From daemon Mon Jun 2 08:57:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h52CvgE26588 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:57:42 -0400 (EDT) From: 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 Content-Length: 2746 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 10:00:39 -0700 From: "Shannon Stenger" To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Hemastix We (CSI) use hemastixs at scenes as a tool and note in our reports a positive or negative reaction. We do not have an SOP regarding the use of hemistix. There is not a minimum amount of stain we should not collect from as long as there is enough to collect a sample if the hemistix is positive. If we (CSI) are at a large scene that requires scientist assistance (as they don't normally get called out to scenes) then they usually do the phenolphthalein tests, but thus far we have not been trained to use the phenolphthalein test. Hope this helps you. >>> JBaker@co.arapahoe.co.us 05/29/03 03:38PM >>> I worked as a CSI Supervisor for the Aurora (Colorado) P.D. and they were using Hemastix for presumptive testing at scenes. One of the chemists set up a test and we had beakers with diluted (sheep) blood at varying concentrations: neat; 1:10 (1 part blood to 10 parts distilled water;) 1:100; 1:1000; 1:10,000; 1:100,000; and 1:1,000,000. The hemastix were used (dipped into the solution) to familiarize the CSI with the color reaction. A noticeable reaction was visible with each of the tests. CSI liked them because they were easy. They do have a shelf life although we kept on using them well past that expiration date because this is a non-intended (non-health care) use of the product. We eventually switched to phenolphthalein (along with etoh & hydrogen peroxide) when we determined that the hemastix were too costly. -Jeff Baker- -----Original Message----- From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.org] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:47 AM To: 'Forens-L list' Subject: [forens] Hemastix Does anyone on the list work in a lab where either laboratory personnel or Crime Scene personnel use Hemastix for presumptive blood testing? I am looking for some feedback regarding how Crime Scene Technicians are using the product. Are they trained to simply report a positive (or negative) reaction or are they fully trained in presumptive testing, how it works, false positives, etc. If used in the field is there a written SOP, or are the techs simply taught to use it as a tool as they would an ALS for possible semen stain location. Is there a minimum size below which they are told not to test the stain for preservation purposes (DNA)? Thanks for any assistance. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] [EndPost by "Jeff Baker" ] [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Mon Jun 2 08:58:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h52CwE726658 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:58:13 -0400 (EDT) From: 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 Content-Length: 644 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Reardon Subject: Entry level positions To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all- I was wondering if any of you know of entry-level forensic positions (primarily sample receipt) in the Rockville, MD area? You can reply to me off-line at reardoms@yahoo.com Thanks in advance! Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Mon Jun 2 09:39:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h52DdTT28513 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <016a01c3290c$b30e21a0$b936a8c0@iesx.krakow.pl> From: "Wojciech Branicki" To: Subject: [forens] postdoc Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:41:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-2" 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 h52DdTU28513 Content-Length: 512 Hello Everybody, I am trying to find a Postdoc position in the field of forensic genetics or associated sciences. Have you heard about such a scholarship ? Could someone help in this matter? Best wishes. Wojciech Branicki Institute of Forensic Research Westerplatte st. 9, 31-033 Cracow, Poland e-mail: wbranic@ies.krakow.pl --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Wojciech Branicki" ] From daemon Mon Jun 2 13:53:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h52Hr9M08884 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2275378.1054576365680.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp14> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:52:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Theodore Mozer To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Urine Stain Test Cc: philip.beesley@gw.njsp.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CC Mailer IV X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 481 I know this has been discussed before.... I think I even enquired before..... We need some procedrues for testing for dried urine stains. Especially a test procedure for Phosphate (using molybdic acid). We have the reaction, just not the particulars of a test (reagent amounts, etc.). Thanks. ted.mozer@gw.njsp.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Theodore Mozer ] From daemon Tue Jun 3 09:32:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h53DWl501170 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:32:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:32:46 -0400 (EDT) From: 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 Content-Length: 821 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Education inquiry From: "" Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Hello, I live in the Cincinnati area and am having problems finding the proper school for a career in Forensic Science. I was wondering if there is a direction you could point me in. If you have any listings on a school in the Cincinnati area that would be sufficient for my studies that would be great. Thank you for your time. please contact me at greenlover_@excite.com _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Thu Jun 5 15:46:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h55JkXU03945 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:46:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: [forens] forward 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 Content-Length: 549 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lynn Henson Subject: RE: Hair Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:17:07 +0200 Makes perfectly good sense to me. The lab that examined the fiber proficiency test using stereomicroscopy and the SEM got the "correct" answer that the two items could have had a common origin. They found no significant differences. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/x-msdownload --- [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Thu Jun 5 15:47:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h55JlC703988 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:47:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:47:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: [forens] forward 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 Content-Length: 519 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Frank Subject: RE: confirming blood Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:19:32 +0200 Tiernan, The Washington State Patrol Crime labs were just accreditted by ASCLD/LAB. We were told by the Bio/DNA inspector that the only confirmatory test for blood is the Takayama test. If t --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/x-msdownload --- [EndPost by Basten ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 6 12:29:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) id h56GTuM12070 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000c01c32c49$3f53d800$596f2ac8@fito> From: "Quesada-Scatena" To: "forens" Subject: [forens] +Diatoms Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:32:38 -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 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 h56GTuN12070 En blancoHi, I would like to know your opinions about the value of searching for diatoms in order to determine wether a person has drowned or not. Dr. Adolfo Scatena Medico Forense 2ª Circunsc Judicial Gral Roca, Rio Negro ARGENTINA --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html image/gif --- [EndPost by "Quesada-Scatena" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 6 14:06:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) id h56I6EC02192 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" To: "'Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:06:00 -0400 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 Our lab is looking for information on Glass analysis using SEM-WDX or SEM-EDX-WDX. Specifically we would appreciate info. on the following points: 1. Any guidelines or standards for such analysis 2. Procedures or protocols for such analysis 3. Any validations done in this regard. 4. Any relevant or useful references. Any input will be appreciated. Bharat Lakhkar D-ABC Westchester County Forensic Laboratory [EndPost by "Lakhkar, Bharat" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 9 09:47:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) id h59Dlrl20331 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003a01c32e8d$2aeac040$5e50fd3e@oemcomputer> From: "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" To: Subject: [forens] Comparison Burns Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:43:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk 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 h59Dlrm20331 List Members, Are the conclusions from comparison burnings of pig carcasses accepted as evidence in court? There is a case that I am involved in (UK) where this may well be necessary in order to test the account given by a suspect in terms of the damage done to the body and how long it would take to cause the extent of damage. It may also be necesasary to conduct burning to assess fro the damage whether a particular accelerant was likely to have been used as claimed. There is no scientific evidence to confirm or refute the alleged use of that accelerant. Could comparison burns assist with that? Best Wishes Satish --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Satish.Sekar@ntlworld.com" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 9 11:01:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) id h59F1B300766 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [forens] Cory Griffiths/FSST/TAS is out of the office. From: "Cory Griffiths/FSST/TAS" To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:00:45 +1000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SMTPMTA/Servers/TAS(Release 5.07a |May 14, 2001) at 10/06/2003 01:00:48 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 09/06/2003 and will not return until 19/06/2003. I will respond to your message when I return. [EndPost by "Cory Griffiths/FSST/TAS" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 9 11:02:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) id h59F2tX00940 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:02:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu cc: forens Subject: Re: [forens] +Diatoms In-Reply-To: <000c01c32c49$3f53d800$596f2ac8@fito> 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, 6 Jun 2003, Quesada-Scatena wrote: > From: Quesada-Scatena > > En blancoHi, > > I would like to know your opinions about the value of searching for diatoms in order to determine wether a person has drowned or not. > There is literature that shows that diatoms can be found in the lungs of people who did not drown but were immersed after death. Thus, it is not pathognomic of drowning. There has been some reasonable work by Krstic et al: Krstic S, et al. Diatoms in forensic expertise of drowning -- A Macedonian experience Forensic Sci Intl 2002 127:198-203 that suggests that there may be a quantitative index that one could develop with enough numbers on enough deaths. Their study is, however, too small for this, and assumes water with very high numbers of diatoms. There are a number of problems with using diatoms to diagnose drowning: The presence and number of diatoms in drowning is a function of the concentration of diatoms in the water. A person drowning during a diatom bloom would have very high numbers in the lungs, while a person dying when there was low diatom population (or in the bathtub) would have few or none. The presence and number of diatoms is a function of length of time in the water. People who have not drowned but have been submerged for extended periods have diatoms in their tissues. Diatoms are certainly not *necessary* to diagnose drowning. Even in some of the better studies, diatoms were found in less than 50% of known drownings. For instance, in Pollannen et. al. J Forensic Sci 1997 42:281-5, they found diatoms in only 28% of freshwater and 12% of saltwater drownings. While they claim a 90% true-positive rate for "putative" drownings, the false-negative rate is also high, and the false-positive rate was not well addressed. People who say that diatoms are useless are wrong; people who say that diatoms are diagnostic are wrong. What one needs is an ROC curve to tell one what the value of the test would be. Such an ROC curve has not been constructed. In contrast, diatoms are very good for telling us *where* the body has been. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 9 11:02:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.11.7+Sun/8.10.2) id h59F2th00948 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 11:02:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu cc: forens Subject: Re: [forens] +Diatoms In-Reply-To: <000c01c32c49$3f53d800$596f2ac8@fito> 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, 6 Jun 2003, Quesada-Scatena wrote: > From: Quesada-Scatena > > En blancoHi, > > I would like to know your opinions about the value of searching for diatoms in order to determine wether a person has drowned or not. > There is literature that shows that diatoms can be found in the lungs of people who did not drown but were immersed after death. Thus, it is not pathognomic of drowning. There has been some reasonable work by Krstic et al: Krstic S, et al. Diatoms in forensic expertise of drowning -- A Macedonian experience Forensic Sci Intl 2002 127:198-203 that suggests that there may be a quantitative index that one could develop with enough numbers on enough deaths. Their study is, however, too small for this, and assumes water with very high numbers of diatoms. There are a number of problems with using diatoms to diagnose drowning: The presence and number of diatoms in drowning is a function of the concentration of diatoms in the water. A person drowning during a diatom bloom would have very high numbers in the lungs, while a person dying when there was low diatom population (or in the bathtub) would have few or none. The presence and number of diatoms is a function of length of time in the water. People who have not drowned but have been submerged for extended periods have diatoms in their tissues. Diatoms are certainly not *necessary* to diagnose drowning. Even in some of the better studies, diatoms were found in less than 50% of known drownings. For instance, in Pollannen et. al. J Forensic Sci 1997 42:281-5, they found diatoms in only 28% of freshwater and 12% of saltwater drownings. While they claim a 90% true-positive rate for "putative" drownings, the false-negative rate is also high, and the false-positive rate was not well addressed. People who say that diatoms are useless are wrong; people who say that diatoms are diagnostic are wrong. What one needs is an ROC curve to tell one what the value of the test would be. Such an ROC curve has not been constructed. In contrast, diatoms are very good for telling us *where* the body has been. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 9 12:29:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h59GTNbi005122 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:29:23 -0400 (EDT) From: HChipW@aol.com Message-ID: <7f.3856841f.2c160fd7@aol.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:29:11 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Cory Griffiths/FSST/TAS is out of the office. To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6014 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 THANKS H Chip Walls Technical Director Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Univ. of Miami School of Medicine Department of Pathology 12500 SW 152 nd Street Miami, FL 33177 305-232-7020 Fax 305-232-7461 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by HChipW@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jun 11 08:24:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5BCOAEZ014972 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:24:09 -0400 (EDT) From: 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: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:43:29 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Specialized Toxicology Newsgroup Dear List, Can somebody tell me please, how I can join a specialized toxicology newsgroup. How many such groups are there? Is there a group for, say, genetic or veterinary toxicology and so on? 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://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Basten ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 11 09:10:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5BDAvEx016494 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:10:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1c8.b02ec42.2c188447@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:10:31 EDT Subject: [forens] Mitochondrial DNA To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List Can someone give me the name of the mitochondrial DNA lab in Pennsylvania, about four years in business, does forensic work. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jun 11 09:32:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5BDWgre017225 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:32:42 -0400 (EDT) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: <112.2465c36c.2c18896c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:32:28 EDT Subject: [forens] Mitochondrial DNA To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 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 National Medical Services 3701 Welsh Road Willow Grove, PA 19090 800-522-6671 www.nmslab.com Talk to a warm body? Larry Presley, good man. Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL 33067 954-796-8063, telephone & fax skipncar@aol.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jun 11 09:52:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5BDq1a3017937 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:52:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Nana Lamouse-Smith" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Mitochondrial DNA Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:58:32 -0400 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1c8.b02ec42.2c188447@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira MailArmor (version: 2.0.1.11; VAE: 6.20.0.0; VDF: 6.20.0.6; host: gatekeeper) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu mitotyping -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Cfwhiteh@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:11 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Mitochondrial DNA List Can someone give me the name of the mitochondrial DNA lab in Pennsylvania, about four years in business, does forensic work. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] [EndPost by "Nana Lamouse-Smith" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 11 10:18:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5BEIYEU019040 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EE73A33.9060201@syr.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:18:27 -0400 From: "William M. Shields" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Mitochondrial DNA References: <1c8.b02ec42.2c188447@aol.com> 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 Dear Fred: It is mitotyping technologies in State College, PA. It has a web site as well. Bill Shields [EndPost by "William M. Shields" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 12 02:02:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5C62hCl006661 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [forens] Robert Bost/MSC/UCO is out of the office. From: RBost@ucok.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:01:39 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 06/12/2003 01:02:00 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 06/11/2003 and will not return until 06/23/2003. I hope to be able to check messages while I am away and, assuming I am able to, will respond as soon as possible. [EndPost by RBost@ucok.edu] From forens-owner Sat Jun 14 21:02:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5F12qrI028328 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:02:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: [forens] forward 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, 15 Jun 2003 01:38:21 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 Subject: Mass murder in India 14 June 2003 Dear List 'Mass Murder' as we all know means multiple killings carried out within a very short time frame (usually less than hours). A typical example would be a shooter in a tower, picking off victims. The killing usually ends when the shooter is either killed or takes his own life. I was researching on mass murder in India, and I came across this site http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/genocide/genocide.html This gives several instances of lower caste people being killed by higher caste people. Can we include these incidents as mass murder? Or are they acts of terrorism? Or is this some new genre of multicides? Kindly advise. 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://anil298.tripod.com/vol_004_no_001/main.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Basten ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 11:44:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JFitan028541 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:44:55 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2003 15:44:53.0561 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9F9E290:01C33679] content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [forens] position opening, forensic chemist Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:45:34 -0400 Message-ID: <004501c33679$d27bfe70$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: position opening, forensic chemist Thread-Index: AcM2edIhJ3679LzDTtaPZAUbrvVtDA== From: "Robert Parsons" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (FORENS-L POSTING)" , , , Cc: "Babu Thomas" , "Daniel Nippes" 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 h5JFitao028541 Employment Opportunity Indian River Crime Laboratory Position: Forensic Chemist Location: Fort Pierce, Florida Salary: $45,000 - $60,000 depending on experience Application deadline: Open until filled Duties: Responsibilities include the analysis of controlled substances; interpretation of laboratory analyses and results; preparation of written reports; and the ability to testify as an expert witness. General Requirements: The applicant must be skilled in using gas chromatography, mass spectroscopy, ultraviolet and infrared spectrophotometry and other drug analysis equipment and methodologies. A familiarity with the technical and safety requirements of ASCLD-LAB, and demonstrated proficiency testing in controlled substance analysis are required. A Master's degree in chemistry or forensic science (with chemistry undergraduate degree) and two years of forensic laboratory experience are preferred. Experience in head-space BAC analysis is desirable. An extensive background investigation is required, and laboratory personnel are subject to random drug testing. EEO. Application Procedure: Applications may be obtained on-line at stluciesheriff.com or by contacting: Saint Lucie County Sheriff's Office Human Resources Department 4700 W. Midway Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34981-4825 Phone: (772) 462-3206 Fax: (772) 462-3218 For information about the position, contact Daniel C. Nippes Chief Criminalist Indian River Crime Laboratory 2502 S. 35th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34981 dnippes@ircc.edu Phone: (772) 462-4765 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 11:46:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JFk9tG028573 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030619084253.0350b160@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:43:56 -0700 To: From: John Houde Subject: [forens] No mail for days, just testing In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? [EndPost by John Houde ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 11:51:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JFpPxp029231 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:51:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:50:07 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12EF04351502875-01-01 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 h5JFpPxq029231 So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? Jim >>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? [EndPost by John Houde ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 12:19:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JGJiHU000040 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030619181310.00a642d0@box4.tin.it> X-Sender: mmvefors@box4.tin.it (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:17:00 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Morin Subject: [forens] electric blasting caps 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 am asking the help of the List as I need information on electric blasting caps marked "5 T". Thank you in advance. Marco Morin. Prof. Marco Morin S. Polo 2705/A 30125 Venice - Italy tel. +39 041 5244103 fax +39 041 719027 - 5244103 [EndPost by Morin ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 13:40:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JHedvf001775 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030619103621.02666da0@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:37:26 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing In-Reply-To: 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 My sparkling wit? My biting social commentary? My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) J ============ At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: >So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? >Jim > > >>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> >The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? [EndPost by John Houde ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 14:30:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JIUMxq003135 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:30:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01a401c33690$8ecf0bb0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030619103621.02666da0@pop.business.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:28:10 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John; You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I have been working to put together: FORENSIC FRAUD This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or demonstrable forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and police experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained solely for educational and informational purposes. http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html Let me know what you think. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Houde To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > My sparkling wit? > My biting social commentary? > My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? > Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) > J > ============ > > At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > >So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? > >Jim > > > > >>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> > >The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? > > > [EndPost by John Houde ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 16:32:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JKWn6H006124 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:33:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "E. J. Wagner" In-Reply-To: <01a401c33690$8ecf0bb0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Message-Id: <40C5D7CB-A295-11D7-A1A0-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List- I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by NYC Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots of others, and I'll bet you all can too. EJWagner On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > John; > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > have > been working to put together: > > FORENSIC FRAUD > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > demonstrable > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and > police > experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > Let me know what you think. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > 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 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Houde > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > >> My sparkling wit? >> My biting social commentary? >> My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? >> Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) >> J >> ============ >> >> At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: >>> So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? >>> Jim >>> >>>>>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? >> >> >> [EndPost by John Houde ] >> > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 17:06:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JL6LOH007017 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:06:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:06:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu cc: "E. J. Wagner" Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing In-Reply-To: <40C5D7CB-A295-11D7-A1A0-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: References: <40C5D7CB-A295-11D7-A1A0-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> 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 I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the list! Carol Define MD On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, E. J. Wagner wrote: > List- > I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. > Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar > forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by NYC > Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade > Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in > tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo > case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical > Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots > of others, and I'll bet you all can too. > > EJWagner > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > John; > > > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > > have > > been working to put together: > > > > FORENSIC FRAUD > > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > > demonstrable > > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and > > police > > experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained > > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Brent > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > 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 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John Houde > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > >> My sparkling wit? > >> My biting social commentary? > >> My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? > >> Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) > >> J > >> ============ > >> > >> At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > >>> So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? > >>> Jim > >>> > >>>>>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> > >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? > >> > >> > >> [EndPost by John Houde ] > >> > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > > - - - - > See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, > mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 > > [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 17:15:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JLFofP007438 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A33B@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:04:28 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You wouldn't say that if you had ever eaten my pie, although the closest thing to living room drapes were curtains for a daughter's bedroom. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:06 PM I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the list! [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 17:25:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JLPFFa007874 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:25:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:25:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing In-Reply-To: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A33B@DASMTHGSH666> Message-ID: References: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A33B@DASMTHGSH666> 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 David, OK, you are the numero uno on my list! Plus, you never know who might like your other assets! Well, this commendation is only if you don't put your wife's cat in the microwave! On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Hause, David W LTC GLWACH wrote: > You wouldn't say that if you had ever eaten my pie, although the closest > thing to living room drapes were curtains for a daughter's bedroom. > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:06 PM > > I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic > list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do > EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the > livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the > list! > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 17:34:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JLY7Jv008283 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A33C@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:22:45 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The cats have always been mine; at 5:30 AM, the dogs are mine, too. -----Original Message----- From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:25 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing David, OK, you are the numero uno on my list! Plus, you never know who might like your other assets! Well, this commendation is only if you don't put your wife's cat in the microwave! On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Hause, David W LTC GLWACH wrote: > You wouldn't say that if you had ever eaten my pie, although the closest > thing to living room drapes were curtains for a daughter's bedroom. > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:06 PM > > I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic > list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do > EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the > livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the > list! > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 17:48:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5JLmKPO009143 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001e01c336ac$366465d0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <40C5D7CB-A295-11D7-A1A0-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> Subject: [forens] Forensic Fraud Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:46:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu EJ; It's my view that any forensic expert who continues to work and testify objectively and impartially, despite the pressures, harassment, and outright abuse that those with alternate agendas inflict (police, attorneys, government employees/ officials and their various agents), deserves some kind of medal. Especially in the current climate. Also, there is the question of who should be singled out and by whom. And how (criteria). You'll note with the Forensic Fraud list, there is no editorializing; determinations of fraud are in many cases by admission, or demonstrated by the findings of an employer or the courts. Nonsensical and unfounded accusations of fraud or perjury abound in this devisive, adverserial climate within which we practice our various crafts. Subsequently, I have made no judgements of my own other than the criteria for inclusion as provided; forensic and police experts that have provided sworn 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 demonstrated by admission, the findings of an employer, or the findings of the court. Ironically, many of those who commit Forensic Fraud (like Gilchrist and Harding, that I recall right off the top of my head) had recieved awards for their achievements, and other accolades, because such recognition is very often based on "putting away bad guys" and other non-quality related politicol considerations. It's a tough issue on all sides. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: E. J. Wagner To: Cc: E. J. Wagner Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > List- > I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. > Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar > forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by NYC > Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade > Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in > tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo > case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical > Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots > of others, and I'll bet you all can too. > > EJWagner > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > John; > > > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > > have > > been working to put together: > > > > FORENSIC FRAUD > > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > > demonstrable > > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and > > police > > experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained > > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Brent > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > 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 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John Houde > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > >> My sparkling wit? > >> My biting social commentary? > >> My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? > >> Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) > >> J > >> ============ > >> > >> At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > >>> So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? > >>> Jim > >>> > >>>>>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> > >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? > >> > >> > >> [EndPost by John Houde ] > >> > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > > - - - - > See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, > mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 > > [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 19 22:10:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5K2AbGS012554 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:37 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Message-ID: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:10:21 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Maybe it's because of the hemorrhage of fraudulent forensic science stories led by the FBI. [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 20 02:26:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5K6QmNe016466 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:25:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John; The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab hasn't done too well either, what with John Brown, Michael Hoover, and Arnold Melnikoff. And that's just what we've learned about since 2001. And that's just the crime lab. The last two Spokane, WA Medical Examiners have been plagued by scandal (first the ongoing problems with Dr. Dexter Amend, then the criminal conduct of Dr. George Lindholm involving theft from the dead of prescription meds and chronic drug abuse). To say nothing of what's been going on in Tacoma, WA and Pierce County with the overturning of the Gary Benn case because of what the appeals court referred to as "prosecutorial duplicity", and the more recent murder-suicide/ cover-up involving just about their entire city government and the chief of police, David Brame. The state of Washington is holding its own, at least locally, in the corruption headline competition. My only point is that it's not just the FBI (though that part of the equation is truly scary). The problems at the FBI crime lab are, however, representative of certain kinds of nationwide problems. Based on my own ongoing research (and that of others, of course), a systemic pattern of bias has emerged, and I've come to agree with many of my colleagues that privatization is going to be part of the solution. I'd love to hear from other forensic scientists on this issue. And by that I mean those of us who have testified in court. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Maybe it's because of the hemorrhage of fraudulent forensic science stories > led by the FBI. > [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 20 09:44:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5KDipBE022118 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004101c33732$1bac8750$2602a8c0@fyreatr> From: "Donna Brandelli" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:44:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h5KDipBF022118 And who said we don't have a sense of humor? Donna Brandelli ----- Original Message ----- From: James Roberts To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? Jim >>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? [EndPost by John Houde ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Donna Brandelli" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 20 10:10:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5KEA4E7023310 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> From: "Donna Brandelli" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:09:57 -0700 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 h5KEA4E8023310 Brent, Unfortunately a few will make us look bad. I testify in court all the time regarding fingerprints and the chemical processing used to develop fingerprints. I testify honestly to the questions asked. People from our lab often get called to answer questions as to why we didn't get fingerprints (negative testimony). We often deal with cases in which we know the officer or the detective. But quite honestly, I can say that I don't often know the circumstances of the case. Nor do I usually end up finding out how the case was adjudicated. Quite frankly, as much as I would like to know some of this information, our case load is way to high for me to do all the follow up. I can only do the best work I can do, and let the prosecution and the detectives take it from there. We have all seen inept prosecutors destroy good evidence anyway, when they show up to court ill prepared (as would happen with any professional that showed up ill prepared). We all want dirtbags to go to jail, but we don't want to put innocent people in jail. With the scandals you have described, and I must say I wasn't aware of all of them, in conjunction with the CSI TV shows...our lives will get harder. I don't know if privatization is the answer. I think you would still have the same types of people. They will still like to get accolades for having the highest conviction rates, stats, etc. Undoubtedly friendships and relationships would develop, simply because you work with the person/agency regularly. You can only be as good as the weakest link. I think more has to be done in terms of background checks. Not hiring people because they are your friends or relatives or a friend of a friend, etc. Get good quality people with a strong ethical and moral background to do the right thing. Donna Brandelli Los Angeles County Sheriff Scientific Services ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Turvey To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing John; The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab hasn't done too well either, what with John Brown, Michael Hoover, and Arnold Melnikoff. And that's just what we've learned about since 2001. And that's just the crime lab. The last two Spokane, WA Medical Examiners have been plagued by scandal (first the ongoing problems with Dr. Dexter Amend, then the criminal conduct of Dr. George Lindholm involving theft from the dead of prescription meds and chronic drug abuse). To say nothing of what's been going on in Tacoma, WA and Pierce County with the overturning of the Gary Benn case because of what the appeals court referred to as "prosecutorial duplicity", and the more recent murder-suicide/ cover-up involving just about their entire city government and the chief of police, David Brame. The state of Washington is holding its own, at least locally, in the corruption headline competition. My only point is that it's not just the FBI (though that part of the equation is truly scary). The problems at the FBI crime lab are, however, representative of certain kinds of nationwide problems. Based on my own ongoing research (and that of others, of course), a systemic pattern of bias has emerged, and I've come to agree with many of my colleagues that privatization is going to be part of the solution. I'd love to hear from other forensic scientists on this issue. And by that I mean those of us who have testified in court. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Maybe it's because of the hemorrhage of fraudulent forensic science stories > led by the FBI. > [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Donna Brandelli" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 20 15:11:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5KJBdwt029829 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> <00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:11:28 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Donna; Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others who will benefit from this exchange did. It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say some because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear that the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly as you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the part about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and facts of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of evidence from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an investigation. In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be run. It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic problem in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in the ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in how to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is an inescapable bias). Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few unethical or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic supervisor, as is not uncommonly the case. And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note that there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in the Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of malicious bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples include forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with Sofia Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle back in 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a wrongful conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime Lab by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And then there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime laboratory in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the review of 500 or more cases (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crime labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, many examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are evidently quite poorly trained. Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments for privatization - the development of personal relationships with law enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police scientists, no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with either side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone who works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so many crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that as you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in a single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and forensic experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to live up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red flag for specific forensic reforms. I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to fraudulent finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). But note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated on behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic experts at all. So there is that added pressure. I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a big problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are out, and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions or not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but the new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch of police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization back in 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: "Ethics debate at the crime lab" http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Donna Brandelli To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, > > Unfortunately a few will make us look bad. I testify in court all the time regarding fingerprints and the chemical processing used to develop fingerprints. > I testify honestly to the questions asked. People from our lab often get called to answer questions as to why we didn't get fingerprints (negative testimony). > > We often deal with cases in which we know the officer or the detective. But quite honestly, I can say that I don't often know the circumstances of the case. Nor do I usually end up finding out how the case was adjudicated. Quite frankly, as much as I would like to know some of this information, our case load is way to high for me to do all the follow up. > I can only do the best work I can do, and let the prosecution and the detectives take it from there. We have all seen inept prosecutors destroy good evidence anyway, when they show up to court ill prepared (as would happen with any professional that showed up ill prepared). > > We all want dirtbags to go to jail, but we don't want to put innocent people in jail. With the scandals you have described, and I must say I wasn't aware of all of them, in conjunction with the CSI TV shows...our lives will get harder. > > I don't know if privatization is the answer. I think you would still have the same types of people. They will still like to get accolades for having the highest conviction rates, stats, etc. Undoubtedly friendships and relationships would develop, simply because you work with the person/agency regularly. You can only be as good as the weakest link. > > I think more has to be done in terms of background checks. Not hiring people because they are your friends or relatives or a friend of a friend, etc. Get good quality people with a strong ethical and moral background to do the right thing. > > Donna Brandelli > Los Angeles County Sheriff > Scientific Services > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brent Turvey > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:25 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > John; > > The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab hasn't done too well either, what with > John Brown, Michael Hoover, and Arnold Melnikoff. And that's just what we've > learned about since 2001. And that's just the crime lab. > > The last two Spokane, WA Medical Examiners have been plagued by scandal > (first the ongoing problems with Dr. Dexter Amend, then the criminal conduct > of Dr. George Lindholm involving theft from the dead of prescription meds > and chronic drug abuse). To say nothing of what's been going on in Tacoma, > WA and Pierce County with the overturning of the Gary Benn case because of > what the appeals court referred to as "prosecutorial duplicity", and the > more recent murder-suicide/ cover-up involving just about their entire city > government and the chief of police, David Brame. The state of Washington is > holding its own, at least locally, in the corruption headline competition. > > My only point is that it's not just the FBI (though that part of the > equation is truly scary). The problems at the FBI crime lab are, however, > representative of certain kinds of nationwide problems. Based on my own > ongoing research (and that of others, of course), a systemic pattern of bias > has emerged, and I've come to agree with many of my colleagues that > privatization is going to be part of the solution. > > I'd love to hear from other forensic scientists on this issue. And by that I > mean those of us who have testified in court. > > Brent [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 00:50:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L4oHT0009448 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A33B@DASMTHGSH666> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 23:51:19 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 04:50:11.0159 (UTC) FILETIME=[98AA8670:01C337B0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu David is worth reading. I ignore more than a few people, particular the alleged and purported forensic arson investigators or internet based profilers, not to mention the "pre-pends" or the post-pends. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Define MD" To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:25 PM Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > David, OK, you are the numero uno on my list! Plus, you never know who > might like your other assets! Well, this commendation is only if you > don't put your wife's cat in the microwave! > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Hause, David W LTC GLWACH wrote: > > > You wouldn't say that if you had ever eaten my pie, although the closest > > thing to living room drapes were curtains for a daughter's bedroom. > > Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > > David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:06 PM > > > > I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic > > list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do > > EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the > > livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the > > list! > > [EndPost by "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" ] > > > > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 00:50:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L4ollP009480 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:50:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: Cc: "E. J. Wagner" References: <40C5D7CB-A295-11D7-A1A0-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 23:51:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 04:50:41.0359 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAAAADF0:01C337B0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You bet. John Lentini and Brent Turvey. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Define MD" To: Cc: "E. J. Wagner" Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic > list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do > EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the > livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the > list! > > Carol Define MD > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, E. J. Wagner wrote: > > > List- > > I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. > > Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar > > forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by NYC > > Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade > > Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in > > tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo > > case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical > > Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots > > of others, and I'll bet you all can too. > > > > EJWagner > > > > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > > > John; > > > > > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > > > have > > > been working to put together: > > > > > > FORENSIC FRAUD > > > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > > > demonstrable > > > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and > > > police > > > experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained > > > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > Brent > > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > 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 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: John Houde > > > To: > > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM > > > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > > >> My sparkling wit? > > >> My biting social commentary? > > >> My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? > > >> Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) > > >> J > > >> ============ > > >> > > >> At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > > >>> So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? > > >>> Jim > > >>> > > >>>>>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> > > >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? > > >> > > >> > > >> [EndPost by John Houde ] > > >> > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > > > > > - - - - > > See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, > > mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 > > > > [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] > > > > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 01:05:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L55Es3010209 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:05:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:06:18 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 05:05:07.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[AF2F60D0:01C337B2] 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 was wholly unaware that the FBI had cornered a market on it. How is this possible without eliminating the internet, the New York Times or rumor mongering? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Maybe it's because of the hemorrhage of fraudulent forensic science stories > led by the FBI. > [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 01:12:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L5Ck7b010684 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> From: "Donna Brandelli" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> <00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> <015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:08:44 -0700 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 h5L5Ck7c010684 Brent, Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent cases, I'm not familiar with all of them. You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police woman's prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard police identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and education seriously. I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would probably get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement to begin with. I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? I don't know). I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I promoted and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, or the innocence of the suspect. Donna; Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others who will benefit from this exchange did. It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say some because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear that the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly as you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the part about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and facts of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of evidence from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an investigation. In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be run. It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic problem in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in the ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in how to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is an inescapable bias). Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few unethical or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic supervisor, as is not uncommonly the case. And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note that there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in the Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of malicious bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples include forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with Sofia Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle back in 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a wrongful conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime Lab by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And then there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime laboratory in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the review of 500 or more cases (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crime labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, many examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are evidently quite poorly trained. Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments for privatization - the development of personal relationships with law enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police scientists, no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with either side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone who works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so many crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that as you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in a single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and forensic experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to live up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red flag for specific forensic reforms. I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to fraudulent finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). But note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated on behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic experts at all. So there is that added pressure. I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a big problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are out, and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions or not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but the new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch of police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization back in 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: "Ethics debate at the crime lab" http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Donna Brandelli To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, > > Unfortunately a few will make us look bad. I testify in court all the time regarding fingerprints and the chemical processing used to develop fingerprints. > I testify honestly to the questions asked. People from our lab often get called to answer questions as to why we didn't get fingerprints (negative testimony). > > We often deal with cases in which we know the officer or the detective. But quite honestly, I can say that I don't often know the circumstances of the case. Nor do I usually end up finding out how the case was adjudicated. Quite frankly, as much as I would like to know some of this information, our case load is way to high for me to do all the follow up. > I can only do the best work I can do, and let the prosecution and the detectives take it from there. We have all seen inept prosecutors destroy good evidence anyway, when they show up to court ill prepared (as would happen with any professional that showed up ill prepared). > > We all want dirtbags to go to jail, but we don't want to put innocent people in jail. With the scandals you have described, and I must say I wasn't aware of all of them, in conjunction with the CSI TV shows...our lives will get harder. > > I don't know if privatization is the answer. I think you would still have the same types of people. They will still like to get accolades for having the highest conviction rates, stats, etc. Undoubtedly friendships and relationships would develop, simply because you work with the person/agency regularly. You can only be as good as the weakest link. > > I think more has to be done in terms of background checks. Not hiring people because they are your friends or relatives or a friend of a friend, etc. Get good quality people with a strong ethical and moral background to do the right thing. > > Donna Brandelli > Los Angeles County Sheriff > Scientific Services > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brent Turvey > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:25 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > John; > > The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab hasn't done too well either, what with > John Brown, Michael Hoover, and Arnold Melnikoff. And that's just what we've > learned about since 2001. And that's just the crime lab. > > The last two Spokane, WA Medical Examiners have been plagued by scandal > (first the ongoing problems with Dr. Dexter Amend, then the criminal conduct > of Dr. George Lindholm involving theft from the dead of prescription meds > and chronic drug abuse). To say nothing of what's been going on in Tacoma, > WA and Pierce County with the overturning of the Gary Benn case because of > what the appeals court referred to as "prosecutorial duplicity", and the > more recent murder-suicide/ cover-up involving just about their entire city > government and the chief of police, David Brame. The state of Washington is > holding its own, at least locally, in the corruption headline competition. > > My only point is that it's not just the FBI (though that part of the > equation is truly scary). The problems at the FBI crime lab are, however, > representative of certain kinds of nationwide problems. Based on my own > ongoing research (and that of others, of course), a systemic pattern of bias > has emerged, and I've come to agree with many of my colleagues that > privatization is going to be part of the solution. > > I'd love to hear from other forensic scientists on this issue. And by that I > mean those of us who have testified in court. > > Brent [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Donna Brandelli" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 01:13:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L5Dhtm010920 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:13:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <40C5D7CB-A295-11D7-A1A0-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:14:47 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 05:13:37.0071 (UTC) FILETIME=[DEA7ABF0:01C337B3] 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 EJ and List: I looked at Brent Turvey's little list of personal attacks on others. He omits himself. He has purported to have done studies on: Incarcerated Offenders Sex Crime Recidivism at least in his sworn testimony he claims to have done both. What I find especially problematic is that he has not published these studies in any peer reviewed journal including those he publishes himself, online, on his website or on his private, closed to the public discussion list. While his criticisms of some of those people who appear on his list may in fact have some merit, until he is willing to subject his 'clinical work' to scrutiny it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept the balance of his criticisms. Looking forward to his cronies from Australia stepping in now to demand that nobody criticize them because they are not interested in hearing what he has to say, all the while they a subscribed to his private/closed to the publid/ discussion list. While you're at it, Brent, care to tell everybody why the California Homicide Investigators refused to have you come speak to their annual gathering last year, or is that something you have yet to figure out? Shaun Forensic proctologist, Forensic Scientist, Forensic Wastewater Treatement Specialist, Forensic Telephone Operator ----- Original Message ----- From: "E. J. Wagner" To: Cc: "E. J. Wagner" Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > List- > I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. > Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar > forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by NYC > Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade > Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in > tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo > case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical > Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots > of others, and I'll bet you all can too. > > EJWagner > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > John; > > > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > > have > > been working to put together: > > > > FORENSIC FRAUD > > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > > demonstrable > > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and > > police > > experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained > > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Brent > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > 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 "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 01:53:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L5rVJa011966 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:53:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> <00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:54:35 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 05:53:25.0018 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DFB77A0:01C337B9] 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: "Donna Brandelli" To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, > > Unfortunately a few will make us look bad. Donna, Brent reserves his criticism for anybody but himself. I've invited him to defend his criticisms of others but he can't do it, at least not without addressing his own short comings. Turvey has sued an entire city, the City and Borough of Sitka, alleging that all of them are out to "get him". This is not speculation, but a matter of record. Ask him to deny it. He can't. The lawsuit was filed by his attorney more than a year ago. > I testify in court all the time regarding fingerprints and the chemical processing used to develop fingerprints. > I testify honestly to the questions asked. People from our lab often get called to answer questions as to why we didn't get >fingerprints (negative testimony). How many times during the past seven years have you sued the communities in which you worked? Compare that number to Turvey or his associates. Turvey has sued one community in which he works. One of the instructors he hired and used as a reference, Peter Kasler, sued nearly every law enforcement agency in Tehama County. Not convinced? Call Red Bluff Police Department and ask for the Chief or call the California Attorney General's Office. Better yet, call Sitka Police Department and ask for the chief of police, Bob Gorder. > > We often deal with cases in which we know the officer or the detective. But quite honestly, I can say that I don't often >know the circumstances of the case. Nor do I usually end up finding out how the case was adjudicated. Quite frankly, as >much as I would like to know some of this information, our case load is way to high for me to do all the follow up. For Brent, there isn't much to follow up on. His testimony is quite often excluded. Where it is allowed, his clients are often sentenced to death or life without parole. All things considered I think he is one of the very best things that can possibly happen to a prosecutor, at least when he is working for the defense. My concern is that he might one day actually fool a busy prosecutor into using his testimony as an expert. This will, mark my words, come to haunt any of them who fail to fully investigate his background. > I can only do the best work I can do, and let the prosecution and the detectives take it from there. We have all seen inept >prosecutors destroy good evidence anyway, when they show up to court ill prepared (as would happen with any >professional that showed up ill prepared). What about a defense attorney who, while preparing a case for their client, relies on somebody who mis-represents their qualifications, the nature of their clinical work, things like that? Don't you feel a little remorse when they get suckered in by that kind of charlatan? I'd feel sort of cheated, wouldn't you? > > We all want dirtbags to go to jail, Every example of Turvey's testimony that I have found has been for the defense, not for the prosecution. This is at odds with his statements in depositions and under sworn testimony in court, where he claims his work is 50/50, prosecution and defense. If it weren't for dirtbags he would never have seen the inside of a courtroom. >but we don't want to put innocent people in jail. You don't, I don't. I don't think it matters to Brent, so long as he can testify in court and be an 'expert'. Why else would he have allowed Ed Mallet to stipulate in 1998 that he was not, in fact, a forensic scientist, as he claims, or any other type of expert, yet continue to testify anyways? >With the scandals you have described, and I must say I wasn't aware of all of them, in conjunction with the CSI TV >shows...our lives will get harder. Turvey testified in Wisconsin about the mechanics of luminol. I have a copy of his testimony, if John Lentini or any other chronically underinformed person wants to challenge it. Turvey mistakenly states that oxygen reacts with blood when in fact blood acts as a catalyst between chemicals present in luminol. Turvey testifies that he is, in fact, a forensic scientist. How any such scientist can mistake what a catalyst is, or how a chemical could POSSIBLY work in the manner he contends in anything but an anaerobic environment is beyond me. For the record, I am not a chemist, I am not a forensic scientist, but I sure as hell know how to read. Anytime John Lentini or Brent want to step out from behind their degrees or their lawyers I'll be glad to humble either or both of them by a wide enough margin to make a California interstate highway look like a two-lane. > I don't know if privatization is the answer. For purported 'forensic scientists' or for alleged and disproven 'criminal profilers'? When Turvey saw the hangman's noose approaching in AAFS, he withdrew his application, in spite of his malicious allegations against Richard Walter and Bob Keppel. Un-suprisingly, he founded his own organization, adopted his own standards, then within less than two years violated even the standards he set for himself or his organization. Care to disagree? I have an email authored by, and traceable to, the ethics chair of his own organization. In that email, that individual, who purportedly holds a PhD in clinical psychology, expresses that they are obliged to investigate only allegations raised by other members within that organization. Compare and contrast this to the role of AAFS where their members are concerned. AAFS protects the public from it's members more vigorously than it does it's members from the public. The "Academy of Behavioral Profiling", which Turvey founded, it nothing but a cheap facsimile of such an organization. How any prosecutor could be fooled by this is inexplicable to me. >I think you would still have the same types of people. They will still like to get accolades for having the highest conviction >rates, stats, etc. Thankfully, Turvey's testimony has never, ever, been used against a defendant. If it were, I personally guarantee you I would lobby for a retrial. Really. >Undoubtedly friendships and relationships would develop, simply because you work with the person/agency regularly. You >can only be as good as the weakest link. Turvey has never worked for any full time law enforcement agency for more than a few months. The only one that he has ever worked for terminated him when they learned that he abused his position, that of a "sworn investigative witness". Ever heard of one of those? > > I think more has to be done in terms of background checks. Amen. Turvey claimed experience interviewing "incarcerated offenders". A brief check of the agencies and institutions he claimed association with revealved that this was a completely untruthful claim on his part. He interviewed one offender in prison, in Oregon. That's it. The only other credible work experience he had was working for the Connecticut Hospital Association. I know, I checked. He developed a website for them, during the same time frame he was telling defense attorney's he was actually working a case in Pennsylvania. He wasn't, I know, I checked. > Not hiring people because they are your friends or relatives or a friend of a friend, etc. Get good quality people with a >strong ethical and moral background to do the right thing. Tell me, Donna, if you found out that Brent had seduced the daughter of a client to whom he had a previous professional engagement, say George Baggen, how would you feel about that? Unconvinced? Call Sitka Police Department or the Alaska State Troopers Criminal Investigative Division. If you'd like specific people to talk with, email me direct and I'll give you a few names. Personally I think you should start with Bob Gorder, the former commander of the Alaska State Troopers Academy. If you feel as pleasantly disposed towards Brent after speaking to Bob as you do before, well nothing I could possibly tell you will change your mind. Turvey is, of course, suing Bob Gorder. I have never had a reason to sue a former commander of a state troopers academy, but then I am merely a humble forensic proctologist and waste water treatment specialist. > > Donna Brandelli > Los Angeles County Sheriff > Scientific Services > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brent Turvey > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:25 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > John; > > The Washington State Patrol Crime Lab hasn't done too well either, what with > John Brown, Michael Hoover, and Arnold Melnikoff. And that's just what we've > learned about since 2001. And that's just the crime lab. > Brent, anytime you would like to discuss your 'scientific' testimony as an expert in the Peter Kupaza case I will be delighted to bring it up on this list. You wont, because you are bogus. Hope this helps. [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 02:31:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> <00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> <015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> <018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Donna; I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. Was it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see what's publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not to mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal their mistakes. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Brandelli" To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent cases, I'm not familiar with all of them. > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police woman's prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard police identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and education seriously. > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would probably get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement to begin with. > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? I don't know). > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I promoted and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, or the innocence of the suspect. > > > Donna; > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others who > will benefit from this exchange did. > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say some > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear that > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly as > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the part > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and facts > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of evidence > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > investigation. > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be run. > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic problem > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in the > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in how > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is an > inescapable bias). > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few unethical > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic supervisor, > as is not uncommonly the case. > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note that > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in the > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of malicious > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples include > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with Sofia > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle back in > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a wrongful > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime Lab > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And then > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime laboratory > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the > review of 500 or more cases > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crime > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, many > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are evidently > quite poorly trained. > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments for > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police scientists, > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with either > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone who > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so many > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that as > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in a > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and forensic > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to live > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red flag > for specific forensic reforms. > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to fraudulent > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). But > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated on > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic experts at > all. So there is that added pressure. > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a big > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are out, > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions or > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but the > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch of > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization back in > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > 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 > ----- Original Message ----- [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 17:50:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5LLoJcr021965 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:50:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] fwd Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "shaun wheeler" Subject: More Turvey Self-aggrandizement Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:23:15 -0500 Brent and List: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Donna; > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others who > will benefit from this exchange did. You bet. As I called to your attention earlier, your criticisms of Richard Walter were not only incredibly naive, but unfounded and showed a marked misapprehension of the nature of appellate court rulings and law. How any purported 'forensic scientist' as yourself manages is beyond me. Brent, how is it you can reconcile your complete lack of ethics anyways? Less than two and a half years ago you moved in with your clients daughter, Melissa Baggen, while actively involved in a homicide/sexual assault investigation. This is not speculation, but indeed is based on your own admissions in faxes, emails and discussions between you and the former city administrator, Tony Zimmer, who has deposed against you only this past spring. To me, seducing the daughter of a client would completely impune the credibility of my testimony. Presuming that you solve your......what do you call her anyways? Well, whatever you call Melissa, what kind of answer would you give a defense attorney when he asked you what you were thinking when you moved in in with her? I'll concede that this is probably an idle question given the likelyhood that you will ever solve the case. But really, I'd like to know. > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I can't think of a single profiler who has done more to discredit the profession than you, Brent. Maybe Wilson, but it's touch and go. I'm still gathering information on him. As shocking as it seems, my travel expenses to Australia later this summer have been paid by police officers who want me to come look at what they have. Pity their seasons are opposite ours, but I suspect that it will be a productive and enjoyable trip all the same. > I say some because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear that > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly as > you have described yourself. Brent, until you attached yourself to your girlfriend/housemates case, you testified that you had never, ever, gathered evidence at a crime scene. You also testified, under oath, that you had never worked in a laboratory. Don't you find it even a little pretentious to mislead people in this way? If not, care to mention what agencies or institutions you have processed evidence at? Or will John or some other apologist step up to point out how impertinent my question is, questioning your bullsh*t? >And that is a good thing except for the part about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and facts > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of evidence from start to finish, realizing their greatest >potential to an investigation. Brent, you really must work to step around your cojones. I pointed out five years ago your errors in the Branch/Byers/Moore homicide. Among your more gross errors was your failure to identify that two of the victims lived directly across the street from each other. I have a certified copy of your 'written report' if you care to dispute this. A copy of that report is available to anybody who likewise cares to dispute it. The victims, two of them, literally lived one absolutely opposite the other. In your 'written report' you said that the mother of one of them 'showed up in the neighborhood' of the other. Victimology is intrinisic to the field of profiling and thus, there is no defense of your opinions in this case. They were made without a full and detailed analysis of the case, the victims or even so little as the addresses of the victims. Your analysis is indefensible. > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes You are not a criminalist, you are not a forensic scientist. If you were, you would state what fields you were qualified in. There is no forensic laboratory in the country that will hire a "generalist". If you believe otherwise, feel free to name the laboratory. > and help perform crime reconstructions in every case. Not all criminalists serve that role, Brent. > Instead, it is common for untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be run. It is further common for law enforcement to > venture, often blindly, into reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic problem > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in the > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in how > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is an > inescapable bias). Brent, since you have never, ever, worked for any law enforcement agency, full time, as a paid and sworn officer, how is it that you could reach such broad and sweeping conclusions as this? The only agency I am aware of where you were ever appointed in even an ad hoc capacity is Sitka, Alaska. That agency terminated you less than a year after you were sworn in. The chief of police that did it resigned. The one who followed questioned why you were ever sworn in in the first place, after which you sued him and the entire elected body of officials. For those who believe this to be anything but the truth I will provide copies of Turvey's lawsuit free of charge anywhere in the world. Brent, I believe I have called your hand, care to raise me? > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few unethical > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic supervisor, > as is not uncommonly the case. Brent, you are not a forensic scientist. Neither am I. > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. To be sure, most competent forensic scientists would at least enjoy some measure of peer recognition. Tell me, Brent, is there one single forensic scientist who regards you as a peer and, if so, what field are they qualified in? As a purported and questionable criminal profiler, is there even one who regards you as a peer, outside the organization which you yourself created, the "Academy of Behavioral Profiling"? None of the profilers whom I regard as friends regard you as a peer. Richard Walter, Phoebe Kelsoe, Cindy Lent, none of them see you as anything but a fraud. Is there even one, just one, who sees it otherwise on this continent? > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. I asked you five years ago who or what agency trained you to be a profiler. The same question remains unanswered. For the record, Brent, what area of forensic science are you qualified in (Generalist is not a choice) and what school trained you to be a 'criminal, profiler'? BTW, don't say the University of New Haven or Dr. Henry Lee, both of these portend tremendous disaster in your immediate to near future. > Note that there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in the > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of malicious > bias or self interest, Spare me. Four years ago you started crap with Bill Hagmaier. You filed a complaint with Janet Reno, AAFS and a related complaint with the Washington State Bar Association against Barbara Corey-Boulet. If it wasn't self-serving I'd sure like to know what in the hell it was. It extended to Richard Walter and Bob Keppel, both of whom nailed you to the cross in Orlando the preceding year. Brent, you are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey. snip.... > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are evidently > quite poorly trained. Brent, you aren't a 'forensic scientist. Neither am I. If you aren't, am I am not, then we enjoy equal standing in our criticisms. If you think you are, please feel free to tell everybody including John Lentini what area it is exactly you happen to think you are qualified in. > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments for > privatization - Really? What might that be? > the development of personal relationships with law > enforcement. Darn, now you've gone and confused me. It was my understanding that one of your associates was none other than John Baeza and another was Peter Kasler, both of whom appear on your resumes as references. This is not speculation. Prosecutors in Wisconsin, California and Arkansas have all provided me with copies. In each instance, you cite both Kasler, who was a deputy (according to you ;) and Baeza who was a detective at NYPD as people with whom you have worked. Either these are legitimate references, in which case I have to question your basis for supporting privitization, or they are illegitimate, in which case your foundation and arguments are both suspect. Simply put, Brent, you can't butter your bread on both sides. Either your references are bogus and lack standing, or your position is misleading and in error. > That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. Brent, how in the hell would you know? You've never worked for either. >We need police scientists, no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. If they were half as incompetent or morally bankrupt as you argue I can't for the life of me imagine what it might be. Personally I don't see it the way you or John Lentini do, but then I don't rely on the internet or living with my client's daughter to make ends meet. > But, as I've been criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with either > side of the adverserial process can bear. No, Brent. The reason I criticized you in the past is that you are inept, incompetent, that you seduced a client's daughter while professionally obligated, that you lied about your qualifications, about your professional work, but never in a million years would I criticize somebody for demanding objective scientific work. But niether you, nor I, are forensic scientists. If it is otherwise you need only state what area in which you are qualifed to work in any laboratory to prove me wrong. >We need those interested in objective examination and findings, There is nothing more disgusting than that enobling "we". Please have the decency to either kill the mouse in your pocket or delete that word from your inventory. > not those interested in catching bad guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. I've yet to see a supposed educator that refused to answer a direct question or try to explain the way they reached their conclucions. You've done both more times than I can count. >Not everyone who works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so many > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that as > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. Brent, this may come as much of a shock to you as it did in my state in 1998, but our State crime lab does not nor has it ever answered to a prosecutor, state, county or municipal. Again, this is not idle speculation, but statute. Organizationally and fiscally they are as completely independent now as they were in 1993 when you allege that they were guilty of the kind of conspiracy you have stated you believe them to be. > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > all-knowing supercops Brent, I am certain that nobody would mistake CSI for you. >able to detect the most microscopic traces of > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in a Brent, four years ago, under oath, you sounded like you were scared to death to even pick up a gun. Three years ago, I was told by no less than three individuals that you had, in fact, not only started carrying, but had actually shot your first deer, despite having told people you were not a hunter. Times change, but you do not. You are as untruthful today as you were five years ago. > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and forensic > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to live > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red flag > for specific forensic reforms. You are no more a forensic scientist than I am. Unconvinced? Call up UNH and ask. > When the prosecutions scientists aren't certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic experts at > all. So there is that added pressure. Do tell us of some of your professional experiences along those lines. It's not that I don't believe you, only that I'd like to check the facts for myself. > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. I checked your background out in 1998. You lied about your experience in a capital case in Texas. You lied about another capital case in Alabama. You lied about case experience in 1996 when you were, in fact, working for the Connecticut State Hospital Association. You see, Brent, I used to live and work in Connecticut. It wasn't a huge deal for me to check. I called people I used to work with and asked. In the capital case in Texas you claimed you helped win a 'sentence reduction'. The guy was still sentenced to death and his death sentence had never been reversed or overturned at the time. In the Alabama case your work had never been presented to a jury or a judge. When I checked on the Sitka case, the police chief at the time didn't even remember your name, that was in 1998. When I prompted him, he finally remembered a fifteen minute phone call. That was the sum of your 'investigative experience'. You claimed to have 'solved' the case in Stockton, but Detective Rick Ragsdale told a very different version. You had not provided any written or verbal product at the time of the arrest, an arrest of a serial criminal as a consequence of a crimestoppers tip when somebody recognized the vehicle of the perp, which you had nothing to do with. The final question of your morality was solved two years ago when you abandoned your wife and moved in with the engaged daughter of a client who you were professionally obliged. Your criticisms of anybody else on ethical grounds are hollow and lack merit. Your duplicity where Stan Eliason and George Baggen are concerned could hardly have been any worse. Your abuse of your standing as a "sworn investigative witness" (see your testimony in Kupaza) in threatening Stan Eliason speaks to your lack of fitness to ever be a sworn officer. I can't imagine any agency being so lacking in judgement as to ever again trust you with a badge, a gun or worse, allow you to testify as a sworn member of their institution. > That's a big problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are out, > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions or > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but the > new sheriff came in, Courts in California seem to have admitted your testimony. All things considered I don't see a larger risk than that where a county sheriff is concerned. At least not until you identify what area of forensic science it is you think you are qualified in. >fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch of > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. During Peter Kasler's tenure the Tehama County (California) Sheriff's Office fired career officers at your associate (Peter Kasler's) behest. Most won their lawsuits against the county or settled out of court for huge sums of money. Using your logic, they must have been right to do so and the sheriff and Kasler were wrong. Kasler eventually resigned, filed suit against Bill Lockyer, TCSO, Red Bluff Police Department, Tehama County Animal Control Officers and every other law enforcement agency in that county. Kasler was retained by John Heard, a patrolman, who was elected as a populist candidate because the voters felt that there were problems. Unfortunately Heard was incompetent where the administration of an organization that size was concerned and, despite his personal integrity, he was in over his head. He retained Kasler who, likewise, lacked a background in law enforcement not terribly unlike you. Kasler had a vendetta and a distrust of people in law enforcement which he manifested in his actions against career law enforcement officers at TCSO. When Heard lost his bid for re-election it was payback time with a vengeance. That's really how it worked. Kasler got what he had coming. He lied under oath and under color of authority, just like you did, and it caught up with him. He alleged that an entire department of law enforcement conspired against him, just as you have in Alaska, and it caught up with him. > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization back in > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: Mara Leveritt alleged that Dr. Lee Colwell had offered you a job. I called Lee Colwell and asked him if you had, as you claimed, turned down or ever had been offered a job at the Criminal Justice Institute, part of the University of Arkansas system. Dr. Colwell called me back later that same evening and stated flatly that you were never offered a job, that he was sole hiring authority, and that there was not anything for you to have "turned down" or "lost interest in". He went on to say that the position was for that of a criminalist and that you lacked even the basic qualifications to meet that position. Mara Leveritt is a tireless opponent of the death penalty and in doing so has found a vehicle in books which she has authored, critical of the Arkansas State Crime Lab. Where I might otherwise be disposed to agree with her, her criticisms are wholly unmitigated by facts, in other words, she ignores things which disagree or dispute her views. In her most recent book, "Devil's Knot" she has been so bold as to make untruthful claims, offer corrections, and despite the passage of more than one year failed to address her gross distortions of the facts. It is, therefore, unsurprising that you should cite her as a reference. Whenever she would care to discuss her book, she can begin by citing the alibi witnesses I asked her about face to face more than one year ago and which she has since failed to name nor is any record found in the more than twelve volumes of case files I have. While you're at it, Brent, I've read in Kupaza that you are holding out that some former FBI profiler has helped you found the Academy of Behavioral Profiling. I don't recognize any of the names there and neither do any of the FBI agents I asked. Before I post the page number and graphic to that sworn testimony, would you care to share with all of us who that agent or former profiler was? Your friend., Shaun > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science> > I think more has to be done in terms of background checks. Not hiring > people because they are your friends or relatives or a friend of a friend, > etc. Get good quality people with a strong ethical and moral background to > do the right thing. > > > > Donna Brandelli > > Los Angeles County Sheriff > > Scientific Services > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Brent Turvey > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > John; [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 17:52:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5LLqboi022064 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:52:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Subject: [forens] fwd Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:51:15 +0100 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Lloyd Sender: John Lloyd Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross>, Brent Turvey writes >has emerged, and I've come to agree with many of my colleagues that >privatization is going to be part of the solution. > >I'd love to hear from other forensic scientists on this issue. And by that I >mean those of us who have testified in court. > >Brent Forensic science in the UK is becoming increasingly privatised. It is too early to draw conclusions on whether this has afforded any relief of the problems caused by flawed forensic science and flawed scientists. Miscarriages of justice take decades to emerge in our system. But the same problem afflicts the present arrangements as in the previous UK arrangement in which most forensic science was conducted in government laboratories (laboratories to which, in reality, only the police had access) or actual police laboratories. It is the old circumstance of who pays the piper, etc. Flawed evidence emerging, as it still does, from the laboratories is not necessarily a case of over-zealousness or deliberate bias. Indeed, it unusually is, although by no means rarely. Commonly, the bias is unintentional but inevitable, given the system. Because only one side, usually the police, is commissioning the forensic science work, only the police case and the police point of view is presented to the scientist. The scientist is able to evaluate his results only in this context. A suggested solution has been that forensic science should be conducted under the direct control of the courts. In my view this would worsen the situation. I cannot see that the courts would be receptive of scientific work that falsified that of the courts' appointees. The situation is to some degree relieved, so far as police evidence is concerned, when an alternative investigation and a second opinion is available to the defence. But this is usually beyond the means of the defendant, and is limited in effectiveness by the parsimony with which the work is supported by the body responsible for the funding in such cases in the UK. The funds available to the defence are usually an order of magnitude less than those applied by the prosecution. Appeals, based on the nonsense of 'new evidence' attract better support. Such evidence has always been there. It has simply been ignored or not realised because of the inadequacies of the system, which prevented an adequate investigation in the first place. - -- John Lloyd, West Midlands, UK To reply replace by -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBPvMtc4B3RQKOWL56EQKbfwCg8ANMBuIdC2fY0I60bHr817xt5ZsAn0u5 15SgpR6aIiBFHXsq0DwJG9jh =pjlD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 21 21:46:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5M1ks0F024576 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:46:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "chris breyer" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:46:11 -0700 Message-ID: <000501c33860$1145aa60$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4925.2800 In-Reply-To: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> 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 KJOHN LIVES!!! (And here, I'd been thinking that he'd been auto-deleted so many times that the deletions took on metaphysical proportions...) Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of KJohn39679@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:10 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Maybe it's because of the hemorrhage of fraudulent forensic science stories led by the FBI. [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] [EndPost by "chris breyer" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 02:02:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5N62fj7012443 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:02:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [205.165.118.125] X-Originating-Email: [lonniekendoll@hotmail.com] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:02:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2003 06:02:35.0446 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AE39D60:01C3394D] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Brent, check http://www.clpex.com/ and http://www.onin/fp.com for excellent information related to the murder trial of David Asbury which spawned the perjury trial of Officer Shirley McKie. Both individuals have been exonerated due to the work of Pat Werheim and David Grieve. Lonnette Kendoll >From: "Brent Turvey" >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >To: >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.42]) by >mc9-s3.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun >2003 23:31:26 -0700 >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by >mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun >2003 23:31:26 -0700 >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id >h5L6VOnB012751;Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:24 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 21 >Jun 2003 02:31:18 -0400 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 >02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ >Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> >References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> ><00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> ><00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> ><015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> ><018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 06:31:26.0311 (UTC) >FILETIME=[BDBD2770:01C337BE] > >Donna; > >I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. Was >it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see what's >publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was >accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? > >And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest >professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase >competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not to >mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these >problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal >their mistakes. > >Brent > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Donna Brandelli" >To: >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > Brent, > > > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the >time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent >cases, >I'm not familiar with all of them. > > > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police >woman's >prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard >police >identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim >and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement >personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all >the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and >education seriously. > > > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't >think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would >probably >get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law >enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, >misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the >money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement >to begin with. > > > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and >questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it >eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be >less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused >of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement >officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense >counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, >but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? >I don't know). > > > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I >promoted >and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, >there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to >that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. > > > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't >blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, >or >the innocence of the suspect. > > > > > > Donna; > > > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others >who > > will benefit from this exchange did. > > > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say >some > > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear >that > > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly >as > > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the >part > > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and >facts > > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of >evidence > > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > > investigation. > > > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help > > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for > > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be >run. > > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into > > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic >problem > > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in >the > > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in >how > > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is >an > > inescapable bias). > > > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few >unethical > > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic >supervisor, > > as is not uncommonly the case. > > > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. > > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note >that > > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in >the > > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of >malicious > > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples >include > > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of > > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with >Sofia > > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle >back >in > > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a >wrongful > > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More > > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime >Lab > > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And >then > > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime >laboratory > > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the > > review of 500 or more cases > > >(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crime > > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, >many > > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are >evidently > > quite poorly trained. > > > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments >for > > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police >scientists, > > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been > > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with >either > > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in > > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad > > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone >who > > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so >many > > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that >as > > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. > > > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in >a > > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and >forensic > > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to >live > > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red >flag > > for specific forensic reforms. > > > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who > > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to >fraudulent > > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). >But > > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated >on > > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the > > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic >experts >at > > all. So there is that added pressure. > > > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a >big > > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are >out, > > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions >or > > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but >the > > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch >of > > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization >back >in > > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > > > 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 > > ----- Original Message ----- > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 13:54:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NHsxhN027116 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <03e701c339b0$871da480$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:54:42 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lonnette; Thanks for the links. I've accumolated quite a few at this point. So from what I gather, fingerprint experts for the state still claim the print is a match? If they do, then that's when it changes from being an error to being a fraud. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lonnette Kendoll To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, check http://www.clpex.com/ and http://www.onin/fp.com for > excellent information related to the murder trial of David Asbury which > spawned the perjury trial of Officer Shirley McKie. Both individuals have > been exonerated due to the work of Pat Werheim and David Grieve. > > > Lonnette Kendoll > > >From: "Brent Turvey" > >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >To: > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.42]) by > >mc9-s3.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by > >mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by > >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id > >h5L6VOnB012751;Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:24 -0400 (EDT) > >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 21 > >Jun 2003 02:31:18 -0400 > >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 > >02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) > >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ > >Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> > >References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> > ><00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> > ><00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > ><015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> > ><018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > >X-Priority: 3 > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 06:31:26.0311 (UTC) > >FILETIME=[BDBD2770:01C337BE] > > > >Donna; > > > >I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. Was > >it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see what's > >publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was > >accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? > > > >And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest > >professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase > >competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not to > >mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these > >problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal > >their mistakes. > > > >Brent > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Donna Brandelli" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the > >time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent > >cases, > >I'm not familiar with all of them. > > > > > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police > >woman's > >prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard > >police > >identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim > >and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > > > > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement > >personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all > >the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and > >education seriously. > > > > > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't > >think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would > >probably > >get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law > >enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, > >misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the > >money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement > >to begin with. > > > > > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and > >questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it > >eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > > > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be > >less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused > >of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > > > > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement > >officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense > >counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, > >but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? > >I don't know). > > > > > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I > >promoted > >and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, > >there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to > >that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. > > > > > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't > >blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, > >or > >the innocence of the suspect. > > > > > > > > > Donna; > > > > > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > > > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others > >who > > > will benefit from this exchange did. > > > > > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say > >some > > > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear > >that > > > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly > >as > > > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the > >part > > > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and > >facts > > > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of > >evidence > > > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > > > investigation. > > > > > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help > > > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for > > > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > > > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be > >run. > > > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into > > > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic > >problem > > > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in > >the > > > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in > >how > > > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is > >an > > > inescapable bias). > > > > > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few > >unethical > > > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > > > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic > >supervisor, > > > as is not uncommonly the case. > > > > > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. > > > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note > >that > > > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in > >the > > > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of > >malicious > > > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples > >include > > > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of > > > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with > >Sofia > > > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle > >back > >in > > > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a > >wrongful > > > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > > > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More > > > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime > >Lab > > > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > > > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And > >then > > > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime > >laboratory > > > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the > > > review of 500 or more cases > > > > >(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crim e > > > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, > >many > > > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are > >evidently > > > quite poorly trained. > > > > > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > > > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments > >for > > > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > > > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > > > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police > >scientists, > > > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been > > > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > > > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > > > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with > >either > > > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in > > > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad > > > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone > >who > > > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so > >many > > > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that > >as > > > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. > > > > > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > > > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > > > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > > > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in > >a > > > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and > >forensic > > > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to > >live > > > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red > >flag > > > for specific forensic reforms. > > > > > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who > > > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to > >fraudulent > > > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). > >But > > > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated > >on > > > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the > > > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > > > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic > >experts > >at > > > all. So there is that added pressure. > > > > > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a > >big > > > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > > > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are > >out, > > > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions > >or > > > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but > >the > > > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch > >of > > > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > > > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > > > > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization > >back > >in > > > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > > > > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > > > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > > > > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > > > > > 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 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 14:10:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NIAUED027878 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <63340-220036123181023930@M2W027.mail2web.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Originating-IP: 67.75.134.48 X-URL: http://mail2web.com/ From: "fmed@mindspring.com" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:10:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2003 18:10:23.0931 (UTC) FILETIME=[B755A0B0:01C339B2] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h5NIATRf027873 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 Iineed to know some additional details about this case? Original Message: ----------------- From: Brent Turvey bturvey@corpus-delicti.com Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:54:42 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Lonnette; Thanks for the links. I've accumolated quite a few at this point. So from what I gather, fingerprint experts for the state still claim the print is a match? If they do, then that's when it changes from being an error to being a fraud. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lonnette Kendoll To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, check http://www.clpex.com/ and http://www.onin/fp.com for > excellent information related to the murder trial of David Asbury which > spawned the perjury trial of Officer Shirley McKie. Both individuals have > been exonerated due to the work of Pat Werheim and David Grieve. > > > Lonnette Kendoll > > >From: "Brent Turvey" > >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >To: > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.42]) by > >mc9-s3.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by > >mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by > >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id > >h5L6VOnB012751;Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:24 -0400 (EDT) > >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 21 > >Jun 2003 02:31:18 -0400 > >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 > >02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) > >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ > >Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> > >References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> > ><00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> > ><00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > ><015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> > ><018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > >X-Priority: 3 > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 06:31:26.0311 (UTC) > >FILETIME=[BDBD2770:01C337BE] > > > >Donna; > > > >I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. Was > >it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see what's > >publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was > >accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? > > > >And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest > >professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase > >competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not to > >mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these > >problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal > >their mistakes. > > > >Brent > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Donna Brandelli" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the > >time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent > >cases, > >I'm not familiar with all of them. > > > > > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police > >woman's > >prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard > >police > >identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim > >and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > > > > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement > >personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all > >the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and > >education seriously. > > > > > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't > >think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would > >probably > >get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law > >enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, > >misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the > >money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement > >to begin with. > > > > > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and > >questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it > >eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > > > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be > >less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused > >of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > > > > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement > >officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense > >counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, > >but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? > >I don't know). > > > > > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I > >promoted > >and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, > >there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to > >that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. > > > > > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't > >blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, > >or > >the innocence of the suspect. > > > > > > > > > Donna; > > > > > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > > > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others > >who > > > will benefit from this exchange did. > > > > > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say > >some > > > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear > >that > > > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly > >as > > > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the > >part > > > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and > >facts > > > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of > >evidence > > > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > > > investigation. > > > > > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help > > > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for > > > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > > > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be > >run. > > > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into > > > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic > >problem > > > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in > >the > > > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in > >how > > > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is > >an > > > inescapable bias). > > > > > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few > >unethical > > > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > > > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic > >supervisor, > > > as is not uncommonly the case. > > > > > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. > > > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note > >that > > > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in > >the > > > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of > >malicious > > > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples > >include > > > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of > > > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with > >Sofia > > > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle > >back > >in > > > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a > >wrongful > > > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > > > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More > > > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime > >Lab > > > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > > > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And > >then > > > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime > >laboratory > > > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the > > > review of 500 or more cases > > > > >(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crim e > > > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, > >many > > > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are > >evidently > > > quite poorly trained. > > > > > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > > > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments > >for > > > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > > > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > > > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police > >scientists, > > > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been > > > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > > > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > > > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with > >either > > > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in > > > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad > > > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone > >who > > > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so > >many > > > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that > >as > > > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. > > > > > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > > > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > > > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > > > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in > >a > > > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and > >forensic > > > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to > >live > > > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red > >flag > > > for specific forensic reforms. > > > > > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who > > > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to > >fraudulent > > > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). > >But > > > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated > >on > > > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the > > > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > > > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic > >experts > >at > > > all. So there is that added pressure. > > > > > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a > >big > > > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > > > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are > >out, > > > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions > >or > > > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but > >the > > > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch > >of > > > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > > > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > > > > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization > >back > >in > > > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > > > > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > > > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > > > > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > > > > > 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 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "fmed@mindspring.com" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 16:00:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NK0uHI000729 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:00:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:00:23 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: fmed@mindspring.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12E983E41916010-01-01 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 h5NK0uHJ000729 The links have quite a bit of info, if you dig a bit, but at lest one is given wrong; onin needs the /fp moved out of the middle to the end, try: http://www.onin.com/fp/problemidents.html or if that doesn't open http://www.onin.com/fp . I had a little trouble with the other until I knocked the / off the end http://www.clpex.com . There is quite a bit of discussion of both bad Ids in the case in the discussion area of Ed German's Onin sight, so don't just stop with the base info. Look at the discussion about the matter, there are comments from quite a number of well qualified examiners on the error and update notes from the family and at least one member of parliament and so a wide cross-section. Jim >>> fmed@mindspring.com 06/23/03 11:10AM >>> Iineed to know some additional details about this case? Original Message: ----------------- From: Brent Turvey bturvey@corpus-delicti.com Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:54:42 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Lonnette; Thanks for the links. I've accumolated quite a few at this point. So from what I gather, fingerprint experts for the state still claim the print is a match? If they do, then that's when it changes from being an error to being a fraud. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lonnette Kendoll To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, check http://www.clpex.com/ and http://www.onin/fp.com for > excellent information related to the murder trial of David Asbury which > spawned the perjury trial of Officer Shirley McKie. Both individuals have > been exonerated due to the work of Pat Werheim and David Grieve. > > > Lonnette Kendoll > > >From: "Brent Turvey" > >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >To: > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.42]) by > >mc9-s3.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by > >mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by > >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id > >h5L6VOnB012751;Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:24 -0400 (EDT) > >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 21 > >Jun 2003 02:31:18 -0400 > >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 > >02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) > >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ > >Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> > >References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> > ><00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> > ><00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > ><015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> > ><018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > >X-Priority: 3 > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 06:31:26.0311 (UTC) > >FILETIME=[BDBD2770:01C337BE] > > > >Donna; > > > >I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. Was > >it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see what's > >publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was > >accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? > > > >And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest > >professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase > >competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not to > >mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these > >problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal > >their mistakes. > > > >Brent > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Donna Brandelli" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the > >time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent > >cases, > >I'm not familiar with all of them. > > > > > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police > >woman's > >prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard > >police > >identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim > >and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > > > > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement > >personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all > >the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and > >education seriously. > > > > > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't > >think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would > >probably > >get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law > >enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, > >misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the > >money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement > >to begin with. > > > > > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and > >questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it > >eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > > > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be > >less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused > >of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > > > > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement > >officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense > >counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, > >but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? > >I don't know). > > > > > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I > >promoted > >and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, > >there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to > >that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. > > > > > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't > >blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, > >or > >the innocence of the suspect. > > > > > > > > > Donna; > > > > > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > > > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others > >who > > > will benefit from this exchange did. > > > > > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say > >some > > > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear > >that > > > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly > >as > > > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the > >part > > > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and > >facts > > > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of > >evidence > > > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > > > investigation. > > > > > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help > > > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for > > > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > > > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be > >run. > > > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into > > > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic > >problem > > > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in > >the > > > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in > >how > > > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is > >an > > > inescapable bias). > > > > > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few > >unethical > > > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > > > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic > >supervisor, > > > as is not uncommonly the case. > > > > > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. > > > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note > >that > > > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in > >the > > > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of > >malicious > > > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples > >include > > > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of > > > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with > >Sofia > > > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle > >back > >in > > > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a > >wrongful > > > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > > > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More > > > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime > >Lab > > > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > > > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And > >then > > > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime > >laboratory > > > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the > > > review of 500 or more cases > > > > >(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crim e > > > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, > >many > > > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are > >evidently > > > quite poorly trained. > > > > > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > > > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments > >for > > > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > > > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > > > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police > >scientists, > > > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been > > > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > > > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > > > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with > >either > > > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in > > > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad > > > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone > >who > > > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so > >many > > > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that > >as > > > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. > > > > > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > > > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > > > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > > > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in > >a > > > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and > >forensic > > > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to > >live > > > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red > >flag > > > for specific forensic reforms. > > > > > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who > > > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to > >fraudulent > > > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). > >But > > > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated > >on > > > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the > > > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > > > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic > >experts > >at > > > all. So there is that added pressure. > > > > > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a > >big > > > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > > > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are > >out, > > > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions > >or > > > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but > >the > > > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch > >of > > > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > > > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > > > > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization > >back > >in > > > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > > > > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > > > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > > > > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > > > > > 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 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "fmed@mindspring.com" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 16:01:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NK119Y000750 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:01:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:00:23 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: fmed@mindspring.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12E983E41916021-01-01 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 h5NK119Z000750 The links have quite a bit of info, if you dig a bit, but at lest one is given wrong; onin needs the /fp moved out of the middle to the end, try: http://www.onin.com/fp/problemidents.html or if that doesn't open http://www.onin.com/fp . I had a little trouble with the other until I knocked the / off the end http://www.clpex.com . There is quite a bit of discussion of both bad Ids in the case in the discussion area of Ed German's Onin sight, so don't just stop with the base info. Look at the discussion about the matter, there are comments from quite a number of well qualified examiners on the error and update notes from the family and at least one member of parliament and so a wide cross-section. Jim >>> fmed@mindspring.com 06/23/03 11:10AM >>> Iineed to know some additional details about this case? Original Message: ----------------- From: Brent Turvey bturvey@corpus-delicti.com Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:54:42 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Lonnette; Thanks for the links. I've accumolated quite a few at this point. So from what I gather, fingerprint experts for the state still claim the print is a match? If they do, then that's when it changes from being an error to being a fraud. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lonnette Kendoll To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > Brent, check http://www.clpex.com/ and http://www.onin/fp.com for > excellent information related to the murder trial of David Asbury which > spawned the perjury trial of Officer Shirley McKie. Both individuals have > been exonerated due to the work of Pat Werheim and David Grieve. > > > Lonnette Kendoll > > >From: "Brent Turvey" > >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >To: > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.42]) by > >mc9-s3.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by > >mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 Jun > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by > >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id > >h5L6VOnB012751;Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:24 -0400 (EDT) > >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 21 > >Jun 2003 02:31:18 -0400 > >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 > >02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) > >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ > >Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> > >References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> > ><00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> > ><00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > ><015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> > ><018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > >X-Priority: 3 > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 06:31:26.0311 (UTC) > >FILETIME=[BDBD2770:01C337BE] > > > >Donna; > > > >I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. Was > >it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see what's > >publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was > >accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? > > > >And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest > >professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase > >competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not to > >mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these > >problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal > >their mistakes. > > > >Brent > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Donna Brandelli" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take the > >time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent > >cases, > >I'm not familiar with all of them. > > > > > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police > >woman's > >prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard > >police > >identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat Wertheim > >and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > > > > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement > >personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while all > >the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and > >education seriously. > > > > > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still don't > >think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would > >probably > >get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large law > >enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, > >misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for the > >money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law enforcement > >to begin with. > > > > > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" and > >questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, but it > >eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > > > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and be > >less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been accused > >of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > > > > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law enforcement > >officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense > >counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the defense, > >but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive strike? > >I don't know). > > > > > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I > >promoted > >and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To me, > >there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree to > >that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in jail. > > > > > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I can't > >blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor preparation, > >or > >the innocence of the suspect. > > > > > > > > > Donna; > > > > > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > > > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure others > >who > > > will benefit from this exchange did. > > > > > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I say > >some > > > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's clear > >that > > > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are exactly > >as > > > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the > >part > > > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context and > >facts > > > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of > >evidence > > > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > > > investigation. > > > > > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and help > > > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common for > > > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role of > > > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will be > >run. > > > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, into > > > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic > >problem > > > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand in > >the > > > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training in > >how > > > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not there is > >an > > > inescapable bias). > > > > > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few > >unethical > > > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > > > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic > >supervisor, > > > as is not uncommonly the case. > > > > > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this point. > > > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. Note > >that > > > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not in > >the > > > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of > >malicious > > > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples > >include > > > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia Division of > > > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with > >Sofia > > > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle > >back > >in > > > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a > >wrongful > > > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > > > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). More > > > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police Crime > >Lab > > > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > > > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). And > >then > > > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime > >laboratory > > > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing the > > > review of 500 or more cases > > > > >(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crim e > > > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, > >many > > > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are > >evidently > > > quite poorly trained. > > > > > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with forensic > > > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best arguments > >for > > > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > > > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between law > > > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police > >scientists, > > > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've been > > > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > > > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > > > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with > >either > > > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested in > > > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching bad > > > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not everyone > >who > > > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so > >many > > > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) that > >as > > > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just suspect. > > > > > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > > > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > > > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, interview > > > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the case in > >a > > > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and > >forensic > > > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected to > >live > > > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a red > >flag > > > for specific forensic reforms. > > > > > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts who > > > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to > >fraudulent > > > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not always). > >But > > > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud perpetrated > >on > > > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; the > > > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > > > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic > >experts > >at > > > all. So there is that added pressure. > > > > > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. That's a > >big > > > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a new > > > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies are > >out, > > > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal convictions > >or > > > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, but > >the > > > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a bunch > >of > > > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and misconduct. > > > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > > > > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization > >back > >in > > > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > > > > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > > > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > > > > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > > > > > 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 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . [EndPost by "fmed@mindspring.com" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 18:35:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NMZMS1004026 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:35:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <26.3b546458.2c28da98@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:35:04 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 6/19/2003 5:52:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, bturvey@corpus-delicti.com writes: > bturvey@corpus-delicti.com Brent Where is this archive of forensic fraud? Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jun 23 19:25:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NNPuSD004924 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001401c339de$c6027a80$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <26.3b546458.2c28da98@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:25:37 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Fred; It was actually updated today and can be found at: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives.html Hope this helps, 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Fraud > In a message dated 6/19/2003 5:52:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bturvey@corpus-delicti.com writes: > > > > bturvey@corpus-delicti.com > > Brent > Where is this archive of forensic fraud? > 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 Tue Jun 24 03:20:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5O7KQKh011497 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:20:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [205.165.118.125] X-Originating-Email: [lonniekendoll@hotmail.com] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:20:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 07:20:19.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[118D98D0:01C33A21] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To all, I apologize for the incorrect links (dyslexic thinking/typing so early in the morning)! Jim, thank you for pointing everyone in the right direction. Brent, you would be correct. The latent prints in this case have been compared by some of the most renowned latent print examiners from around the world. (See Ed German’s website at onin.com). All agree that the latent prints used to convict Mr. Asbury of murder and later cause Officer McKie to be arrested and charged with perjury do not match the inked prints of either person. To date, the SCRO had adamantly denied any wrongdoing, staunchly support their officers and the identifications made in this case and have basically said that latent print examinations and the resulting conclusions are a matter of opinion; therefore the rest of the world is entitled to their opinion and they are entitled to theirs. Lonnie >From: "James Roberts" >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >To: fmed@mindspring.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:00:23 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc2-f28.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.35]) by >mc2-s9.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 23 Jun >2003 13:01:24 -0700 >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by >mc2-f28.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 23 >Jun 2003 13:01:20 -0700 >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id >h5NK1HIQ000811;Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:01:17 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 23 >Jun 2003 16:00:56 -0400 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5NK0uHI000729for forens-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 >16:00:56 -0400 (EDT) >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ >X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe >Message-ID: >X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 >X-WSS-ID: 12E983E41916010-01-01 >X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h5NK0uHJ000729 >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2003 20:01:20.0978 (UTC) >FILETIME=[373E6320:01C339C2] > >The links have quite a bit of info, if you dig a bit, but at lest one is >given wrong; onin needs the /fp moved out of the middle to the end, try: >http://www.onin.com/fp/problemidents.html or if that doesn't open >http://www.onin.com/fp . I had a little trouble with the other until I >knocked the / off the end http://www.clpex.com . > >There is quite a bit of discussion of both bad Ids in the case in the >discussion area of Ed German's Onin sight, so don't just stop with the base >info. Look at the discussion about the matter, there are comments from >quite a number of well qualified examiners on the error and update notes >from the family and at least one member of parliament and so a wide >cross-section. > >Jim > > > >>> fmed@mindspring.com 06/23/03 11:10AM >>> >Iineed to know some additional details about this case? > >Original Message: >----------------- >From: Brent Turvey bturvey@corpus-delicti.com >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:54:42 -0800 >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > >Lonnette; > >Thanks for the links. I've accumolated quite a few at this point. > >So from what I gather, fingerprint experts for the state still claim the >print is a match? If they do, then that's when it changes from being an >error to being a fraud. > >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 >----- Original Message ----- >From: Lonnette Kendoll >To: >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:02 PM >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > Brent, check http://www.clpex.com/ and http://www.onin/fp.com >for > > excellent information related to the murder trial of David Asbury which > > spawned the perjury trial of Officer Shirley McKie. Both individuals >have > > been exonerated due to the work of Pat Werheim and David Grieve. > > > > > > Lonnette Kendoll > > > > >From: "Brent Turvey" > > >Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > >To: > > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:29:27 -0800 > > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > >Received: from mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.42]) by > > >mc9-s3.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 >Jun > > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > > >Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by > > >mc9-f35.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 20 >Jun > > >2003 23:31:26 -0700 > > >Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by > > >sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id > > >h5L6VOnB012751;Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:31:24 -0400 (EDT) > > >Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, >21 > > >Jun 2003 02:31:18 -0400 > > >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > > >(8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5L6VH2u012718for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 > > >02:31:17 -0400 (EDT) > > >X-Message-Info: BVVQfv+dWoNGDvYIfOP2i6xEeqwdXnfJ > > >Message-ID: <008401c337be$7a3d7db0$6600a8c0@gross> > > >References: <16b.204e0fb7.2c23c70d@aol.com> > > ><00ba01c336f4$b5a69820$6600a8c0@gross> > > ><00a701c33735$a19385a0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > > ><015601c3375f$c13d80c0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> > > ><018401c337b3$baf79fd0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> > > >X-Priority: 3 > > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 > > >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > > >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > >Return-Path: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2003 06:31:26.0311 (UTC) > > >FILETIME=[BDBD2770:01C337BE] > > > > > >Donna; > > > > > >I've heard of the case but I wasn't aware that it involved any malice. >Was > > >it more than just an error? I'll look into it more closely and see >what's > > >publicly available. Was that the case where the fingerprint analyst was > > >accused of perjury and four others escaped prosecution for wrongdoing? > > > > > >And you are right - privatization will not curb the wholly dishonest > > >professionals. Though it is a start. As you said it will increase > > >competition and subsequently the quality of equipment and services. Not >to > > >mention the effect on the quality of education and training. As these > > >problems diminish, so will those who need to engage in fraud to conceal > > >their mistakes. > > > > > >Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Donna Brandelli" > > >To: > > >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:08 PM > > >Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > Thanks once again for sending on the links. I will make sure I take >the > > >time to read them. While I am familiar with some of the more recent > > >cases, > > >I'm not familiar with all of them. > > > > > > > > You might want to add the incident of Scotland yard where a police > > >woman's > > >prints were misidentified inside of a crime scene. The Scotland Yard > > >police > > >identification experts stood by their identification, while Pat >Wertheim > > >and others from the US, disagreed and presented the evidence in court. > > > > > > > > I know that most police labs employ solely sworn law enforcement > > >personnel. Our agency uses a mix in the CSI/fingerprint section, while >all > > >the criminalists are civilian. I am civilian and take my career and > > >education seriously. > > > > > > > > I do agree with you. There are some deceitful people. I still >don't > > >think that would change if you privatized a lab. I think you would > > >probably > > >get better technology and better paid employees, than you do in a large >law > > >enforcement agency. That alone may help deter missed identifications, > > >misidentifications, and some fraud, but not all people are in it for >the > > >money. Otherwise, they wouldn't necessarily be working in law >enforcement > > >to begin with. > > > > > > > > I'll be honest, I have paid the price for "going against the grain" >and > > >questioning supervisors in the past. Retalitation can be long lived, >but >it > > >eventually passes and someone newer and better comes along. > > > > I can see where those that aren't willing to question authority and >be > > >less politically correct, could run into trouble. I've never been >accused > > >of being politically correct, nor having no opinions about subjects. > > > > > > > > I have worked jointly with criminalists and a variety of law >enforcement > > >officers, as well as performing court ordered examinations for defense > > >counsel. People from our lab have been called to testify for the >defense, > > >but subsequently get subpoenaed by the prosecution (as a preventive >strike? > > >I don't know). > > > > > > > > I have worked with corrupt cops, but that was in patrol, before I > > >promoted > > >and transferred to the lab. They ended up in jail and/or fired. To >me, > > >there is no excuse for law enforcement to break the law. If they agree >to > > >that, then they are no better than the guys they are trying to put in >jail. > > > > > > > > If a case is lost, and I have done the best job I can do, then I >can't > > >blame myself. It was lost because of lack of evidence, poor >preparation, > > >or > > >the innocence of the suspect. > > > > > > > > > > > > Donna; > > > > > > > > Thanks for responding. I really appreciate that you took the time to > > > > respond. I read what you posted with great interest, as I'm sure >others > > >who > > > > will benefit from this exchange did. > > > > > > > > It's very true that some can make the whole profession look bad. I >say > > >some > > > > because I no longer regard it as few, as I used to. Though it's >clear > > >that > > > > the vast majority of those who examine evidence and testify are >exactly > > >as > > > > you have described yourself. And that is a good thing except for the > > >part > > > > about not having the time to visit scenes or know the full context >and > > >facts > > > > of a case - in a perfect world criminalists would follow a piece of > > >evidence > > > > from start to finish, realizing their greatest potential to an > > > > investigation. > > > > > > > > In a perfect world, criminalists would work all crime scenes and >help > > > > perform crime reconstructions in every case. Instead, it is common >for > > > > untrained or scarcely trained law enforcement to shoulder the role >of > > > > recognition, collection and even decisions regarding what tests will >be > > >run. > > > > It is further common for law enforcement to venture, often blindly, >into > > > > reconstruction issues. This is part of what I regard as a systemic > > >problem > > > > in forensic sciences - law enforcement often have too great a hand >in > > >the > > > > ultimate reconstruction of the crime, and often too little training >in > > >how > > > > to do it responsibly (aside from the question of whether or not >there >is > > >an > > > > inescapable bias). > > > > > > > > Regardless, the problem for forensic scientists is that even a few > > >unethical > > > > or criminal ones cannot exist without the complicity of others. This > > > > presents a particular difficulty if one of the few is a forensic > > >supervisor, > > > > as is not uncommonly the case. > > > > > > > > And we are not even talking about the issue of competence at this >point. > > > > Lots of miscarraiges occur owing to ignorance and poor training. >Note > > >that > > > > there are many cases of forensic incompetence / errors that are not >in > > >the > > > > Fraud Archives because the problems weren't necessarily born of > > >malicious > > > > bias or self interest, just ignorance and poor training. Examples > > >include > > > > forensic scientists like Robin G. McLaughlin of the Virginia >Division >of > > > > Forensic Science Crime Lab, who erroneously linked fibers found with > > >Sofia > > > > Lisk's body to fibers taken during a search of the suspect's vehicle > > >back > > >in > > > > 1997, resulting in a wrongful arrest that could have resulted in a > > >wrongful > > > > conviction if not for retesting by the FBI lab > > > > (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05292001/288205). >More > > > > recent examples include the shoddy work done at the Houston Police >Crime > > >Lab > > > > by forensic scientists Christi Y. Kim and Joseph H. Chu > > > > (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/crimelab/1952128). >And > > >then > > > > there is Ranae Houtz, the forensic scientist at the state crime > > >laboratory > > > > in Bethlehem, PA whose errors just publicized yesterday are causing >the > > > > review of 500 or more cases > > > > > > > >(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/trib/20030620/lo_mcall/crim >e > > > > labworkerserrorscouldaffectcases). These are just a few of the many, > > >many > > > > examples of unintentional mistakes by forensic scientists who are > > >evidently > > > > quite poorly trained. > > > > > > > > Wisely, I think you identified one of the great problems with >forensic > > > > scientists at the state police crime labs, and one of the best >arguments > > >for > > > > privatization - the development of personal relationships with law > > > > enforcement. That is to say, the partnership the can develop between >law > > > > enforcement and some state crime lab scientists. We need police > > >scientists, > > > > no doubt; they have a very important role to serve. But, as I've >been > > > > criticized for saying in the past, we also need objective forensic > > > > scientists who are not suffering from the very human, and often > > > > indiscernable, pressures that a permanent personal relationship with > > >either > > > > side of the adverserial process can bear. We need those interested >in > > > > objective examination and findings, not those interested in catching >bad > > > > guys, testifying in court and educating the trier of fact. Not >everyone > > >who > > > > works in a state crime lab suffers from bias, but so many do (and so > > >many > > > > crime labs are too heavily swayed by the wants of the prosecution) >that > > >as > > > > you say, their work makes the good ones look bad or even just >suspect. > > > > > > > > As you remind us, on TV, forensic scientists are being painted as > > > > all-knowing supercops able to detect the most microscopic traces of > > > > evidence, reconstruct the crime without absolute certainty, >interview > > > > suspects, carry guns and shields, kick down doors, and solve the >case >in > > >a > > > > single episode. In the court-room, enough forensic scientists and > > >forensic > > > > experts are playing to (or trying to live up to, or being expected >to > > >live > > > > up to) this fiction, that it is no longer cause for pause. It is a >red > > >flag > > > > for specific forensic reforms. > > > > > > > > I agree that private or not there will be certain forensic experts >who > > > > fraudulently acquire expert status or testify intentionally to > > >fraudulent > > > > finding, sometimes with the stamp of state approval (but not >always). > > >But > > > > note that most of the cases we are seeing do involve fraud >perpetrated > > >on > > > > behalf of the prosecution. The defense only has to introduce doubt; >the > > > > prosecution must be certain. When the prosecutions scientists aren't > > > > certain, they shop for private experts or they don't use forensic > > >experts > > >at > > > > all. So there is that added pressure. > > > > > > > > I also like what you said about nepotism and background checks. >That's >a > > >big > > > > problem, especially in sheriff's departments where the election of a >new > > > > sheriff, who may run the crime lab, means that all of his enemies >are > > >out, > > > > and all of his supporters are in (qualified or not, criminal >convictions > > >or > > > > not). This happened recently somewhere and I can't remember where, >but > > >the > > > > new sheriff came in, fired the crime lab director, and rehired a >bunch > > >of > > > > police officers who had been fired previously for crimes and >misconduct. > > > > Scary. That is, of course, an exreme example. > > > > > > > > At any rate, I recall this same debate about crime lab privatization > > >back > > >in > > > > 1998, memorialized by Mara Leveritt of the Arkansas Times: > > > > > > > > "Ethics debate at the crime lab" > > > > http://www.arktimes.com/041798leveritt.htm > > > > > > > > I wonder where we all fall down on the issue today. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] > > > > >[EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . > > > >[EndPost by "fmed@mindspring.com" ] > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by "James Roberts" ] > _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus [EndPost by "Lonnette Kendoll" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 25 03:48:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5P7m8Yn008131 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ca01c33aed$e6067970$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: [forens] Warning of more fingerprint errors Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:46:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Warning of more fingerprint errors RAYMOND DUNCAN http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/24-6-19103-0-6-56.html SUPPORTERS of a police officer wrongly accused of leaving her fingerprints at a murder scene yesterday claimed the same miscarriage of justice could happen again. Campaigners yesterday presented fresh doubts over the work of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) in the case of Shirley McKie. The former Strathclyde detective is still fighting for compensation after being tried for perjury after she denied visiting the murder scene. At a press conference in Edinburgh, a leading independent fingerprint expert said the McKie case was now being cited in the US court system. Allan Bayle said he had been asked to explain the background by a Philadelphia judge in a murder trial. He said the judge had raised the McKie case to indicate that fingerprint evidence was fallible. Mr Bayle said: "It's like a cancer and if it gets any worse no one will accept any evidence from Scotland." Ms McKie was accused of perjury after what was claimed to be her thumbprint was found at a murder scene in Ayrshire in February 1997, although she denied ever having been there. She stood trial but was acquitted after experts from America gave evidence that the print was not hers. However, while the case was supposed to lead to wholesale reform of Scotland's fingerprint system, the SCRO has refused to acknowledge the fingerprints were wrongly identified. Supporters of Ms McKie said there was evidence from the UK and the US showing the fingerprint claimed by the SCRO to be Ms McKie's left thumb print was from a finger or thumb of a right hand. They also maintained that if the prosecution had acted on information given to them in August 1997 by Colin Espie, professor in clinical psychology at Glasgow University, indicating Ms McKie was not lying, the case would never have reached court. They argued it would have cast doubt on the decision to prosecute and imprison David Asbury for the murder of Marion Ross. He was jailed in 1997 but freed on appeal after fingerprint evidence against him was found to be unreliable. Professor Espie said Strathclyde police ignored his report and had received the briefest of replies when he raised it with then justice minister, Jim Wallace, last year. A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said the fingerprint bureau had undergone a "detailed, rigorous and thorough independent review" by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary in 2000 which made 25 recommendations and 20 suggestions, including a change in the methodology used by the bureau. "A review inspection carried out this year has confirmed that progress continues to be made," said the spokesman. - June 24th [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 26 14:20:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5QIKhfv021753 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:19:38 -0500 From: Mike West Subject: [forens] cutting edge forensics To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Content-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 all, I'm not a member of the forensic community, but a producer with Bill Kurtis Productions, the creators of the program "Cold Case Files" on the A&E network. I'm currently researching a special documentary program on the very latest in forensic science, and where the state of the art will be in 5, 10, or 20 years. For example, I've read than in the Baton Rouge rape case, forensic DNA was used to identify the race of the suspect. I'm particularly interested in this use of DNA, not just as a "fingerprint" that's mute on personal characteristics, but rather as a tool that could help give investigators an idea of whether the suspect is likely to be big or small, white or black, thin or fat, prone to various diseases, etc... I'd like to hear from any listserv members who have information or contacts about this aspect of forensic DNA, or about any other forensic fields that could be considered the wave of the future. Thank you! -- Mike West Producer Kurtis Productions voice: 312-242-6153 fax: 312-951-8251 [EndPost by Mike West ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 26 14:21:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5QILrnS021810 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:20:57 -0500 From: Mike West Subject: [forens] cutting edge forensics 2 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Content-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 email is: mwest@kurtis.com Thanks! -- Mike West Producer Kurtis Productions voice: 312-242-6153 fax: 312-951-8251 [EndPost by Mike West ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 26 16:51:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5QKpx7w025706 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:51:59 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:51:45 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] cutting edge forensics To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 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 Mike, I shall fax you a recent article from "The Champion" magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and humbly submit you thread very carefully on this subject lest you unwittingly continue a lie. For $25, I would also be happy to send you a copy of my book: "Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab" which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. I would also suggest you contact Dr. William Shields: wms1@mailbox.syr.edu. Cheers, John Kelly (202) 328-0178 1832 Biltmore Street NW Apt 35 Washington, D.C. 20009 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/octet-stream --- [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 27 18:47:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5RMlKRZ026679 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:47:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:47:52 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000b01c33cfe$24187c10$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2003 22:47:04.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[0782ACB0:01C33CFE] Content-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, I never tried drapes but I can hem my pants and darn my socks; and I make a mean key lime pie! (my wife's recipe is easy to follow). :-) 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 Carol Define MD Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:06 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: E. J. Wagner Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on the list! Carol Define MD On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, E. J. Wagner wrote: > List- > I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. > Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar > forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by NYC > Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade > Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in > tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo > case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical > Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots > of others, and I'll bet you all can too. > > EJWagner > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > John; > > > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > > have > > been working to put together: > > > > FORENSIC FRAUD > > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > > demonstrable > > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and > > police > > experts have provided sworn 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. It is maintained > > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Brent > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > 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 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John Houde > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > >> My sparkling wit? > >> My biting social commentary? > >> My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? > >> Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) > >> J > >> ============ > >> > >> At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > >>> So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? > >>> Jim > >>> > >>>>>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> > >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? > >> > >> > >> [EndPost by John Houde ] > >> > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > > - - - - > See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, > mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 > > [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 28 00:39:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5S4d3ls003883 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:39:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdefine owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:39:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] No mail for days, just testing In-Reply-To: <000b01c33cfe$24187c10$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: References: <000b01c33cfe$24187c10$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> 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 Bob, you have to keep in mind what list you are on because now I know you are short and have a larger than average big toe. You don't do much cooking but sour/acidic foods appeal to you, and though you are happily married, your wife doesn't like the same things you do. Carol On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Robert Parsons wrote: > Well, I never tried drapes but I can hem my pants and darn my socks; and > I make a mean key lime pie! (my wife's recipe is easy to follow). > > :-) > > > 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 Carol Define MD > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:06 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Cc: E. J. Wagner > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > I would like to know who is the 'Martha Stewart' of this forensic > list...any takers, or any nominees? That would be a person who can do > EVERYTHING! Plus can they also bake a pie while they are making the > livingroom drapes? Hee, hee! Guess that would leave out the males on > the > list! > > Carol Define MD > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, E. J. Wagner wrote: > > > List- > > I found the archive of "forensic fraud" most instructive. > > Perhaps it would be useful to have a companion archive of stellar > > forensic achievment. It might begin with the exemplary work done by > NYC > > Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch and his staff on the World Trade > > Center. Going back a few years,it could include the impressive work in > > tox by Dr. Ed Briglia,of the Suffolk County Lab, in the Richie Angelo > > case.Also the contributions of Robert Golden, Chief Medical > > Investigator in Suffolk County, in the Swango case.I can think of lots > > of others, and I'll bet you all can too. > > > > EJWagner > > > > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 02:28 PM, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > > > John; > > > > > > You might get a kick out of the new archives that Craig Cooley and I > > > have > > > been working to put together: > > > > > > FORENSIC FRAUD > > > This is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or > > > demonstrable > > > forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic > and > > > police > > > experts have provided sworn 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. It is > maintained > > > solely for educational and informational purposes. > > > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > Brent > > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > > > 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 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: John Houde > > > To: > > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:37 AM > > > Subject: Re: [forens] No mail for days, just testing > > > > > > > > >> My sparkling wit? > > >> My biting social commentary? > > >> My guest hosting of the Tonight Show? > > >> Yeah, that's the ticket! :-) > > >> J > > >> ============ > > >> > > >> At 08:50 AM 6/19/03 -0700, you wrote: > > >>> So John, what makes you think they'd let you back in? > > >>> Jim > > >>> > > >>>>>> john@calicopress.com 06/19/03 08:43AM >>> > > >>> The group is so quiet--or do I need to re-apply? > > >> > > >> > > >> [EndPost by John Houde ] > > >> > > > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > > > > > - - - - > > See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, > > mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 > > > > [EndPost by "E. J. Wagner" ] > > > > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] > > [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] > [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 28 20:09:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5T09KdF022231 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004601c33dd2$77e2bac0$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 16:07:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Members; This is an expert who testified for the prosecution and helped to achieve the conviction of Peter Kupaza. She was the only expert whose evidence connected Peter Kupaza to the crime in any fashion. In that case, she testified that her dog, Eagle, made a positive hit on the defendant's vehicle for decomposing biological material. However, a luminol test failed to react positively to anything in the vehicle. The forensic scientists who worked at the state crime lab testified for defense. As we all know, Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. If you get a positive reaction using Luminol, then there might have been blood in that area. Further testing is required to make a conclusive determination. If you get a negative result using Luminol, then the possibility that blood was there is almost eliminated. This "expert" testified that her dogs nose is more sensitive than a Luminol test. However, as Jerry Chisum reminded me, Luminol can detect the stale traces of material left behind years previsouly, even if extensive cleaning efforts have been made. For a dog to detect any scent, it must be airborn. For more details about her involvement in the Kupaza case, see: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/turvey_cases.html Sandra Anderson has been added to the Forensic Fraud archives at: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html Brent Posted on Sat, Jun. 28, 2003 Expert accused of faking evidence But Wayne County officials believe murder conviction will stand http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/local/6191133.htm By Kymberli Hagelberg Beacon Journal staff writer A forensic expert who played a key role in convicting a former Seville resident of murder has been charged in Michigan with faking evidence, but local officials think their conviction will stand. Sandra Anderson, 43, of Midland, Mich., was charged Monday in a Detroit federal court with lying to investigators and witness tamper- ing. The maximum penalty for the charges is 15 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Anderson, director of the Great Lakes Search and Rescue of Michigan K-9 Unit, is accused of planting human bones and carpet fibers that she later pretended to discover with her cadaver dog, Eagle. The charges allege wrongdoing on at least two occasions between October 2000 and April 2002. During that time, Anderson and Eagle also assisted the FBI and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department in identifying the spot in a Seville garage where John David Smith III stored the dismembered remains of his first wife, Janice Hartman of Doylestown. Wayne County Prosecutor Martin Frantz said similar allegations were leveled against Anderson soon after Smith's conviction and have been denied on appeal. He said the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. Smith, now 51, was convicted in 2001 of the 1974 murder. He is serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at the Trumbull Correctional Institution. He has acted as his own attorney for his appeals and for a $19 million civil suit he filed against Wayne County prosecutors, the sentencing judge and his defense attorneys. Smith argued in the suit that Anderson's dog was incapable of identifying 25-year-old remains. Anderson and Eagle have uncovered Civil War-era graves, remains in Bosnia and at the World Trade Center. The team was often acclaimed for its ability to discern human remains from other types of blood and biological material. Critics have challenged the pair's unique ability and have said Eagle had become too old to function well. Neither Anderson nor her attorneys would comment for a Detroit Free Press story on the charges. Akron defense attorney Kirk Migdal said Friday he objected to Anderson testifying in the Smith trial. Jurors were shown a videotape of her search. ``We questioned her qualifications and had no one to compare her to,'' Midgal said. ``You can read about her on the Internet, but who else does this kind of thing?'' It was not known Friday whether evidence provided by Anderson has been used in other homicides in the area. Frantz said he is confident the Michigan investigator's troubles won't shake Smith's conviction. ``The appeals court said there was enough compelling evidence to convict him even if you took Sandy Anderson out of the picture. ``His brother was the star witness,'' Frantz said. ``He saw Smith build the box shortly after Janice disappeared. He saw him cry and place her clothing in the box. ``Five years later, he opened the box and saw Janice in there. Then he called his brother and watched him drive off into the sunset with the box in his black Corvette.'' Smith moved to Indiana in 1979. Hartman's remains weren't identified until 2001. She was exhumed from a pauper's grave, also located in Indiana, on her birthday. [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 28 21:11:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5T1BaO6023506 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:11:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.urdirect.net: Host pm3a-38.satx.urdirect.net [216.136.28.117] claimed to be FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0 Message-ID: <000e01c33ddb$60b1c0e0$751c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: <004601c33dd2$77e2bac0$6600a8c0@gross> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:11:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Nice try Mr. T!!! You did not tell the whole story and tried to lead folks to think the only way that scumbag was convicted was due to some "expert" faked evidence in the case. 1st...calling Anderson an "expert" is a real stretch. She is a canine handler who has had notable success in the past. But I am not sure any canine handler can be classified as a "forensic expert" until the science behind canine cadaver detection gets more precise. 2nd...there was plenty of reason to think Kupaza killed his cousin, whether or not there was some "biological material" on his vehicle. I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that any defense attorney worth his salt could not have very easily explained away generic "biological material" on a car, and even more difficult to believe a jury would convict someone of murder on such scant evidence. Didn't Kupaza claim he had spoken to the girl's father in Tanzania and that the man had said his daughter was fine? But when investigators spoke to the man, he denied any such conversation with Kupaza. Why would Kupaza say he had spoken to the man unless he was trying to cover his crime? And wasn't there a canvas bag found near a river which had the girl's torso and that bag was identified as Kupaza's? And hadn't Kupaza raped the woman several years prior and then force her to an abortion clinic for an abortion? And didn't they find a collection of knives and scalpels in Kupaza's home? (The lady had been killed, dismembered, and the skin of her face peeled off, apparently to hamper any subsequent ID should her body be found) And didn't the investigators find blood behind a baseboard in Kupaza's home, and DNA testing showed it to be the victim's, and this was after the dog alerted in th ebathroom and on several items in the house, i.e. knives, scalpels, mop, etc? And didn't the appellate court find: State Crime Lab Blood Evidence ¶48. The bloodstain found behind the baseboard near the bathtub in Kupaza's bathroom is compelling evidence of guilt. The location of the bloodstain demonstrates that at one time there was a sufficient amount of Mwivano's blood on the wall of Kupaza's bathroom that it would run down between the wall and the baseboard. This evidence is both consistent with the grisly manner in which Mwivano's body was disarticulated and inconsistent with the explanation offered by Kupaza's attorney during closing arguments: that the bloodstain was the result of innocuous circumstances, such as Mwivano cutting her leg while shaving or from menstrual blood. And also find: Summary ¶73. As set forth above, apart from the dog-sniff evidence, the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence of Kupaza's guilt in the form of physical evidence linking Kupaza to the crime, Kupaza's own conflicting stories, and evidence showing that Kupaza lied about Mwivano's disappearance. The dog-sniff evidence, even if erroneously admitted, does not "undermine our confidence in the conviction." Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶50 Chalk up another one for the good guys despite the involvement of someone who was later found to have screwed up IN A DIFFERENT CASE!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:07 PM Subject: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Members; > > This is an expert who testified for the prosecution and helped to > achieve the conviction of Peter Kupaza. She was the only expert > whose evidence connected Peter Kupaza to the crime in any fashion. > In that case, she testified that her dog, Eagle, made a positive hit > on the defendant's vehicle for decomposing biological material. > However, a luminol test failed to react positively to anything in > the vehicle. The forensic scientists who worked at the state crime > lab testified for defense. > > As we all know, Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. If you get > a positive reaction using Luminol, then there might have been blood > in that area. Further testing is required to make a conclusive > determination. If you get a negative result using Luminol, then the > possibility that blood was there is almost eliminated. > > This "expert" testified that her dogs nose is more sensitive than a > Luminol test. However, as Jerry Chisum reminded me, Luminol can > detect the stale traces of material left behind years previsouly, > even if extensive cleaning efforts have been made. For a dog to > detect any scent, it must be airborn. > > For more details about her involvement in the Kupaza case, see: > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/turvey_cases.html > > Sandra Anderson has been added to the Forensic Fraud archives at: > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > Brent > > > > Posted on Sat, Jun. 28, 2003 > > Expert accused of faking evidence > But Wayne County officials believe murder conviction will stand > > http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/local/6191133.htm > By Kymberli Hagelberg > Beacon Journal staff writer > > A forensic expert who played a key role in convicting a former > Seville resident of murder has been charged in Michigan with faking > evidence, but local officials think their conviction will stand. > > Sandra Anderson, 43, of Midland, Mich., was charged Monday in a > Detroit federal court with lying to investigators and witness tamper- > ing. The maximum penalty for the charges is 15 years in prison and > a $500,000 fine. > > Anderson, director of the Great Lakes Search and Rescue of Michigan > K-9 Unit, is accused of planting human bones and carpet fibers that > she later pretended to discover with her cadaver dog, Eagle. > > The charges allege wrongdoing on at least two occasions between > October 2000 and April 2002. During that time, Anderson and Eagle > also assisted the FBI and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department in > identifying the spot in a Seville garage where John David Smith III > stored the dismembered remains of his first wife, Janice Hartman of > Doylestown. > > Wayne County Prosecutor Martin Frantz said similar allegations were > leveled against Anderson soon after Smith's conviction and have been > denied on appeal. He said the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to > hear the case. > > Smith, now 51, was convicted in 2001 of the 1974 murder. He is > serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at the Trumbull Correctional > Institution. He has acted as his own attorney for his appeals and > for a $19 million civil suit he filed against Wayne County > prosecutors, the sentencing judge and his defense attorneys. > > Smith argued in the suit that Anderson's dog was incapable of > identifying 25-year-old remains. > > Anderson and Eagle have uncovered Civil War-era graves, remains in > Bosnia and at the World Trade Center. The team was often acclaimed > for its ability to discern human remains from other types of blood > and biological material. Critics have challenged the pair's unique > ability and have said Eagle had become too old to function well. > > Neither Anderson nor her attorneys would comment for a Detroit Free > Press story on the charges. > > Akron defense attorney Kirk Migdal said Friday he objected to > Anderson testifying in the Smith trial. Jurors were shown a > videotape of her search. > > ``We questioned her qualifications and had no one to compare her > to,'' Midgal said. ``You can read about her on the Internet, but who > else does this kind of thing?'' > > It was not known Friday whether evidence provided by Anderson has > been used in other homicides in the area. > > Frantz said he is confident the Michigan investigator's troubles > won't shake Smith's conviction. > > ``The appeals court said there was enough compelling evidence to > convict him even if you took Sandy Anderson out of the picture. > > ``His brother was the star witness,'' Frantz said. ``He saw Smith > build the box shortly after Janice disappeared. He saw him cry and > place her clothing in the box. > > ``Five years later, he opened the box and saw Janice in there. Then > he called his brother and watched him drive off into the sunset with > the box in his black Corvette.'' > > Smith moved to Indiana in 1979. Hartman's remains weren't identified > until 2001. She was exhumed from a pauper's grave, also located in > Indiana, on her birthday. > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 02:55:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5T6twEM028798 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:55:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007701c33e0b$40aeb660$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <004601c33dd2$77e2bac0$6600a8c0@gross> <000e01c33ddb$60b1c0e0$751c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:54:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike; Thanks for responding. Having actually worked on the case, reviewed the evidence, and testified in court on the matter, I have a somewhat more informed perspective than what you've offered. Response below: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Wise" To: Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Nice try Mr. T!!! You did not tell the whole story and tried to lead folks > to think the only way that scumbag was convicted was due to some "expert" > faked evidence in the case. The state's case rested almost entirely on inference and innuendo, and tainted witness testimony from the victim's family, as far as I'm concerned. Though I make no statements as to Mr. Kupaza's guilt or innocence. I'll leave that to those who believe that it is their place to make such conclusions. It is not the role of a forensic expert. It is simply my view that the conviction would not have been obtained without the testimony of Ms. Anderson. Having been there, in the courtroom, that was pretty clear. And she did provide expert testimony in this case over numerous objections. > > 1st...calling Anderson an "expert" is a real stretch. She is a canine > handler who has had notable success in the past. But I am not sure any > canine handler can be classified as a "forensic expert" until the science > behind canine cadaver detection gets more precise. > That's something you would have to take up with the court. I agree, but the judge and the prosecutor in the Kupaza case, and others, would seem to disagree us both. > 2nd...there was plenty of reason to think Kupaza killed his cousin, whether > or not there was some "biological material" on his vehicle. I find it hard, > if not impossible, to believe that any defense attorney worth his salt could > not have very easily explained away generic "biological material" on a car, > and even more difficult to believe a jury would convict someone of murder on > such scant evidence. I cannot help what you would or would not believe. It happened. And convictions despite NO direct (or scant indirect) forensic evidence happen often enough that it suprises me anyone claims it doesn't. The cases are pretty abundant. Consider, for example, CA v. Mouser (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mouser.html). I've even worked cases where a jury has convicted a person of rape-homicide despite a DNA exclusion with sperm (Kansas v. Artis Cobb). Two such cases have gotten attention recently where prosecutors wouldn't let go despite DNA evidence; the central park jogger case and the Rolando Cruz case. So I guess I question the quality of your experience that you make such a bold set of indefensible claims. > > Didn't Kupaza claim he had spoken to the girl's father in Tanzania and that > the man had said his daughter was fine? But when investigators spoke to the > man, he denied any such conversation with Kupaza. Why would Kupaza say he > had spoken to the man unless he was trying to cover his crime? A version of events somewhat similar was claimed by the prosecution and by the family in Tanzania, I think. But even if we accept it as true, it's not evidence of involvement in a crime. And that's what my post was referring to - the evidence, not the circumstance. > > And wasn't there a canvas bag found near a river which had the girl's torso > and that bag was identified as Kupaza's? It's true that the prosecution claimed this. I'm not certain that this was established reliably in court. But, again, even if true it is not direct evidence of his involvement in a crime. The victim was living with Mr. Kupaza and could have taken these bags with her when she left. > > And hadn't Kupaza raped the woman several years prior and then force her to > an abortion clinic for an abortion? It is true that she had an abortion through planned parenthood. The exact circumstances of the pregnancy and the father of that child have not been established at all. It certainly has not been established that she was raped by Mr. Kupaza, or directed by him to get an abortion. That is an inference that was made by the prosecution. And that circumstance was not allowed into court as reliable evidence, as I recall. I can see that you are taking a lot of the prosecution's arguments and simply accepting them as undisputed fact. I have to wonder why that is. > > And didn't they find a collection of knives and scalpels in Kupaza's home? > (The lady had been killed, dismembered, and the skin of her face peeled off, > apparently to hamper any subsequent ID should her body be found) > They found steak knives and cutlery in his home and presented them in court. They certainly found no scalpels. It was not a "knife collection" any more than the knives you might have in your home in drawers around the house might be considered a "knife collection". In any case, they found no scalpels. It is not disputed that a scalpel is the most likely sharp force instrument used by the offender. The knives taken from Peter Kupaza's home were all examined by the state's forensic scientists, and carefully scrutinized for any biological material. They found none. I do not understand why the judge allowed them to be displayed in open court as though they were relatd to the crime, because everyone agreed that they weren't. > And didn't the investigators find blood behind a baseboard in Kupaza's home, > and DNA testing showed it to be the victim's, and this was after the dog > alerted in th ebathroom and on several items in the house, i.e. knives, > scalpels, mop, etc? > There were no scalpels in the home at all. That's a fabrication. There was a small drop of blood on the baseboard in the bathroom on the wall, next to the shower door and toilet. If the bathroom had been used for killing/ dismemberment, and cleaned, this obvious blood would not have been missed in that cleaning, and there would have been much more. And Luminol would have brought it all too light. In any case, that the dog alerted to anything is something you have to take Sandra Anderson's word for. And it seems her word is no good. In fact, we can now say that she is an affirmed liar for the prosecution. > And didn't the appellate court find: > State Crime Lab Blood Evidence > > ¶48. The bloodstain found behind the baseboard near the bathtub in Kupaza's > bathroom is compelling evidence of guilt. The location of the bloodstain > demonstrates that at one time there was a sufficient amount of Mwivano's > blood on the wall of Kupaza's bathroom that it would run down between the > wall and the baseboard. This evidence is both consistent with the grisly > manner in which Mwivano's body was disarticulated and inconsistent with the > explanation offered by Kupaza's attorney during closing arguments: that the > bloodstain was the result of innocuous circumstances, such as Mwivano > cutting her leg while shaving or from menstrual blood. This was argued by the prosecutor. The state crime lab personnel testified for the defense in this case. Nobody except the prosecutor argued that this was consistent with the manner in which Mwivano was killed. > > And also find: > > Summary > > ¶73. As set forth above, apart from the dog-sniff evidence, the prosecution > presented overwhelming evidence of Kupaza's guilt in the form of physical > evidence linking Kupaza to the crime, Kupaza's own conflicting stories, and > evidence showing that Kupaza lied about Mwivano's disappearance. The > dog-sniff evidence, even if erroneously admitted, does not "undermine our > confidence in the conviction." Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶50 Notice that the words overwheliming evidence are used in association with the dog. Not with anything else. I think we have a cause for reversal here. > > Chalk up another one for the good guys despite the involvement of someone > who was later found to have screwed up IN A DIFFERENT CASE!!! In two different case actually. And she didn't screw up. She planted evidence and lied about it. That's not a mistake. That's forensic fraud. I hope this helps others, as I get the feeling you've already made up your mind and decided who the good guys and the scum-bags are. Must be nice to be so omniscient. Brent Original post below: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:07 PM > Subject: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > Members; > > > > This is an expert who testified for the prosecution and helped to > > achieve the conviction of Peter Kupaza. She was the only expert > > whose evidence connected Peter Kupaza to the crime in any fashion. > > In that case, she testified that her dog, Eagle, made a positive hit > > on the defendant's vehicle for decomposing biological material. > > However, a luminol test failed to react positively to anything in > > the vehicle. The forensic scientists who worked at the state crime > > lab testified for defense. > > > > As we all know, Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. If you get > > a positive reaction using Luminol, then there might have been blood > > in that area. Further testing is required to make a conclusive > > determination. If you get a negative result using Luminol, then the > > possibility that blood was there is almost eliminated. > > > > This "expert" testified that her dogs nose is more sensitive than a > > Luminol test. However, as Jerry Chisum reminded me, Luminol can > > detect the stale traces of material left behind years previsouly, > > even if extensive cleaning efforts have been made. For a dog to > > detect any scent, it must be airborn. > > > > For more details about her involvement in the Kupaza case, see: > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/turvey_cases.html > > > > Sandra Anderson has been added to the Forensic Fraud archives at: > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > Posted on Sat, Jun. 28, 2003 > > > > Expert accused of faking evidence > > But Wayne County officials believe murder conviction will stand > > > > http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/local/6191133.htm > > By Kymberli Hagelberg > > Beacon Journal staff writer > > > > A forensic expert who played a key role in convicting a former > > Seville resident of murder has been charged in Michigan with faking > > evidence, but local officials think their conviction will stand. > > > > Sandra Anderson, 43, of Midland, Mich., was charged Monday in a > > Detroit federal court with lying to investigators and witness tamper- > > ing. The maximum penalty for the charges is 15 years in prison and > > a $500,000 fine. > > > > Anderson, director of the Great Lakes Search and Rescue of Michigan > > K-9 Unit, is accused of planting human bones and carpet fibers that > > she later pretended to discover with her cadaver dog, Eagle. > > > > The charges allege wrongdoing on at least two occasions between > > October 2000 and April 2002. During that time, Anderson and Eagle > > also assisted the FBI and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department in > > identifying the spot in a Seville garage where John David Smith III > > stored the dismembered remains of his first wife, Janice Hartman of > > Doylestown. > > > > Wayne County Prosecutor Martin Frantz said similar allegations were > > leveled against Anderson soon after Smith's conviction and have been > > denied on appeal. He said the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to > > hear the case. > > > > Smith, now 51, was convicted in 2001 of the 1974 murder. He is > > serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at the Trumbull Correctional > > Institution. He has acted as his own attorney for his appeals and > > for a $19 million civil suit he filed against Wayne County > > prosecutors, the sentencing judge and his defense attorneys. > > > > Smith argued in the suit that Anderson's dog was incapable of > > identifying 25-year-old remains. > > > > Anderson and Eagle have uncovered Civil War-era graves, remains in > > Bosnia and at the World Trade Center. The team was often acclaimed > > for its ability to discern human remains from other types of blood > > and biological material. Critics have challenged the pair's unique > > ability and have said Eagle had become too old to function well. > > > > Neither Anderson nor her attorneys would comment for a Detroit Free > > Press story on the charges. > > > > Akron defense attorney Kirk Migdal said Friday he objected to > > Anderson testifying in the Smith trial. Jurors were shown a > > videotape of her search. > > > > ``We questioned her qualifications and had no one to compare her > > to,'' Midgal said. ``You can read about her on the Internet, but who > > else does this kind of thing?'' > > > > It was not known Friday whether evidence provided by Anderson has > > been used in other homicides in the area. > > > > Frantz said he is confident the Michigan investigator's troubles > > won't shake Smith's conviction. > > > > ``The appeals court said there was enough compelling evidence to > > convict him even if you took Sandy Anderson out of the picture. > > > > ``His brother was the star witness,'' Frantz said. ``He saw Smith > > build the box shortly after Janice disappeared. He saw him cry and > > place her clothing in the box. > > > > ``Five years later, he opened the box and saw Janice in there. Then > > he called his brother and watched him drive off into the sunset with > > the box in his black Corvette.'' > > > > Smith moved to Indiana in 1979. Hartman's remains weren't identified > > until 2001. She was exhumed from a pauper's grave, also located in > > Indiana, on her birthday. > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 07:39:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5TBd07U003339 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:39:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.urdirect.net: Host pm3a-24.satx.urdirect.net [216.136.28.103] claimed to be FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0 Message-ID: <002601c33e33$06542d60$671c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: <004601c33dd2$77e2bac0$6600a8c0@gross> <000e01c33ddb$60b1c0e0$751c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> <007701c33e0b$40aeb660$6600a8c0@gross> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:38:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 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 Well let's see....should folks believe you (someone who has a clear reason to blur the truth) or an appellate court? http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2003/01-0790.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Mike; > > Thanks for responding. > > Having actually worked on the case, reviewed the evidence, and testified in > court on the matter, I have a somewhat more informed perspective than what > you've offered. > > Response below: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Wise" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:11 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > Nice try Mr. T!!! You did not tell the whole story and tried to lead > folks > > to think the only way that scumbag was convicted was due to some "expert" > > faked evidence in the case. > > The state's case rested almost entirely on inference and innuendo, and > tainted witness testimony from the victim's family, as far as I'm concerned. > > Though I make no statements as to Mr. Kupaza's guilt or innocence. I'll > leave that to those who believe that it is their place to make such > conclusions. It is not the role of a forensic expert. > > It is simply my view that the conviction would not have been obtained > without the testimony of Ms. Anderson. Having been there, in the courtroom, > that was pretty clear. And she did provide expert testimony in this case > over numerous objections. > > > > > 1st...calling Anderson an "expert" is a real stretch. She is a canine > > handler who has had notable success in the past. But I am not sure any > > canine handler can be classified as a "forensic expert" until the science > > behind canine cadaver detection gets more precise. > > > > That's something you would have to take up with the court. I agree, but the > judge and the prosecutor in the Kupaza case, and others, would seem to > disagree us both. > > > 2nd...there was plenty of reason to think Kupaza killed his cousin, > whether > > or not there was some "biological material" on his vehicle. I find it > hard, > > if not impossible, to believe that any defense attorney worth his salt > could > > not have very easily explained away generic "biological material" on a > car, > > and even more difficult to believe a jury would convict someone of murder > on > > such scant evidence. > > I cannot help what you would or would not believe. It happened. And > convictions despite NO direct (or scant indirect) forensic evidence happen > often enough that it suprises me anyone claims it doesn't. The cases are > pretty abundant. Consider, for example, CA v. Mouser > (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mouser.html). > > I've even worked cases where a jury has convicted a person of rape-homicide > despite a DNA exclusion with sperm (Kansas v. Artis Cobb). Two such cases > have gotten attention recently where prosecutors wouldn't let go despite DNA > evidence; the central park jogger case and the Rolando Cruz case. > > So I guess I question the quality of your experience that you make such a > bold set of indefensible claims. > > > > > Didn't Kupaza claim he had spoken to the girl's father in Tanzania and > that > > the man had said his daughter was fine? But when investigators spoke to > the > > man, he denied any such conversation with Kupaza. Why would Kupaza say he > > had spoken to the man unless he was trying to cover his crime? > > A version of events somewhat similar was claimed by the prosecution and by > the family in Tanzania, I think. But even if we accept it as true, it's not > evidence of involvement in a crime. And that's what my post was referring > to - the evidence, not the circumstance. > > > > > And wasn't there a canvas bag found near a river which had the girl's > torso > > and that bag was identified as Kupaza's? > > It's true that the prosecution claimed this. I'm not certain that this was > established reliably in court. But, again, even if true it is not direct > evidence of his involvement in a crime. The victim was living with Mr. > Kupaza and could have taken these bags with her when she left. > > > > > And hadn't Kupaza raped the woman several years prior and then force her > to > > an abortion clinic for an abortion? > > It is true that she had an abortion through planned parenthood. The exact > circumstances of the pregnancy and the father of that child have not been > established at all. It certainly has not been established that she was raped > by Mr. Kupaza, or directed by him to get an abortion. That is an inference > that was made by the prosecution. And that circumstance was not allowed into > court as reliable evidence, as I recall. > > I can see that you are taking a lot of the prosecution's arguments and > simply accepting them as undisputed fact. I have to wonder why that is. > > > > > And didn't they find a collection of knives and scalpels in Kupaza's home? > > (The lady had been killed, dismembered, and the skin of her face peeled > off, > > apparently to hamper any subsequent ID should her body be found) > > > > They found steak knives and cutlery in his home and presented them in court. > They certainly found no scalpels. It was not a "knife collection" any more > than the knives you might have in your home in drawers around the house > might be considered a "knife collection". In any case, they found no > scalpels. It is not disputed that a scalpel is the most likely sharp force > instrument used by the offender. The knives taken from Peter Kupaza's home > were all examined by the state's forensic scientists, and carefully > scrutinized for any biological material. They found none. > > I do not understand why the judge allowed them to be displayed in open court > as though they were relatd to the crime, because everyone agreed that they > weren't. > > > > And didn't the investigators find blood behind a baseboard in Kupaza's > home, > > and DNA testing showed it to be the victim's, and this was after the dog > > alerted in th ebathroom and on several items in the house, i.e. knives, > > scalpels, mop, etc? > > > > There were no scalpels in the home at all. That's a fabrication. > > There was a small drop of blood on the baseboard in the bathroom on the > wall, next to the shower door and toilet. If the bathroom had been used for > killing/ dismemberment, and cleaned, this obvious blood would not have been > missed in that cleaning, and there would have been much more. And Luminol > would have brought it all too light. > > In any case, that the dog alerted to anything is something you have to take > Sandra Anderson's word for. And it seems her word is no good. In fact, we > can now say that she is an affirmed liar for the prosecution. > > > > And didn't the appellate court find: > > State Crime Lab Blood Evidence > > > > ¶48. The bloodstain found behind the baseboard near the bathtub in > Kupaza's > > bathroom is compelling evidence of guilt. The location of the bloodstain > > demonstrates that at one time there was a sufficient amount of Mwivano's > > blood on the wall of Kupaza's bathroom that it would run down between the > > wall and the baseboard. This evidence is both consistent with the grisly > > manner in which Mwivano's body was disarticulated and inconsistent with > the > > explanation offered by Kupaza's attorney during closing arguments: that > the > > bloodstain was the result of innocuous circumstances, such as Mwivano > > cutting her leg while shaving or from menstrual blood. > > This was argued by the prosecutor. The state crime lab personnel testified > for the defense in this case. Nobody except the prosecutor argued that this > was consistent with the manner in which Mwivano was killed. > > > > > And also find: > > > > Summary > > > > ¶73. As set forth above, apart from the dog-sniff evidence, the > prosecution > > presented overwhelming evidence of Kupaza's guilt in the form of physical > > evidence linking Kupaza to the crime, Kupaza's own conflicting stories, > and > > evidence showing that Kupaza lied about Mwivano's disappearance. The > > dog-sniff evidence, even if erroneously admitted, does not "undermine our > > confidence in the conviction." Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶50 > > Notice that the words overwheliming evidence are used in association with > the dog. Not with anything else. I think we have a cause for reversal here. > > > > > Chalk up another one for the good guys despite the involvement of someone > > who was later found to have screwed up IN A DIFFERENT CASE!!! > > In two different case actually. And she didn't screw up. She planted > evidence and lied about it. That's not a mistake. That's forensic fraud. > > I hope this helps others, as I get the feeling you've already made up your > mind and decided who the good guys and the scum-bags are. Must be nice to be > so omniscient. > > Brent > > Original post below: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brent Turvey" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:07 PM > > Subject: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > > > > Members; > > > > > > This is an expert who testified for the prosecution and helped to > > > achieve the conviction of Peter Kupaza. She was the only expert > > > whose evidence connected Peter Kupaza to the crime in any fashion. > > > In that case, she testified that her dog, Eagle, made a positive hit > > > on the defendant's vehicle for decomposing biological material. > > > However, a luminol test failed to react positively to anything in > > > the vehicle. The forensic scientists who worked at the state crime > > > lab testified for defense. > > > > > > As we all know, Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. If you get > > > a positive reaction using Luminol, then there might have been blood > > > in that area. Further testing is required to make a conclusive > > > determination. If you get a negative result using Luminol, then the > > > possibility that blood was there is almost eliminated. > > > > > > This "expert" testified that her dogs nose is more sensitive than a > > > Luminol test. However, as Jerry Chisum reminded me, Luminol can > > > detect the stale traces of material left behind years previsouly, > > > even if extensive cleaning efforts have been made. For a dog to > > > detect any scent, it must be airborn. > > > > > > For more details about her involvement in the Kupaza case, see: > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/turvey_cases.html > > > > > > Sandra Anderson has been added to the Forensic Fraud archives at: > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > Posted on Sat, Jun. 28, 2003 > > > > > > Expert accused of faking evidence > > > But Wayne County officials believe murder conviction will stand > > > > > > http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/local/6191133.htm > > > By Kymberli Hagelberg > > > Beacon Journal staff writer > > > > > > A forensic expert who played a key role in convicting a former > > > Seville resident of murder has been charged in Michigan with faking > > > evidence, but local officials think their conviction will stand. > > > > > > Sandra Anderson, 43, of Midland, Mich., was charged Monday in a > > > Detroit federal court with lying to investigators and witness tamper- > > > ing. The maximum penalty for the charges is 15 years in prison and > > > a $500,000 fine. > > > > > > Anderson, director of the Great Lakes Search and Rescue of Michigan > > > K-9 Unit, is accused of planting human bones and carpet fibers that > > > she later pretended to discover with her cadaver dog, Eagle. > > > > > > The charges allege wrongdoing on at least two occasions between > > > October 2000 and April 2002. During that time, Anderson and Eagle > > > also assisted the FBI and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department in > > > identifying the spot in a Seville garage where John David Smith III > > > stored the dismembered remains of his first wife, Janice Hartman of > > > Doylestown. > > > > > > Wayne County Prosecutor Martin Frantz said similar allegations were > > > leveled against Anderson soon after Smith's conviction and have been > > > denied on appeal. He said the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to > > > hear the case. > > > > > > Smith, now 51, was convicted in 2001 of the 1974 murder. He is > > > serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at the Trumbull Correctional > > > Institution. He has acted as his own attorney for his appeals and > > > for a $19 million civil suit he filed against Wayne County > > > prosecutors, the sentencing judge and his defense attorneys. > > > > > > Smith argued in the suit that Anderson's dog was incapable of > > > identifying 25-year-old remains. > > > > > > Anderson and Eagle have uncovered Civil War-era graves, remains in > > > Bosnia and at the World Trade Center. The team was often acclaimed > > > for its ability to discern human remains from other types of blood > > > and biological material. Critics have challenged the pair's unique > > > ability and have said Eagle had become too old to function well. > > > > > > Neither Anderson nor her attorneys would comment for a Detroit Free > > > Press story on the charges. > > > > > > Akron defense attorney Kirk Migdal said Friday he objected to > > > Anderson testifying in the Smith trial. Jurors were shown a > > > videotape of her search. > > > > > > ``We questioned her qualifications and had no one to compare her > > > to,'' Midgal said. ``You can read about her on the Internet, but who > > > else does this kind of thing?'' > > > > > > It was not known Friday whether evidence provided by Anderson has > > > been used in other homicides in the area. > > > > > > Frantz said he is confident the Michigan investigator's troubles > > > won't shake Smith's conviction. > > > > > > ``The appeals court said there was enough compelling evidence to > > > convict him even if you took Sandy Anderson out of the picture. > > > > > > ``His brother was the star witness,'' Frantz said. ``He saw Smith > > > build the box shortly after Janice disappeared. He saw him cry and > > > place her clothing in the box. > > > > > > ``Five years later, he opened the box and saw Janice in there. Then > > > he called his brother and watched him drive off into the sunset with > > > the box in his black Corvette.'' > > > > > > Smith moved to Indiana in 1979. Hartman's remains weren't identified > > > until 2001. She was exhumed from a pauper's grave, also located in > > > Indiana, on her birthday. > > > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > > > > > > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 08:54:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5TCso0c004979 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20030629125649.00bd4cc0@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:56:49 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h5TCsoRf004974 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 was a small drop of blood on the baseboard in the bathroom on the >wall, next to the shower door and toilet. If the bathroom had been used for >killing/ dismemberment, and cleaned, this obvious blood would not have been >missed in that cleaning, and there would have been much more. And Luminol >would have brought it all too light. Brent; But the blood was not found ON the baseboard it was found BETWEEN the baseboard and the wall - in other words behind the baseboard and out of sight; Quote from http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2003/01-0790.htm; [...] ¶6. After questioning Kupaza, police arrested him and searched his Pleasant View Road apartment. In the bathroom, police discovered a quarter-inch bloodstain between the wall and the baseboard about two feet from the bathtub. In order to discover the blood, police had to remove the baseboard from the wall. It appeared that the blood "had run down between the crack[] between the baseboard and wall." DNA evidence from the bloodstain matched a DNA sample from Mwivano's body. [...] Can you quote the evidence that the police found it ON the baseboard? Marilyn (non-forensic person) [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 14:55:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5TItDNe010564 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001b01c33e6f$bf0f9fb0$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <004601c33dd2$77e2bac0$6600a8c0@gross> <000e01c33ddb$60b1c0e0$751c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> <007701c33e0b$40aeb660$6600a8c0@gross> <002601c33e33$06542d60$671c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:53:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike; I have a link to that decision on my site. I encourage that it should be read along with everything in the case, along with my report which is also available. I'm not sure where the facts of my report are disputed. Rather the opinions and conclusions drawn from those facts, which are only disputed by the prosecutor. You seem to be confusing fatcs and opinions to the advantage of your argument. When you have already decided the "truth", that's an easy mistake to make. At any rate, Kupaza has just gone to the supreme court in Wisconsin (a month ago). It sometimes takes that long before certain kinds of problems are addressed. I have confidence that when the connection between Kupaza and Sandra Anderson comes to light, there will be a strong response by the court, whether at the state level or the federal habeus level. As for your assertion that I have a reason to blur the truth, I'm not sure what that might be. I have already testified to my opinions in open court. Even the prosecution's own evidenciary expert, the medical examiner, gave the same opinions that I did regarding offender motive and skill. And the state's forensic scientists all agreed with my testimony regarding the negative link of physical evidence between Kupaza and the crime. The only person who disagreed with my opinions was the prosecutor. That's the person who has a motive to blur the truth - in order to secure a conviction and achieve advancement. But then you're in law enforcement so you already know what I'm talking about. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Wise" To: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Well let's see....should folks believe you (someone who has a clear reason > to blur the truth) or an appellate court? > > http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2003/01-0790.htm > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:54 AM > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > Mike; > > > > Thanks for responding. > > > > Having actually worked on the case, reviewed the evidence, and testified > in > > court on the matter, I have a somewhat more informed perspective than what > > you've offered. > > > > Response below: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Wise" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > > > > Nice try Mr. T!!! You did not tell the whole story and tried to lead > > folks > > > to think the only way that scumbag was convicted was due to some > "expert" > > > faked evidence in the case. > > > > The state's case rested almost entirely on inference and innuendo, and > > tainted witness testimony from the victim's family, as far as I'm > concerned. > > > > Though I make no statements as to Mr. Kupaza's guilt or innocence. I'll > > leave that to those who believe that it is their place to make such > > conclusions. It is not the role of a forensic expert. > > > > It is simply my view that the conviction would not have been obtained > > without the testimony of Ms. Anderson. Having been there, in the > courtroom, > > that was pretty clear. And she did provide expert testimony in this case > > over numerous objections. > > > > > > > > 1st...calling Anderson an "expert" is a real stretch. She is a canine > > > handler who has had notable success in the past. But I am not sure any > > > canine handler can be classified as a "forensic expert" until the > science > > > behind canine cadaver detection gets more precise. > > > > > > > That's something you would have to take up with the court. I agree, but > the > > judge and the prosecutor in the Kupaza case, and others, would seem to > > disagree us both. > > > > > 2nd...there was plenty of reason to think Kupaza killed his cousin, > > whether > > > or not there was some "biological material" on his vehicle. I find it > > hard, > > > if not impossible, to believe that any defense attorney worth his salt > > could > > > not have very easily explained away generic "biological material" on a > > car, > > > and even more difficult to believe a jury would convict someone of > murder > > on > > > such scant evidence. > > > > I cannot help what you would or would not believe. It happened. And > > convictions despite NO direct (or scant indirect) forensic evidence happen > > often enough that it suprises me anyone claims it doesn't. The cases are > > pretty abundant. Consider, for example, CA v. Mouser > > (http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mouser.html). > > > > I've even worked cases where a jury has convicted a person of > rape-homicide > > despite a DNA exclusion with sperm (Kansas v. Artis Cobb). Two such cases > > have gotten attention recently where prosecutors wouldn't let go despite > DNA > > evidence; the central park jogger case and the Rolando Cruz case. > > > > So I guess I question the quality of your experience that you make such a > > bold set of indefensible claims. > > > > > > > > Didn't Kupaza claim he had spoken to the girl's father in Tanzania and > > that > > > the man had said his daughter was fine? But when investigators spoke to > > the > > > man, he denied any such conversation with Kupaza. Why would Kupaza say > he > > > had spoken to the man unless he was trying to cover his crime? > > > > A version of events somewhat similar was claimed by the prosecution and by > > the family in Tanzania, I think. But even if we accept it as true, it's > not > > evidence of involvement in a crime. And that's what my post was referring > > to - the evidence, not the circumstance. > > > > > > > > And wasn't there a canvas bag found near a river which had the girl's > > torso > > > and that bag was identified as Kupaza's? > > > > It's true that the prosecution claimed this. I'm not certain that this was > > established reliably in court. But, again, even if true it is not direct > > evidence of his involvement in a crime. The victim was living with Mr. > > Kupaza and could have taken these bags with her when she left. > > > > > > > > And hadn't Kupaza raped the woman several years prior and then force her > > to > > > an abortion clinic for an abortion? > > > > It is true that she had an abortion through planned parenthood. The exact > > circumstances of the pregnancy and the father of that child have not been > > established at all. It certainly has not been established that she was > raped > > by Mr. Kupaza, or directed by him to get an abortion. That is an inference > > that was made by the prosecution. And that circumstance was not allowed > into > > court as reliable evidence, as I recall. > > > > I can see that you are taking a lot of the prosecution's arguments and > > simply accepting them as undisputed fact. I have to wonder why that is. > > > > > > > > And didn't they find a collection of knives and scalpels in Kupaza's > home? > > > (The lady had been killed, dismembered, and the skin of her face peeled > > off, > > > apparently to hamper any subsequent ID should her body be found) > > > > > > > They found steak knives and cutlery in his home and presented them in > court. > > They certainly found no scalpels. It was not a "knife collection" any more > > than the knives you might have in your home in drawers around the house > > might be considered a "knife collection". In any case, they found no > > scalpels. It is not disputed that a scalpel is the most likely sharp force > > instrument used by the offender. The knives taken from Peter Kupaza's home > > were all examined by the state's forensic scientists, and carefully > > scrutinized for any biological material. They found none. > > > > I do not understand why the judge allowed them to be displayed in open > court > > as though they were relatd to the crime, because everyone agreed that they > > weren't. > > > > > > > And didn't the investigators find blood behind a baseboard in Kupaza's > > home, > > > and DNA testing showed it to be the victim's, and this was after the dog > > > alerted in th ebathroom and on several items in the house, i.e. knives, > > > scalpels, mop, etc? > > > > > > > There were no scalpels in the home at all. That's a fabrication. > > > > There was a small drop of blood on the baseboard in the bathroom on the > > wall, next to the shower door and toilet. If the bathroom had been used > for > > killing/ dismemberment, and cleaned, this obvious blood would not have > been > > missed in that cleaning, and there would have been much more. And Luminol > > would have brought it all too light. > > > > In any case, that the dog alerted to anything is something you have to > take > > Sandra Anderson's word for. And it seems her word is no good. In fact, we > > can now say that she is an affirmed liar for the prosecution. > > > > > > > And didn't the appellate court find: > > > State Crime Lab Blood Evidence > > > > > > ¶48. The bloodstain found behind the baseboard near the bathtub in > > Kupaza's > > > bathroom is compelling evidence of guilt. The location of the bloodstain > > > demonstrates that at one time there was a sufficient amount of Mwivano's > > > blood on the wall of Kupaza's bathroom that it would run down between > the > > > wall and the baseboard. This evidence is both consistent with the grisly > > > manner in which Mwivano's body was disarticulated and inconsistent with > > the > > > explanation offered by Kupaza's attorney during closing arguments: that > > the > > > bloodstain was the result of innocuous circumstances, such as Mwivano > > > cutting her leg while shaving or from menstrual blood. > > > > This was argued by the prosecutor. The state crime lab personnel testified > > for the defense in this case. Nobody except the prosecutor argued that > this > > was consistent with the manner in which Mwivano was killed. > > > > > > > > And also find: > > > > > > Summary > > > > > > ¶73. As set forth above, apart from the dog-sniff evidence, the > > prosecution > > > presented overwhelming evidence of Kupaza's guilt in the form of > physical > > > evidence linking Kupaza to the crime, Kupaza's own conflicting stories, > > and > > > evidence showing that Kupaza lied about Mwivano's disappearance. The > > > dog-sniff evidence, even if erroneously admitted, does not "undermine > our > > > confidence in the conviction." Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99, ¶50 > > > > Notice that the words overwheliming evidence are used in association with > > the dog. Not with anything else. I think we have a cause for reversal > here. > > > > > > > > Chalk up another one for the good guys despite the involvement of > someone > > > who was later found to have screwed up IN A DIFFERENT CASE!!! > > > > In two different case actually. And she didn't screw up. She planted > > evidence and lied about it. That's not a mistake. That's forensic fraud. > > > > I hope this helps others, as I get the feeling you've already made up your > > mind and decided who the good guys and the scum-bags are. Must be nice to > be > > so omniscient. > > > > Brent > > > > Original post below: > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Brent Turvey" > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:07 PM > > > Subject: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > > > > > > > Members; > > > > > > > > This is an expert who testified for the prosecution and helped to > > > > achieve the conviction of Peter Kupaza. She was the only expert > > > > whose evidence connected Peter Kupaza to the crime in any fashion. > > > > In that case, she testified that her dog, Eagle, made a positive hit > > > > on the defendant's vehicle for decomposing biological material. > > > > However, a luminol test failed to react positively to anything in > > > > the vehicle. The forensic scientists who worked at the state crime > > > > lab testified for defense. > > > > > > > > As we all know, Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. If you get > > > > a positive reaction using Luminol, then there might have been blood > > > > in that area. Further testing is required to make a conclusive > > > > determination. If you get a negative result using Luminol, then the > > > > possibility that blood was there is almost eliminated. > > > > > > > > This "expert" testified that her dogs nose is more sensitive than a > > > > Luminol test. However, as Jerry Chisum reminded me, Luminol can > > > > detect the stale traces of material left behind years previsouly, > > > > even if extensive cleaning efforts have been made. For a dog to > > > > detect any scent, it must be airborn. > > > > > > > > For more details about her involvement in the Kupaza case, see: > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/turvey_cases.html > > > > > > > > Sandra Anderson has been added to the Forensic Fraud archives at: > > > > http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Posted on Sat, Jun. 28, 2003 > > > > > > > > Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > But Wayne County officials believe murder conviction will stand > > > > > > > > http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/local/6191133.htm > > > > By Kymberli Hagelberg > > > > Beacon Journal staff writer > > > > > > > > A forensic expert who played a key role in convicting a former > > > > Seville resident of murder has been charged in Michigan with faking > > > > evidence, but local officials think their conviction will stand. > > > > > > > > Sandra Anderson, 43, of Midland, Mich., was charged Monday in a > > > > Detroit federal court with lying to investigators and witness tamper- > > > > ing. The maximum penalty for the charges is 15 years in prison and > > > > a $500,000 fine. > > > > > > > > Anderson, director of the Great Lakes Search and Rescue of Michigan > > > > K-9 Unit, is accused of planting human bones and carpet fibers that > > > > she later pretended to discover with her cadaver dog, Eagle. > > > > > > > > The charges allege wrongdoing on at least two occasions between > > > > October 2000 and April 2002. During that time, Anderson and Eagle > > > > also assisted the FBI and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department in > > > > identifying the spot in a Seville garage where John David Smith III > > > > stored the dismembered remains of his first wife, Janice Hartman of > > > > Doylestown. > > > > > > > > Wayne County Prosecutor Martin Frantz said similar allegations were > > > > leveled against Anderson soon after Smith's conviction and have been > > > > denied on appeal. He said the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to > > > > hear the case. > > > > > > > > Smith, now 51, was convicted in 2001 of the 1974 murder. He is > > > > serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at the Trumbull Correctional > > > > Institution. He has acted as his own attorney for his appeals and > > > > for a $19 million civil suit he filed against Wayne County > > > > prosecutors, the sentencing judge and his defense attorneys. > > > > > > > > Smith argued in the suit that Anderson's dog was incapable of > > > > identifying 25-year-old remains. > > > > > > > > Anderson and Eagle have uncovered Civil War-era graves, remains in > > > > Bosnia and at the World Trade Center. The team was often acclaimed > > > > for its ability to discern human remains from other types of blood > > > > and biological material. Critics have challenged the pair's unique > > > > ability and have said Eagle had become too old to function well. > > > > > > > > Neither Anderson nor her attorneys would comment for a Detroit Free > > > > Press story on the charges. > > > > > > > > Akron defense attorney Kirk Migdal said Friday he objected to > > > > Anderson testifying in the Smith trial. Jurors were shown a > > > > videotape of her search. > > > > > > > > ``We questioned her qualifications and had no one to compare her > > > > to,'' Midgal said. ``You can read about her on the Internet, but who > > > > else does this kind of thing?'' > > > > > > > > It was not known Friday whether evidence provided by Anderson has > > > > been used in other homicides in the area. > > > > > > > > Frantz said he is confident the Michigan investigator's troubles > > > > won't shake Smith's conviction. > > > > > > > > ``The appeals court said there was enough compelling evidence to > > > > convict him even if you took Sandy Anderson out of the picture. > > > > > > > > ``His brother was the star witness,'' Frantz said. ``He saw Smith > > > > build the box shortly after Janice disappeared. He saw him cry and > > > > place her clothing in the box. > > > > > > > > ``Five years later, he opened the box and saw Janice in there. Then > > > > he called his brother and watched him drive off into the sunset with > > > > the box in his black Corvette.'' > > > > > > > > Smith moved to Indiana in 1979. Hartman's remains weren't identified > > > > until 2001. She was exhumed from a pauper's grave, also located in > > > > Indiana, on her birthday. > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 15:10:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5TJA1vP011153 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003801c33e71$d1e38000$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20030629125649.00bd4cc0@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:08:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 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 Marilyn; Thanks for responding. The photographs are fairly clear in showing how easily that small amount found could have gotten there during the course of regular activity related to the bathroom or specifically the shower. One drop hits the top and drips down behind the wall and baseboard. If there had been dismemberment activity in the bathroom, there would need to be a great deal more biological material evident. Cleaning, no matter how thorough, would not have hidden it. Note the absence of findings in the bathtub and elsewhere in the residence for that matter? And they looked pretty hard. One speck of dropped blood in a bathroom that you use daily does not a crime scene make. In this case, it makes a bathroom. You are of course free to disagree. Hope this helps, Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marilyn Harris" To: ; Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:56 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > >There was a small drop of blood on the baseboard in the bathroom on the > >wall, next to the shower door and toilet. If the bathroom had been used for > >killing/ dismemberment, and cleaned, this obvious blood would not have been > >missed in that cleaning, and there would have been much more. And Luminol > >would have brought it all too light. > > Brent; > > But the blood was not found ON the baseboard it was found BETWEEN the > baseboard and the wall - in other words behind the baseboard and out of sight; > > Quote from http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2003/01-0790.htm; > > [...] > > ¶6. After questioning Kupaza, police arrested him and searched his Pleasant > View Road apartment. In the bathroom, police discovered a quarter-inch > bloodstain between the wall and the baseboard about two feet from the > bathtub. In order to discover the blood, police had to remove the baseboard > from the wall. It appeared that the blood "had run down between the crack[] > between the baseboard and wall." DNA evidence from the bloodstain matched a > DNA sample from Mwivano's body. > > [...] > > Can you quote the evidence that the police found it ON the baseboard? > > Marilyn > (non-forensic person) > > > > > [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 20:07:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5U07oo5016041 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:09:45 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >material evident. Cleaning, no matter how thorough, would not have hidden >it. Note the absence of findings in the bathtub and elsewhere in the >residence for that matter? And they looked pretty hard. Brent; A few things; 1. You first wrote that there was a drop of blood ON the baseboard. Where did you get that evidence? 2. In order for blood to get between the baseboard and wall, the blood would have to have first splattered on the wall and then dripped down between. If so and no blood was found anywhere but between the wall and baseboard, then someone would have cleaned that area on the wall immediately above the baseboard so that the blood had become undetectable. 3. Could a cleanup with bleach make bloodstains undetectable? 4. Was luminol or a similar product used? >One speck of dropped blood in a bathroom that you use daily does not a crime >scene make. In this case, it makes a bathroom. If that were the only evidence I would agree. Marilyn [EndPost by Marilyn Harris ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 29 21:12:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5U1CfSG017739 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003901c33ea4$7b95cf40$6600a8c0@gross> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:11:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Marilyn; Thanks for writing back. Response below: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marilyn Harris" To: ; Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > >material evident. Cleaning, no matter how thorough, would not have hidden > >it. Note the absence of findings in the bathtub and elsewhere in the > >residence for that matter? And they looked pretty hard. > > Brent; > > A few things; > > 1. You first wrote that there was a drop of blood ON the baseboard. Where > did you get that evidence? My fault for not being clear. The spot of blood was found ON the back of the baseboard and in a corresonding spot on the wall. It is a very small amount of transfer. The evidence I have comes from the case file and the crime scene photos, including the police evidence logs. > 2. In order for blood to get between the baseboard and wall, the blood would > have to have first splattered on the wall and then dripped down between. Yes, but it wouldn't require much. Just a bit more that what leaked down through. And it could have been small enough to go unnoticed, or it could have been wiped away specifically after a transfer occured from normal, non-criminal activity. You wouldn't have to clean to the whole bathroom to have a desire to wipe away a little blood from a cut or a bloody nose or some other non-criminal bleeding. For me to give a court-worthy opinipon that the dismemberment had most likely occured in the bathroom, far more blood would have seeped down inbetween the baseboard than a drop, and in multiple places. If we had that, and not just one tiny spot, I'd be the first to agree that it was consistent with dismemberment activity having taken place there. But we don't. And despite the seductiveness of reductive reasoning to fit a sweet theory, we cannot interpret evidence that we do not have. In other words, show me proof that the bathroom was cleaned with those chemicals. No such proof was offered in court. This is not a technicality - it is crime scene investigation. The prosecution has the burden here and forensic experts are limited to testifying about the evidence collected and documentted from the scene. I cannot give firm opinions based on what the prosecution theorizes might have happened, though others seem to have no problem doing this. I think this is all too easily forotten in the race to arrest and prosecute. >If > so and no blood was found anywhere but between the wall and baseboard, then > someone would have cleaned that area on the wall immediately above the > baseboard so that the blood had become undetectable. > 3. Could a cleanup with bleach make bloodstains undetectable? If the right chemicals were used. See above. > 4. Was luminol or a similar product used? Luminol was used in the processing of this scene. > > >One speck of dropped blood in a bathroom that you use daily does not a crime > >scene make. In this case, it makes a bathroom. > > If that were the only evidence I would agree. That is the only physical evidence, other than the dog's nose as interpreted through Sandra Anderson. > > Marilyn > I have no desire to see a guilty person escape justice, or an innocent person suffer for crimes they did not commit. That's why my concern is that we should stick with what has been proven by the evidence when we reconstruct. The falsification step of the equation seems to be treated fairly casually here. When the prosecution presents a case, they must show what did happen, not what might have happened given the most favorable circumstances. Hope this helps, Brent [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 02:19:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5U6Jieo022761 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6C515CBE2D1FD6119E8900B0D0685C800110A39E@MAILSERVER> From: Gerard van der Peyl To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] cutting edge forensics Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:24:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned for virii by watson.holmes.nl Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mike, I understand that the use of DNA in forensics is very sexy but there are other fields that are very much on the move. Using both trace element patterns and/or variations in isotope ratio's (e.g., H, C, N, O, S, Pb) a wide range of forensic methods is now being developed. Two networks of interest are NITECRIME ( www.nitecrime.eu.com ) and FIRMS ( http://www.forensic-isotopes.rdg.ac.uk/conf/conf.htm ). Although both originally started as European initiatives, presently there is now a worldwide participation. At the large European Forensic Conference in Istanbul coming September ( http://www.eafs2003.org/ ), some of the results will be presented. A related subject is the large volume of forensic method development that has been done as part of the Adam investigation (torso of young boy found in the river Thames in London, UK, and originally thought to be victim of a Voodoo ritualistic murder). Using information from the new forensic techniques as mentioned above, it was found that the boy came from a particular part of south-west Nigeria ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2713927.stm ). Yours, Dr Gerard J.Q. van der Peijl, Forensic Scientist, Netherlands Forensic Institute of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, PO Box 3110, 2280 GC Rijswijk, The Netherlands tel +31 70 413 53 53 fax +31 70 413 54 54 e-mail: g.van.der.peyl@nfi.minjus.nl www.forensischinstituut.nl forensic liaison officer NITECRIME network -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Mike West [mailto:mwest@kurtis.com] Verzonden: donderdag 26 juni 2003 20:20 Aan: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Onderwerp: [forens] cutting edge forensics Hello all, I'm not a member of the forensic community, but a producer with Bill Kurtis Productions, the creators of the program "Cold Case Files" on the A&E network. I'm currently researching a special documentary program on the very latest in forensic science, and where the state of the art will be in 5, 10, or 20 years. For example, I've read than in the Baton Rouge rape case, forensic DNA was used to identify the race of the suspect. I'm particularly interested in this use of DNA, not just as a "fingerprint" that's mute on personal characteristics, but rather as a tool that could help give investigators an idea of whether the suspect is likely to be big or small, white or black, thin or fat, prone to various diseases, etc... I'd like to hear from any listserv members who have information or contacts about this aspect of forensic DNA, or about any other forensic fields that could be considered the wave of the future. Thank you! -- Mike West Producer Kurtis Productions voice: 312-242-6153 fax: 312-951-8251 [EndPost by Mike West ] [EndPost by Gerard van der Peyl ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 10:55:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UEt3fN003271 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001a01c33f17$df6bfda0$a6a9a818@nc.rr.com> From: "Janet Brashears" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> <003901c33ea4$7b95cf40$6600a8c0@gross> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:57:05 -0400 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 Brent: Can we please stop this back in forth? You obviously posted your email because your are advocating for this Peter T. Kupaza for a reason that has not been defined here...except perhaps a blatant attempt to promote your website and book perhaps? Or maybe you have some undefined vendetta against Sandra Anderson. Either way, those who have posted in response to you, including me, interpret your point of view to be persistently biased. I will not rehash what other respondents have written in rebuttal to your views, I am only asking that you allow people to read what has already been posted, view the links to the websites and draw their own conclusions. I think everyone here can agree that you have done a fine job of defending Pete Kupaza, for whatever reason. I also think this is a situation where those who see your point of view as valid and those who don't will have to agree to disagree so that we can all move on. Personally, I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks!! Lainey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Marilyn; > > Thanks for writing back. > > Response below: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marilyn Harris" > To: ; > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:09 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > >material evident. Cleaning, no matter how thorough, would not have hidden > > >it. Note the absence of findings in the bathtub and elsewhere in the > > >residence for that matter? And they looked pretty hard. > > > > Brent; > > > > A few things; > > > > 1. You first wrote that there was a drop of blood ON the baseboard. Where > > did you get that evidence? > > My fault for not being clear. The spot of blood was found ON the back of the > baseboard and in a corresonding spot on the wall. It is a very small amount > of transfer. The evidence I have comes from the case file and the crime > scene photos, including the police evidence logs. > > > 2. In order for blood to get between the baseboard and wall, the blood > would > > have to have first splattered on the wall and then dripped down between. > > Yes, but it wouldn't require much. Just a bit more that what leaked down > through. And it could have been small enough to go unnoticed, or it could > have been wiped away specifically after a transfer occured from normal, > non-criminal activity. You wouldn't have to clean to the whole bathroom to > have a desire to wipe away a little blood from a cut or a bloody nose or > some other non-criminal bleeding. > > For me to give a court-worthy opinipon that the dismemberment had most > likely occured in the bathroom, far more blood would have seeped down > inbetween the baseboard than a drop, and in multiple places. If we had that, > and not just one tiny spot, I'd be the first to agree that it was consistent > with dismemberment activity having taken place there. > > But we don't. > > And despite the seductiveness of reductive reasoning to fit a sweet theory, > we cannot interpret evidence that we do not have. In other words, show me > proof that the bathroom was cleaned with those chemicals. No such proof was > offered in court. This is not a technicality - it is crime scene > investigation. > > The prosecution has the burden here and forensic experts are limited to > testifying about the evidence collected and documentted from the scene. I > cannot give firm opinions based on what the prosecution theorizes might have > happened, though others seem to have no problem doing this. I think this is > all too easily forotten in the race to arrest and prosecute. > > >If > > so and no blood was found anywhere but between the wall and baseboard, > then > > someone would have cleaned that area on the wall immediately above the > > baseboard so that the blood had become undetectable. > > > 3. Could a cleanup with bleach make bloodstains undetectable? > > If the right chemicals were used. See above. > > > 4. Was luminol or a similar product used? > > Luminol was used in the processing of this scene. > > > > > >One speck of dropped blood in a bathroom that you use daily does not a > crime > > >scene make. In this case, it makes a bathroom. > > > > If that were the only evidence I would agree. > > That is the only physical evidence, other than the dog's nose as interpreted > through Sandra Anderson. > > > > > Marilyn > > > > I have no desire to see a guilty person escape justice, or an innocent > person suffer for crimes they did not commit. That's why my concern is that > we should stick with what has been proven by the evidence when we > reconstruct. The falsification step of the equation seems to be treated > fairly casually here. > > When the prosecution presents a case, they must show what did happen, not > what might have happened given the most favorable circumstances. > > Hope this helps, > > Brent > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] [EndPost by "Janet Brashears" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 11:26:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UFQRJs004331 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030630100624.0084bde0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:06:24 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence In-Reply-To: <001a01c33f17$df6bfda0$a6a9a818@nc.rr.com> References: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> <003901c33ea4$7b95cf40$6600a8c0@gross> 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 At 10:57 AM 6/30/03 -0400, Janet Brashears wrote: >Brent: > >Can we please stop this back in forth? [large snip...] >I also think this is a situation where >those who see your point of view as valid and those who don't will have to >agree to disagree so that we can all move on. Personally, I would certainly >appreciate it. I, for one, find this discussion very interesting and instructive, and I hope Brent will continue to present his opinions and the evidence which back them up. Best, Peter Nothnagle [EndPost by Peter Nothnagle ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 11:42:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UFgsK2004958 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000001c33f1e$3f98e7a0$cb3a570c@norman> From: "Susan Baird" To: Subject: [forens] RE: Working on a case... Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:39:08 -0400 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 h5UFgsK3004958 To the List, I'm working on a murder case in which Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic testified. In addition to blunt-force trauma, cocaine, alcohol, heart anomaly and positional asphyxia were contributory factors in this death. Is anyone aware of any similar cases in which Dr. Dragovic may have testified? Susan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Susan Baird" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 12:02:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UG2j9u005894 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004001c33f21$532af260$a6a9a818@nc.rr.com> From: "Janet Brashears" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> <003901c33ea4$7b95cf40$6600a8c0@gross> <3.0.6.32.20030630100624.0084bde0@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:04:45 -0400 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 aplogize for having offended anyone. Lainey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Nothnagle" To: Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > At 10:57 AM 6/30/03 -0400, Janet Brashears wrote: > >Brent: > > > >Can we please stop this back in forth? > > [large snip...] > > >I also think this is a situation where > >those who see your point of view as valid and those who don't will have to > >agree to disagree so that we can all move on. Personally, I would certainly > >appreciate it. > > I, for one, find this discussion very interesting and instructive, and I > hope Brent will continue to present his opinions and the evidence which > back them up. > > Best, > Peter Nothnagle > [EndPost by Peter Nothnagle ] [EndPost by "Janet Brashears" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 12:41:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UGfTko007589 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000001c33f26$6e87b340$a839570c@norman> From: "Susan Baird" To: Subject: [forens] Fw: Working on a case... Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:37:54 -0400 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 h5UGfTkp007589 ----- Original Message ----- From: Susan Baird To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 11:39 AM Subject: RE: Working on a case... To the List, I'm working on a murder case in which Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic testified. In addition to blunt-force trauma, cocaine, alcohol, heart anomaly and positional asphyxia were contributory factors in this death. Is anyone aware of any similar cases in which Dr. Dragovic may have testified? Susan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Susan Baird" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 16:57:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UKvta8015524 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000801c33f4a$3e59ace0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> <003901c33ea4$7b95cf40$6600a8c0@gross> <001a01c33f17$df6bfda0$a6a9a818@nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:38 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lainey; I appreciate your comments, however the back and forth has been solicited by others wanting to know more about my opinions on the case. I did not start this topic because of any desire to advocate for or against Peter Jupaza's guilt or innocence. I have no position on that matter. I have only a position regarding the evidence. If you recall, I started this topic because yet another accoladed forensic expert for the prosecution has been found to have falsified evidence and testimony. An expert that I have encountered in court before. That's something that we should all be concerned about. Having said that, you are right, others can draw their own conclusions. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Brashears To: Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Brent: > > Can we please stop this back in forth? You obviously posted your email > because your are advocating for this Peter T. Kupaza for a reason that has > not been defined here...except perhaps a blatant attempt to promote your > website and book perhaps? Or maybe you have some undefined vendetta against > Sandra Anderson. Either way, those who have posted in response to you, > including me, interpret your point of view to be persistently biased. > > I will not rehash what other respondents have written in rebuttal to your > views, I am only asking that you allow people to read what has already been > posted, view the links to the websites and draw their own conclusions. I > think everyone here can agree that you have done a fine job of defending > Pete Kupaza, for whatever reason. I also think this is a situation where > those who see your point of view as valid and those who don't will have to > agree to disagree so that we can all move on. Personally, I would certainly > appreciate it. > > Thanks!! > > Lainey > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > Marilyn; > > > > Thanks for writing back. > > > > Response below: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marilyn Harris" > > To: ; > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:09 PM > > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > > > > >material evident. Cleaning, no matter how thorough, would not have > hidden > > > >it. Note the absence of findings in the bathtub and elsewhere in the > > > >residence for that matter? And they looked pretty hard. > > > > > > Brent; > > > > > > A few things; > > > > > > 1. You first wrote that there was a drop of blood ON the baseboard. > Where > > > did you get that evidence? > > > > My fault for not being clear. The spot of blood was found ON the back of > the > > baseboard and in a corresonding spot on the wall. It is a very small > amount > > of transfer. The evidence I have comes from the case file and the crime > > scene photos, including the police evidence logs. > > > > > 2. In order for blood to get between the baseboard and wall, the blood > > would > > > have to have first splattered on the wall and then dripped down between. > > > > Yes, but it wouldn't require much. Just a bit more that what leaked down > > through. And it could have been small enough to go unnoticed, or it could > > have been wiped away specifically after a transfer occured from normal, > > non-criminal activity. You wouldn't have to clean to the whole bathroom to > > have a desire to wipe away a little blood from a cut or a bloody nose or > > some other non-criminal bleeding. > > > > For me to give a court-worthy opinipon that the dismemberment had most > > likely occured in the bathroom, far more blood would have seeped down > > inbetween the baseboard than a drop, and in multiple places. If we had > that, > > and not just one tiny spot, I'd be the first to agree that it was > consistent > > with dismemberment activity having taken place there. > > > > But we don't. > > > > And despite the seductiveness of reductive reasoning to fit a sweet > theory, > > we cannot interpret evidence that we do not have. In other words, show me > > proof that the bathroom was cleaned with those chemicals. No such proof > was > > offered in court. This is not a technicality - it is crime scene > > investigation. > > > > The prosecution has the burden here and forensic experts are limited to > > testifying about the evidence collected and documentted from the scene. I > > cannot give firm opinions based on what the prosecution theorizes might > have > > happened, though others seem to have no problem doing this. I think this > is > > all too easily forotten in the race to arrest and prosecute. > > > > >If > > > so and no blood was found anywhere but between the wall and baseboard, > > then > > > someone would have cleaned that area on the wall immediately above the > > > baseboard so that the blood had become undetectable. > > > > > 3. Could a cleanup with bleach make bloodstains undetectable? > > > > If the right chemicals were used. See above. > > > > > 4. Was luminol or a similar product used? > > > > Luminol was used in the processing of this scene. > > > > > > > > >One speck of dropped blood in a bathroom that you use daily does not a > > crime > > > >scene make. In this case, it makes a bathroom. > > > > > > If that were the only evidence I would agree. > > > > That is the only physical evidence, other than the dog's nose as > interpreted > > through Sandra Anderson. > > > > > > > > Marilyn > > > > > > > I have no desire to see a guilty person escape justice, or an innocent > > person suffer for crimes they did not commit. That's why my concern is > that > > we should stick with what has been proven by the evidence when we > > reconstruct. The falsification step of the equation seems to be treated > > fairly casually here. > > > > When the prosecution presents a case, they must show what did happen, not > > what might have happened given the most favorable circumstances. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Brent > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > [EndPost by "Janet Brashears" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 17:11:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5ULBFPj016137 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002a01c33f4c$1b9ca160$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20030630000945.00b999d8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> <003901c33ea4$7b95cf40$6600a8c0@gross> <001a01c33f17$df6bfda0$a6a9a818@nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:10:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu PS - How is the arrest and trial of prosecution expert Sandra Anderson about me or anything else? And what exactly have I promoted in any of my posts other than good forensic science? This woman and her cases are on a downward spiral. As are many others as of late. Don't shoot the messenger. PSS - Harry Truman said it best: "I don't give them hell; I just tell them the truth and they think it's hell." 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Brashears To: Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > Brent: > > Can we please stop this back in forth? You obviously posted your email > because your are advocating for this Peter T. Kupaza for a reason that has > not been defined here...except perhaps a blatant attempt to promote your > website and book perhaps? Or maybe you have some undefined vendetta against > Sandra Anderson. Either way, those who have posted in response to you, > including me, interpret your point of view to be persistently biased. > > I will not rehash what other respondents have written in rebuttal to your > views, I am only asking that you allow people to read what has already been > posted, view the links to the websites and draw their own conclusions. I > think everyone here can agree that you have done a fine job of defending > Pete Kupaza, for whatever reason. I also think this is a situation where > those who see your point of view as valid and those who don't will have to > agree to disagree so that we can all move on. Personally, I would certainly > appreciate it. > > Thanks!! > > Lainey > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > Marilyn; > > > > Thanks for writing back. > > > > Response below: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marilyn Harris" > > To: ; > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:09 PM > > Subject: Re: [forens] Expert accused of faking evidence > > > > > > > >material evident. Cleaning, no matter how thorough, would not have > hidden > > > >it. Note the absence of findings in the bathtub and elsewhere in the > > > >residence for that matter? And they looked pretty hard. > > > > > > Brent; > > > > > > A few things; > > > > > > 1. You first wrote that there was a drop of blood ON the baseboard. > Where > > > did you get that evidence? > > > > My fault for not being clear. The spot of blood was found ON the back of > the > > baseboard and in a corresonding spot on the wall. It is a very small > amount > > of transfer. The evidence I have comes from the case file and the crime > > scene photos, including the police evidence logs. > > > > > 2. In order for blood to get between the baseboard and wall, the blood > > would > > > have to have first splattered on the wall and then dripped down between. > > > > Yes, but it wouldn't require much. Just a bit more that what leaked down > > through. And it could have been small enough to go unnoticed, or it could > > have been wiped away specifically after a transfer occured from normal, > > non-criminal activity. You wouldn't have to clean to the whole bathroom to > > have a desire to wipe away a little blood from a cut or a bloody nose or > > some other non-criminal bleeding. > > > > For me to give a court-worthy opinipon that the dismemberment had most > > likely occured in the bathroom, far more blood would have seeped down > > inbetween the baseboard than a drop, and in multiple places. If we had > that, > > and not just one tiny spot, I'd be the first to agree that it was > consistent > > with dismemberment activity having taken place there. > > > > But we don't. > > > > And despite the seductiveness of reductive reasoning to fit a sweet > theory, > > we cannot interpret evidence that we do not have. In other words, show me > > proof that the bathroom was cleaned with those chemicals. No such proof > was > > offered in court. This is not a technicality - it is crime scene > > investigation. > > > > The prosecution has the burden here and forensic experts are limited to > > testifying about the evidence collected and documentted from the scene. I > > cannot give firm opinions based on what the prosecution theorizes might > have > > happened, though others seem to have no problem doing this. I think this > is > > all too easily forotten in the race to arrest and prosecute. > > > > >If > > > so and no blood was found anywhere but between the wall and baseboard, > > then > > > someone would have cleaned that area on the wall immediately above the > > > baseboard so that the blood had become undetectable. > > > > > 3. Could a cleanup with bleach make bloodstains undetectable? > > > > If the right chemicals were used. See above. > > > > > 4. Was luminol or a similar product used? > > > > Luminol was used in the processing of this scene. > > > > > > > > >One speck of dropped blood in a bathroom that you use daily does not a > > crime > > > >scene make. In this case, it makes a bathroom. > > > > > > If that were the only evidence I would agree. > > > > That is the only physical evidence, other than the dog's nose as > interpreted > > through Sandra Anderson. > > > > > > > > Marilyn > > > > > > > I have no desire to see a guilty person escape justice, or an innocent > > person suffer for crimes they did not commit. That's why my concern is > that > > we should stick with what has been proven by the evidence when we > > reconstruct. The falsification step of the equation seems to be treated > > fairly casually here. > > > > When the prosecution presents a case, they must show what did happen, not > > what might have happened given the most favorable circumstances. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Brent > > > > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] > > [EndPost by "Janet Brashears" ] > [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 30 18:08:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5UM8p0W017651 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:08:51 -0400 (EDT) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:05:21 -0400 Subject: [forens] seeking internship Message-ID: <20030630.180521.-690345.0.foraviva@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-3 From: aviva lerner Content-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. does anyone know of an available internship in the NY area for a forensic science graduate student? you can respond to foraviva@juno.com. thanks. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! [EndPost by aviva lerner ]