I get to Dallas when I'm in Australia? I can't afford to go anywhere right now. Enjoy yourself. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Khey Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2004 2:43 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Oh no! I think their plan is to take over state by state and ursurp our industry. Just like calling Roto-Rooter as such for plumbing needs, just call on your local CSI when you got a body just lying around. Forget about those pesky cops, (that show's been be played out anyway!). The local CSI will come dressed to impress, swiftly conduct there business faster than the speed of scientific inquiry, and are quirky to boot. So come one, and come all, try out your local CSI...but just make sure you don't commit the crime because your local CSI has a clearance rate of 110% Happy Friday (I know I could do a better job on this one, but it's been a rough week), besides...this gives me more to study! See some of you soon in Dallas Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:37 AM Subject: [forens] Oh no! > Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't > we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state > and be done with! > > Take care > > > Lynn > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 17:42:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UMgaOW014476 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:42:36 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:42:33 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Friday Follies Message-ID: 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Here's something for the Friday Follies. Hey, sorry guys...us gals don't need these remedial classes. CLASSES FOR MEN AT YOUR LOCAL ADULT LEARNING CENTER Sign-up by March 25th (Due to the complexity and difficulty level, each course will accept a maximum of 8 participants.) How To Fill The Ice Cube Tray Step By Step, With Slide Presentation Toilet Paper: Does It Grow On The Holder? Round Table Discussion Is It Possible To Urinate By Lifting The Seat And Avoid Splashing The Floor, Walls And Nearby Bathtub? Group Practice Fundamental Differences Between The Laundry Hamper And The Floor Pictures And Explanatory Graphics Dishes And Silverware: Can They Levitate And Fly Into The Sink? Examples On Video Identity Crisis: Losing The Remote To Your Significant Other Helpline And Support Groups Learning How To Find Things Looking In The Right Place Instead Of Turning The House Upside Down While Screaming Health Watch: Bringing Her Flowers Is Not Harmful To Your Health Graphics And Audio Tape Real Men Ask For Directions When Lost Real Life Testimonials (may be canceled due to unavailability of testimonials) Is It Genetically Impossible To Sit Quietly As She Parallel Parks? Driving Simulation Learning About Life: Basic Differences Between Mother and Wife Online Class And Role Playing How To Be The Ideal Shopping Companion Exercises, Meditation And Breathing Techniques How To Fight Cerebral Atrophy: Remembering Birthdays, Anniversaries, Other Important Dates And Calling When You're Going To Be Late Cerebral Shock Therapy Sessions And Full Lobotomies [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 17:46:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0UMksUd014733 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006e01c3e782$f3e9b3d0$1e00a8c0@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] Friday Follies Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:46:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In the interest of fairness and equal time, I feel compelled to post the RULES OF THE GAME so you ladies understand them once and for all: RULES OF THE GAME We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Please note...these are all numbered "1" ON PURPOSE! 1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up,put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down. 1. Sunday = Sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be. 1. Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way. 1. Crying is blackmail. 1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work!Just say it! 1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question. 1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends give you. 1.A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor. 1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days. 1. If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys. 1. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. 1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one. 1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself. 1. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials. 1. Christopher Columbus did not need directions and neither do we. 1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings.Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is. 1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that. 1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle. 1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expectan answer you don't want to hear. If you don't want to know, don't ask. 1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine... Really. 1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, or monster trucks. 1. You have enough clothes. 1. You have too many shoes. 1. I am in shape. Round is a shape. 1. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know men really don't mind that,it's like camping. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Define MD" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:42 PM Subject: [forens] Friday Follies > > > Here's something for the Friday Follies. Hey, sorry guys...us gals don't > need these remedial classes. > > > CLASSES FOR MEN AT YOUR LOCAL > ADULT LEARNING CENTER > > Sign-up by March 25th > > (Due to the complexity and difficulty level, each course will accept a > maximum of 8 participants.) > > How To Fill The Ice Cube Tray > Step By Step, With Slide Presentation > > Toilet Paper: Does It Grow On The Holder? > Round Table Discussion > > Is It Possible To Urinate By Lifting The Seat And Avoid > Splashing The Floor, Walls And Nearby Bathtub? > Group Practice > > Fundamental Differences Between The Laundry Hamper And The Floor > Pictures And Explanatory Graphics > > Dishes And Silverware: Can They Levitate And Fly Into The Sink? > Examples On Video > > Identity Crisis: Losing The Remote To Your Significant Other > Helpline And Support Groups > > Learning How To Find Things > Looking In The Right Place Instead Of Turning > The House Upside Down While Screaming > > Health Watch: Bringing Her Flowers Is Not Harmful To Your Health > Graphics And Audio Tape > > Real Men Ask For Directions When Lost > Real Life Testimonials > (may be canceled due to unavailability of testimonials) > > Is It Genetically Impossible To Sit Quietly As She Parallel Parks? > Driving Simulation > > Learning About Life: Basic Differences Between Mother and Wife > Online Class And Role Playing > > How To Be The Ideal Shopping Companion > Exercises, Meditation And Breathing Techniques > > How To Fight Cerebral Atrophy: Remembering Birthdays, Anniversaries, Other Important Dates > And Calling When You're Going To Be Late > Cerebral Shock Therapy Sessions And Full Lobotomies > > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:14:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0EFPc016691 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:14:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:18:10 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010801c3e78f$b57291f0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:14:13.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[27E53C20:01C3E78F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bill, As I see it, it has nothing to do with "divine rights" - it has to do with education, simple as that. Contrary to your impression of my opinion of juries, I do not hold them in low esteem. Rather, I simply recognize that they are not provided with sufficient resources to do the job they are charged with doing, at least with regard to scientific evidence. When faced with "expert" scientific opinion, they do not have the scientific knowledge needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am not speaking only of cases where there is an honest difference in expert opinion, but also of cases where junk science and chicanery is presented to rebut real science, or unopposed in the absence of real science. When skillfully presented, juries can't tell the difference any more than the judge can. In fact their ability is considerably less than the judge's in that situation because the average judge is more knowledgeable and experienced regarding scientific testimony, and far more knowledgeable and experienced with courtroom tactics and theatrics. The lay jury is simply at an informational disadvantage that cannot be overcome through the application of "common sense." One cannot substitute intuition for reliable information and expect the best possible outcome. When it comes to technical issues, there is no substitute for a superior education. Increasingly, juries are tasked to evaluate technical issues without possessing the education needed to do that. Contrary to your assertion, I believe that judging scientific testimony without an adequate informational basis is extremely difficult at the level of testimony, and juries in fact lack an adequate informational basis. The only basis the jury has for that judgment is what the witnesses and attorneys tell them about it, and those are the very sources that need to be judged and whose reliability is in question. Independent expert witnesses called by the court (perhaps vetted by some scientific body to help ensure the judge's selection is in itself reliable) could provide the informational basis that juries need, and that could help resolve the problem. But as it is, juries must operate in a vacuum devoid of scientific information that they can verify as reliable. All they know is what they are told without any way of knowing if what they are told is correct. They are the ones who must act on "faith" - faith in testimony about technologies and sciences they know nothing about and do not understand. They place that faith in the experts who are convincing, but not necessarily competent and honest. Alternately, and especially in the case of opposing experts, they may decide they _can't_ decide about the scientific evidence and must therefore disregard it. When that happens, their faith is placed in the far less reliable evidence remaining available to them. The result is erroneous convictions and erroneous acquittals. Ignorance is neither bliss nor supportive of justice, and most juries are simply ignorant of science. That is not a value judgment; it is a simple statement of fact. As scientific testimony becomes more and more complex, and more and more ubiquitous, the problem grows accordingly. There has to be a better way. Unless and until we can find a way to bar junk science from the courtroom, improvement of the jury's ability to evaluate scientific testimony is the only option I can see to improve the situation. Allowing them to ask questions would help somewhat, but they are normally prohibited from doing that. We have a good justice system, I believe the best in the world, but it still leaves much to be desired. I am not content with the status quo. I believe it can and should be made better than it is, but I acknowledge that it is imperative that we tread very carefully in tinkering with it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > > I agree with your interpretation of the purpose of Daubert, but the > problem is that juries are even less well equipped to "sort it out" than > the Judge is. As far as I can tell, this is a statement of faith, not fact. Once again, I have always been favorably impressed by juries, especially when they are allowed to ask questions. As far as I can see, the only special qualification a judge has is his or her pretentions. The article I quoted backs that perception up. > If, after all the experts have displayed all their skills > in "coherently offering testimony," the judge still can't properly "sort > out" who's testimony is more reliable, how in the world can you expect > the jury to do it? Because most of this isn't all that hard at the level of testimony. > The judge at least has a post-secondary education > and some knowledge of the games lawyers play with witnesses... Once again, I don't hold juries in the same low esteem as do you. One might as well argue that we should do away with the jury system altogether, since the hoi polloi are not fit to make judgements at all. Your position, quite frankly, is the same that anti-republicans used in defense of divine right and monarchy in the face of democracy and mob rule. In fact, the hoi polloi, particularly when acting in concert, are pretty good at finding out the right solutions. I simply do not agree that the divine right of judges is any better. On the contrary, for every stupid jury trick you bring up, I could easily bring up a stupid judge trick. And the same goes for outright illegal activity. It wasn't a jury that traded sex for child custody judgements... billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:17:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0HN7E016938 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:17:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:21:20 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010901c3e790$265530d0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:17:22.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[98C80210:01C3E78F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Ignorance is never an advantage, whether one is degreed or not. I agree that degrees in the areas you note may be worth no more than a high school diploma (or no high school diploma) in helping the juror to understand and properly evaluate scientific testimony; and if those degree holders have overconfidence as you state, the problem is even worse. However, a quality college education, even one in liberal arts, does provide one tangible benefit - it increases your awareness of the extent (and limits) of human knowledge, and trains you to think rationally and methodically, qualities the poorly educated often lack. The poorly educated tend to make decisions more with their heart than with their mind, emotionally rather than logically, and that path is fraught with danger and tragedy. Specially trained professional jurors would have the capacity to do a far better job than lay juries, in my opinion; but lacking that, we can and should at least endeavor to educate lay juries better than the adversarial system currently allows. Experts called by the court, rather than by advocates, could provide them with foundational knowledge about the state of the art of the science being presented, to better enable them to judge the evidence presented by the witnesses presented by the advocates. The purpose of such experts would not be to opine on the evidence themselves, but rather to describe the abilities and limitations of the techniques used by the experts called by the advocates to opine on the evidence. That would allow the jury to better judge the opinion testimony of the latter experts. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:12 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, John Lentini wrote: > > > There are four kinds of knowledge: > > 1. Things you know that you know > 2. Things you don't know that you know > 3. Things you know that you don't know > 4. Things you don't know that you don't know. > > Judges, having at least 7 years of post secondary > education, are more likely to be aware of what > they don't know (3) and seek expert help, > especially when the expert "opinion" that is > proffered does not pass their smell test. Unless, of course, just the opposite is true. It has been my experience that successful people with MAs and PhDs in Medieval Literature, Political Science, or European History, or MBAs are more likely to think they know a lot more than they really do. In fact, that's a common administrative attitude -- that a good administrator needs no technical competence in the area they are administering. A classic example was the FBI labs a few years ago, where only SAs were allowed to be department heads. Hey, you got a MA or JD, you don't need no steenkin' science. It has been *my* experience in dealing with families that I get CSI syndrome from the better-educated people, not the less educated ones. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:18:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0Ie4x017135 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:18:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:22:36 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010c01c3e790$543ce650$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20040126135334.47462.qmail@web41009.mail.yahoo.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:18:39.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6AFB790:01C3E78F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gee, John, I didn't know you and Judy were "Damn Yankees" too, and I've known you HOW many years? (I hate to even think about the answer). Well, I'd prefer at least the gentler term "Yankee transplant," but I guess what is "correct" all depends on whether you're the native or the Yankee! And tell your kids I said they've got great parents and should not be cursing at you (not that they care what I have to say, but tell them anyway). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:54 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Southern Labs --- Robert Parsons wrote: > After more than 25 years as a Yankee Southerner > (i.e., a Florida > transplant), C'mon Bob: You know that the correct terminology for a Yankee that doesn't go back up north is not "Yankee Southerner"--it's "Damn Yankee!" My children, who are native Atlantans, take much joy in pointing this out to me and my wife, just as we take pride in the appellation. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:20:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0KTfj017393 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:20:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: [forens] RE: Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:24:24 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010d01c3e790$946ca1c0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200401241530.i0OFUiRu019030@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:20:27.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[06DF7300:01C3E790] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Actually, Charles, if I understand you correctly then I did mean "prior odds." In your example, the prior odds are dependant on the prevalence of syphilis in the subject population. The problem with a piece of trace evidence with a given set of characteristics is that we often do not know what the prevalence of those specific characteristics is within the population of similar trace evidence. We often do not even know what the limits of variation for those characteristics are. Formulations of paints and polymers, for example, change so rapidly and are so varied that the sample set remains inadequately characterized to calculate any kind of frequency ratio. Specificity isn't the problem. The error rate of "false positives" may very well be zero, e.g., an exhibit described as a blue, trilobal, polyethylene fiber with a particular mixture of plasticizers, UV protectants, and other additives, may in fact be a blue, trilobal, polyethylene fiber with that exact mixture of additives, but what does that mean in terms of the significance of a "match" to another fiber of the exact same accurate description? If we don't know or can't quantify how common or rare that particular kind of fiber is, or what the breadth of its uses is, then we can't calculate a likelihood ratio or any other quantitative figure to describe the strength of the association. Other than a subjective evaluation of the rarity of the fiber based on experience, we are left with a simple inclusion. In reporting an inclusion, we must take great pains to ensure it is not misconstrued as an individualization. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Basten Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:31 AM To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: I'm forwarding two messges from Charles Brenner. -Chris From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings At 06:55 PM 1/23/2004 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >The problem, as others have pointed out, is that it is impossible to >determine the prior odds with most trace evidence, since the >characterization of the entire sample set ("all the other evidence"), >i.e., all the possible sources that would exhibit the same >characteristics, is not known. The terminology is mixed up. As an analogy consider a diagnostic test, like a test for syphilis. For the sake of the example, assume that it never gives a false negative -- the sensitivity is 100%. But the specificity -- the rate of false positives -- is 2%. The ratio 100%/2% is the likelihood ratio favoring syphilis for a person who tests positive. Suppose a random S.Korean is given the test. The prevalence of syphilis in that country is 0.2%. Then it is plausible to take 0.2% as the prior probability, or 0.2% / 99.8% = 1/500 as the prior odds. Note that this has nothing to do with the diagnostic test. To end the disease case, the posterior odds are calculated as John said: multiply the prior odds by the likelihood ratio. In this case, (1/500) x 50 = 1/10. For every 11 people who test positive, 1 is afflicted, 10 are healthy. Any person who tests positive has 1:10 odds against (a 1/11 chance of) being afflicted. This is a conclusion that you can reach by common sense. As formulas though: posterior odds = (prior odds) x (likelihood ratio), where (prior odds) = prevalence / (1-prevalence) and (likelihood ratio) = sensitivity / specificity By analogy, in the case of a criminal hit-and-run where a paint chip at the scene is presumed to come from the car that ran, whose owner has been arrested as a suspect, the prior probability refers to the chance that the suspect's car really did the hitting. That has nothing to do with the chance of other cars having similar paint. The meaning of PRIOR is "prior to consideration of the scientific evidence in question." The prior odds (or probability) are what one guesses based on behavior, etc., on "anecdotal evidence." So I think possibly you meant that the specificity is hard to determine. The prior odds may also be hard to estimate, but that's the court's problem, not ours. Charles Brenner From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Words, numbers and meanings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed speaking of terminology messed up ... I dully wrote >But the specificity -- the rate of false positives -- is 2%. The ratio >100%/2% is the likelihood ratio favoring syphilis for a person who tests >positive. If the rate of false positives is 2%, I guess that makes the specificity 98% (http://teaching.ucdavis.edu/nut118/handouts/sensitivity04.pdf). Similarly, >(likelihood ratio) = sensitivity / specificity repeats the same mistake; the denominator should be (1-specificity). Charles Brenner [EndPost by Basten ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:27:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0R7pS017959 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:27:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:30:59 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010e01c3e791$8007e0e0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20040125212213.21778.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:27:02.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[F27CFC10:01C3E790] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well said, John, and I pretty much agree; but there are three points I'd like to make. First, I see the proper place for "special masters" as being not to tell the judge which expert is "right," but rather as being to educate the judge about the abilities and limits of the state of the art of the scientific testimony being offered, so that he will have some way to gauge whether an expert is giving an honest and well founded opinion (right or not) or whether the expert is simply blowing smoke. Special masters could also help judges to evaluate the professional credentials of expert witnesses (as in "Is a degree from the American College of Creative Fakery a valid credential?" and "What about a certification from the American Board of Forensic Witch Doctors?"). Ideally, they would also assist the jury in the same way, but that is currently prohibited unless they can testify as "Friends of the Court." Second, while the scenario you describe is a very real possibility, the opposite scenario is equally possible, and at least in my experience, far more common. That scenario is one of the defense attorney who presents a charlatan who is dishonest and testifies whatever way the attorney asks him to; or an expert who (as with your hypothetical prosecution witness) has an overblown opinion of his own abilities and testifies beyond his field or degree of expertise; or a faux expert who is a gross incompetent with no true expertise at all; or an expert who is competent and tells the truth, but only a portion of the truth (the portion supporting his client) rather than the whole truth. Frankly, I wish there were a lot more "defense experts" like you and Pete, et al, working in private practice. Unfortunately, most of the "experts" we see called by the defense here and in many other parts of the country are in one of the above categories and aren't fit to work for your firm or any other legitimate forensic science firm or agency. Ironically, they are often some of those cops you are talking about who think their introductory training in generalities makes them competent to give specific opinions in specific cases, and who have now retired from public service and set up a lucrative business as a defense "expert" (blood alcohol interpretation is a good example). Most of these are in the category of "honest, but think they know a lot more than they do" but some are in the "dishonest" or "half-truth" categories, and a few are in the "grossly incompetent" category. It is bad enough when they testify for the defense, but whenever I see them it troubles me greatly to wonder about what kind of testimony they gave when they were prosecution witnesses. Third, I have to agree with Billo about the original intent of Daubert. Although as applied it has functioned to attempt to restrict admission of junk science, its original intent was to open the doors to new and novel scientific evidence. In Daubert, the Court noted that the Fry standard was too restrictive and that scientific evidence need not be "generally accepted" in order to be reliable and probative. Hence the Court charged judges to act as gatekeepers by considering many factors, of which "general acceptance" was only one. Kumho and Joiner clarified that the examples that were given in Daubert of the things which COULD be considered by judges was not binding, and was neither mandatory nor all-inclusive. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts I'm moving in the direction of Billo's argument against specials masters who decide which of two experts is "right," but not because of my faith in juries. Our differences on this issue come from playing in different sandboxes. I still think forensic scientists responsible to no client but the judge have value in advising the court, assuming the court has an interest in fulfilling its gate-keeping obligation. The scenario pitting Vince DiMaio against William Oliver is a classic example to two knowledgeable experts, disagreeing over the scientific interpretation of the same evidence. And one where a special master would provide no additional assistance. In my sandbox, there is often one knowledgeable expert and one not-so-knowledgeable (usually a public servant type who lacks even a bachelor's degree) expert, but the latter may have a credential that the other expert lacks-a badge. His "30 years of experience" may play better with the jury than the scientific method, especially as practiced by a "hired gun." (Everyone knows that public servants work for free). But in such a case, if the scientist cannot overcome the mythology, defense counsel has made a poor choice of scientist, and probably wouldn't have the insight to ask for a special master in any case. In the worst cases, the defendant trusts the system, defense counsel gets no expert, and the mythology goes completely unchallenged. Again, a lawyer too dumb to seek his own expert is unlikely to urge a judge to get one. These are the cases that I don't see until after the conviction, and where I wish that someone, anyone, had the insight and the sense to tell the judge that the arson expert was peddling unscientific garbage. There are four kinds of knowledge: 1. Things you know that you know 2. Things you don't know that you know 3. Things you know that you don't know 4. Things you don't know that you don't know. Judges, having at least 7 years of post secondary education, are more likely to be aware of what they don't know (3) and seek expert help, especially when the expert "opinion" that is proffered does not pass their smell test. Juries, unfortunately, are specifically NOT allowed to seek expert help. If a juror gets caught seeking expert help, a mistrial is declared. Jurors have to decide who is right based solely on what they hear from the witness stand. And that may include garbage opinions from an expert who sounds great because he has no clue about what he doesn't know (4). He is a true believer, and consequently is capable of giving credible (if false) testimony. I disagree that Daubert was meant to let more testimony "in." While arguably more "liberal" than Frye, in that it gives courts more than one way to evaluate proffered expert testimony, Daubert emphasized the gate-keeping function. Far more testimony has been excluded under Daubert in 10 years than was excluded under Frye in 75. To suggest that this was not the court's intent is to ignore its own subsequent interpretations of Daubert in Joiner and Kumho. The Supremes recognized the aura of credibility that accompanies the court's admission of expert opinion testimony, and explicitly made it the trial court's job to keep the garbage out. Judges who take this responsibility seriously should, in my view, not be hesitant to seek expert help for themselves when they recognize that they are out of their depth, or, when they need some political cover. Sure it would be nice if judges asked more questions. I don't understand why they don't do so more often. And it would be nice if jurors could ask questions. I have truly enjoyed testifying in courts martial, where the members are allowed to ask the witnesses anything they want. In Tennessee, jurors get to write questions that have to pass muster with the judge. Also a good thing. There are alternatives to special masters. Courts could go a long way toward preventing disasters if they would merely see to it that, in cases where the forensic evidence is in dispute, BOTH sides have access to the adequate assistance of experts. They could hold more pretrial hearings and conferences to help them sort the wheat from the chaff. And they could allow for more open discovery in criminal cases, such as occurs in Florida, where just like in civil cases, the parties have the chance to truly confront the evidence against them.(More open discovery probably requires legislation, and we know how that might make lawmakers seem soft on crime, so don't hold your breath). I guess the long and short of it is that what the system needs is more peer review, in whatever form. Bill sees an understandable disagreement between colleagues, and thinks it's okay to let the jury sort it out, and bets they will correctly figure out who is right and who is wrong most of the time. I've seen juries fall for some unbelievable garbage (AZ v Girdler, PA v Lee). Peer review of any kind would likely have prevented these miscarriages. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:29:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0TXni018233 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:29:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:33:29 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <010f01c3e791$d9581b10$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:29:32.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BCAEC50:01C3E791] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There's nothing silly about that idea, and I agree - PROVIDED that the decisions deal with subject matter within the ken of the "average citizenry." Unfortunately science, and particularly forensic science, isn't within their ken. We can change that by providing a better mechanism for educating them than the circus that attorneys present now provides them. Give them reliable independent information to use in filtering the selective information provided by advocates, and they will be able to make a good decision about any subject. But leave them hanging with a mixture of true information, misinformation, disinformation, distraction and obfuscations, as they are now, and their darkness (i.e., science ignorance) is lit by naught but confusion. Under such conditions, that they often fail to discover the truth and make less than wise and informed decisions is an inevitable result - and one that is not their fault. The consequences can be grave. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- I still have that silly idea that the average citizenry can make pretty reasonable decisions when allowed to do so. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:31:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0Vi4a018605 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:31:44 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Friday Follies Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:29:37 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <006e01c3e782$f3e9b3d0$1e00a8c0@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> Thread-Index: AcPngxvSdnMbazNKTOK4WHpMCCqQoAACEVhw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well!!!!! My husband totally agrees but adds another: 1. Women always have the last word because the next word a man has is a beginning of a new argument! Hmm, he's been living with me far too long! The rest are the female's contribution: 1. I have no objections (well maybe some) to the toilet seat being left up, but could someone please start a "target school" with the aim of hitting the toilet sometime? It would be a nice change! 1. Does the comment regarding 17 month long headaches also apply to the male of the species because it should, right up there with faked snoring!!!! 1. I happen to like camping as well, but not in a cyclone and 90 knot winds, but when the male says "We're going camping," we go camping no matter what the weather! But - in cases like this, the female sits in the car while the male puts the tent up - you just can't help stupidity in males sometimes. It's called "revenge" for making the female do all the driving because the male only rides motorcycles! 1. Christopher Columbus may not have needed directions because he knew left from right. He wasn't being shouted at, "Turn right, turn right,!" while the finger is furiously pointing left and the male is muttering "You should have turned right (pointing left) three streets back!" And never follow a male's "shorter way to get from point A to point B" because it invariably adds another 3/4 hour onto your normal 1/2 hour trip because he thinks the female has no idea where she is going! This is a continual habit among the male species I have found! 1. In this establishment never try to have a discussion with the male unless it focuses on his musical performance in an opera or Italian football - all else falls on deaf ears - oh, unless it's about money! 1. What's Yes and No? I doubt this female has ever had a simple Yes or No answer! 1. I don't know if shopping is a sport or not - this female doesn't go - she sends the male of the species and then goes up and brings home the male and the shopping. It's more like a boring essential, which is why we send the male and besides they always come home with extra stuff. 1. I must agree that hints do not work - usually because the male doesn't recognise a simple hint! It's always easier to do it yourself than fix it when the male is out! 1. Now this female absolutely agrees that anything said in an argument is inadmissable after 6 months as well. But does this also apply to the male, because it doesn't at this establishment - the male can go back 19 years and remember an argument which this female has forgotten existed! 1. Crying isn't blackmail but it sure works the same! 1. Whenever possible, could the male confine his SNORING TO COMMERCIAL BREAKS! 1. Could someone inform the males also that cupboard don't shut themselves, drawers don't shut themselves and when it's 500 degrees Celsius, we DON'T need the heater on! This country is hot enough! 1. Finally, what is sympathy? Don't you know by now that no female on earth has EVER suffered pain like her male partner, you must be joking, and you hear about said pain for days because "I don't want to take pills"! Then shut up and suffer! I could go on but I think we are pretty much even don't you? Besides I do have work to do. Carol, surely you MUST know by now that males have calculated the number of sheets on a toilet roll so it runs out just when YOU need it! It's been pounded into their brain (?) from birth! Regards Lynn (the long suffering wife - and I don't say that lightly!) -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Wise Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2004 9:46 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Friday Follies In the interest of fairness and equal time, I feel compelled to post the RULES OF THE GAME so you ladies understand them once and for all: RULES OF THE GAME We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Please note...these are all numbered "1" ON PURPOSE! 1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up,put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down. 1. Sunday = Sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be. 1. Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way. 1. Crying is blackmail. 1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work!Just say it! 1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question. 1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends give you. 1.A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor. 1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days. 1. If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys. 1. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. 1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one. 1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself. 1. Christopher Columbus did not need directions and neither do we. 1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings.Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is. 1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that. 1. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle. 1. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expectan answer you don't want to hear. If you don't want to know, don't ask. 1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine... Really. 1. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, or monster trucks. 1. You have enough clothes. 1. You have too many shoes. 1. I am in shape. Round is a shape. 1. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know men really don't mind that,it's like camping. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Define MD" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:42 PM Subject: [forens] Friday Follies > > > Here's something for the Friday Follies. Hey, sorry guys...us gals don't > need these remedial classes. > > > CLASSES FOR MEN AT YOUR LOCAL > ADULT LEARNING CENTER > > Sign-up by March 25th > > (Due to the complexity and difficulty level, each course will accept a > maximum of 8 participants.) > > How To Fill The Ice Cube Tray > Step By Step, With Slide Presentation > > Toilet Paper: Does It Grow On The Holder? > Round Table Discussion > > Is It Possible To Urinate By Lifting The Seat And Avoid > Splashing The Floor, Walls And Nearby Bathtub? > Group Practice > > Fundamental Differences Between The Laundry Hamper And The Floor > Pictures And Explanatory Graphics > > Dishes And Silverware: Can They Levitate And Fly Into The Sink? > Examples On Video > > Identity Crisis: Losing The Remote To Your Significant Other > Helpline And Support Groups > > Learning How To Find Things > Looking In The Right Place Instead Of Turning > The House Upside Down While Screaming > > Health Watch: Bringing Her Flowers Is Not Harmful To Your Health > Graphics And Audio Tape > > Real Men Ask For Directions When Lost > Real Life Testimonials > (may be canceled due to unavailability of testimonials) > > Is It Genetically Impossible To Sit Quietly As She Parallel Parks? > Driving Simulation > > Learning About Life: Basic Differences Between Mother and Wife > Online Class And Role Playing > > How To Be The Ideal Shopping Companion > Exercises, Meditation And Breathing Techniques > > How To Fight Cerebral Atrophy: Remembering Birthdays, Anniversaries, Other Important Dates > And Calling When You're Going To Be Late > Cerebral Shock Therapy Sessions And Full Lobotomies > > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:33:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0Xi09018880 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:33:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts (was Forensic Fraud Archive update) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:37:39 -0500 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <011001c3e792$6e39d070$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2004 00:33:42.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0AEEBA0:01C3E791] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Friday, January 23, 2004 7:44 AM Billo wrote: > > Your suggestions at the end sound great to me, Bill, but isn't that the > > same sort of thing I and others were recommending? How is the "special > > master" you propose different from the court-appointed forensic science > > advisors we were discussing, whose role would be to advise the judge on > > the legitimacy of proposed experts and expert testimony? > > The difference is that you and the others are suggesting that special > masters be used to decide whether or not to *allow* testimony. I have > no problem with a special master engaging in some sort of third party > cross examination (which is essentially what I am talking about). I > have a problem with a special master deciding who is "right" and who is > "wrong" ahead of time and allowing the jury to see only one opinion. I see your point, and agree that allowing the Special Master, a neutral body, to grill both sides' experts and ask all the questions each side doesn't want to ask would be very useful in cutting through the BS and getting the facts revealed. It would also level the playing field when there is a skill mismatch between the two opposing advocates. However, my idea was a little different from what you assumed. It was not that Special Masters would decide who was "right," but rather that Special Masters would advise the judge on the state of the art of the science being presented and whether the kind of testimony offered (or wanting to be offered) was reliable and justified considering that state of the art: Are those tests as definitive as the expert claims? What are the limitations of them? What other possibilities could account for the results? How likely are those possibilities? Etc. The Special Master could also advise the judge on evaluating a proffered expert's credentials: Is this certification or accreditation body legitimate? Is that degree program valid and appropriate for this kind of testimony? Etc. Armed with this background information, the judge, not the Special Master, would decide who is qualified to give expert testimony and what testimony is properly presented to the jury. I am not of the camp that believes advocates should be allowed to present any kind of junk science they please and that the jury should be left to sort it out by using "common sense." "Common" sense is all too UNcommon; and even when present, it often fails where scientific evidence is concerned. Their ignorance of science makes the average jury all too often incapable of "sorting out" scientific testimony. They have no basis to rely on for doing that, so it's unfair and unrealistic to expect them to do it successfully. The OJ trial is a perfect example of a jury that just didn't understand the significance of the expert testimony presented and the reliability of the techniques used, and was thoroughly confused by the conflicting testimony they heard. They couldn't properly sort it all out, so they simply disregarded it. I can't blame them for that, but it's a shame nonetheless. > > Frankly, after the advocates are > > done, I think both the judge and the jurors should be allowed to > > question the witness, if for no other reason than to answer questions in > > their own minds that neither advocate addressed. > > > This, I think, is really the key. Not the special master thing. > Juries are pretty good, in my experience, in detecting bullshit as long > as they get to ask the obvious questions. In addition, a "real" expert > should not be in the position of having to lecture to a jury without > any idea of whether or not he or she is getting across the main > points. I'm not as sanguine as you about the jury's BS detection abilities, but I agree wholeheartedly that allowing them to ask their own questions would go a long way to improve that ability. > Sometimes I will go over testimony with my wife or with a neighbor, and > they commonly say things like "Bill, nobody will know what the > epiglottis is. Don't just say it was enlarged, tell them what it is." > It's unfortunate that a jury member can't say "Hey, what's an > epiglottis, doc?" > > Counsel is *supposed* to ask those kinds of questions for the jury, but > they don't always do a good job. Again, I agree completely. This is why I do not subscribe to the "answer only the question asked, never volunteer information" philosophy, either. If we rely on the attorneys to ask all the right questions, much of the information we can provide to assist the jury will never be told. We have a responsibility to do all we can to make sure the jury fully understands what we tell them, but also to make sure they hear all we have to say that is relevant and admissible. This can be tricky, as you don't want to cause a mistrial by saying something you didn't know you weren't allowed to say (because of some motion and ruling you weren't privy to, e.g.). The best thing to do is to have a pre-trail conference to prepare the attorney presenting you, to make sure he/she asks all relevant questions. But we rarely are allowed the opportunity to do that, and even if we are, it doesn't prevent the problem of the attorney failing to follow up after cross examination with a redirect examination on the issues that came up under cross. You can't trust them to do that, especially when they are inexperienced. They may not realize the need. So we have to speak up and "volunteer" information when necessary. Fortunately, the rules for expert witness testimony give us the right to do that. Experts are allowed to explain their answers and cannot be limited to "yes or no" answers (to the consternation of attorneys everywhere). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 19:51:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V0pCqB019953 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:51:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:51:10 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Friday Follies 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 Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well, yeah....and when I tell my husband to replace the toilet paper he always puts it on backwards. And can you believe it, my husband doesn't drive stick shift cars...I'm the one who has to drive. And he has actually pointed left while telling me to go right. It's the truth. He only learned how to turn on the computer last year. And among other things, I fix all the household appliances....even sump pumps. Listen Lynn, be happy with what you've got!!!! Carol On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > > Carol, surely you MUST know by now that males have calculated the number of > sheets on a toilet roll so it runs out just when YOU need it! It's been > pounded into their brain (?) from birth! [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 20:25:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V1PE0f020699 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:25:14 -0500 (EST) X-Server-Uuid: 444F66B9-AF3B-48D6-8083-74FD71501356 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:24:30 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Friday Special - Humble Pie! [was No juries was Special Masters in courts] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6C05DC541PS278143-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i0V1PDC4020693 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Bob, et al., Just a line to let you know that I am smiling as I write this, and I am just about to head home to warm the oven for a freshly-made humble pie. I gave a tour of the laboratory to a small number of college and high-school students earlier today, and whilst all but one of the students seemed to have a pretty good idea as to what went on in a crime lab (no, really!), one of them persisted in asking how long it took to be a detective... The issue was compounded by the student then quizzing me as to how to get into the "Special Victims Unit" - surely we must have one, they've got a show on TV, etc., etc. Now, I appreciate that this young lady was only in high school (and therefore not eligible for jury duty), and we do provide lab tours in order to try and educate those who are interested in perhaps pursuing a career in the forensic sciences, but she was apparently quite disappointed to discover that we weren't all cops. Any thoughts as to where she might get such an idea?? So, not being one who shirks his responsibilities or does not admit when he is wrong, I will concede that I was educated somewhat myself earlier today. It is still my hope that those who choose to listen will learn, and more importantly, will learn to question that which they are told. Right, I'm off for some pie a la mode! Anyone care to join me? *grin* Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> rparsons@ircc.edu 01/30/04 04:33PM >>> There's nothing silly about that idea, and I agree - PROVIDED that the decisions deal with subject matter within the ken of the "average citizenry." Unfortunately science, and particularly forensic science, isn't within their ken. We can change that by providing a better mechanism for educating them than the circus that attorneys present now provides them. Give them reliable independent information to use in filtering the selective information provided by advocates, and they will be able to make a good decision about any subject. But leave them hanging with a mixture of true information, misinformation, disinformation, distraction and obfuscations, as they are now, and their darkness (i.e., science ignorance) is lit by naught but confusion. Under such conditions, that they often fail to discover the truth and make less than wise and informed decisions is an inevitable result - and one that is not their fault. The consequences can be grave. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- I still have that silly idea that the average citizenry can make pretty reasonable decisions when allowed to do so. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Fri Jan 30 23:19:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0V4Jca5023883 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:19:38 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Friday Follies Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:18:53 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcPnlJbwePOZndaWSoGr4dF3Yk88CgAGoY8g Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Downright frightening isn't it, Carol? My husband puts the blasted thing on backwards as well, if he even bothers to put it on at all! He can't drive - only rides motorcycles and is hopeless at direction. He knew nothing at all about computers, but he went a did an EIGHT HOUR course - weeeellll, he's practically the guru of the IT world now. Except the twice I've let him near my computer to install something, he's totally stuffed the whole thing up. He lost everything off it twice - four years of lecture notes etc! He can't fix anything around the house. We have remote control ceiling fans in the lounge and bedroom. Every time I turn the kitchen light off, the fan goes on in the bedroom! If I turn the lounge room fan off the light goes on in the bedroom! It's downright terrifying! He made a garden seat which I call the church pew! Everything he makes is too narrow or lopsidded and finishes up being made into something else. He wants to install my Webcam and I've threatened to take the cords out of the back of my computer when I go out so he can't stuff that up as well - but he's done the course!!!!!! About ten years ago, I might add - actually it's more like twenty years ago. He didn't even know that if you just spray plain on cooking oil onto the door hinges it stops them squeaking! He goes out to buy some highpriced junk at the auto shop or somewhere to stop the squeaks and I have it fixed before he's even left the house. He hates that! I nearly hyperventilate when he says he's going outside to just fix something! I just get the Band Aids ready! And I swear if he stood up in the middle of a desert, he'd hit his head on something. He's forever hitting his head on something - which explains a lot I suppose. Sometimes it's a downright strain being "happy with what you've got"! Thank God, he's just been told he has to go back to work on Monday following the long Christmas break that we have in Australia. Another week, and we'd be on Divorce Court! Speaking of stick shift cars, as I said he doesn't drive but he was determined to drive the car into the garage at a house we were renting years ago. Well, I guess I don't have to tell you but he slammed his foot down on the accelerator (he was only going about 20 yards!) straight THROUGH the roller door! He written off three of MY motorcycles so I've given up riding. Poor little dears. You can't live with them and you can't shoot them. Take care. Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 07:59:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VCxtk6001552 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:59:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040131125953.11047.qmail@web14705.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:59:53 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: [forens] LR testimony To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <027501c3ce66$69018840$7d00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In testifying about DNA statistics of single source profiles, we don't testify to identity, but instead testify to the relevant random match probabilities, and then put them into perspective for the jury by comparing them to a relevant population. So, for a conservative RMP of 1-in-22 million, we would testify about the database used, give the probability, and then say something along the lines of: "What this statistic means is that, in a population of people equal to approximately the population of Texas, about one person would be expected to have the profile." For a RMP of 1-in-6-trillion, we would say: "What this statistic means is that in a population of people equal to one-thousand times the population of the earth, one person would be expected to have the profile." We have tried (in vain so far) to come up with a similar simplifying approach for communicating the numerical value of likelihood ratios for mixtures. A statement like, "What this statistic means is that the mixed DNA profile from the blood stain on item 1 is 22-million times more likely if the victim John Doe and the suspect Bill Smith are the contributors, than if the victim John Doe and some unknown person (not John Doe) are the contributors," is complex, sounds jargony, and in the end leaves everyone scratching their heads. We'd like a better way of expressing the numerical value of the LR in a way that is reasonably understandable to the jury. We've reviewed a number of examples of LR testimony given by weighty experts in the statistics, and, perhaps not surprisingly, haven't found a better way there. If anyone has an approach that has worked well for them, I would be interested in hearing about it. Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ [EndPost by Tim Sliter ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 08:13:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VDDZ3U002012 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:13:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:13:33 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: <010801c3e78f$b57291f0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > Bill, > > As I see it, it has nothing to do with "divine rights" - it has to do > with education, simple as that. Contrary to your impression of my > opinion of juries, I do not hold them in low esteem. Rather, I simply > recognize that they are not provided with sufficient resources to do the > job they are charged with doing, at least with regard to scientific > evidence. What you have not demonstrated is that a BA in English Literature *does* provide provide that necessary spark you do not find in the hoi polloi. > Contrary to your assertion, I believe that judging scientific testimony > without an adequate informational basis is extremely difficult at the > level of testimony, and juries in fact lack an adequate informational > basis. Fine. Contrary to your assertion, I believe that it is possible to present scientifc testimony in a way that will allow a jury to adequately evaluate the evidence. In fact, I have found that juries, in aggregate, often have *more* technical expertise than the judge. Juries are not all made up of people who couldn't make it out of the third grade. In one recent case I worked on, when discussing an image processing issue in evaluating medical visual data, I could tell that the jury was following along quite well. Later I found out that two of the jury members were nurses and one was a software engineer. We live in a fairly technically demanding world -- thank heavens a jury is not just made up of people with degrees in law and business administration, but people who program computers, provide health care, construct buildings, design bridges, build computer networks, repair cars, etc. They are engineers, physicians, carpenters, technicians, etc. I believe you underestimate the technical proficiency of much of the hoi polloi. I would rather discuss algorithmic issues with a computer technician than a judge with a BA in Political Science. I would rather explain wound effects and the effects of different kinds of ammunition on the body to a carpenter who's an avid hunter than to a judge who's got a BA in French. Recently, I had an occasion to discuss the effects of barbed wire on the body and the likelihood of engaging in certain actions with or without getting certain kinds of injuries. I was thankful that there were a couple of farmers on the jury who had direct experience with working with barbed wire, and glad that it wasn't just the judge involved -- who had not. You opine about the deep technical concepts that you discuss that a judge can comprehend but a juror cannot hope to. OK. In medicine I have not run across such a concept. Please provide one such concept in your area of expertise that you are not competent to explain to a jury. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 08:15:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VDFLEf002220 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:15:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:15:19 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: <010e01c3e791$8007e0e0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > Well said, John, and I pretty much agree; but there are three points I'd > like to make. > > First, I see the proper place for "special masters" as being not to tell > the judge which expert is "right," but rather as being to educate the > judge about the abilities and limits of the state of the art of the > scientific testimony being offered, so that he will have some way to > gauge whether an expert is giving an honest and well founded opinion > (right or not) or whether the expert is simply blowing smoke. As opposed to telling the *jury* the same thing. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 10:01:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VF1NUO003996 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:01:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20040131150116.7135.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:01:16 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Subject: RE: [forens] Pretraial conferences (wasSpecial Masters in courts) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <011001c3e792$6e39d070$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu --- Robert Parsons wrote: > > The best > thing to do is to have a > pre-trail conference to prepare the attorney > presenting you, to make > sure he/she asks all relevant questions. But > we rarely are allowed the > opportunity to do that, Attorneys who present expert testimony, without having a pretrial conference and a thorough understanding of the scope and limitations of the information available, are guilty of malpractice. Forensic scientists who allow themselves to be placed on the witness stand without having first briefed the presenting attorney are equally guilty of malpractice. We don't need to be "allowed" the opportunity of a pretrail conference. We need to "demand" such conferences, and refuse to testify unprepared. The above attitude probaly explains why I work in the private sector. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 11:39:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VGd2bC005622 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:39:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040130185859.024948e8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:38:44 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: [forens] prior & Bob In-Reply-To: <010d01c3e790$946ca1c0$7f00a8c0@IRRCL.local> References: <200401241530.i0OFUiRu019030@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 07:24 PM 1/30/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Actually, Charles, if I understand you correctly then I did mean "prior >odds." A mighty big "if"! > In your example, the prior odds are dependant on the prevalence >of syphilis in the subject population. The problem with a piece of >trace evidence with a given set of characteristics is that we often do >not know what the prevalence of those specific characteristics is within >the population of similar trace evidence. You've missed the analogy. In my example, "syphilis" was not the evidence. The evidence was a test result. Our discussion is of no great import, it is purely semantics, but how can you imagine that you understood me correctly if you read this: >By analogy, ... the prior probability refers to the chance that >the suspect's car really did the hitting. And I wonder how you could possibly misunderstand >That has nothing to do with the chance of other cars having similar paint. >The meaning of PRIOR is "prior to consideration of the scientific evidence >in question." ending in BOLDFACE -- >The prior odds (or probability) are what one guesses based on >behavior, etc., on "anecdotal evidence." Frankly Bob, I believe that you are an excellent typist, possibly an intelligent person (although you know I wish you would edit, but I know that's a lost cause; you have made it clear that you write for amusement and consider editing no fun), but I am convinced that you don't even bother to read before you answer! Your privilege, but frustrating for me. I suspect you would have ideas worth reading, were you to write with care. With nonetheless friendly regards, Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 15:17:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VKHZY9009288 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:17:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] LR testimony Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:19:12 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu For a RMP of 1-in-6-trillion, we would say: "What this statistic means is that in a population of people equal to one-thousand times the population of the earth, one person would be expected to have the profile." Tim: "One person in addition to the suspect" = 2 We have tried (in vain so far) to come up with a similar simplifying approach for communicating the numerical value of likelihood ratios for mixtures. Well you wont get 1 in 6 trillion but let us use it anyway. If you thought the odds on Mr Smith being the donor before I gave the evidence were a million to one against. Then they are now 6 million to 1 on. See also the nomogram of Riancho, J.A. and Zarrabeitia, M.T., The prosecutor's and defendants's Bayesian nomograms. Int. J. Leg. Med., 2002. 116: p. 312-313. But I think we all concede that LR's are harder. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 16:00:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VL0a5Y010339 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:00:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Pretraial conferences (wasSpecial Masters in courts) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:59:13 -0600 Message-ID: <069601c3e83d$14f2a040$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 In-Reply-To: <20040131150116.7135.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Right on, John. There is no greater terror than an untutored attorney or prosecutor eliciting testimony from an expert stranger. In my opinion, the principle duty of an expert is to teach, as you say, the scope and limitations of the available information. The process may take anywhere from a few hours to over a week of pretrial conferencing, depending on the attorney's background and learning abilities and the difficulty of the material. My particular field is rather complex, and I therefore try to educate the attorney throughout the course of a case in order spot any lingering deficiencies in his/her understanding of the relevant technical principles. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:01 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Pretraial conferences (wasSpecial Masters in courts) --- Robert Parsons wrote: > > The best > thing to do is to have a > pre-trail conference to prepare the attorney > presenting you, to make > sure he/she asks all relevant questions. But > we rarely are allowed the > opportunity to do that, Attorneys who present expert testimony, without having a pretrial conference and a thorough understanding of the scope and limitations of the information available, are guilty of malpractice. Forensic scientists who allow themselves to be placed on the witness stand without having first briefed the presenting attorney are equally guilty of malpractice. We don't need to be "allowed" the opportunity of a pretrail conference. We need to "demand" such conferences, and refuse to testify unprepared. The above attitude probaly explains why I work in the private sector. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Gerald L. Hurst" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 17:58:54 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VMwsp5012052 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:58:54 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:57:36 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <3EB1FF6BBCDC3149A11D3C034D922693071DF2B1@atf-hq-excha.ad.msnet.atf.gov> Thread-Index: AcPnKWuEiP8dHJkOTluBm2weSh4IiQBI/lhg Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu And the next thing we will get is "CSI - Australia" or "Down Under" or something equally as corny! Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert.Thompson@atf.gov Sent: Friday, 30 January 2004 11:03 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Oh no! Oh, come on, they aren't finished until they cover all "4 corners"! After CSI NY, there HAS to be CSI NW (North West). Just think of how FAST those CSI guys will work say in Seattle, with a few cups of espresso! Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-Washington 6000 Ammendale Road Ammendale, MD 20705 Desk: (240) 264-3846 FAX: (240) 264-1498 Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Coceani [mailto:lynncoceani@connexus.net.au] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:38 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Oh no! Hi Alll, Good heavens, now I hear they are making "CSI New York"! Aren't we getting a little carried away here? Might as well make on in every state and be done with! Take care Lynn --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] [EndPost by Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 18:16:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i0VNGvTh012562 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:16:57 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:15:07 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcPn/Gw5F1WV9w38SoeKwYQkXve6ZgAUXqVw Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Bill, you know, maybe I'm totally thick as I'm still an undergraduate until the end of the year, but tell me something - this is not about your comments, by the way. It's just something that struck me and I should have found out by now but forgot to ask-type question. My husband was foreman on the jury of a nine week murder trial. They had an "expert witness" (actually several from the US and Australia, I believe) on DNA. Now they "experts" went on giving all their marvellous testimony for over a week! Apart from trying to stay awake, my husband came out of there not having a clue what anyone was talking about and this pretty much applied to the rest of the jury as well. I realise that all this expert witness testimony is necessary for the prosecution/defence, but surely they must realise that nobody on the jury had a clue what they were even talking about. I'm no lawyer but have studied parts of law as part of my Ba degree. I've even studied some DNA and it wasn't easy. All I wondered is - Is it absolutely essential that all these "experts" have to give evidence which takes over a week to a bunch of people who still don't know what they were talking about to begin with? Can't they include the findings in the court documents or whatever. I know it's for the judge's benefit but this has had me wondering for quite a while. Do you see what I'm getting at? It isn't my BEST explanation but it will have to do! My husband used to come home mentally exhausted from trying to understand what the hell they were talking about - he's an opera singer (and probably one of the reasons he was chosen for the jury - not because he's a singer but because he's from such a different area of expertise) and hardly knows about DNA! Anyone want to straighten me out here? (Which reminds me - during that nine week trial, two jurors had fathers who died and so court was delayed, several had sever flu and it was adjourned again - no wonder it went on for nine weeks!) Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2004 12:15 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > Well said, John, and I pretty much agree; but there are three points > I'd like to make. > > First, I see the proper place for "special masters" as being not to > tell the judge which expert is "right," but rather as being to educate > the judge about the abilities and limits of the state of the art of > the scientific testimony being offered, so that he will have some way > to gauge whether an expert is giving an honest and well founded > opinion (right or not) or whether the expert is simply blowing smoke. As opposed to telling the *jury* the same thing. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 21:41:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i112f0qf015708 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:41:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:40:57 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > > All I wondered is - Is it absolutely essential that all these "experts" have > to give evidence which takes over a week to a bunch of people who still > don't know what they were talking about to begin with? Can't they include > the findings in the court documents or whatever. I know it's for the judge's > benefit but this has had me wondering for quite a while. > No, it's not absolutely necessary to have a trial at all. We could just choose very special people to get together and decide who is guilty and innocent. Star chambers are very popular in some countries, and are both efficient and effective. > Do you see what I'm getting at? It isn't my BEST explanation but it will > have to do! My husband used to come home mentally exhausted from trying to > understand what the hell they were talking about - he's an opera singer (and > probably one of the reasons he was chosen for the jury - not because he's a > singer but because he's from such a different area of expertise) and hardly > knows about DNA! You husband suffered from experts who didn't know how to talk to juries. That's not the fault of the jury, and it's not an indication that the jury is incompetent. The basics of DNA identification are not that hard. It is very common for experts who cannot adequately describe the basis of what they do, often because their own expertise is more limited than they would like to admit, to obfuscate or fail to clearly describe what they are doing. Part of skill set that makes a "forensic" scientist "forensic" is that of being able to demonstrate their conclusions to a jury in a clear and meaningful way. Many "forensic" scientists are not competent to do this. And then they blame the jury for their failure. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jan 31 23:23:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i114NG7x017351 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:23:16 -0500 (EST) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service From: "Lynn Coceani" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:19:26 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcPobWWXca4Y4ZN/Rp++F/N/hLfnIwAC4kmA Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks, Bill. Every now and again I think about this but forget to ask someone about it. I remembering studying about the different court procedures since the dawn of time (as you do in criminal justice/criminology) and I think France run a system such as the one you described, do they not? Maybe they should teach these "experts" how to address a jury in layman's terms. As I said, I have also done the basics of DNA and while I know what it's about, it still confuses me. Thanks for your explanation, I wondered about this for ages. Incidentally, the guy was found guilty. He murdered an Armorguard driver in the middle of a shopping centre. The stupid part is that because Lucio had spent nine weeks on the jury, they said he was now exempt from jury duty for ten year. Two months later, he had another jury summons! Thanks again, Lynn -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2004 1:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] No juries was Special Masters in courts On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Lynn Coceani wrote: > > All I wondered is - Is it absolutely essential that all these > "experts" have to give evidence which takes over a week to a bunch of > people who still don't know what they were talking about to begin > with? Can't they include the findings in the court documents or > whatever. I know it's for the judge's benefit but this has had me wondering for quite a while. > No, it's not absolutely necessary to have a trial at all. We could just choose very special people to get together and decide who is guilty and innocent. Star chambers are very popular in some countries, and are both efficient and effective. > Do you see what I'm getting at? It isn't my BEST explanation but it > will have to do! My husband used to come home mentally exhausted from > trying to understand what the hell they were talking about - he's an > opera singer (and probably one of the reasons he was chosen for the > jury - not because he's a singer but because he's from such a > different area of expertise) and hardly knows about DNA! You husband suffered from experts who didn't know how to talk to juries. That's not the fault of the jury, and it's not an indication that the jury is incompetent. The basics of DNA identification are not that hard. It is very common for experts who cannot adequately describe the basis of what they do, often because their own expertise is more limited than they would like to admit, to obfuscate or fail to clearly describe what they are doing. Part of skill set that makes a "forensic" scientist "forensic" is that of being able to demonstrate their conclusions to a jury in a clear and meaningful way. Many "forensic" scientists are not competent to do this. And then they blame the jury for their failure. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 28/01/2004 [EndPost by "Lynn Coceani" ]