From forens-owner Tue Jun 1 10:00:12 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i51E0CuA005738 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i51E0CGJ005737 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:00:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:59:13 -0700 From: "Elizabeth Selya" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Oh, O.K. >>> dwhause@jobe.net 5/28/2004 10:07:20 PM >>> Because you quoted the citation. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Selya" Why is my name attached to this e-mail? I never published anything in the J. For. Sci. vol. 23 page 233. Elizabeth Selya [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. [EndPost by "Elizabeth Selya" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 1 10:33:08 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i51EX8u4006690 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i51EX7mn006689 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:33:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <3E9BAA0D953DAC47BD35158904A71F5E01AA78CC@jusp0000ex10006.jus.ad.gov.on.ca> From: "Walden, KellyJo (JUS)" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] plants in forensics Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:32:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Does anyone know of any recent reference papers/cases/ books regarding links of plant evidence and forensic cases? ie: plant evidence at crime scenes, or even uses of plant genetics re: typing marijuana plants from grow operations etc??? I am mentoring a high school student and I am not sure where to start!! Thanks, Kelly Jo Walden, M.Sc. Biology Centre of Forensic Sciences, Toronto, ON [EndPost by "Walden, KellyJo (JUS)" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 1 22:52:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i522qBKj018835 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i522qBpK018833 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:52:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <01d801c4484c$59d0ff80$a45f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <3E9BAA0D953DAC47BD35158904A71F5E01AA78CC@jusp0000ex10006.jus.ad.gov.on.ca> Subject: Re: [forens] plants in forensics Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:50:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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 can't give a citation, but about 2 years ago the AAFS meeting had a very nice workshop on forensic botany. If you can find a meeting abstract book you should be able to find the presenters (2003 or 2002.) Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walden, KellyJo (JUS)" Does anyone know of any recent reference papers/cases/ books regarding links of plant evidence and forensic cases? [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 13:37:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53HbuLC017966 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53HbuJq017965 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:37:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Amy S. Duhaime" To: Subject: [forens] dust impression Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:35:00 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List, I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 13:52:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53Hqdmj018936 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53HqdCG018935 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:52:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <74.3d21960a.2df0bf5f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:52:31 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 6116 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 6/3/2004 1:40:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, asc@uri.edu writes: I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab Amy - try varying intensities of oblique lighting for photography, as this is non-destructive and is often successful, David Epstein --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 14:01:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53I1SvF019598 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:01:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53I1SBJ019597 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:01:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <082F1F80-B588-11D8-ADF6-000A95D16760@mac.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:01:26 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=US-ASCII;format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu If you have an ESDA, transfer the impression using it on a transparent sheet, and then place the sheet on a glass plate, appr. 3 feet from floor. Place a black background on the floor, then light the trace using two lights from the side, at an angle of 45 degrees going from the floor to the impression. I had good results in the past with that. Hope this helps, Regards, Eric On Jun 3, 2004, at 13:35, Amy S. Duhaime wrote: > List, > > I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a > piece > of paper. Any suggestions? > > Thanks, > > Amy Duhaime > RI State Crime Lab > > [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] > > -------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer, MS, F-ABC, CFEI Senior Forensic Scientist MME Forensic Services 1039 Industrial Court Suwanee, GA 30024 USA Office + 1 (678) 730 2000 Cell + 1 (404) 663 3611 Fax + 1 (678) 482 9677 Email estauffer@mmelab.com Web http://www.mmelab.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/enriched --- [EndPost by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 14:05:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53I5oMe019961 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53I5o1l019960 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:05:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:05:17 -0700 From: "Linda French" To: Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 2.0.15 ; The County of San Ma Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I had a very faint dust impression on white paper and tried: alternate light source oblique light electrostatic dust lifter None worked very well. What worked well was making a xerographic copy and adjusting the contrast of the copy. It was quick and worked very well. Linda French San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Forensic Laboratory >>> asc@uri.edu 6/3/2004 10:35:00 >>> List, I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Linda French" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 15:03:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53J3krY021192 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53J3kZG021191 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:03:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Amy S. Duhaime" To: Subject: RE: [forens] dust impression Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:02:37 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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 Our photographer has tried oblique lighting, ALS and enhancing the contrast using Photoshop with varying levels of success. I was considering trying the electrostatic lifter or a gel lift next. Are there any chemical enhancements that might work? Amy -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Linda French Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 2:05 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression I had a very faint dust impression on white paper and tried: alternate light source oblique light electrostatic dust lifter None worked very well. What worked well was making a xerographic copy and adjusting the contrast of the copy. It was quick and worked very well. Linda French San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Forensic Laboratory >>> asc@uri.edu 6/3/2004 10:35:00 >>> List, I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Linda French" ] [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 15:14:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53JErZV021705 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53JErKr021703 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 4E5BE52A-5ED8-484B-ADCA-5DDEE8B353BE Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:14:07 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, asc@uri.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6CA1A71E1N4202053-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i53JEqH2021693 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The Intralux 6000-1 works well to give highly directional oblique lighting on this type of print. I'd get good oblique light photos and maybe filter/ B&W photos depending on the color of the dust. I'd then go to static lift and if that didn't work move on to Potassium Thiocyanate or Ammonium thiocyanate processing (if the dust is iron bearing then more photos with filter for the stain color I got. See: Brundage, David J., Ammonium thiocyanate: A successful technique for dusty footwear impressions, International Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Footwear and Tire Impression Evidence, FBI Academy, 1994. (I can get you Dave's #, if you need it just call or drop me a note.) The Thiocyanate can eat the paper over time so have good photos at the end of that. Jim James L. Roberts Firearm & Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA. 93009 (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> asc@uri.edu 06/03/04 10:35AM >>> List, I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 15:14:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53JErvP021706 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53JErvl021704 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 4E5BE52A-5ED8-484B-ADCA-5DDEE8B353BE Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:14:07 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, asc@uri.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6CA1A71E1N4202055-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i53JEqpW021694 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The Intralux 6000-1 works well to give highly directional oblique lighting on this type of print. I'd get good oblique light photos and maybe filter/ B&W photos depending on the color of the dust. I'd then go to static lift and if that didn't work move on to Potassium Thiocyanate or Ammonium thiocyanate processing (if the dust is iron bearing then more photos with filter for the stain color I got. See: Brundage, David J., Ammonium thiocyanate: A successful technique for dusty footwear impressions, International Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Footwear and Tire Impression Evidence, FBI Academy, 1994. (I can get you Dave's #, if you need it just call or drop me a note.) The Thiocyanate can eat the paper over time so have good photos at the end of that. Jim James L. Roberts Firearm & Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA. 93009 (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> asc@uri.edu 06/03/04 10:35AM >>> List, I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] [EndPost by "James Roberts" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 18:34:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i53MYLNQ025753 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i53MYLaX025752 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:34:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:31:52 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i53MYMNQ025754 Amy, After photographing, xeroxing, and or scanning the dust rack, followed by gel or electrostatic dustprint lift or ESDA, might I suggest using physical developer? It has moderate success on rubber based shoe imprints on paper surfaces. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> asc@uri.edu 6/3/2004 10:35:00 AM >>> List, I am trying to enhance a very faint footwear impression in dust on a piece of paper. Any suggestions? Thanks, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 3 21:24:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i541OBK2027830 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:24:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i541OALT027829 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:24:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com Message-ID: <1e0.2246e039.2df12930@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:24:00 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6025 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 After ESDA of the dust print on paper, the ideal lighting for photography is from a Projectina Light Source. This offers a horizontal plane of light that casts a shadow on dust particles. The ESDA lift may be stored (taped) in a manila folder until you are able to locate a proper light source (pizza boxes have too much paper dust and contaminate ESDA) These lights are very expensive, but well worth the superior results in your photos. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 05:50:37 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i549obWv002752 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 05:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i549oaIK002751 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 05:50:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <6.2ae4f7d5.2df19fe4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 05:50:28 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5027 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have used a slide projector as an oblique light source for dust prints and for indentations in paper. You will have to experiment with the angle and the distance from the object. Filters may be put in the slide projector and easily changed for different effects. Good Luck! Lamar Miller Forensic Document Examiner Hendersonville, NC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 07:45:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i54BjtkF004189 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i54Bjt09004188 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:45:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] dust impression Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:47:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1C65F50A3B7645438D56254D361EBF01F23696@AHIEXCHSVR.ahi.armorholdings.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] dust impression Thread-Index: AcRJ0uusZugwLNWCTCqnj8ZaWcyQJwAVipAw From: "Allen Miller" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i54BjsAE004183 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 As a subscriber to the bulletin board, I was curious how long you have been using Projectina light sources? Armor Forensics started distributing the full product line in January. We are in the process of trying to inform the US forensic community on the abilities of this product line. If you need any updated information about the equipment, you can contact us. I was going to post about the shape converters, but I thought better against as it would look more like a shameless promotion and may not carry the weight that it should. Thank you for taking care of this for me. Sincerely, Allen Miller Forensic Technical Manager Armor Forensics 13386 International Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32218 904-741-1787 amiller@armorholdings.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of EarlNMeyer@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:24 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression After ESDA of the dust print on paper, the ideal lighting for photography is from a Projectina Light Source. This offers a horizontal plane of light that casts a shadow on dust particles. The ESDA lift may be stored (taped) in a manila folder until you are able to locate a proper light source (pizza boxes have too much paper dust and contaminate ESDA) These lights are very expensive, but well worth the superior results in your photos. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] [EndPost by "Allen Miller" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 12:52:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i54GqgN7011094 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i54Gqghm011093 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:52:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:52:24 -0400 From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6EE37802.604B4EC4.0AF0E000@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 63.237.38.2 X-AOL-Language: english Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We have been using Projectina for about five years. I saw one at an AAFS show about twenty years ago and it took that long to finally invest in one. I was so impressed that six months later I decided to buy a second one for the major case van that the CSI have access to. That way mine is always available to me in the lab. [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 16:57:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i54Kvx58016707 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i54KvxBx016706 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:57:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Originating-IP: [63.200.65.218] X-Originating-Email: [halverjl@hotmail.com] X-Sender: halverjl@hotmail.com From: "Joy Halverson" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] detection of urine Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:57:54 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2004 20:57:54.0594 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B565820:01C44A76] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I get this question frequently from property managers and new renters: Is there a way to definitively detect (and prove the presence of) urine of either human or pet origin in carpet or carpet padding? Joy [EndPost by "Joy Halverson" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 19:30:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i54NUUWK018829 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i54NUUMN018828 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:30:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] plants in forensics Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:30:32 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <004c01c44a8b$ee1cc930$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <3E9BAA0D953DAC47BD35158904A71F5E01AA78CC@jusp0000ex10006.jus.ad.gov.on.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2004 23:30:31.0068 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED0565C0:01C44A8B] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i54NUUpP018823 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu It seems to me there have been some papers on this topic published recently. Have you tried doing a web search? In addition to the general engines like Google and Yahoo, the US National Library of Medicine maintains an excellent search engine for scientific journal publications: www.pubmed.org 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 Walden, KellyJo (JUS) Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:33 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] plants in forensics Does anyone know of any recent reference papers/cases/ books regarding links of plant evidence and forensic cases? ie: plant evidence at crime scenes, or even uses of plant genetics re: typing marijuana plants from grow operations etc??? I am mentoring a high school student and I am not sure where to start!! Thanks, Kelly Jo Walden, M.Sc. Biology Centre of Forensic Sciences, Toronto, ON [EndPost by "Walden, KellyJo (JUS)" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 20:38:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i550cUMF020222 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i550cUfH020221 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:38:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:38:32 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <005a01c44a95$6d86a660$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <1da.22b6ab25.2de810a0@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2004 00:38:30.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C6E0A70:01C44A95] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i550cTU6020216 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The problem of course with any experimental design involving "alleged fellatio" in alleged sexual assault victims is that there are three uncontrolled and unmeasured variables. The first is reflected by the word "alleged." You don't know how many of your test subjects actually were the victims of oral sexual assault (forced to perform fellacio), and how many are merely falsely claiming so. "Victims" do sometimes file false allegations for a variety of reasons, as any sexual assault investigator well knows. Second, if fellatio did in fact occur, you don't know for certain whether or not there was ejaculation in the mouth. Third, if there was ejaculation in the mouth, you don't know whether or not the assailant was aspermate (vasectomy recipient, etc.). In any case, you don't know beforehand which subjects actually had any sperm in their mouths to be collected and which did not, so measuring "success" rates while subject to these unknown variables seems not a great deal better than anecdotal evidence. The "success" rate of any collection method would be suspect because there is no way to know whether it is an accurate measurement (actual success rates may be higher than it seems if some of the subjects didn't have any sperm present to be collected in the first place). To accurately measure true success rates, you would have to assemble a controlled pool of test subjects KNOWN to have sperm in their mouths, and that conceivably would mean finding willing volunteers who agree to engage in fellacio through the point of ejaculation with the confirmed presence of sperm in the semen, and who are then sampled using the various collection techniques being investigated. It might be quite difficult to assemble such a pool of volunteer test subjects, especially in the numbers necessary to produce any kind of reliable statistical assessment of the collection techniques. I believe this is what Dave was referring to when he indicated that designing and carrying out such an experiment would be problematic. 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 Eljnsjr@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:49 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits In a message dated 5/27/2004 5:38:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@jobe.net writes: Actually, the experimental design would seem to be trivial, the only difficulty being recruitment of experimental subjects. It seems unlikely an ethics committee would permit naive subjects, so it would probably require investigators/co-investigators who are practitioners of the relevant sexual activities, with an eye to remaining within limits of local laws. If I were really interested, I'd go back to last September and look up the reference from the following post we had on this list: "In the J. For. Sci. vol. 23 page 233 (W.F. Enos, J.C. Beyer) mentions "We have been successful in identifying spermatozoa in oral smears up to 6 h after the attack, despite brushing teeth, using mouthwash, and drinking various fluids." Elizabeth Selya" Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morris Odell" It's probably impossible to check this experimentally (the mind boggles at a possible experimental design, ethics committee submission, recruitment of subjects and inevitable conference presentation & publication. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] Dear List, The experimental design of Willot would be applicable to this problem. G. M. Willott and M. A. Crosse, "The Detection of Spermatozoa in the Mouth," J. Forensic Sci. Soc., 26 (1985) 125-8. They found that the collection of liquid saliva samples was more effective than oral swabs for collecting sperm from the mouth. From 61 cases with alleged fellatio where both saliva samples and oral swabs were collected, sperm were found in saliva samples 22 times while sperm were found only 10 times on oral swabs. This experimental design can be expanded to include a mouth wash or flossing and the results can be compared against the normal swabbing from the same victim. If the samples are collected in a reasonable order then no evidence is lost and valuable information can be found. Ed Jones Ventura Sheriff's Crime Lab --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Eljnsjr@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 20:40:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i550etii020499 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i550etRC020498 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:40:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Ph.D in Criminal Justice Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:40:56 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <005b01c44a95$c3ef7810$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040424111521.019fdac0@mail.netvision.net.il> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2004 00:40:55.0248 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2D41D00:01C44A95] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i550eslO020493 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I agree completely with you, Azriel. In fact, I like very much your suggestion of the "general practitioner" who could do a sort of "triage" of the evidence, someone possessing the basic "generalist" knowledge needed to sort through all the physical evidence and decide which items needed to be subjected to which specialty exams, and then referring the evidence on to the appropriate specialists (these decisions are now often made by non-scientist police officers, and aren't always the wisest). Such a general forensic science practitioner would be invaluable at crime scenes to help the police do the best job in recovering the most significant evidence (i.e., to avoid overlooking or damaging significant evidence, while at the same time avoid sending useless junk to the crime laboratory - both of these problems currently occur on a regular basis). I can even see a possible role for them in the forensic laboratory itself, doing some basic preliminary testing before passing the evidence on to specialists for more elaborate testing. There is definitely a role that the "generalist" forensic scientist can fill today, but it requires a redefinition of what a "generalist" is - from someone who can do the complete analyses for a wide variety of evidence types, to someone who can do some basic examinations and then pass the evidence on to the appropriate specialists. Forensic science examinations are far too varied and complex today for anyone to function competently in the traditional role of "generalist." 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 Azriel Gorski Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 4:26 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Ph.D in Criminal Justice Dear Bob, I do not disagree with what you say. I do want to add something to it, which is one of the "joys" of forensic science. There is the need to communicate with those who are not scientists/specialists. In fact as the world goes more specialist and interdisciplinary in its approach to many fields, the need to train specialists about the problem and how to communicate across specialist lines and heaven help us to non-specialists becomes more important. We forensic scientists may even have to follow after the medical profession and have a specialty of being a generalist/inter-facer (specialty of family practice). Without that communication, which MUST includes listening and understanding the needs of the other, much valuable information is lost. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski At 01:50 24/04/2004, you wrote: >Donna makes a good point that today a science degree may not always be >needed for positions in latent prints and crime scene. This may also be >true for firearm/toolmark and handwriting comparison positions. HOWEVER, >that is rapidly becoming the exception rather than the rule. Even in these >traditionally non-scientist positions, more and more labs today prefer, if >not require, a degree in science for new hires. Any students contemplating >entering the field of criminalistics/laboratory forensic science are well >advised to get a degree in chemistry, biology, or forensic science. Most >labs today won't even consider you without one, unless you already have >experience performing the exams professionally in another lab. Criminal >justice degree programs give you none of the academic knowledge or >professional skills needed to work in a crime lab. Working as a forensic >scientist necessitates that one must first become a SCIENTIST, and that >means earning a science degree. > >Current ASCLD-LAB accreditation guidelines REQUIRE science degrees for all >crime lab specialty positions except the four mentioned above. For those >four, they require a baccalaureate degree "with science courses." CJ degree >programs typically do not contain science courses. Further, a variety of >forces are driving these until-now more "professional trade"-like than >"science"-like specialties to establish the scientific basis for their >principles of analysis through research, and the task of conducting research >requires scientists. Individual certification requirements in >criminalistics and related fields are parallel - they require at minimum a >4-year science degree. Ditto for the SWG guidelines in most forensic >specialties. Most of us who have been following the continuing development >of national lab accreditation, individual certification, and process >standardization guidelines can see the handwriting on the wall, and fully >expect that a _science_ degree will become a requirement for ALL lab analyst >positions in the not-too-distant future. There is now also a nascent >movement to accredit forensic science academic programs at universities, to >ensure that such programs produce forensic scientists, not criminologists. >Based on what I've seen of the first draft guidelines established, I'd wager >that the final standards established for accrediting forensic science >graduate degree programs will likewise mandate an undergraduate science >degree as an entrance requirement, so the days of being able to go from a CJ >undergrad degree directly to an FS grad degree are likely numbered. Just as >one is unlikely to get into a chemistry or biology graduate degree program >without an undergraduate science degree today, in a few years I expect one >won't be able to get into an accredited forensic science graduate program >without it either. > >As Bob Dylan once wrote (and sang), "The times, they are a-changin'" (and >rapidly, too). > >For all these reasons, I advise all students to disregard what was >acceptable in the past (even the recent past) and fix your eyes on the clear >trends for the future - if you want to work in a forensic laboratory in ANY >specialty in the future, your best strategy is to get a degree in a "hard" >science, not a social science. CJ, sociology, criminology, etc., degrees >might serve you well as a detective or police crime scene specialist, but >they will likely NOT help you get a job as a forensic scientist in the >future. > > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >Ft. Pierce, FL ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski, PhD Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes Richard Bach ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 20:42:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i550gMBh020866 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i550gMKA020865 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:42:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Expertise in Crime Scene Investigation ? Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:42:24 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <005c01c44a95$f80d9a00$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <00c801c44202$c57edd10$0a00a8c0@ertc665583d75f> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2004 00:42:22.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6F43AC0:01C44A95] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i550gLE8020860 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Well, I'm not sure anyone (other than the writers for fictional TV programs) knows exactly what "crime scene investigation" is, but of course there are experts in crime scene processing (the methodical search for, collection, and preservation of evidence at a crime scene). Crime scene processing is a professional specialty like any other, and expertise is gained as with any other profession - through education, training, mentoring, and experience. "Crime scene investigation," as used on TV and in the media, seems to include not only crime scene processing but also witness interviews, suspect development and interrogation, and limited interpretation/analysis of scene evidence (things like blood spatter patterns and bullet trajectories). That would include the jobs of scene technicians, detectives, and perhaps forensic scientists, which are normally three separate professions usually performed by different people with different skills and expertise; however, there are some jurisdictions where some or all these crime scene functions are performed by the same people, so I suppose it is possible to be an expert in "crime scene investigation," depending on how one defines the term in a specific case. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Wise Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:48 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Expertise in Crime Scene Investigation ? Apparently Kobe Bryant's defense team has started their assault on the crime scene investigation. One issue being alleged by prosecution is that there is no such thing as an expert in crime scene investigation. Viewpoints? >From yahoo.com: DENVER, United States (AFP) - Kobe Bryant's lawyers are attacking the quality of the crime scene investigation that led to rape charges against him, as they bring a veteran of the OJ Simpson murder case onto their team. "Detectives (Dan) Loya and (Doug) Winters conducted a woeful crime scene investigation," defense lawyer Hal Haddon said in a motion filed with the court in Eagle, Colorado and made public on Monday. Bryant's lawyers want to present at his looming trial two crime scene investigation expert witnesses to press their argument, identified in court documents as Larry Ragle and Beth Seeman. Ragle is a former sheriff's forensics expert who testified at Simpson's 1995 double-murder trial that the Los Angeles police investigation was sloppy, and violated proper evidence collection practices. Simpson's criminal trial ended in his acquittal. The second witness the defense hopes to use, Seeman, is identified in Haddon's motion as a longtime law enforcement investigator in Aspen, a Colorado ski hamlet. Steps investigators should have taken, according to the defense, include collection of the chair on which the sex act took place and close inspection of the carpet beneath it. They also include the collection of materials in waste baskets and a thorough investigation of the hotel bathroom where Bryant's alleged victim composed herself, before leaving the athlete's hotel room. Winters, the lead detective on the case, testified at Bryant's preliminary hearing in October that detectives did none of these things. But Eagle County prosecutors are hoping to bar both Ragle and Seeman's testimony, arguing that it would be irrelevant. Prosecutors also question whether crime scene investigation is a field where one can truly be termed an expert. If Bryant's lawyers be able to introduce the testimony of Ragle at trial, that would bring to three the total of Simpson defense veterans involved in the Los Angeles Lakers star's high-profile case. Bryant faces a possible life sentence in prison if convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman at a luxury Colorado resort where she worked on June 30 last year. Bryant, who is married and has a young daughter, admitted to having consensual sex but has pleaded innocent to rape. Bryant, 25, is due to appear in court for another pre-trial hearing on Thursday. [EndPost by "Mike Wise" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 4 20:44:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i550iRO9021162 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:44:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i550iQlA021161 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:44:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:44:28 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <005d01c44a96$424ed930$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2004 00:44:27.0277 (UTC) FILETIME=[41352BD0:01C44A96] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i550iQUd021156 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu We have been very happy with "LIMS-plus" by JusticeTrax. It is a very robust system that we have not even begun to tap the full capabilities of, and we have been using it since 1996. Like all software products, it has a few bugs and could use some enhancements, but the company provides regular upgrades and is constantly making a very good product even better. The employee-owned company is very proactive with its customers, and provides great support. We are a small, single-site lab, but JusticeTrax has been adopted by large multiple-site forensic lab organizations with central server management in exactly the kind of setup you envision. Examples include the State of Georgia Bureau of Investigation (USA), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, both of whom use JusticeTrax to manage their entire lab system. JusticeTrax has allowed the GBI system to go entirely paperless, with the LIMS storing all worksheets, photos, instrumental output, and other traditional file contents (I'm told they don't maintain paper case files at all, and print only what they need when court testimony is required, then destroy the paper records again afterwards). Supported agencies fill out their analysis requests on-line, and receive their lab reports the same way, all in a secure, distributed environment. The system can also log and manage all kinds of lab and personnel activity data (user customizable), and includes both chemical inventory and evidence inventory reconciliation utilities as add-on options. We hope to some day have the resources in our lab to allow us to follow GBI's lead in maximizing the powerful capabilities of the JusticeTrax LIMS, and transitioning to a truly paperless laboratory. In the meantime, it serves us very well as an evidence and information management database, and will soon be automatically producing our lab reports (no more manual typing by secretaries using word processors). I recommend the product very highly. Robert W. Parsons, B.S., F-ABC Criminalist / Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College 2502 South 35th Street, Building I Fort Pierce, FL 34981-5573 772-462-3600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Chris LENNARD Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags Dear List Members, I am seeking advice on commercial LIMS packages suitable for a multi-discipline, multi-site forensic laboratory. I would also appreciate comments from anyone who has had experience with the use of RFID tags to track exhibits (an idea that we would like to pursue). The Forensic Services section of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) is the AFP's principal provider of forensic support services. The main laboratory is located in Canberra, with smaller facilities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth (all connected via a high-speed WAN). There are approximately 140 members of staff in total, across disciplines that include Fingerprints, Crime Scenes, Firearms & Toolmarks, Biology, Chemistry, Document Examination, Computer Forensic, Audio/Video Enhancement, and Photographics. We are commencing a market survey to find a suitable commercial LIMS package to service all of our sites from a centrally administered server. We would like the package to deal with exhibit/sample management, be compatible with barcodes and RFIDs, provide for fully electronic case files (including storage and archiving of digital images), look after automatic report generation/submission, quality assurance reviews (tech/admin reviews on case files), etc. Any comments that you may have based on your experiences (good or bad) with different packages would be appreciated. Are there packages that you would strongly recommend or definitely avoid? Please respond off the list to the following address: clennard@netspeed.com.au Thanking you in advance. Dr Chris Lennard Manager Forensic Operations Support AFP Forensic Services GPO Box 401 Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia [EndPost by "Chris LENNARD" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 5 05:37:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i559b67I026347 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 05:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i559b6OH026346 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 05:37:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Eljnsjr@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 05:36:57 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5110 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Bob, There are two separate issues in this discussion, one is the recovery method for oral sperm in case work and a second is an experimental design using volunteers to determine which method is best for recovering oral sperm. Concerning the recovery of oral sperm in case work, I disagree with the underlined part of your statement: "In any case, you don't know beforehand which subjects actually had any sperm in their mouths to be collected and which did not, so measuring "success" rates while subject to these unknown variables seems not a great deal better than anecdotal evidence." I believe that the experimental design of Willott and Crosse is significantly better than anecdotal evidence. Swabs of the mouth are collected from an alleged victim of oral copulation. This is the current practice in many jurisdictions. A second sample collected from the mouth of the same victim can be compared directly with the results from the first set of swabs. This second sample can be: a second set of swabs, a liquid saliva sample, an oral rinse or dental floss. You will not only collect more evidence from your alleged victim but you will also develop data which will show which methods of collection are more effective. With this experimental design, Willot and Crosse showed that liquid saliva samples were more effective for collecting oral sperm than swabs. The second issue is the experimental design of a volunteer study. Most experiments of this nature involving human subjects address the post coital interval (PCI) or time since intercourse (TSI). They do not address which method is best for collecting your sample. If you are interested in solving the problem of relative recovery rates for selected techniques then the amount of semen (sperm) should be quantitated and then inoculated into the oral cavity for a set period of time. The recipients of these inoculations can be given instructions such as hold it in for so many minutes then spit it out. The amount present in the sample which is spit out could be measured as well as the amount present in the collection from the mouth. Because of the known intrapersonal variability of sperm per ejaculate, the performance of fellatio by volunteers would only complicate this study. Ed Jones Ventura Sheriff's Crime Lab In a message dated 6/4/2004 5:39:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: The problem of course with any experimental design involving "alleged fellatio" in alleged sexual assault victims is that there are three uncontrolled and unmeasured variables. The first is reflected by the word "alleged." You don't know how many of your test subjects actually were the victims of oral sexual assault (forced to perform fellacio), and how many are merely falsely claiming so. "Victims" do sometimes file false allegations for a variety of reasons, as any sexual assault investigator well knows. Second, if fellatio did in fact occur, you don't know for certain whether or not there was ejaculation in the mouth. Third, if there was ejaculation in the mouth, you don't know whether or not the assailant was aspermate (vasectomy recipient, etc.). In any case, you don't know beforehand which subjects actually had any sperm in their mouths to be collected and which did not, so measuring "success" rates while subject to these unknown variables seems not a great deal better than anecdotal evidence. The "success" rate of any collection method would be suspect because there is no way to know whether it is an accurate measurement (actual success rates may be higher than it seems if some of the subjects didn't have any sperm present to be collected in the first place). To accurately measure true success rates, you would have to assemble a controlled pool of test subjects KNOWN to have sperm in their mouths, and that conceivably would mean finding willing volunteers who agree to engage in fellacio through the point of ejaculation with the confirmed presence of sperm in the semen, and who are then sampled using the various collection techniques being investigated. It might be quite difficult to assemble such a pool of volunteer test subjects, especially in the numbers necessary to produce any kind of reliable statistical assessment of the collection techniques. I believe this is what Dave was referring to when he indicated that designing and carrying out such an experiment would be problematic. 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 Eljnsjr@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:49 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits In a message dated 5/27/2004 5:38:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@jobe.net writes: Actually, the experimental design would seem to be trivial, the only difficulty being recruitment of experimental subjects. It seems unlikely an ethics committee would permit naive subjects, so it would probably require investigators/co-investigators who are practitioners of the relevant sexual activities, with an eye to remaining within limits of local laws. If I were really interested, I'd go back to last September and look up the reference from the following post we had on this list: "In the J. For. Sci. vol. 23 page 233 (W.F. Enos, J.C. Beyer) mentions "We have been successful in identifying spermatozoa in oral smears up to 6 h after the attack, despite brushing teeth, using mouthwash, and drinking various fluids." Elizabeth Selya" Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morris Odell" It's probably impossible to check this experimentally (the mind boggles at a possible experimental design, ethics committee submission, recruitment of subjects and inevitable conference presentation & publication. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] Dear List, The experimental design of Willot would be applicable to this problem. G. M. Willott and M. A. Crosse, "The Detection of Spermatozoa in the Mouth," J. Forensic Sci. Soc., 26 (1985) 125-8. They found that the collection of liquid saliva samples was more effective than oral swabs for collecting sperm from the mouth. From 61 cases with alleged fellatio where both saliva samples and oral swabs were collected, sperm were found in saliva samples 22 times while sperm were found only 10 times on oral swabs. This experimental design can be expanded to include a mouth wash or flossing and the results can be compared against the normal swabbing from the same victim. If the samples are collected in a reasonable order then no evidence is lost and valuable information can be found. Ed Jones Ventura Sheriff's Crime Lab --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Eljnsjr@aol.com] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Eljnsjr@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jun 6 14:12:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i56ICc34011998 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:12:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i56ICciO011997 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:12:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:12:15 -0400 From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <42725C77.56B625CC.0AF0E000@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 63.237.38.2 X-AOL-Language: english X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime 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 Re: Procjectina light source For those interested and who can receive attachments by email, I have attached a ppt. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/vnd.ms-powerpoint --- [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] From forens-owner Mon Jun 7 07:24:03 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i57BO3lh019004 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i57BO3ZA019003 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:24:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] dust impression Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 07:25:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1C65F50A3B7645438D56254D361EBF01F236B4@AHIEXCHSVR.ahi.armorholdings.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] dust impression Thread-Index: AcRL8qxdoqI9F2+ETPK8ILMjWPJ3MAAj1QQQ From: "Allen Miller" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i57BO3bp018998 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 To those interested in information about Projectina products. Their website is www.projectina.ch. For pricing information, demonstrations and other information, please contact me. Sincerely, Allen Miller Forensic Technical Manager Armor Forensics 13386 International Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32218 904-741-1787 amiller@armorholdings.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of EarlNMeyer@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 2:12 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] dust impression Re: Procjectina light source For those interested and who can receive attachments by email, I have attached a ppt. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/vnd.ms-powerpoint --- [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] [EndPost by "Allen Miller" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 7 13:08:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i57H8ZsK025448 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i57H8ZpE025447 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:08:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:08:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] LIMS issues 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 While I missed the original thread, I think that the discussion by this poster needs some clarification. Robert Parsons wrote: > JusticeTrax has allowed the GBI system to go entirely paperless, > with the LIMS storing all worksheets, photos, instrumental output, > and other traditional file contents (I'm told they don't maintain > paper case files at all, and print only what they need when court > testimony is required, then destroy the paper records again > afterwards). Supported agencies fill out their analysis requests > on-line, and receive their lab reports the same way, all in a > secure, distributed environment. The system can also log and > manage all kinds of lab and personnel activity data (user > customizable), and includes both chemical inventory and evidence > inventory reconciliation utilities as add-on options. Please note that my comments are my personal opinion and do not reflect that of my agency, entity, or any affiliated organization. I have not been all that happy with JusticeTrax. JusticeTrax has proven to be pretty inflexible when it comes to Medical Examiner reports and efforts. In particular: 1) The document tracking software is inappropriate for long text documents such as ME reports (as opposed to short, template-based documents such as toxicology reports). The process for amending reports if a typo is discovered late (and this is common when you have tens of pages of free text in a report) is unwieldy. 2) The conversion software from Word to the archive format (PDF) instroduces errors into the archived documents. In particular, many Unicode characters (such as math symbols and such) are not correctly translated, nor are many of the Word formatting calls. Thus, for instance, outlines and bullets are not correctly transcribed. 3) The "paperless" office idea may work well for final reports, but does not work well for systems that have a large amount of external documentation that must be retained. For instance, there is no mechanism for retaining medical records, external laboratory results such as genetic screening in SIDS, etc. This leads to an interesting problem -- as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping and reviewing them. 4) The system for handling evidence and such is inflexible. Not all the world is amenable to barcodes. The bottom line is that JusticeTrax may be wonderful for a tox lab or DNA lab. I don't know. But as far as ME work goes, it attempts to shoehorn everything into the same paradigm -- and it's not appropriate to pound round objects into square holes just because you like square holes. Fundamentally, a software system should facilitate practice, and not dictate it. And it certainly should not *introduce* errors into documents that have been already proofread. I have suggested to my superiors that JusticeTrax is not the best choice for the ME activity here, but again, that is just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect that of anybody else. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 8 07:56:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i58BuTQQ009169 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i58BuTBj009168 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:56:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:56:09 -0400 From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <510B39E0.0F84C181.0AF0E000@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 63.237.38.2 X-AOL-Language: english 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 Billo, With reference to your comments.... >as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, >but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping >and >reviewing them. You may want to have an in-house demo of a Canon CD 4050 Digital Document recorder for some of your medical records to see if this could have any part in solving your dilemma. We frequently have pre-trial disclosure on DNA cases. These are paper data packages usually 1-3 inches high. They consist of handwritten notes, graphs, reports, etc. We are evaluating this as a possible solution for making multiple copies for defense, prosecution, etc. It is a very high speed scanner that spits out a CD. The 4050 is a color version that debuts this month. The system can be standalone or network compatible. For a more robust document imaging system you may wish to contact Tom Gantner (george's son) at the St. Louis ME's office. They are scanning all records from the late 1800's forward. [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jun 8 09:47:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i58Dkxdh011928 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i58DkxBE011927 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:46:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:46:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags In-Reply-To: <510B39E0.0F84C181.0AF0E000@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 EarlNMeyer@aol.com wrote: > Billo, > > With reference to your comments.... > >as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, > >but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping >and > >reviewing them. > > You may want to have an in-house demo of a Canon CD 4050 Digital Document recorder for some of your medical records to see if this could have any part in solving your dilemma. > > We frequently have pre-trial disclosure on DNA cases. These are paper data packages usually 1-3 inches high. They consist of handwritten notes, graphs, reports, etc. We are evaluating this as a possible solution for making multiple copies for defense, prosecution, etc. > It is a very high speed scanner that spits out a CD. The 4050 is a color version that debuts this month. > The system can be standalone or network compatible. > > For a more robust document imaging system you may wish to contact Tom Gantner (george's son) at the St. Louis ME's office. They are scanning all records from the late 1800's forward. > [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] > I have mixed feelings about this religious support of the "paperless" office. While there are obvious logistical advantages to storing documents digitally, the habit of dealing with large documents such as medical records or reports introduces error. The error comes from two sources: 1) Errors in digitization/readability when transferring to digital format. 2) Human factor problems with digital documents. As far as #2 goes, there have been a number of studies that have demonstrated that people do not read as well from monitors as from paper. Proofreading studies show that proofreading is worse when done on a monitor than done with paper. Comprehension studies show that comprehension is lower. Timing studies show that people read more slowly from a monitor for the same comprehension (people will read faster from a monitor at lower comprehension). Thus, for large text documents (once again, as opposed to short reports such as tox or DNA), going to completely paperless means choosing a method that is introduces error, is slower for the same comprehension, is more difficult, and results in less comprehension in normal use. Some of this can be ameliorated by the use of extremely large, high quality displays and superior digitization. However, most paper digitization methods I have seen, which essentially provide a photograph of the document, are not that hot. see: Daniel K. Mayes, Valerie K. Sims and Jefferson M. Koonce Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics Volume 28, Issue 6 , December 2001, Pages 367-378 Ziefle M. Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Hum Factors. 1998 Dec;40(4):554-68. Harpster JL, Freivalds A, Shulman GL, Leibowitz HW Visual performance on CRT screens and hard-copy displays. Hum Factors. 1989 Jun;31(3):247-57. Patty Wharton Michael Print Vs. Computer Screen Effects Of Medium On Proofreading Accuracy http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/g_sic/research.htm The same principle applies in diagnostic visual performance: Kosuda S, Kaji T, Kobayashi H, Watanabe M, Iwasaki Y, Kusano S. Acta Radiol. 2000 Sep;41(5):420-4. Related Articles, Links Hard-copy versus soft-copy with and without simple image manipulation for detection of pulmonary nodules and masses. Ando Y, Tsukamoto N, Kawaguchi O, Kitamura M, Kunieda E, Kubo A, Ogasawara K, Kinosada Y, Maeda T, Kozuka T. Hard-copy (film) versus soft-copy (CRT) reading performance between compressed and uncompressed images: SOLs in abdominal CT images Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 1999 Sep;59(11):521-5. It has been my experience in a couple of efforts at "paperless" offices, that the opposite actually occurs -- people print off and keep personal copies of documents they use, regardless of what policy dictates. Otherwise, they would not be able to get their work done. The move to "paperless" offices is simply a move from a few copies of official documents to innumerable copies of unofficial documents scattered on a zillion desks and wastebaskets. As an example, I recently had to go to a conference with a Chief of Police, various local officials, various LEOs, etc. to talk about an active case involving the shooting of a suspect by a police officer. How, in a "paperless" office, is one supposed to refer to one's report in such a situation -- the answer is that you make paper copies. It may be that digital archiving is the optimal solution for keeping pro forma records that are not, in fact, ever referred to. As far as active cases and active documents, however, they will end up on paper regardless of how they started out, and how they are officially archived. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 8 10:00:21 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i58E0L4S012581 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i58E0Ln4012579 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:00:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <2BC724B4-B954-11D8-A137-000A95D16760@mac.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= Subject: Re: [forens] detection of urine Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:00:17 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=US-ASCII;format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Joy, There are many ways to detect urine, however the identification is not that straightforward. If I recall well, there are some good information on that in the Sourcebook in Forensic Serology, Immunology, and Biochemistry, R.E. Gaensslen, NIJ, 1983. When it is a matter of looking for urine on big surface, we had some success using DMAC. Using paper filter humidified with DI water, you place them on the surface in question (carpet, clothing, etc.) and leave them there for one hour. Then, you prepare a solution of DMAC (dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde) 0.1% in ethanol and a solution of concentrated hydrochloric acid. You mix them in a ratio of 9:1, and you spray the paper filter with that. The DMAC reacts with urea to create a Schiff base, which is pink-purple. If you get positive results, then you can repeat the extraction process from the carpet and extract the paper filter with DI water for 2 hours at 37C, and proceed to a TLC of the extract. You can concentrate the extract prior to TLC by centrifugation and lyophilization. The TLC will reveal (or not) the presence of creatinine and urea. You also have some TLC systems that allow you to reveal indolmelanogen (I don't know if this is the right word in English, but it comes from a French paper quoting a German one!) and other compounds that would be more specific to urine. The TLC for urea and creatinine uses n-butanol-DI water-Acetic Acid Glacial (4:1:1) as the mobile phase. The TLC plate is revealed with DMAC or DMAB for the urea (upper part of the plate) and picric acid for the creatinine (bottom part of the plate). On another note, Merck has two rapid test called Merckognost and Microquant that are made to detect urea in blood and swimming pools. Urea is present in a lot of body fluids, but not at the concentration that it is in urine. So, these tests might be handy too. The main problem with property managers' work, is that they realize they have urine 10 days later, once all the urea transformed in ammonia and CO2.... at that point, it is not very useful to detect the urea.... but we had successful results with the TLC of creatinine, indolmelanogen, urochrom, and indican. There a little bit of German literature on all that, if you want to knock yourself out ;-) Hope this helps, Regards, Eric On Jun 4, 2004, at 16:57, Joy Halverson wrote: > I get this question frequently from property managers and new renters: > Is there a way to definitively detect (and prove the presence of) > urine of either human or pet origin in carpet or carpet padding? Joy > > > [EndPost by "Joy Halverson" ] > > -------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer, MS, F-ABC, CFEI Senior Forensic Scientist MME Forensic Services 1039 Industrial Court Suwanee, GA 30024 USA Office + 1 (678) 730 2000 Cell + 1 (404) 663 3611 Fax + 1 (678) 482 9677 Email estauffer@mmelab.com Web http://www.mmelab.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/enriched --- [EndPost by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 8 10:00:36 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i58E0a0N012627 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i58E0a4M012626 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:00:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:00:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Bill Oliver wrote: > It may be that digital archiving is the optimal solution for > keeping pro forma records that are not, in fact, ever referred > to. As far as active cases and active documents, however, > they will end up on paper regardless of how they started out, > and how they are officially archived. > I should add here that this should not be construed to mean that I oppose digital archiving. My personal opinion is that at the moment, the "optimal" solution is a mix of paper and digital. The problem I have is with this religious attitude towards a "truly paperless" office -- which really means an office that consists primarily of unofficial paper documents scattered among the people who do the work instead of writing the policies. There are *good* reasons to have a single "official" version of anything, and there is nothing wrong with archiving that in a digital rather than paper format -- assuming that one has taken care of the horrible problems of media and format obsolescence. I still think back to an experience I have had with digital imaging. In 1992, I was involved in the federal investigation of the beating of Rodney King. I carefully archived the images I created in three different digital formats. A couple of years ago, I tried to get them for a lecture I was giving. One digital media (magnetic disk) had degenerated to the point that the images were corrupted. The second (tape) may or may not have worked OK, but we no longer owned a tape unit that can read the media. The third (also tape) was not corrupted, and was readable at least at the directory level, but I no longer had software that supported the file format. Then I went downstairs to the Civil War Medicine museum, and looked at a photograph that was taken in 1867. It was a *little* faded, but worked just fine after 136 years. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 8 10:11:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i58EB1tL013429 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i58EB1pt013428 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:11:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f In-Reply-To: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 Message-ID: From: RBost@ucok.edu Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:11:41 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 06/08/2004 09:11:46 AM, Serialize complete at 06/08/2004 09:11:46 AM X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There is another aspect of this question of going to a "paperless" system. And that is that the electronic form in which the records is stored may (soon?) not be readable with new versions of software. How quickly have we gone from Windows 95 to Windows 97 to Windows 2000 to Windows XP, etc? And how many have found trouble reading older documents with newer software. This is the same problem as faced by some of the audio recording technologies (wire recorders, reel-to-reel, etc.) or video recording technologies (8mm, Beta, VHS, now to DVD, etc.) Who even has the equipment to play back some of the older recorded material? Some publishers are now putting reference books into electronic format and some are even beginning to go backwards through their catalog to make older books available. But the mass of paper generated by our many, many labs and offices is huge compared to the task publishers face. And who, down the line, will take up the task of updating that electronic version to be readable in the new software? Robert O. Bost, Ph.D., DABFT Director, MS in Forensic Sciences Program Department of Chemistry University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 (405) 974-5519 Bill Oliver Sent by: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 06/08/2004 08:46 AM Please respond to forens To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu cc: Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 EarlNMeyer@aol.com wrote: > Billo, > > With reference to your comments.... > >as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, > >but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping >and > >reviewing them. > > You may want to have an in-house demo of a Canon CD 4050 Digital Document recorder for some of your medical records to see if this could have any part in solving your dilemma. > > We frequently have pre-trial disclosure on DNA cases. These are paper data packages usually 1-3 inches high. They consist of handwritten notes, graphs, reports, etc. We are evaluating this as a possible solution for making multiple copies for defense, prosecution, etc. > It is a very high speed scanner that spits out a CD. The 4050 is a color version that debuts this month. > The system can be standalone or network compatible. > > For a more robust document imaging system you may wish to contact Tom Gantner (george's son) at the St. Louis ME's office. They are scanning all records from the late 1800's forward. > [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] > I have mixed feelings about this religious support of the "paperless" office. While there are obvious logistical advantages to storing documents digitally, the habit of dealing with large documents such as medical records or reports introduces error. The error comes from two sources: 1) Errors in digitization/readability when transferring to digital format. 2) Human factor problems with digital documents. As far as #2 goes, there have been a number of studies that have demonstrated that people do not read as well from monitors as from paper. Proofreading studies show that proofreading is worse when done on a monitor than done with paper. Comprehension studies show that comprehension is lower. Timing studies show that people read more slowly from a monitor for the same comprehension (people will read faster from a monitor at lower comprehension). Thus, for large text documents (once again, as opposed to short reports such as tox or DNA), going to completely paperless means choosing a method that is introduces error, is slower for the same comprehension, is more difficult, and results in less comprehension in normal use. Some of this can be ameliorated by the use of extremely large, high quality displays and superior digitization. However, most paper digitization methods I have seen, which essentially provide a photograph of the document, are not that hot. see: Daniel K. Mayes, Valerie K. Sims and Jefferson M. Koonce Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics Volume 28, Issue 6 , December 2001, Pages 367-378 Ziefle M. Effects of display resolution on visual performance. Hum Factors. 1998 Dec;40(4):554-68. Harpster JL, Freivalds A, Shulman GL, Leibowitz HW Visual performance on CRT screens and hard-copy displays. Hum Factors. 1989 Jun;31(3):247-57. Patty Wharton Michael Print Vs. Computer Screen Effects Of Medium On Proofreading Accuracy http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/g_sic/research.htm The same principle applies in diagnostic visual performance: Kosuda S, Kaji T, Kobayashi H, Watanabe M, Iwasaki Y, Kusano S. Acta Radiol. 2000 Sep;41(5):420-4. Related Articles, Links Hard-copy versus soft-copy with and without simple image manipulation for detection of pulmonary nodules and masses. Ando Y, Tsukamoto N, Kawaguchi O, Kitamura M, Kunieda E, Kubo A, Ogasawara K, Kinosada Y, Maeda T, Kozuka T. Hard-copy (film) versus soft-copy (CRT) reading performance between compressed and uncompressed images: SOLs in abdominal CT images Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 1999 Sep;59(11):521-5. It has been my experience in a couple of efforts at "paperless" offices, that the opposite actually occurs -- people print off and keep personal copies of documents they use, regardless of what policy dictates. Otherwise, they would not be able to get their work done. The move to "paperless" offices is simply a move from a few copies of official documents to innumerable copies of unofficial documents scattered on a zillion desks and wastebaskets. As an example, I recently had to go to a conference with a Chief of Police, various local officials, various LEOs, etc. to talk about an active case involving the shooting of a suspect by a police officer. How, in a "paperless" office, is one supposed to refer to one's report in such a situation -- the answer is that you make paper copies. It may be that digital archiving is the optimal solution for keeping pro forma records that are not, in fact, ever referred to. As far as active cases and active documents, however, they will end up on paper regardless of how they started out, and how they are officially archived. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by RBost@ucok.edu] From forens-owner Tue Jun 8 12:31:15 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i58GVFjV016523 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i58GVFMQ016522 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:31:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Lisa Hudson Organization: Total LegalNurse Consultants To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Back to flossing... Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:31:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20040608163111.RZOO13835.lakermmtao02.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have heard from Kathy Bell re: dental floss. Her response is as follows: "It is my understanding that there have been a couple of times that sperm has been recovered by using dental floss. I don't think there is an article published yet. It needs to be the plain kind not the kind that is covered. One of the controversies IS about the risk exposure of bloodborne pathogens with this technique. It would make sense to me that if there was a concern about exposure from a suspect that this technique would not be used" The prevailing thought I have as an experienced nurse, but inexperienced as to evidence collection is that it would be a case by case decision to be made as to the importance of the possilbe "find" of evidence. I have also spoken with a dentist who testifies in some cases here in Oklahoma. He suggests calling in an experienced dentist or dental hygiene technician that is comfortable with the procedure to collect the evidence. His recommendation was that IF your lab choses to use this technique that there should be a contract with a forensic dentist to be available to assist with the evidence collection and the writing of procedures in regards to the collection techniques...both for the protection of the evidence and the protection of the healthcare person collecting the evidence. SANE nurses in Oklahoma are not paid to be on call, but take call and are paid for the exams they do. I am sure call and call pay would be another issue to deal with. Lisa Hudson Lisa Hudson, RN, BSN 1616 S. State Street Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 PH: (405)414-7005 FAX: (405)720-1884 email: LisaLegalNurse@cox.net This e-mail transmission and any attachments contain confidential information belonging to the sender, which is legally privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail and/or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please delete it from your computer system and notify Lisa Hudson at lisalegalnurse@cox.net. [EndPost by Lisa Hudson ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 11 18:50:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BMoNjY012174 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5BMoNAJ012173 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:50:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:50:26 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <008501c45006$7ce784f0$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2004 22:50:17.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[779277D0:01C45006] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5BMoMwu012168 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The readability of scanned documents is certainly an issue, but no worse than the readability of documents transferred to microfilm or microfiche in the "old" days of archiving. It all depends on the quality of the equipment used, the proficiency of the user, and the care taken in making the transfer (to include any needed cleaning up of the archived document). I've seen and made perfectly readable scans of various documents (I get most of my research paper reprints digitally as Adobe Acrobat pdf documents these days), and I've also seen some abysmal ones. The impetus to digital records lies mainly in the huge advantage in storage space. The Encyclopedia Britannica can fit onto a single DVD, and the entire printed contents of the Library of Congress could be stored on a desktop computer with a large enough hard drive or a set of DVDs that fit into a closet or small room. But perishability is a concern. In some ways, paper is more perishable and in other ways less perishable than digital records, depending on how the paper or digital records are taken care of. Optical media is generally much more durable than paper or magnetic media, but the issue of format obsolescence remains. Future compatibility is probably the one biggest caveat to the digital archiving world - if you upgrade or otherwise change your software or hardware, you are obligated to convert your data files to the new format and migrate them to the new media before disposing of the old software/hardware, or you risk losing access to the files. We've all probably been caught at least once in that way. Ever try opening a document written in a long-obsolete word processor format no longer supported by modern products? It's impossible unless you can find a copy of the original software or an old utility program somewhere that will do the conversion. Shareware sites are great for this, but even they clean house from time to time. I'd hate to have to find a way to read a document, for example, written in Enable (an old DOS-based office suite used by the US Army back in the late 80's/early 90's). Ever try sticking a single density floppy into a Windows XP machine? You can read it (sometimes) but not write back to it because XP doesn't recognize single density FAT 16 formatting. So don't throw out those old floppy and tape drives and their respective media until you've transferred their contents to CD or DVD, folks! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:01 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic LIMS & RFID Tags On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Bill Oliver wrote: > It may be that digital archiving is the optimal solution for > keeping pro forma records that are not, in fact, ever referred > to. As far as active cases and active documents, however, > they will end up on paper regardless of how they started out, > and how they are officially archived. > I should add here that this should not be construed to mean that I oppose digital archiving. My personal opinion is that at the moment, the "optimal" solution is a mix of paper and digital. The problem I have is with this religious attitude towards a "truly paperless" office -- which really means an office that consists primarily of unofficial paper documents scattered among the people who do the work instead of writing the policies. There are *good* reasons to have a single "official" version of anything, and there is nothing wrong with archiving that in a digital rather than paper format -- assuming that one has taken care of the horrible problems of media and format obsolescence. I still think back to an experience I have had with digital imaging. In 1992, I was involved in the federal investigation of the beating of Rodney King. I carefully archived the images I created in three different digital formats. A couple of years ago, I tried to get them for a lecture I was giving. One digital media (magnetic disk) had degenerated to the point that the images were corrupted. The second (tape) may or may not have worked OK, but we no longer owned a tape unit that can read the media. The third (also tape) was not corrupted, and was readable at least at the directory level, but I no longer had software that supported the file format. Then I went downstairs to the Civil War Medicine museum, and looked at a photograph that was taken in 1867. It was a *little* faded, but worked just fine after 136 years. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 11 19:01:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BN1cI9012760 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5BN1cJ5012759 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:01:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] LIMS issues Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:01:46 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <008801c45008$11dcf3f0$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2004 23:01:37.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C86FC70:01C45008] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5BN1bYM012754 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bill, Are you using JusticeTrax "LIMS-plus" or JusticeTrax "PathAssist"? Lims+ was designed for forensic labs, not ME offices; PathAssist is designed for ME offices. My comments related to the LIMS+ product, as I have no experience with PathAssist. If you're using LIMS+, then I can understand that it could be a poor fit for your operations because it wasn't intended for them. However, it has proven to be a good fit for full-service criminalistics labs, not just tox or drug labs, else GBI and RCMP wouldn't have bought it and stuck with it to run their entire systems. "Inflexibility" was one of our few complaints about LIMS+ when we first got it. The company has come a long way in addressing that shortcoming, and continues to improve with each update. The original problem was that LIMS+ was designed with accountability and security of data foremost in mind, which meant that once something was entered as "final" it couldn't be changed easily (or often at all). Of course, that fails to allow for correction of erroneous entries, updated information, etc. Based on customer feedback, JTrax added utilities that allow managers with the appropriate security permissions to make corrections to things like chain of custody, etc., as needed. Security is still protected because all such changes are tracked and logged if you turn on the built-in auditing function. If flexibility is more important than data security, you can turn much of the security stuff off or work around it another way. Here's my experience with your concerns: 1. Long reports not amenable to templates can be done with the general reporting module, which works like a free text editor (but with limited formatting capabilities). The process for amending "final" reports depends on the security settings you put in place and the report editor you use. You can set up the system to allow editing of the report until a certain milestone is reached, but not thereafter. If a change needs to be made after the milestone is reached, someone with a high enough security level can back out of the milestone and revert to the previous milestone to allow changes. As a final level of document security, LIMS+ has a setting called "static documents" which archives the "final" report when it reaches the "report releasable" milestone you set (say at the "administrative review" milestone). With static reports engaged, a "released" report can't be changed because it's intentionally "frozen" to prevent covert changes (it's supposed to be a "final" published document at that point, after all). However, if necessary the report can be deleted and replaced (which will also be logged by the system) with a new report that will bear the current (new) date/time group; or you can issue an amended report if you've already sent out the original. If you turn off the "static documents" feature (requires the proper access level permissions), then you will always be able to edit the reports. 2. The problems with conversion to PDF are new to me. Have you discussed this with JTrax? My experience is that if they don't have a solution now, they will with the next release of the product. If you have a maintenance contract with them, software updates are free. We don't use Word as our report editor; we use the other option, which is Crystal Reports. For simple reports we use Crystal templates we created (or ones the JTrax techs made created for us at our request), and for complicated reports the General Report template can be used (essentially a blank page you can fill with whatever text you like). We haven't tried converting these to PDF format because we use the Crystal Reports documents as static documents and simply reprint them as needed (we don't send reports via e-mail yet). Using Word allows more and easier flexibility with report formatting, but less security - even after converting the report from Word to Adobe Acrobat format, the report is still not written in stone as it would be with a Crystal "static document." A PDF document can only be viewed, not altered, with the free Acrobat Reader everyone has, but a PDF can still be edited if you have the full Adobe Acrobat software product (expensive). 3. These "external" documents you mention can still be stored in the LIMS+ database - you simply have to convert them to a digital file using a flatbed scanner, and then save them like any other file and link the files to the case number. The files can be graphic files (simple pictures of the paper documents) or word processor documents reconstructed from the paper scans using optical character recognition (much more involved). All this is admittedly labor intensive, but it's the only way paper documents can be stored in any database. So if one wants a truly paperless office, you scan those outside documents then dispose of the originals. If that's more hassle than "paperlessness" is worth, then you continue to maintain paper files. You just have to decide which option is best for you. 4. Bar codes come in all sizes, and can be designed to accommodate most types of evidence. LIMS+ can register pre-printed bar codes bought elsewhere and link them to evidence, which allows use of a far greater variety of types and sizes of bar code labels than the system can print itself using the label printers they sell with the system. If a bar code just can't be used, you can still enter and track evidence using the exhibit number and description instead of a bar code. One of the things I like about LIMS+ is that there is almost always more than one way to accomplish the same task. I would be first to agree the JusticeTrax LIMS+ product is not perfect, but no software product I know of is. The thing that has won my endorsement more than any other factor is the JTrax team's commitment to customer support and continued product improvement. They have a very robust product to begin with in my opinion, but they keep working on fixing bugs as they are discovered, and continue to improve and enhance the product every year based on customer feedback. They are also willing to go the extra mile to help you find a work-around that will give you what you need (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) until a software update that directly addresses the problem or need is ready for release. They've often gone beyond the terms of the service contract at no charge, just to keep us happy. Of course, they can't grant every item on everyone's wish list (some of which conflict), but they try very hard. I say again that the PathAssist product might be a better fit for you than LIMS+. If it is designed and supported the same way the LIMS+ product is, I think you might be happy with it since it was specifically designed for ME offices by the same folks who have impressed my lab and many others with LIMS+. A JTrax developer candidly admitted to me at one point that there were some problems with the initial PathAssist product because most of their energies had been devoted to the LIMS+ product at the time (i.e., PathAssist was underdeveloped in its first incarnation, and probably rushed to market before it was really ready), but that they've made great improvements to it since then. However, I have no experience with it. Are there any other pathology offices out there that have used JusticeTrax PathAssist, and can comment on it? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] LIMS issues While I missed the original thread, I think that the discussion by this poster needs some clarification. Robert Parsons wrote: > JusticeTrax has allowed the GBI system to go entirely paperless, > with the LIMS storing all worksheets, photos, instrumental output, > and other traditional file contents (I'm told they don't maintain > paper case files at all, and print only what they need when court > testimony is required, then destroy the paper records again > afterwards). Supported agencies fill out their analysis requests > on-line, and receive their lab reports the same way, all in a > secure, distributed environment. The system can also log and > manage all kinds of lab and personnel activity data (user > customizable), and includes both chemical inventory and evidence > inventory reconciliation utilities as add-on options. Please note that my comments are my personal opinion and do not reflect that of my agency, entity, or any affiliated organization. I have not been all that happy with JusticeTrax. JusticeTrax has proven to be pretty inflexible when it comes to Medical Examiner reports and efforts. In particular: 1) The document tracking software is inappropriate for long text documents such as ME reports (as opposed to short, template-based documents such as toxicology reports). The process for amending reports if a typo is discovered late (and this is common when you have tens of pages of free text in a report) is unwieldy. 2) The conversion software from Word to the archive format (PDF) instroduces errors into the archived documents. In particular, many Unicode characters (such as math symbols and such) are not correctly translated, nor are many of the Word formatting calls. Thus, for instance, outlines and bullets are not correctly transcribed. 3) The "paperless" office idea may work well for final reports, but does not work well for systems that have a large amount of external documentation that must be retained. For instance, there is no mechanism for retaining medical records, external laboratory results such as genetic screening in SIDS, etc. This leads to an interesting problem -- as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping and reviewing them. 4) The system for handling evidence and such is inflexible. Not all the world is amenable to barcodes. The bottom line is that JusticeTrax may be wonderful for a tox lab or DNA lab. I don't know. But as far as ME work goes, it attempts to shoehorn everything into the same paradigm -- and it's not appropriate to pound round objects into square holes just because you like square holes. Fundamentally, a software system should facilitate practice, and not dictate it. And it certainly should not *introduce* errors into documents that have been already proofread. I have suggested to my superiors that JusticeTrax is not the best choice for the ME activity here, but again, that is just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect that of anybody else. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 11 19:06:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BN6tEn013163 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5BN6tFK013162 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:06:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:07:04 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <008901c45008$cfbdf630$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2004 23:06:55.0880 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA651880:01C45008] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5BN6sLh013157 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hello Ed, It would have helped had I had the opportunity to read the paper in question, or possessed some experience in this type of sample collection. As I had neither, I was just offering food for thought based on the assumption that different collection methods would be used on different subjects in a proposed study. It did not occur to me that a method of progressively aggressive collection techniques could be used on the same subject. The experiment as you describe it might be illuminating assuming there is sperm present to begin with, and provided that you start with the sampling method least likely to recover all of the sperm and work your way up to the one most likely (if you started with a rinse, for example, there might be precious little left for the other methods to recover afterward). Even then, it seems to me that no matter what the order of sampling methods applied, as the application of each successive method removes more sperm the "success" rate for the methods that follow will be skewed downward, since there will be less total sperm left for recovery. I'm not sure how you could account or adjust for this effect, so the results might not be completely accurate, but I now can see how they might still be useful. Regarding the experimental design you outline using volunteers, you make some excellent points about details I overlooked. They actually further my basic premise that the conditions of the experiment must be carefully controlled in order to produce valid results. It remains apparent to me that conditions for "field trials" using actual crime victims are more difficult to control than laboratory experiments, but I still agree with Dave that it would likely be very difficult to gather the volunteers needed for the laboratory experiment, regardless of the method used for sample introduction into the oral cavity. Thanks for an interesting discussion. 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 Eljnsjr@aol.com Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 5:37 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits Dear Bob, There are two separate issues in this discussion, one is the recovery method for oral sperm in case work and a second is an experimental design using volunteers to determine which method is best for recovering oral sperm. Concerning the recovery of oral sperm in case work, I disagree with the underlined part of your statement: "In any case, you don't know beforehand which subjects actually had any sperm in their mouths to be collected and which did not, so measuring "success" rates while subject to these unknown variables seems not a great deal better than anecdotal evidence." I believe that the experimental design of Willott and Crosse is significantly better than anecdotal evidence. Swabs of the mouth are collected from an alleged victim of oral copulation. This is the current practice in many jurisdictions. A second sample collected from the mouth of the same victim can be compared directly with the results from the first set of swabs. This second sample can be: a second set of swabs, a liquid saliva sample, an oral rinse or dental floss. You will not only collect more evidence from your alleged victim but you will also develop data which will show which methods of collection are more effective. With this experimental design, Willot and Crosse showed that liquid saliva samples were more effective for collecting oral sperm than swabs. The second issue is the experimental design of a volunteer study. Most experiments of this nature involving human subjects address the post coital interval (PCI) or time since intercourse (TSI). They do not address which method is best for collecting your sample. If you are interested in solving the problem of relative recovery rates for selected techniques then the amount of semen (sperm) should be quantitated and then inoculated into the oral cavity for a set period of time. The recipients of these inoculations can be given instructions such as hold it in for so many minutes then spit it out. The amount present in the sample which is spit out could be measured as well as the amount present in the collection from the mouth. Because of the known intrapersonal variability of sperm per ejaculate, the performance of fellatio by volunteers would only complicate this study. Ed Jones Ventura Sheriff's Crime Lab In a message dated 6/4/2004 5:39:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: The problem of course with any experimental design involving "alleged fellatio" in alleged sexual assault victims is that there are three uncontrolled and unmeasured variables. The first is reflected by the word "alleged." You don't know how many of your test subjects actually were the victims of oral sexual assault (forced to perform fellatio), and how many are merely falsely claiming so. "Victims" do sometimes file false allegations for a variety of reasons, as any sexual assault investigator well knows. Second, if fellatio did in fact occur, you don't know for certain whether or not there was ejaculation in the mouth. Third, if there was ejaculation in the mouth, you don't know whether or not the assailant was aspermate (vasectomy recipient, etc.). In any case, you don't know beforehand which subjects actually had any sperm in their mouths to be collected and which did not, so measuring "success" rates while subject to these unknown variables seems not a great deal better than anecdotal evidence. The "success" rate of any collection method would be suspect because there is no way to know whether it is an accurate measurement (actual success rates may be higher than it seems if some of the subjects didn't have any sperm present to be collected in the first place). To accurately measure true success rates, you would have to assemble a controlled pool of test subjects KNOWN to have sperm in their mouths, and that conceivably would mean finding willing volunteers who agree to engage in fellatio through the point of ejaculation with the confirmed presence of sperm in the semen, and who are then sampled using the various collection techniques being investigated. It might be quite difficult to assemble such a pool of volunteer test subjects, especially in the numbers necessary to produce any kind of reliable statistical assessment of the collection techniques. I believe this is what Dave was referring to when he indicated that designing and carrying out such an experiment would be problematic. 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 Eljnsjr@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:49 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Dental floss in rape kits In a message dated 5/27/2004 5:38:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@jobe.net writes: Actually, the experimental design would seem to be trivial, the only difficulty being recruitment of experimental subjects. It seems unlikely an ethics committee would permit naive subjects, so it would probably require investigators/co-investigators who are practitioners of the relevant sexual activities, with an eye to remaining within limits of local laws. If I were really interested, I'd go back to last September and look up the reference from the following post we had on this list: "In the J. For. Sci. vol. 23 page 233 (W.F. Enos, J.C. Beyer) mentions "We have been successful in identifying spermatozoa in oral smears up to 6 h after the attack, despite brushing teeth, using mouthwash, and drinking various fluids." Elizabeth Selya" Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morris Odell" It's probably impossible to check this experimentally (the mind boggles at a possible experimental design, ethics committee submission, recruitment of subjects and inevitable conference presentation & publication. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] Dear List, The experimental design of Willot would be applicable to this problem. G. M. Willott and M. A. Crosse, "The Detection of Spermatozoa in the Mouth," J. Forensic Sci. Soc., 26 (1985) 125-8. They found that the collection of liquid saliva samples was more effective than oral swabs for collecting sperm from the mouth. From 61 cases with alleged fellatio where both saliva samples and oral swabs were collected, sperm were found in saliva samples 22 times while sperm were found only 10 times on oral swabs. This experimental design can be expanded to include a mouth wash or flossing and the results can be compared against the normal swabbing from the same victim. If the samples are collected in a reasonable order then no evidence is lost and valuable information can be found. Ed Jones Ventura Sheriff's Crime Lab [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 11 19:29:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5BNTEE0013859 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5BNTEFU013858 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] LIMS issues In-Reply-To: <008801c45008$11dcf3f0$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > Bill, > > Are you using JusticeTrax "LIMS-plus" or JusticeTrax "PathAssist"? Lims+ > was designed for forensic labs, not ME offices; PathAssist is designed for > ME offices. My comments related to the LIMS+ product, as I have no > experience with PathAssist. If you're using LIMS+, then I can understand > that it could be a poor fit for your operations because it wasn't intended > for them. However, it has proven to be a good fit for full-service > criminalistics labs, not just tox or drug labs, else GBI and RCMP wouldn't > have bought it and stuck with it to run their entire systems. > Robert, don't lecture to me about the GBI. I'm giving personal opinions here, am not speaking in my official capacity, and do not in any way pretend that my opinions reflect those of my employer. But don't pretend yours do, either. Get a clue. It's not all candy canes and happy faces. And no, there are lots of reasons to stick with a program even if it isn't exactly what you need. One reason is that when you buy into a LIMS and use it for a couple of years, and you are a big institution, you have a huge investment in it and it will cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to change. The bottom line is that once a large organization buys into something it has to be essentially unuseable in order to justify the cost of a change. You are talking about *huge* conversion costs, training costs, transition errors, etc. > "Inflexibility" was one of our few complaints about LIMS+ when we first got > it. The company has come a long way in addressing that shortcoming... Play the salesman if you want but I know that it doesn't do what I need -- from direct experience. You can accept it or not, but simple denial doesn't cut it. I use it. I don't like it. It doesn't work well for me. Deal with it. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 11 20:56:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5C0u4db015246 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5C0u3wp015245 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:56:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] LIMS issues Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:56:12 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00a901c45018$0eb7f2f0$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2004 00:56:03.0965 (UTC) FILETIME=[095B92D0:01C45018] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5C0u3G9015237 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sheesh, Bill, take it easy. It seems like every once in a while I catch you on a bad day and push a button somewhere. Sorry, it was not my intent to "challenge" your opinion of the product. I wasn't lecturing, I was explaining the capabilities of the LIMS+ system as we have experienced them, with the idea that maybe you didn't have it long and might not have discovered everything about it; and also with the idea that it wasn't intended for ME's offices (it puzzled me why it would be bought for a pathology office). I also wasn't sure if you were really talking about LIMS+ or about PathAssist, since they're both "Justice Trax." Wait, are you saying you work for GBI? If so, I didn't realize that (I now may understand why my comment ticked you off). You were talking about pathology reports, so I assumed you were with an MEO. OK, so I now assume you are with GBI and so are probably very familiar with LIMS+, and you simply don't like it. That's fine. Terry Mills told me "GBI" was quite happy with the product, although he too had requested improvements (which he said the company acted on). Of course, he never said EVERYONE in GBI liked it (maybe he was speaking for himself as an administrator, but I got the impression that most of his people liked it once they got used to it). Not all of my coworkers are perfectly happy with it either, but in truth the most of us here are very happy with it, including my boss (as far as I know). I chalk up the feelings of the few who don't like it to resistance to change (some people don't like doing data entry and would prefer to keep handwriting their notes and have secretaries do all the typing), but I understand your reasons are very different. As I said, there are things we'd like improved also, but we're overall very happy with the product and the company, so I said so. You aren't, and you said so. No harm, no foul. I just didn't realize your level of experience with the product, that's all. You're absolutely right that once any LIMS is purchased, it very difficult to back out because of the huge investment loss and hassle involved in switching to yet something else. You say it doesn't do what you need, I accept that. Has the problem been addressed with JTrax, and have they done nothing about it? I ask because in my experience they are extremely customer-responsive (and no, I'm not playing salesman - I don't get any kickbacks, LOL). Maybe it's just a bad fit for your department's work. PathAssist (or something like it) might be better for your operations. I think PathAssist is made to interface directly with LIMS+, so it might be an ideal solution if the funds could be appropriated to buy it for you. If another product would be better, maybe you can sell that to the powers that be based on the valid argument that LIMS+ isn't intended for pathology work. JTrax might be able to provide a utility to allow another company's pathology product to interface with LIMS+. Just some possibilities to consider (I don't know GBI's procurement system or politics, so don't tear my throat out). Have a good (and peaceful) weekend. Bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 7:29 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] LIMS issues On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > Bill, > > Are you using JusticeTrax "LIMS-plus" or JusticeTrax "PathAssist"? Lims+ > was designed for forensic labs, not ME offices; PathAssist is designed for > ME offices. My comments related to the LIMS+ product, as I have no > experience with PathAssist. If you're using LIMS+, then I can understand > that it could be a poor fit for your operations because it wasn't intended > for them. However, it has proven to be a good fit for full-service > criminalistics labs, not just tox or drug labs, else GBI and RCMP wouldn't > have bought it and stuck with it to run their entire systems. > Robert, don't lecture to me about the GBI. I'm giving personal opinions here, am not speaking in my official capacity, and do not in any way pretend that my opinions reflect those of my employer. But don't pretend yours do, either. Get a clue. It's not all candy canes and happy faces. And no, there are lots of reasons to stick with a program even if it isn't exactly what you need. One reason is that when you buy into a LIMS and use it for a couple of years, and you are a big institution, you have a huge investment in it and it will cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to change. The bottom line is that once a large organization buys into something it has to be essentially unuseable in order to justify the cost of a change. You are talking about *huge* conversion costs, training costs, transition errors, etc. > "Inflexibility" was one of our few complaints about LIMS+ when we first got > it. The company has come a long way in addressing that shortcoming... Play the salesman if you want but I know that it doesn't do what I need -- from direct experience. You can accept it or not, but simple denial doesn't cut it. I use it. I don't like it. It doesn't work well for me. Deal with it. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 12 01:00:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5C50jJ7018950 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5C50jnR018949 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:00:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <06d901c4503a$00c2ace0$7f5f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <00a901c45018$0eb7f2f0$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:59:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bob, Bill sort-of works for GBI - they are the parent agency of the state ME system, which covers most counties except for 5 or 6 in the Atlanta area, if I remember correctly. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" Sheesh, Bill, take it easy. It seems like every once in a while I catch you on a bad day and push a button somewhere. Sorry, it was not my intent to "challenge" your opinion of the product. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 12 13:18:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5CHIqcI027382 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5CHIqMq027380 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:18:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:18:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues In-Reply-To: <06d901c4503a$00c2ace0$7f5f12d0@dwhause> 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, 11 Jun 2004, Dave Hause wrote: > Bob, > Bill sort-of works for GBI - they are the parent agency of the state ME > system, which covers most counties except for 5 or 6 in the Atlanta area, if > I remember correctly. > Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net > Ft. Leonard Wood, MO I've been trying to get the phrase "sort-of works" taken off my fitness evals for years. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 12 18:35:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5CMZ1ch029695 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5CMZ1d3029694 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:35:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: FORENSIC022@aol.com Message-ID: <1e0.22f90424.2dfcdf0b@aol.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:34:51 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 lol. Thanks for that one, Bill Brad --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by FORENSIC022@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Jun 12 22:31:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5D2VIDr002280 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5D2VIIY002279 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:31:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <00f001c450ee$588d24a0$345f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:30:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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 just need to get the end-quote moved one word to the left. My observation is that you, like many of us, have arranged for some one to pay you for stuff you would other wise do for free. And buy you really cool toys, to boot. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Oliver" On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Dave Hause wrote: > Bob, > Bill sort-of works for GBI - they are the parent agency of the state ME > system, which covers most counties except for 5 or 6 in the Atlanta area, if > I remember correctly. > Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net > Ft. Leonard Wood, MO I've been trying to get the phrase "sort-of works" taken off my fitness evals for years. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 13 11:16:07 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5DFG7Mg010038 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5DFG7Df010037 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:16:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: KJohn39679@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:15:58 EDT Subject: [forens] From John Kelly To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 45 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter Barnett, Could you send me your office address? Thanks, John Kelly [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jun 13 13:35:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5DHZv8l012447 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5DHZvgV012446 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:35:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: KJohn39679@aol.com Message-ID: <54.2be22db0.2dfdea71@aol.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:35:45 EDT Subject: [forens] For Peter Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 45 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter, Could you e-mail or snail mail me a copy of "The Role of the Independent Expert: Several Case Examples" and your letter to Scientific Sleuthing Review entitled "FBI Laboratory Problems"? Thanks, John Kelly 1832 Biltmore Street NW Apt 35 Washington, D.C. 20009 [EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Jun 13 14:06:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5DI6han013212 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:06:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5DI6hjo013211 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:06:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040613105800.0260fc78@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:59:31 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] For Peter Barnett In-Reply-To: <54.2be22db0.2dfdea71@aol.com> References: <54.2be22db0.2dfdea71@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John - I won't be at work for a few days, but I'll check to see what I have when I am next there -- probably Wednesday, but possibly not for a week or so. If you don't hear from me by June 22, please e-mail again. Pete At 10:35 AM 6/13/2004, you wrote: >Peter, > >Could you e-mail or snail mail me a copy of "The Role of the Independent >Expert: Several Case Examples" and your letter to Scientific Sleuthing Review >entitled "FBI Laboratory Problems"? > >Thanks, > >John Kelly >1832 Biltmore Street NW >Apt 35 >Washington, D.C. 20009 >[EndPost by KJohn39679@aol.com] Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 15 00:45:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5F4jGfq012269 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5F4jGh8012268 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:45:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.76] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <00a901c45018$0eb7f2f0$7b00a8c0@IRRCL.local> <06d901c4503a$00c2ace0$7f5f12d0@dwhause> Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:32:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2004 16:29:39.0078 (UTC) FILETIME=[74F78260:01C4509A] 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 It's good that Billo has strong opinions about software. I wonder how he feels about invididuals in leadership roles citing the 5th Amendment and the Georgia state constitution while giving testimony about criminal cases? There must me some mistake, I can't believe he would actually work there unless there were special circumstances. I'm convinced that he is an ethical, honest person and would like to believe he wouldn't associate with that sort of crowd. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Hause" To: Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues > Bob, > Bill sort-of works for GBI - they are the parent agency of the state ME > system, which covers most counties except for 5 or 6 in the Atlanta area, if > I remember correctly. > Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net > Ft. Leonard Wood, MO > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > > > Sheesh, Bill, take it easy. It seems like every once in a while I catch you > on a bad day and push a button somewhere. Sorry, it was not my intent to > "challenge" your opinion of the product. > > [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 17 02:14:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5H6EetU021848 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5H6EeuM021847 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:14:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: From: "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] Paternity Index formulae Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:44:25 +0930 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Does anybody know were I can find the complete formulae (of the numerator and denominator) for various possible allele combinations used to derive the likelihood ratios/paternity indices for the following scenarios: 1) missing mother; 2) missing alleged father; 3) paternity trio incorporating a coancestry coefficient; 4) incest; 5) missing alleged father but available relative (eg avuncluar index); 6) etc Note that I have the LR formulae...I'm after the expanded formulae from which they're derived. Thanks for any help. Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science South Australia [EndPost by "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 17 16:54:59 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5HKsxuj003694 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5HKsxlh003693 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:58:25 +1200 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 Andrew, I can supply all these (I will have to write them out but it wouldn't take long). Do you need them as the product rule or with the theta correction for 1,2,4 and 5? John Buckleton NZ -----Original Message----- From: Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS) [mailto:Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:14 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] Paternity Index formulae Does anybody know were I can find the complete formulae (of the numerator and denominator) for various possible allele combinations used to derive the likelihood ratios/paternity indices for the following scenarios: 1) missing mother; 2) missing alleged father; 3) paternity trio incorporating a coancestry coefficient; 4) incest; 5) missing alleged father but available relative (eg avuncluar index); 6) etc Note that I have the LR formulae...I'm after the expanded formulae from which they're derived. Thanks for any help. Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science South Australia [EndPost by "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" ] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited (ESR). The recipient of this e-mail should be aware that this e-mail and any attachments to it has been scanned before despatch but that it might not be free from viruses in their various forms. ESR strongly recommends that the recipient uses anti-virus software to screen all e-mails received externally. ESR does not accept any liability for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of the transmission of this e-mail to the recipient. Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited http://www.esr.cri.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [EndPost by "Buckleton, John" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 17 19:43:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5HNh6qI005286 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5HNh6lY005285 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:43:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:42:32 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121AF@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0 Thread-Topic: [forens] Paternity Index formulae thread-index: AcRUM4e2JQ+JRFxcRim+AnR9dqEokwAjFe2Q Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 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 Sibship (or more distant relatives) LR calcualtions are found in Wenk RE et al (1996) Transfusion 36,259 "Determination of sibship in any two persons". They can also be found on Charles Brenner's WEB site. One parent calculations are found in Chakraborty R et al (1994) Int J Legal Medicine 107,127 "Paternity evaluation in cases lacking a mother and undectable alleles" and in Brenner CH (1997) Genetics 145: 535. "Symbolic Kinship program". Please contact me direct if you cannot get a copy of these articles- I will fax them to you. I'm not sure what you mean by "etc". Two parent, mixture calculations? Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology PS: Incest cases usually use a normal PI ie., probabiltiy of DNA result given they are the parents v probability of DNA result given the mother is the mother and a random, unrelated man is the father. The fact the alleged father is eg., the biological father of the child's mother would not be relevant. There is of course a caveat on all the LR calculations which would be considered especially in incest cases. If case circumstances dictate that the potential father of the child may be from a population of related individuals, the "random, unrelated man" does not apply eg., the brother of an accused is more likely to have the necessary paternal alleles then the random man. In this case it is very doubtful if the normal LR presented has any relevance to the case in hand. I assume most scientists would consider a "brother" type calculation for individual loci (not multiplied together)to be more relevant when the situation arose, rather than simply using theta corrections to a broad database. Perhaps you might consider adding this type of calculation to your list. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS) Sent: Thursday, 17 June 2004 4:14 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] Paternity Index formulae Does anybody know were I can find the complete formulae (of the numerator and denominator) for various possible allele combinations used to derive the likelihood ratios/paternity indices for the following scenarios: 1) missing mother; 2) missing alleged father; 3) paternity trio incorporating a coancestry coefficient; 4) incest; 5) missing alleged father but available relative (eg avuncluar index); 6) etc Note that I have the LR formulae...I'm after the expanded formulae from which they're derived. Thanks for any help. Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science South Australia [EndPost by "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" ] * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 21 19:38:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5LNcE2n024455 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5LNcENu024454 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20040621065924.02604d90@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: c.brenner@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:37:28 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121AF@my.vifp.monash.edu. au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 09:42 AM 6/18/2004 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote: >One parent calculations are found in Chakraborty R et al (1994) Int J >Legal Medicine 107,127 "Paternity evaluation in cases lacking a mother >and undectable alleles" and in Brenner CH (1997) Genetics 145: 535. >"Symbolic Kinship program". If you care about the null allele situation, note that one formula in the Chakraborty paper is incorrect. When null alleles are not a consideration, I found a neat unified approach which is explained in Brenner CH, Weir BS, Issues and strategies in the identification of World Trade Center victims, Theor Pop Bio 63 (2003):173-178. By "unified" I mean that there is one formula that covers all the various allele combinations between one child and one alleged parent. Originally I had a similar formulation for sibling relationships, but Bruce Weir found an even more elegant formulation which subsumes that and in fact almost all two-person relationships into a very simple general framework, namely as a linear combination (for each locus) of the one-parent paternity index (U) and the forensic stain-matching odds (W). For example, the siblingship (full sib vs. unrelated) likelihood ratio SI = 1/4 + U/2 + W/4. Charles [EndPost by "Charles H. Brenner" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 22 01:22:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5M5MTgY027845 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5M5MT0M027844 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:22:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:18:11 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B3@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0 Thread-Topic: [forens] Paternity Index formulae thread-index: AcRYATsy+vXNsdh3Smibj/e27mDfZAAEiQ4Q Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I thought the Wenk et al paper used kinship coefficients in much the same manner as the formula m=Po+UP1+WP2 to cover all relationships. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Charles H. Brenner Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2004 9:37 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae At 09:42 AM 6/18/2004 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote: >One parent calculations are found in Chakraborty R et al (1994) Int J >Legal Medicine 107,127 "Paternity evaluation in cases lacking a mother >and undectable alleles" and in Brenner CH (1997) Genetics 145: 535. >"Symbolic Kinship program". If you care about the null allele situation, note that one formula in the Chakraborty paper is incorrect. When null alleles are not a consideration, I found a neat unified approach which is explained in Brenner CH, Weir BS, Issues and strategies in the identification of World Trade Center victims, Theor Pop Bio 63 (2003):173-178. By "unified" I mean that there is one formula that covers all the various allele combinations between one child and one alleged parent. Originally I had a similar formulation for sibling relationships, but Bruce Weir found an even more elegant formulation which subsumes that and in fact almost all two-person relationships into a very simple general framework, namely as a linear combination (for each locus) of the one-parent paternity index (U) and the forensic stain-matching odds (W). For example, the siblingship (full sib vs. unrelated) likelihood ratio SI = 1/4 + U/2 + W/4. Charles [EndPost by "Charles H. Brenner" ] * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 22 09:43:58 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5MDhwkB002623 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5MDhv4D002622 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:43:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:43:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Aldridge, Michael" Subject: capsule / pdr case Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:11:57 -0400 Does anyone have a contact at DEA that I can send this info to for their examination?? Tony Aldridge 704-353-1064 maldridge@cmpd.org CMPD-Crime Lab 601 E Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28227 [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 22 18:36:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5MMa9Wc011613 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5MMa9nd011612 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:36:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:36:25 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <007701c458a9$5a18ab60$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2004 22:36:07.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F2727E0:01C458A9] 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 What kind of info is it that you want to send? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher J. Basten Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:44 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Aldridge, Michael" Subject: capsule / pdr case Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:11:57 -0400 Does anyone have a contact at DEA that I can send this info to for their examination?? Tony Aldridge 704-353-1064 maldridge@cmpd.org CMPD-Crime Lab 601 E Trade St. Charlotte, NC 28227 [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 22 23:48:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5N3mqmC014360 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5N3mqOB014359 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:48:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:41:17 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification 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 know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been any comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI fingerprint misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a serious error was made? Was that because no one was surprised that such an error WAS made? Was that because no one thinks that fingerprints are a reliable means of personal identification ANYWAY? Is that because the discussion has been taking place elsewhere? Was that because people think that a fingerprint misidentification by three examiners from the Nation's Laboratory, and confirmation by a highly experienced examiner appointed by the court, has no impact on the credibility of the rest of us who practice forensic science? But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry (or at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited labs who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation. One would have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and publicly, some reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message (www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, that ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any user of forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the bullet was fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . ." or "the blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on that credibility? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 00:50:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5N4oRAc015344 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5N4oRe3015343 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622213742.026f3528@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:52:18 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter, I too had wondered at the absence of comment on this list, or elsewhere for that matter. A story that reflected so poorly on forensics generally...but with no legs...incredible. Seems these days that the Government can get away with just about anything and no one seems to care. Innocent guy defamed and put in jail...ah, so what, it's all part of the war on terror so it's okay. As a defense practitioner specializing in forensic cases, I've learned about the vulnerability of fingerprint evidence, but try to persuade a judge or jury in the face of testimony that this is an accepted means of identification and has been for decades. I had hoped that the recent obvious mis-id would get the public's attention, not to mention those associated with the field...nope. I'm very glad you brought it up in as articulate a way as you have and look forward to some dialogue on the list about this travesty. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com At 08:41 PM 6/22/2004, you wrote: >I know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been any >comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI fingerprint >misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a serious error >was made? Was that because no one was surprised that such an error WAS >made? Was that because no one thinks that fingerprints are a reliable >means of personal identification ANYWAY? Is that because the discussion >has been taking place elsewhere? Was that because people think that a >fingerprint misidentification by three examiners from the Nation's >Laboratory, and confirmation by a highly experienced examiner appointed by >the court, has no impact on the credibility of the rest of us who practice >forensic science? > >But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry (or >at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited labs >who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation. One would >have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and publicly, some >reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message >(www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, that >ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any user of >forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the bullet was >fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . ." or "the >blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? Laboratories >have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they assert their >credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on that credibility? > >Pete Barnett > >Peter D. Barnett >Forensic Science Associates >Richmond CA >510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com >http://www.fsalab.com > > >[EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Kim Kruglick ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 04:19:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5N8JvYl017524 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:19:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5N8JvMJ017523 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:19:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <1d7.245c4d94.2e0a971c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:19:40 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5031 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 Peter and Kim - I missed the story regarding the misidentification of a fingerprint. Can you refer us to a news account of this issue? Lamar Miller Hendersonville, NC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 05:13:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5N9DWe5018126 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5N9DW1R018125 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:13:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <20040623091326.36969.qmail@web41015.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:13:26 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?John=20Lentini?= Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Pete: Another story that reflects poorly on the credibility of forensic science is, unfortunately, about as common as another story about a car bombing in Baghdad. Old news. Taken together, all of the bad news that has hit forensic science over the last few years has had a corrosive effect on everyone's credibility. Think of it as job security, because it's too damn depressing to think of it any other way. --- "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > I know this is old news, but I am surprised > that there have not been any > comments that I can recall on this list related > to the FBI fingerprint > misidentification. Is that because no one > realizes what a serious error > was made? Was that because no one was > surprised that such an error WAS > made? Was that because no one thinks that > fingerprints are a reliable > means of personal identification ANYWAY? Is > that because the discussion has > been taking place elsewhere? Was that because > people think that a > fingerprint misidentification by three > examiners from the Nation's > Laboratory, and confirmation by a highly > experienced examiner appointed by > the court, has no impact on the credibility of > the rest of us who practice > forensic science? > > But, what surprises me the most, is that there > has not been an outcry (or > at least I haven't heard one) from all of the > ASLCD/LAB accredited labs who > rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB > accreditation. One would have > thought that such labs would have demanded, > loudly and publicly, some > reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's > message (www.ascld-lab.org) > is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, > that ASCLD/LAB is "looking > into it." But, how can anyone expect any user > of forensic laboratory > services who reads a report that says "the > bullet was fired in the . . .", > or "the handwriting was written by. . ." or > "the blood is from. . ." to put > any stock in such an assertion? Laboratories > have adopted accreditation as > the mechanism by which they assert their > credibility. Doesn't this FBI > fiasco put some strain on that credibility? > > Pete Barnett > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 > pbarnett@FSALab.com > http://www.fsalab.com > > > [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" > ] > ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by =?iso-8859-1?q?John=20Lentini?= ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 10:41:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NEfXeD023761 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NEfXjf023760 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:41:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040623072011.02a3a310@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:31:42 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification In-Reply-To: <1d7.245c4d94.2e0a971c@aol.com> References: <1d7.245c4d94.2e0a971c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Lamar - This will get you started: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/mayfield052404.htm Images of the fingerprints in this case can be found at http://www.onin.com/fp/problemidents.html#madrid The google "FBI Mayfield" and have fun. You can see how the coverup started when the FBI said, in the press release, "The FBI's Latent Fingerprint Unit will be reviewing its current practices and will give consideration to adopting new guidelines for all examiners receiving latent print images when the original evidence is not included." Pete Barnett At 01:19 AM 6/23/04, you wrote: >Peter and Kim - I missed the story regarding the misidentification of a >fingerprint. Can you refer us to a news account of this issue? > >Lamar Miller >Hendersonville, NC > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 10:44:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NEi4Ic023967 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NEi4QT023966 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:44:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <40D99732.2050909@truman.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:44:02 -0500 From: Joy Pugh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have been wondering about this as well. I would like to know how such a misidentification was made. Does anyone know if the prints and/or a technical discussion of the analysis is yet available on the web or via another source? I wonder if there will be a formal discussion of this matter at the upcoming IAI meeting? Joy Pugh Peter D. Barnett wrote: > I know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been > any comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI > fingerprint misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a > serious error was made? Was that because no one was surprised that > such an error WAS made? Was that because no one thinks that > fingerprints are a reliable means of personal identification ANYWAY? > Is that because the discussion has been taking place elsewhere? Was > that because people think that a fingerprint misidentification by > three examiners from the Nation's Laboratory, and confirmation by a > highly experienced examiner appointed by the court, has no impact on > the credibility of the rest of us who practice forensic science? > > But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry > (or at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited > labs who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation. One > would have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and > publicly, some reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message > (www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, > that ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any > user of forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the > bullet was fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . > ." or "the blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? > Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they > assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on > that credibility? > > Pete Barnett > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > http://www.fsalab.com > > > [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] > > [EndPost by Joy Pugh ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 13:07:45 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NH7iHS027842 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NH7i6P027841 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:35:59 -0700 On Jun 22, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > (big snip) > ...Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which > they assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some > strain on that credibility? > > Pete Barnett > Dear Pete, I have long maintained that neither accreditation nor certification is any assurance that a given analysis or developed conclusion is valid. Why the surprise. Competence is the result of individual dedication, study and ethics. It's not a corporate issue. Mike Eyring [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 13:51:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NHptcY029076 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NHpti2029075 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:51:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:51:47 -0600 Message-ID: <239DA6C52A09834AB72B6D129C5D0ABC29C2C5@WELDMAIL02.WELD.CO.US> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Thread-Index: AcRY1akZVcFvhlExRIWOxlJhSkehmgAbdGwg From: "Larry Pederson" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2004 17:51:48.0821 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1DDD850:01C4594A] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5NHpsou029070 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu If one understands lab accreditation, you know that ACCREDITATION doesn't guarantee PERFECTION. Accreditation is a way for a lab to demonstrate, at the very minimum, competence. This profession has the expectation of absolute perfection, and that is what forensic scientists work toward. Does every forensic scientist achieve it every day? Probably not, would be my guess. Do the vast, overwhelming majority achieve it every day? I would guess that they do. Does this misidentification by a major crime lab logically bring into question fingerprint comparison results in every accredited crime lab because this lab happens to be accredited? No. To me it brings into question mostly the ability of the original examiner, the details of the peer review process used in that lab and the minimum identification standards articulated by that agency's technical manual. ASCLD/LAB doesn't need to issue a statement. This misidentification is an obvious quality issue for that lab. It's a fact that this issue could have repercussions throughout the fingerprint examiner profession, but it's not really an ASCLD/LAB problem. And it doesn't logically extend to every other forensic discipline, in my opinion. I'm sure the details are being sorted out as I write this. We're not "in the loop" for those details now, but I feel confident that this issue will be detailed at professional forums, and if those details aren't to tedious for the mass media, everyone will get informed. I look forward to the information, Larry Pederson Greeley/Weld Co. Forensic Lab Greeley, CO -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification I know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been any comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI fingerprint misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a serious error was made? Was that because no one was surprised that such an error WAS made? Was that because no one thinks that fingerprints are a reliable means of personal identification ANYWAY? Is that because the discussion has been taking place elsewhere? Was that because people think that a fingerprint misidentification by three examiners from the Nation's Laboratory, and confirmation by a highly experienced examiner appointed by the court, has no impact on the credibility of the rest of us who practice forensic science? But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry (or at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited labs who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation. One would have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and publicly, some reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message (www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, that ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any user of forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the bullet was fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . ." or "the blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on that credibility? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] [EndPost by "Larry Pederson" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 14:18:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NIIQFS029992 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NIIQOK029991 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:18:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:14:33 +0300 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: [forens] Opinion evidence and certification/accreditation. In-reply-to: X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.1.1.1.0.20040623210414.01aaf908@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1 References: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >This profession has the expectation of absolute perfection, and that is what forensic >scientists work toward. Does every forensic scientist achieve it every day? >Probably not, would be my guess. Do the vast, overwhelming majority >achieve it every day? I would guess that they do. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Somewhere, way way back, I remember hearing that forensic evidence is "opinion evidence". There is also something, WHICH IS NOT CONSCIOUS BIAS, called observer effect. I think it is important to those of us in the profession to remember that we are not infallible. We need to try to be as accurate and as clear in our results as we can be, resist all pressures no matter how strong or subtle and no matter from who, criminal or court. But in the long run we are fallible human beings, and we are testifying to an our/an opinion. Nothing more. And we should resist attempts by anyone to make us seem infallible. Accreditation and certification, while laudable as attempts to make our profession better, will never be a replacement for a skilled and ethical human being at the bench. Sorry folks, some pet peeves. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski, PhD Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes Richard Bach ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 17:39:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NLdqF7003011 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NLdq1Y003010 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:39:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:39:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20040623213945.RMGW24778.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There is a conversation on Kasey Wertheim's site and Ed German had the reproductions of the actual prints on his website. Donna Brandelli LACO Sheriff Identification section > > From: Joy Pugh > Date: 2004/06/23 Wed AM 10:44:02 EDT > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification > > I have been wondering about this as well. I would like to know how such > a misidentification was made. Does anyone know if the prints and/or a > technical discussion of the analysis is yet available on the web or via > another source? I wonder if there will be a formal discussion of this > matter at the upcoming IAI meeting? > > Joy Pugh > > Peter D. Barnett wrote: > > > I know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been > > any comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI > > fingerprint misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a > > serious error was made? Was that because no one was surprised that > > such an error WAS made? Was that because no one thinks that > > fingerprints are a reliable means of personal identification ANYWAY? > > Is that because the discussion has been taking place elsewhere? Was > > that because people think that a fingerprint misidentification by > > three examiners from the Nation's Laboratory, and confirmation by a > > highly experienced examiner appointed by the court, has no impact on > > the credibility of the rest of us who practice forensic science? > > > > But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry > > (or at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited > > labs who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation. One > > would have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and > > publicly, some reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message > > (www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, > > that ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any > > user of forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the > > bullet was fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . > > ." or "the blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? > > Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they > > assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on > > that credibility? > > > > Pete Barnett > > > > Peter D. Barnett > > Forensic Science Associates > > Richmond CA > > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > > http://www.fsalab.com > > > > > > [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] > > > > > > [EndPost by Joy Pugh ] > [EndPost by ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 18:11:04 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5NMB3a9003523 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5NMB3KV003522 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:11:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <40D9FFF7.8050304@truman.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:11:03 -0500 From: Joy Pugh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification References: <20040623213945.RMGW24778.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20040623213945.RMGW24778.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Thanks, Donna- and I also found the links provided by Peter Barnett to be helpful. Joy fyreatr@cox.net wrote: >There is a conversation on Kasey Wertheim's site and Ed German had the reproductions of the actual prints on his website. > >Donna Brandelli >LACO Sheriff >Identification section > > >>From: Joy Pugh >>Date: 2004/06/23 Wed AM 10:44:02 EDT >>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >>Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification >> >>I have been wondering about this as well. I would like to know how such >>a misidentification was made. Does anyone know if the prints and/or a >>technical discussion of the analysis is yet available on the web or via >>another source? I wonder if there will be a formal discussion of this >>matter at the upcoming IAI meeting? >> >>Joy Pugh >> >>Peter D. Barnett wrote: >> >> >> >>>I know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been >>>any comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI >>>fingerprint misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a >>>serious error was made? Was that because no one was surprised that >>>such an error WAS made? Was that because no one thinks that >>>fingerprints are a reliable means of personal identification ANYWAY? >>>Is that because the discussion has been taking place elsewhere? Was >>>that because people think that a fingerprint misidentification by >>>three examiners from the Nation's Laboratory, and confirmation by a >>>highly experienced examiner appointed by the court, has no impact on >>>the credibility of the rest of us who practice forensic science? >>> >>>But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry >>>(or at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited >>>labs who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation. One >>>would have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and >>>publicly, some reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message >>>(www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, >>>that ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any >>>user of forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the >>>bullet was fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . >>>." or "the blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? >>>Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they >>>assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on >>>that credibility? >>> >>>Pete Barnett >>> >>>Peter D. Barnett >>>Forensic Science Associates >>>Richmond CA >>>510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com >>>http://www.fsalab.com >>> >>> >>>[EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>[EndPost by Joy Pugh ] >> >> >> > >[EndPost by ] > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Joy Pugh ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 23 22:28:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5O2ShIs005612 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5O2ShaD005611 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:28:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040623191313.0274b790@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:30:33 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: [forens] Opinion evidence and certification/accreditation. In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040623210414.01aaf908@mail.netvision.net.il> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20040623210414.01aaf908@mail.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 11:14 AM 6/23/2004, you wrote: >But in the long run we are fallible human beings, and we are testifying to >an our/an opinion. Nothing more. And we should resist attempts by anyone >to make us seem infallible. Ah, Azriel, you have touched the center of the issue. As a criminal defense practioner of many decades, I can assure you that it is seldom that an expert witness would resist the seductive efforts of their proponent to make them anything less than infallible. Science, they will claim can be trusted, and friction ridge analysis is a science, ergo trustworthy. Even the SWGFAST Guidelines for Conclusions are infused with the "just trust me" leap of faith that individualization is based upon "hundreds of years of operational experience". Alas, juries don't understand, and generally experts don't explain, that this hundreds of years of experience is related only to the concept of individualization and not the accuracy of the conclusion. All of this, however still doesn't answer Peter's initial question about the deafening silence with which the egregious misidentification was met by the forensic community. Why do you think this might be? Because they were merely rendering an opinion and are fallible? In matters of freedom and perhaps, life and death, is there room for this degree of fallibility? Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Kim Kruglick ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 00:56:40 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5O4ueYc007133 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5O4udYK007132 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:56:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.76] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040622200704.02678538@mail.fsalab.com> Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:59:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2004 04:56:35.0130 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FF599A0:01C459A7] 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 Peter: You wrote - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D. Barnett" " I know this is old news, but I am surprised that there have not been any comments that I can recall on this list related to the FBI fingerprint misidentification. Is that because no one realizes what a serious error was made? Was that because no one was surprised that such an error WAS made? " No, I'm not surprised at all. The FBI does not vet their staff as thoroughly as they ought to. They hire people both in their laboratory or as instructors who either fabricate experience, lie about their qualifications or both. When even a casual observer like me can uncover and corroborate this kind of information it suggests to me that they aren't scrutinizing the people who work in their labs or teach their agents. "Was that because no one thinks that fingerprints are a reliable means of personal identification ANYWAY?" I think they are only as reliable as the person who records and analyzes them. Since the FBI does not appear to scrutinize the people they hire to train, they find less than accurate results. " Was that because people think that a fingerprint misidentification by three examiners from the Nation's Laboratory, and confirmation by a highly experienced examiner appointed by the court, has no impact on the credibility of the rest of us who practice forensic science?" I guess it depends on what people really think of the FBI. If they hire people who don't meet the basic requirements for certification within their respective group (bloodstains come to mind here for some reason) but get certified anyways, I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate to make blame them shoulder all the blame when they end up with egg their face. "But, what surprises me the most, is that there has not been an outcry (or at least I haven't heard one) from all of the ASLCD/LAB accredited labs who rest their credibility on their ASCLD/LAB accreditation." You're kidding, right? Most of what I've read about ASCLD here is hype from people who lack the integrity to take questions about it head on. Don't agree? Consider this - I asked a while back how ASCLD handles confidential statements regarding lab operations. I posted it directly to this list. It's an honest question and I think it deserves an honest answer. Either statements are confidential or they aren't. I'd think that not only do they have a policy for that kind of thing, but I'd like to believe that each of their folks that does onsite work had at least some vague familiarity with it. Think about it, Peter. If you worked in a lab, were aware that some of what inspectors were being shown was being gerrymandered to get certification, but had no guarantee that what you said would be held in confidence, would you step up? Would others? What are the consequences of that? Hell, it seems to me that ANY lab that rests their credibility on ASCLD ought to have a pretty damned quick answer to that kind of question. "One would have thought that such labs would have demanded, loudly and publicly, some reaction on the part of ASCLD/LAB. The Chair's message (www.ascld-lab.org) is "Under Construction." I have heard, though, that ASCLD/LAB is "looking into it." But, how can anyone expect any user of forensic laboratory services who reads a report that says "the bullet was fired in the . . .", or "the handwriting was written by. . ." or "the blood is from. . ." to put any stock in such an assertion? Laboratories have adopted accreditation as the mechanism by which they assert their credibility. Doesn't this FBI fiasco put some strain on that credibility?" I think the question depends on who you ask. Most jurors and jurists probably don't even know what the letters mean, much less what accreditation amounts to. For them, I suspect they will remember that the FBI screwed up, not who certified the lab that did it. As for me, I have had the opportunity to get a better look at how ASCLD operates and honestly I would not think less of a lab that didn't bother or more of one that did. I have serious doubts as to the circumstances under which they inspect and the integrity of the process. How many news articles that the public reads mentioned ASCLD's certification of the FBI lab? Even one? Hell, only a few bothered to mention the IG results or Fred Whitehurst's successful suit. Shaun [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 01:25:27 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5O5PR3U007857 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5O5PRHB007856 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:25:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.76] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <239DA6C52A09834AB72B6D129C5D0ABC29C2C5@WELDMAIL02.WELD.CO.US> Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:28:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2004 05:25:20.0369 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4482E10:01C459AB] 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 Larry: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Pederson" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification > If one understands lab accreditation, you know that ACCREDITATION > doesn't guarantee PERFECTION. Fair enough. > Accreditation is a way for a lab to demonstrate, at the very minimum, competence. Indeed, but competence at what? By whom? According to what standards? > This profession has the expectation of absolute perfection, and that is what forensic scientists > work toward. Does every forensic scientist achieve it every day? > Probably not, would be my guess. Okay, I'm with you on that. But I'm pretty sure that Peter cited three examiners in the lab and a possible fourth in court. I think your argument, while interesting, ignores the significance of such an apparently broad problem that goes well beyond the scope of a "bad judgement day". >Do the vast, overwhelming majority > achieve it every day? I would guess that they do. So somehow the FBI has managed to attract the only four incompetent examiners in the country and put them all in the same lab together? I can't say it surprises me, but I'd think that the odds against it, presuming your theory is correct, at a little low. " Does this misidentification by a major crime lab logically bring into question fingerprint comparison results in every accredited crime lab because this lab happens to be accredited? No. To me it brings into question mostly the ability of the original examiner, the details of the peer review process used in that lab and the minimum identification standards articulated by that agency's technical manual." I think it raises serious doubt as to whether any real reform took place after Whitehurst left. I would also think that any accreditation would recognize the significance of both the attitude that apparently prevailed, the lack of real science and what actions had taken place to ensure it didn't happen again. "ASCLD/LAB doesn't need to issue a statement." I agree. They can just wait and see what happens. I think that's a great idea and I hope they do just that. Shaun [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 01:35:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5O5ZoSB008320 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:35:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5O5ZocS008319 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:35:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:35:22 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: [forens] Fingerprints To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B6@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0 Thread-Topic: Fingerprints Thread-Index: AcRZrQrPn3C/GcrOQ7mD9u37sCOD/A== content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 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 Perhaps we can all see the efficacy of fingerprinting procedures by looking at the QA data at http://www.collaborativetesting.com/forensics/forensics_prints.html. It doesn't tell us where the FBI participates in this program but gives people an idea of how accurate the ID process is for accredited labs (I assume the participants are all accredited ). Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecuar Biology PS Quality assurance for other forensic procedures are also detailed at this site. * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 02:02:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5O62Qju009080 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5O62QDJ009079 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:02:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20040623225044.0191a0f8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: c.brenner@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:01:01 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B3@my.vifp.monash.edu. au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 03:18 PM 6/22/2004 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote: >I thought the Wenk et al paper used kinship coefficients in much the >same manner as the formula m=Po+UP1+WP2 to cover all relationships. Thanks for sending me that paper Bentley. As I read it they did not foreshadow Weir's idea. I think their use of kinship coefficients is in the traditional context, where the coefficients are multiplied by various allele frequencies, the alleles being selected from those in the genotypes of the two compared persons. By contrast, in Weir's formula the multipliers are likelihood ratios, and moreover are the two specific likelihood ratios for paternity and for identity. Re-inventing something without knowing it is a mistake that comes naturally to me, but probably Bruce is more literate. Regards, Charles >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >[mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Charles H. Brenner >Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2004 9:37 AM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: [forens] Paternity Index formulae > >When null alleles are not a consideration, I found [...] one formula that >covers all the various allele combinations between one child and one alleged >parent. Originally I had a similar formulation for sibling relationships, >but Bruce Weir found an even more elegant formulation which subsumes >that and in fact almost all two-person relationships into a very simple >general framework, namely as a linear combination (for each locus) of the >one-parent paternity index (U) and the forensic stain-matching odds (W). > >For example, the siblingship (full sib vs. unrelated) likelihood ratio >SI = 1/4 + U/2 + W/4. > >Charles [EndPost by "Charles H. Brenner" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 09:53:26 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5ODrQep013537 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5ODrQBq013536 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:53:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: [forens] Fingerprints From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:34:33 -0500 No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as training exercises for examiners still in training. Adam Becnel Bentley Atchison cc: Sent by: Subject: [forens] Fingerprints owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 06/24/2004 12:35 AM Please respond to forens Perhaps we can all see the efficacy of fingerprinting procedures by looking at the QA data at http://www.collaborativetesting.com/forensics/forensics_prints.html. It doesn't tell us where the FBI participates in this program but gives people an idea of how accurate the ID process is for accredited labs (I assume the participants are all accredited ). Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecuar Biology PS Quality assurance for other forensic procedures are also detailed at this site. * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 10:16:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OEGUIE014148 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OEGUFD014147 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <15a.384dbc25.2e0c3c2a@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:16:10 EDT Subject: [forens] Collaborative Testing Again To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5031 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The results from Collaborative Testing cannot, should not and must not be used as an indicator of the proficiency of the entire body of forensic scientists. At least not in questioned documents. I suspect this is true in all other disciplines. Unqualified and marginally qualified document examiners are permitted to take the test. The results measure the quality of work of each examiner individually. One cannot conclude that the results measure the quality of work of the entire discipline. It is my understanding that the test may be taken by anyone, regardless of qualifications or location. Regards, Lamar Miller Hendersonville, NC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 11:07:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OF7Ija015436 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OF7Ivq015435 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040624073524.02ab9910@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:06:26 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 06:53 AM 6/24/04, Adam Becnel wrote: >No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you >can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as >training exercises for examiners still in training. Is this really true? Laboratories allow examiners to take, and report, the CTS proficiency tests and yet these same examiners are not allowed [yet] to engage in casework? I find this incredible and unbelievable. I think that when people say that "The results [of proficiency tests] measure the quality of work of each examiner individually. One cannot conclude that the results measure the quality of work of the entire discipline" [from Lamar Miller's post], What they are really saying is that "I would never make the mistake that led to the proficiency test error that that other person made." I am sure that we all think that. The comparison of the fingerprint proficiency test data (a 97% or above "correct" rate, even including the "not identifiable" responses as incorrect) with the results of the examination of the fingerprint in the Mayfield case (a 0% "correct" rate) poses an interesting dilemma. Were the examiners in the Mayfield case all trainees who were not allowed yet to engage in casework? No. Was there something wrong with the test? (Maybe, but no one seemed to notice a problem in the initial examination, even though one examiner characterized the identification as "difficult" as he found one more point than the other three examiners had found.) So, how is anyone to judge whether the opinion of a forensic scientist is reliable? The opinion comes from an accredited lab? No. The examination is one that has been shown, by proficiency testing, to be reliable? No. The scientist expressing the opinion has a lot of experience? No. Has qualified as an expert many times? No. The result has undergone technical review? No. The result has been reviewed by an independent scientist? No. Any unreliability in the opinion of the scientists will be revealed by cross-examination? Oh, please!! While I believe that the only really useful measure to insure reliability of forensic scientists' opinions is an independent review (and I do not mean what is called a "technical" and/or "administrative" review in ASCLD/LAB jargon), I think the Mayfield case demonstrates that in spite of all of the precautions that we take, errors can still occur. The real question is what steps can be taken to minimize such errors, and have they been, or are they being, taken. If ASCLD/LAB-required "technical" and "administrative" review, and independent review, occurred in the Mayfield case (as I assume they did), how was that process flawed? Or is the process inherently insufficient to assure a correct result? Or must we simply accept the fact that there will be a certain level of incorrect results in any human endeavor? I am pleased to see some discussion on this topic - but disappointed that not kore people from operating laboratories weigh in. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:05:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OG5DiD016526 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OG5Dqg016525 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:05:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 4E5BE52A-5ED8-484B-ADCA-5DDEE8B353BE Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:04:31 -0700 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6CC424232FS455246-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5OG5DNP016520 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete, Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> pbarnett@fsalab.com 06/24/04 08:06AM >>> At 06:53 AM 6/24/04, Adam Becnel wrote: >No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you >can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as >training exercises for examiners still in training. Is this really true? Laboratories allow examiners to take, and report, the CTS proficiency tests and yet these same examiners are not allowed [yet] to engage in casework? I find this incredible and unbelievable. I think that when people say that "The results [of proficiency tests] measure the quality of work of each examiner individually. One cannot conclude that the results measure the quality of work of the entire discipline" [from Lamar Miller's post], What they are really saying is that "I would never make the mistake that led to the proficiency test error that that other person made." I am sure that we all think that. >>> Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I'm afraid that Adam et al., is right. No matter how incredible or unbelievable you may find it, it is true that some laboratories use the CTS proficiencies as a way to test their trainees and students. If the agency subscribes to CTS, they can pretty much do what they like with the proficiency tests they acquire. As a result, and I would repeat the words of Lamar Miller here, the results "cannot, should not and must not be used as an indicator of the proficiency of the entire body of forensic scientists." The fact is that CTS won't limit who uses their tests for what purposes - after all, they provide a paid service and 'business is business', as they say. In addition, the labs/submitters are anonymous, thereby preventing any reviewer from determining which submitting agencies are accredited, non-accredited, using the samples for QA of qualified examiners, using them for training purposes, etc. The bottom line is that the proficiencies are useful only to the labs that submit them - though it is often very interesting to read what other folks have concluded, I must admit! Just my two cents. Warm regards to all, Geoff. [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:08:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OG8UMf016847 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OG8Uh9016846 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:08:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20040624082939.018fbbb0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: c.brenner@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:07:05 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040624073524.02ab9910@mail.fsalab.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 08:06 AM 6/24/2004 -0700, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > Or is the process inherently insufficient to assure a correct > result? Or must we simply accept the fact that there will be a certain > level of incorrect results in any human endeavor? Yes, this must be right. There is an error rate in the sense that sometimes fingerprint examiners claim a positive match -- identical source -- wrongly. Changing the language a little avoids the pejorative word error, but the principle is clear: A fingerprint similarity corresponds to some likelihood ratio, less than infinity, supporting identity. Strong evidence but not proof. That is, an accurate statement would be one like: "The print and exemplar are indistinguishable according to criterion ISOxyz (for example 15 points of identification confirmed by 2 sets of independent experienced experts). The ratio of sensitivity (true positive rate) to 1-minus-specificity (false positive rate) for this criterion has been established as 1000." Or maybe it is orders of magnitude larger, but faith and tradition do not make it so. Tradition is that the false positive rate is negligible (so the likelihood ratio is effectively infinite, meaning that it always trumps any contrary or paucity of other evidence). In view of several recent cases I doubt that was ever true, but besides that the operational meaning of "negligible" has changed over time. Long ago suspects were always people against whom there was a reasonable suspicion to begin with. Add to that a likelihood ratio of 1000 and the posterior probability of guilt may be so large that the chance of a false conviction is tolerably small -- i.e. negligible. Nowadays it is possible to search a computer database with myriad notional "suspects", most of whom have initially only an extremely small probability of being involved in the crime. The re-assessed, i.e. posterior, probability of guilt against such a suspect in view of a fingerprint match that is worth a likelihood ratio of 1000, falls far short of near-certainty. We are in a new age. Assuming hypothetically that the true value of a fingerprint "match" is and always has been 1000, this value was once practically speaking indistinguishable from infinity. Not any more. Charles Brenner [EndPost by "Charles H. Brenner" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:14:10 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OGEAuW017314 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OGEAbL017313 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:14:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20040624082939.018fbbb0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: c.brenner@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:12:46 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040624073524.02ab9910@mail.fsalab.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 08:06 AM 6/24/2004 -0700, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > Or is the process inherently insufficient to assure a correct > result? Or must we simply accept the fact that there will be a certain > level of incorrect results in any human endeavor? Yes, this must be right. There is an error rate in the sense that sometimes fingerprint examiners claim a positive match -- identical source -- wrongly. Changing the language a little avoids the pejorative word error, but the principle is clear: A fingerprint similarity corresponds to some likelihood ratio, less than infinity, supporting identity. Strong evidence but not proof. That is, an accurate statement would be one like: "The print and exemplar are indistinguishable according to criterion ISOxyz (for example 15 points of identification confirmed by 2 sets of independent experienced experts). The ratio of sensitivity (true positive rate) to 1-minus-specificity (false positive rate) for this criterion has been established as 1000." Or maybe it is orders of magnitude larger, but faith and tradition do not make it so. Tradition is that the false positive rate is negligible (so the likelihood ratio is effectively infinite, meaning that it always trumps any contrary or paucity of other evidence). In view of several recent cases I doubt that was ever true, but besides that the operational meaning of "negligible" has changed over time. Long ago suspects were always people against whom there was a reasonable suspicion to begin with. Add to that a likelihood ratio of 1000 and the posterior probability of guilt may be so large that the chance of a false conviction is tolerably small -- i.e. negligible. Nowadays it is possible to search a computer database with myriad notional "suspects", most of whom have initially only an extremely small probability of being involved in the crime. The re-assessed, i.e. posterior, probability of guilt against such a suspect in view of a fingerprint match that is worth a likelihood ratio of 1000, falls far short of near-certainty. We are in a new age. Assuming hypothetically that the true value of a fingerprint "match" is and always has been 1000, this value was once practically speaking indistinguishable from infinity. Not any more. Charles Brenner [EndPost by "Charles H. Brenner" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:38:28 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OGcSH9017996 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OGcSOa017995 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:38:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040624092108.02a982f0@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:27:39 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040624082939.018fbbb0@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040624082939.018fbbb0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 09:12 AM 6/24/04, Charles Brenner wrote: >Long ago suspects were always people against whom there was a reasonable >suspicion to begin with. Add to that a likelihood ratio of 1000 and the >posterior probability of guilt may be so large that the chance of a false >conviction is tolerably small -- i.e. negligible. Nowadays it is possible >to search a computer database with myriad notional "suspects", most of >whom have initially only an extremely small probability of being involved >in the crime. The re-assessed, i.e. posterior, probability of guilt >against such a suspect in view of a fingerprint match that is worth a >likelihood ratio of 1000, falls far short of near-certainty. Of course, this argument holds true for any situation involving a database search, such as IBIS, CODIS, AFIS, or anything else. Just think about what would happen with a search of a computerized facial image database against an image ifrom a surveillance tape. The image from the database is presented to eyewitnesses who proceed to identify the person they saw as the same person who is in the database photograph. Isn't that scary - even though it makes John Ashcroft's job easier? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:38:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OGcSdq017999 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OGcSAL017997 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:38:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040624092846.02aa4d80@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:37:10 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 09:04 AM 6/24/04, Geoff Bruton wrote: >The bottom line is that the proficiencies are useful only to the labs that >submit them - though it is often very interesting to read what other folks >have concluded, I must admit! But, as a previous post indicates, the results of proficiency tests are often -- I would say routinely -- used to justify confidence in forensic laboratory results. In general, I believe these tests generally show a level of proficiency that I believe to be accurate after having observed this business for 35 years. Most of the time criticism of poor results in proficiency test performance involves problems with the test (and such problems are unavoidable on occasion) rather than with allegations that unqualified people are taking the test. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:40:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OGeuVe018483 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OGeudG018482 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:40:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <1ed.23e1a04a.2e0c5e05@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:40:37 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 6/24/2004 10:00:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu writes: From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:34:33 -0500 No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as training exercises for examiners still in training. Adam Becnel Adam is correct about the uses of tests from CTS. Another, but less likely scenario is that an indivudual, not a lab, purchases the test and reports findings. In this case there is ZERO control over the individual and ZERO knowledge about that individual's training and methods of analysis. In other words, Pete could purchase the fingerprint exam when it is next offered and turn in a result. I am not picking on Pete, just using him as an example. David Epstein --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 12:57:43 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OGvggW019278 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OGvgAN019277 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:57:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040624095533.02ab90e0@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:56:35 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message In-Reply-To: <1ed.23e1a04a.2e0c5e05@aol.com> References: <1ed.23e1a04a.2e0c5e05@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 09:40 AM 6/24/04, you wrote: >In >Adam is correct about the uses of tests from CTS. Another, but less likely >scenario is that an indivudual, not a lab, purchases the test and reports >findings. In this case there is ZERO control over the individual and ZERO >knowledge about that individual's training and methods of >analysis. In other >words, Pete could purchase the fingerprint exam when it is next >offered and turn >in a result. I am not picking on Pete, just using him as an example. If it is true that any Tom, Dick or Harry (or even Pete Barnett) can, and do, purchase CTS proficiency tests and report results, and if the reported results (which are generally very good, perhaps surprisingly so) are accurate, then two conclusions are possible: (1)Anyone, even Pete Barnett, can do forensic science, or (2)CTS proficiency tests are trivial. I don't believe it. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 14:29:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OITPjR020786 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OITP4u020785 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:29:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Amy S. Duhaime" To: Subject: [forens] valve open or closed Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:27:46 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu List, I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if it is in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been asked to do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about it, but I am wondering what other labs do. Thanks in advance, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 15:13:35 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OJDZ3B021739 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OJDUns021738 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:13:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <92D5E5F6-C612-11D8-B769-000A95D16760@mac.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:13:28 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=US-ASCII;format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-ray the valve Regards, Eric On Jun 24, 2004, at 14:27, Amy S. Duhaime wrote: > List, > > I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if > it is > in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been > asked to > do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about > it, but > I am wondering what other labs do. > > Thanks in advance, > > Amy Duhaime > RI State Crime Lab > > [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] > > -------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer, MS, F-ABC, CFEI Senior Forensic Scientist MME Forensic Services 1039 Industrial Court Suwanee, GA 30024 USA Office + 1 (678) 730 2000 Cell + 1 (404) 663 3611 Fax + 1 (678) 482 9677 Email estauffer@mmelab.com Web http://www.mmelab.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/enriched --- [EndPost by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 16:45:39 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OKjcbc003506 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OKjcZw003505 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:45:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdef owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdef@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed In-Reply-To: <92D5E5F6-C612-11D8-B769-000A95D16760@mac.com> Message-ID: References: <92D5E5F6-C612-11D8-B769-000A95D16760@mac.com> X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5OKjcd4003500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have my doubts about using x-ray...the whole thing could show as one opaque density. Just get a fluid-filled syringe and inject into the opening. If it goes in easily, it's open. If it squishes back out, it's closed. Carol On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Éric Stauffer wrote: > X-ray the valve > > Regards, > > Eric > > > On Jun 24, 2004, at 14:27, Amy S. Duhaime wrote: > > > List, > > > > I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if > > it is > > in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been > > asked to > > do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about > > it, but > > I am wondering what other labs do. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Amy Duhaime > > RI State Crime Lab > > > > [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 16:51:53 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OKprfm003951 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5OKprvx003950 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:51:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: mail.bcpl.net: cdef owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:51:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdef@mail To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Friday Follies Message-ID: X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Governor's Survey of NC's best cops This just in! The results of the Governor's Annual Survey to determine the most effective and efficient law enforcement agency in the state. It was won by the Gastonia NC Police Department. There were three finalist agencies, the NC branch of the FBI, the NC office of the DEA, and the Gastonia PD. The final exercise to determine the winner was to turn loose a bunny rabbit in a 10-acre plot of woods, and the first agency to apprehend their rabbit would be declared the winner. The FBI called in every agent they had in NC. About half were assigned to interview squirrels, foxes, alligators, etc. in the woods, with the remainder conducting DNA and other chemical analyses of various animal droppings found in the plot. All of this turned up no bunny rabbit. The FBI concluded that the contest was bogus, because if there had been any rabbit, they would surely have found it. True to the tradition of J. Edgar Hoover, they declared there was no such thing as a bunny rabbit. The DEA also called all their NC agents in on the exercise, enough to cordon off the entire 10-acre plot, then set it afire, burning it to the ground. No bunnies or bunny remains were found, however a spokesman for the DEA stated that they had struck a significant blow in the war on bunny rabbits, and had definately reduced the rabbit traffic within the plot of woods. By contrast, the Gastonia PD sent in only two burly patrolmen, armed with billy sticks. A few moments after they disappeared into the woods, the sharp command, "Police! Freeze! Get on the ground!" was heard, followed by sounds of a scuffle, with growls, roars, and epithets. After a short time, calm returned, and the two officers emerged from the wood, a little scratched and disheveled but still looking triumphant. They were dragging a protesting North American Black Bear by his hind feet. The bear was yelping, "OK! OK! I confess! I'm a bunny rabbit! Just don't hit me again!" [EndPost by Carol Define MD ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 19:29:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5ONTm2A006524 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5ONTmNH006523 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:29:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:29:13 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B7@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0 Thread-Topic: [forens] forwarded message Thread-Index: AcRZ88sWrJouo8bSQhW7tjn9tzrGPwARL8bg content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The idea of QA in any area of forensic science is to test the case management system ie., you treat the items as real cases to assess whether there are problems with the practical use of the methods as well as the competency of the staff. If you treat QA as a training exercise for unqualified staff without the checks you normally would do, then it is not assessing the procedures. The summary of the QA results produced by Collaborative Testing are clearly useless if there are a number of trainee reports with no internal checks. Perhaps labs submitting trainee results should make it clear to CTS so that they can separate them from the final summary. Better still don't submit results from unqualified staff. Some other people have stated that anyone can participate in the QA exercise. I agree that you don't have to be accredited to do the exercise, but it now is apparent that anyone can participate. Therefore, we have no measure of how good the tests are in a forensic science setting. Isn't that what the QA is all about? Surely Collaborative Testing uses some judgement when giving a person these samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher J. Basten Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:53 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: [forens] Fingerprints From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:34:33 -0500 No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as training exercises for examiners still in training. Adam Becnel Bentley Atchison cc: Sent by: Subject: [forens] Fingerprints owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 06/24/2004 12:35 AM Please respond to forens Perhaps we can all see the efficacy of fingerprinting procedures by looking at the QA data at http://www.collaborativetesting.com/forensics/forensics_prints.html. It doesn't tell us where the FBI participates in this program but gives people an idea of how accurate the ID process is for accredited labs (I assume the participants are all accredited ). Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecuar Biology PS Quality assurance for other forensic procedures are also detailed at this site. * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 19:58:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5ONw2vx007177 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5ONw2oH007176 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:58:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 4E5BE52A-5ED8-484B-ADCA-5DDEE8B353BE Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:57:15 -0700 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, bentleya@vifm.org Subject: RE: [forens] CTS Proficiency Testing (was "forwarded message") MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6CC5B5F02FS490188-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5ONw1ld007171 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Bentley, Some good points, but the fact remains that if certain labs are using the CTS proficiencies as a way of testing their trainees, the likelihood is that the rest of the QA issues you mentioned as a means of assessment are not being considered. To those folks, it is simply a test. I agree that if CTS agreed to distinguish between "qualified" and "non-qualified" examiner results, the results may be more meaningful as a means of examining the respective discipline as a whole. I've discussed this previously with our QA manager, who informed me that CTS won't do this - and no, I don't know why... As for your last point about CTS using judgement as to who they give their tests to, this again comes back to my first point. Since CTS are being paid to provide the tests, they are unlikely to withhold selling the tests to potential subscribers who are willing to pay for them, regardless of what they intend to do with the tests once they receive them. As we have seen, some agencies use them to test their qualified examiners, and others as training exercises. Rightly or wrongly, they bought the tests and are entitled to do what they will with them... Pete Barnett previously touched briefly on a point which I think is also something of concern to qualified examiners who do those tests: The tests themselves are, on occasion, flawed. Some of the trace and impression evidence ones in particular spring to mind, based on conversations I've had with other examiners. Of course, trying to set up x number of tests that are meaningful in many different disciplines is no mean feat - and I'm certainly not saying that I could do a better job - but still, that is what the labs are paying for. Again, just my two cents. Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section (805) 477-7266 >>> bentleya@vifm.org 06/24/04 04:29PM >>> The idea of QA in any area of forensic science is to test the case management system ie., you treat the items as real cases to assess whether there are problems with the practical use of the methods as well as the competency of the staff. If you treat QA as a training exercise for unqualified staff without the checks you normally would do, then it is not assessing the procedures. The summary of the QA results produced by Collaborative Testing are clearly useless if there are a number of trainee reports with no internal checks. Perhaps labs submitting trainee results should make it clear to CTS so that they can separate them from the final summary. Better still don't submit results from unqualified staff. Some other people have stated that anyone can participate in the QA exercise. I agree that you don't have to be accredited to do the exercise, but it now is apparent that anyone can participate. Therefore, we have no measure of how good the tests are in a forensic science setting. Isn't that what the QA is all about? Surely Collaborative Testing uses some judgement when giving a person these samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 21:10:50 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5P1Aolh008361 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:10:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5P1AoGs008360 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:10:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <1d8.24e09320.2e0cd58e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:10:38 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 6/24/2004 7:37:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bentleya@vifm.org writes: Some other people have stated that anyone can participate in the QA exercise. I agree that you don't have to be accredited to do the exercise, but it now is apparent that anyone can participate. Therefore, we have no measure of how good the tests are in a forensic science setting. Isn't that what the QA is all about? Surely Collaborative Testing uses some judgement when giving a person these samples. The tests are a product for sale to anyone with ready cash. The lone exception is controlled substances where you must provide a DEA license number to purchase those samples. David --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 21:24:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5P1OO4j008844 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5P1OOn0008843 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:24:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <002001c45a53$2877c5e0$aeafac43@n1k5w3> From: "John P. Bowden" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:24:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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 Amy, You didn't mention whether or not the valve was damaged. If not, it seems that the easiest test would be to seen if gas flows through the valve or not, since it is designed as a gas valve. This might be accomplished by attaching a filled balloon to one orifice and seeing if it flows out the other. One could then advance to checking for leaks, etc. John P. Bowden "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amy S. Duhaime" To: Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:27 AM Subject: [forens] valve open or closed > List, > > I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if it is > in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been asked to > do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about it, but > I am wondering what other labs do. > > Thanks in advance, > > Amy Duhaime > RI State Crime Lab > > [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] > [EndPost by "John P. Bowden" ] From forens-owner Thu Jun 24 22:27:29 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5P2RTkH009932 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5P2RTf2009931 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:27:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com Message-ID: <98.e331488.2e0ce784@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:27:16 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6025 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have used a helium tank and tygon tubing to apply light pressure to the relief valve of a ruptured Freon tank. A few drops of Snoop or soap solution on the other side of the valve would detect any leakage. The victim was heating the winter chilled tank in a sink with a torch. When it ruptured and fragmented the tank took off most of the victim's head. The situation was exacerbated by a rusting and pitted tank bottom. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by EarlNMeyer@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 10:17:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5PEHOF9016609 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5PEHODC016608 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:17:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Forrest" To: Subject: RE: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:17:12 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <1d7.245c4d94.2e0a971c@aol.com> X-Sophie-Scan: Yes X-Trusted-Sender-Host: mailhub1.shef.ac.uk X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Apart from the recent FBI/Spanish bombing cae, there is also this one: Robert Forrest -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of LamarM@aol.com Sent: 23 June 2004 09:20 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Peter and Kim - I missed the story regarding the misidentification of a fingerprint. Can you refer us to a news account of this issue? Lamar Miller Hendersonville, NC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pdf --- [EndPost by "Robert Forrest" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 11:56:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5PFuPZc018481 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5PFuPMM018480 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:56:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <40DC474D.F80AF5A0@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:09:57 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048, India X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Subject: [forens] Sexual assault by three men - Can DNA Help 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 June 25, 2004 Dear Sir, We are currently facing an interesting case. A girl was sexually assaulted by three males of almost equal age (in their early twenties). It was a case of gang rape. The sexual intercourse was complete in each case, with emission. The males presumably did it by turn. The defence is not contesting the act. What they are contesting is the number of persons who participated in the act. Is there a way (by DNA or other tests) we could answer the following questions? (i) The number of persons involved in the gang rape and their exact identities. The prosecution has enough sample of semen recovered from the genital tracts. I do know of techniques whereby vaginal cells could be separated from sperms, but don't know of any technique by which sperms from different people could be separated. Does such a technique exist? (ii) The sequence of acts (i.e. who did it first and so on). I am not aware of anything which can tell us that. (iii) The time since intercourse (from the time of examination, that is) Hymen was reported to be absent (by the examining physician). There was no tearing of the genitals. The defence is alleging that the hymen was missing since birth. That brings me to another question (not related to this case though). If a woman is used to intercourse, the hymen would be missing in her too, right? If a newly married woman has a missing hymen (because of repeated sexual intercourse before marriage), and the husband brings a suit of divorce against her on this ground (in many countries this is a valid reason for divorce), how can he rebut the charge by the defence (the woman) that the hymen was missing since birth. Please enlighten. 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. Anil Aggrawal's Websites http://www.geradts.com/~anil 2. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://www.geradts.com/~anil/ij/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://www.geradts.com/~anil/ij/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://www.geradts.com/~anil/br/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html 8. Join Anil Aggrawal's Criminal Poisoning forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cr_po *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ [EndPost by Professor Anil Aggrawal ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 13:28:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5PHSgOq020127 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5PHSghS020126 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Server-Uuid: 4E5BE52A-5ED8-484B-ADCA-5DDEE8B353BE Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:28:14 -0700 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: pbarnett@fsalab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Proficiency Testing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6CC2BF342FS528845-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5PHSggD020120 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete, I agree that proficiency testing is sometimes used to try and show the level of confidence within a given discipline. However, based on the discussions your thread has generated, it should be apparent that using such tests - and CTS proficiencies in particular - is not an accurate way of measuring these confidence levels. It might be pertinent for the respective governing bodies of each discipline to provide such tests, which could then - to a (hopefully) certain degree - be guaranteed to only be given to qualified examiners. The results from these tests may then provide a much more accurate picture of the state of the science and those practicing it. Of course, there will be issues of cost and so forth, but it's just my two cents :) Warm regards to all, Geoff. >>> pbarnett@fsalab.com 06/24/04 09:37AM >>> At 09:04 AM 6/24/04, Geoff Bruton wrote: >The bottom line is that the proficiencies are useful only to the labs that >submit them - though it is often very interesting to read what other folks >have concluded, I must admit! But, as a previous post indicates, the results of proficiency tests are often -- I would say routinely -- used to justify confidence in forensic laboratory results. In general, I believe these tests generally show a level of proficiency that I believe to be accurate after having observed this business for 35 years. Most of the time criticism of poor results in proficiency test performance involves problems with the test (and such problems are unavoidable on occasion) rather than with allegations that unqualified people are taking the test. Pete Barnett [EndPost by "Geoff Bruton" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 17:08:48 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5PL8mvk023098 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5PL8mUo023097 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:08:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20040625134107.01a7c850@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: c.brenner@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:07:59 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: [forens] Sexual assault by three men - Can DNA Help Cc: dr_anil@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: <40DC474D.F80AF5A0@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 09:09 PM 6/25/2004 +0530, Professor Anil Aggrawal wrote: >A girl was sexually assaulted by three males of almost equal age (in >their early twenties). It was a case of gang rape. The sexual >intercourse was complete in each case, with emission. The males >presumably did it by turn. > >The defence is not contesting the act. What they are contesting is the >number of persons who participated in the act. > >Is there a way (by DNA or other tests) we could answer the following >questions? > >(i) The number of persons involved in the gang rape and their exact >identities. If all DNA could be reliably amplified then no doubt the numbers of observed alleles at each locus would establish with satisfactory confidence that exactly 3 assailants are involved (assuming as you have said that such is the case). Further, the combinatorial approach to DNA mixtures described by Weir & others normally gives high although not astronomical numbers against each contributor. Better, there will be significant peak height differences to enhance the calculation. However, in practice I would expect only mixed success. I've been told that in a multiple rape the signal from the last assailant will be strong (presumably because of a piston effect), from the predecessor much weaker, and the one before that weaker still. That suggests to me that even the third assailant, let alone a hypothetical fourth, may not be evident. Speaking more generally I've never seen a 3-person mixture but that the case against the contributor of the weakest contribution is very problematic. >(ii) The sequence of acts (i.e. who did it first and so on). I am not >aware of anything which can tell us that. If my understanding about intensities is true you can, especially if the identities of some of the assailants are stipulated. On the other hand if the intensities don't show the order of events because they are about equal, then you could infer the number of contributors. It seems a little bit like position and momentum in quantum mechanics. > The prosecution has enough sample of semen recovered from >the genital tracts. I do know of techniques whereby vaginal cells could >be separated from sperms, but don't know of any technique by which >sperms from different people could be separated. Does such a technique >exist? You can pick them out one by one by using one of those new-fangled laser microscope cutting gadgets. But how far will you get with single-cell amplification? Charles Brenner [EndPost by "Charles H. Brenner" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:16:33 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1GWER025648 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1GWoS025647 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:16:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] LIMS issues Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:16:53 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00c001c45b1b$43e25ed0$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <06d901c4503a$00c2ace0$7f5f12d0@dwhause> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 01:16:32.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[37AF5AA0:01C45B1B] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5Q1GVjt025642 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I never knew that, Dave! How common is that in other states? In Florida the Medical Examiner system is completely independent of the rest of the state government. MEO's here are directly appointed by the Governor upon recommendation of a consulting committee, and operate as independent Special District agencies. It seems logical that ME's should be independent and free from LE influence (rear or imagined, operational or financial). I stupidly assumed that something similar was the norm in Georgia (my mistake). My apologies to you, Bill. If I had known that, I wouldn't have tried to inform you about GBI's experience (which I now understand you know better than I). I understand why you became so irritated now, and can't say I blame you. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Hause Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:59 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] LIMS issues Bob, Bill sort-of works for GBI - they are the parent agency of the state ME system, which covers most counties except for 5 or 6 in the Atlanta area, if I remember correctly. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" Sheesh, Bill, take it easy. It seems like every once in a while I catch you on a bad day and push a button somewhere. Sorry, it was not my intent to "challenge" your opinion of the product. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:19:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1JD4V025807 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1JDP4025806 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:19:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Fingerprints Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:19:35 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00c501c45b1b$a47b38c0$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B6@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 01:19:15.0047 (UTC) FILETIME=[984A5770:01C45B1B] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5Q1JDM4025800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu That would be a fallacious assumption. CTS is a commercial firm and will provide proficiency tests to anyone who pays the subscription fee. Less than half the forensic labs in the US are ASCLD-LAB accredited, but most of the non-accredited labs still participate in proficiency testing (all labs should, accredited or not, as part of their internal QA/QC program). Individual private examiners (who have no parent agency or company to "vet" them) can also participate and their level of qualifications is unknown. CTS has neither the interest nor the capacity to check on the qualifications of it's customers - they simply sell a service, to anyone who wants it and can pay for it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Bentley Atchison Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:35 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Fingerprints Perhaps we can all see the efficacy of fingerprinting procedures by looking at the QA data at http://www.collaborativetesting.com/forensics/forensics_prints.html. It doesn't tell us where the FBI participates in this program but gives people an idea of how accurate the ID process is for accredited labs (I assume the participants are all accredited ). Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecuar Biology PS Quality assurance for other forensic procedures are also detailed at this site. * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:26:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1QtFQ026382 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1Qtkx026381 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:26:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] CTS Fingerprint PTs Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:27:15 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00c601c45b1c$b6d21650$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B6@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 01:26:55.0294 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA9E75E0:01C45B1C] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5Q1Qt8T026375 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu For those who don't want to wade through the reports, here's a summary: In the latest round of CTS proficiency tests in fingerprint identification, 94% of the 336 respondents got correct identifications or eliminations for all 12 exhibits. 2.3% failed to identify one or more included prints (inconclusive), but made no false eliminations (false negatives) and no false identifications (false positives). 3.9% (12 participants) reported identifications inconsistent with manufacturer's data on one or more prints; some of these were mistaken identifications (false positives), some were mix-ups of the wrong digits from the right individual (probably due to mismarking the exhibits), and some were failures in documentation rather than in analysis (correct print identified, but failure to identify the individual it belonged to). This was the first round of tests for 2004. The same statistics for the previous three rounds (all in 2003) were as follows: 91% all correct/7.7% inconclusive failure to identify/1.2% inconsistent ID 88% all correct/11.7% inconclusive failure to identify/0.5% inconsistent ID 86% all correct/7.1% inconclusive failure to identify/7.1% inconsistent ID There were 306, 188, and 28 respondents for these three tests, respectively. Apparently, the majority of participants participate in the first of the three annual tests, with significantly fewer participants in the two tests given later in each year. The results appear relatively consistent from test to test. The inconsistent ID's are of most concern, and involved a total of 19 results (12, 4, 1, and 2, respectively) out of 858 total results returned, for a "mistaken ID" rate of 1.40%. Of these, 9 or 1.05% were actual "false positives" (misidentified the contributor). While this is a very low error rate, the consistency with which it appears indicates that remedial training is needed somewhere for someone all the time, and that latent print examiners who use CTS tests are as a group consistently less than 100% perfect. This is hardly surprising, as perfection is probably an unreachable goal for any type of examination involving human judgment (which I believe would include ALL types of examinations). One should also keep in mind Adam's point that many labs use CTS tests as "checks on learning" for examiners in training, so the group results are likely lesser in quality than the results would be if only qualified practicing examiners were being tested. Overall, I'd judge these results to be very good, while keeping in mind that mistakes are regularly made by a very small minority of examiners and/or trainee examiners. Vigilance in QC procedures must of course be maintained to further minimize such errors, to catch and correct them when they occur, and to implement remedial training where needed. So what about the FBI error that started this thread? If three examiners all got the same incorrect conclusion, that doesn't speak well for the quality of the examiners involved and suggests the entire latent print section may need to be investigated and possibly retrained, or new examination standards established. It IS possible that these three examiners are the only problem, and they serendipitously came together in this case, but it seems unlikely. The fourth examiner who also made an incorrect conclusion in agreement with the other three was apparently an outside examiner rather than an FBI employee. That may indicate that the FBI should use more care in selecting its "outside" experts. However, there is also another possibility - that this was simply an atypically extremely difficult comparison, one that might fool many if not most experienced examiners. The mistake was made when using an image of the original print, rather than the original print, and this is a known source of potential error. Even though comparisons using images of the original prints are routinely correctly done, this is one of those cases where the image quality was insufficient (according to the FBI) and the identification should not have been attempted. This latter possibility indicates not that there is necessarily anything wrong with the state of the art and practice of latent print examination, but rather that no type of analysis involving human judgment is perfect and mistakes will occasionally be made no matter how stringent our efforts to prevent them. Nevertheless, better efforts can be made by establishing stricter guidelines, particularly where images and partial or smeared prints are being examined. There is of course a limit to what can be done. We will never eliminate all error without establishing guidelines that are so restrictive as to disqualify the majority of evidentiary prints from analysis, since the majority of crime scene lifts are less than complete and pristine. One must not discount the fact that for every error made, there are probably thousands, perhaps millions, of correct determinations and that there is great value in those correct determinations. To disqualify the great many determinations that can be reliably made in pursuit of some likely impossible goal of "zero errors" would not be in the best interests of society. We must strike a reasonable balance between practicality, utility, efficacy and certainty; but no matter where that balance is set, some errors of this kind are inevitable. I find it perplexing that people can accept the concept that professions are populated by imperfect humans and so will inevitably have error rates, yet some seem to unreasonably expect doctors, forensic scientists, and some other classes of professionals to be superhuman and have a zero error rate. While I do not discount the seriousness of the error in this case, anyone who expects absolute perfection in any field is engaging in a Quixotic tilting at windmills and is doomed to perpetual disappointment. Good science is highly reliable, but it is not and never will be perfectly reliable, because human knowledge and abilities are not and will never be perfect. 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 Bentley Atchison Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:35 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Fingerprints Perhaps we can all see the efficacy of fingerprinting procedures by looking at the QA data at http://www.collaborativetesting.com/forensics/forensics_prints.html. It doesn't tell us where the FBI participates in this program but gives people an idea of how accurate the ID process is for accredited labs (I assume the participants are all accredited ). Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecuar Biology PS Quality assurance for other forensic procedures are also detailed at this site. * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:27:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1RBtW026443 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1RBv4026442 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:27:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] valve open or closed Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:27:32 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00c701c45b1c$c0e37300$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 01:27:12.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[B4B24390:01C45B1C] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5Q1RA3v026437 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Seems simple enough (perhaps deceptively so?). Connect the valve to some tubing and a compressor or compressed air tank, then try to pass air through it. If the air passes through the valve, it's open. If you don't have a source of compressed air, you could connect the tubing to a water tap and try the same thing with water. 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 Amy S. Duhaime Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:28 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] valve open or closed List, I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if it is in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been asked to do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about it, but I am wondering what other labs do. Thanks in advance, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:34:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1Yc6J027103 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1YbvL027102 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:34:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] CTS and the purpose of proficiency testing Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:34:57 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <00c801c45b1d$ca400930$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B7@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 01:34:37.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE0BF390:01C45B1D] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5Q1YaQa027090 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Surely >Collaborative Testing uses some judgement when giving a person these >samples. They do not. CTS gives the tests to anyone who pays for them. They provide a service to make a profit, like any business, and sell their service to anyone who desires to make use of it and is willing to pay for it. There are no pre-qualifications the participant must meet, except for controlled substance analysis where participants must possess a government license to handle controlled substances in their own jurisdiction, and in compliance with US and international law for exportation and importation of controlled substances. Your view of process QC as being the sole purpose for Proficiency Testing is rather limited. Proficiency testing serves another equally important, and somewhat incompatible, purpose; namely, individual analyst competency assessment. This purpose requires the analyst's results to be returned without going through the lab's quality review processes. If the test results are subjected to peer review, admin review, etc., before being returned to CTS, then the results compiled by CTS do not reflect the analyst's personal competency, but rather the lab's overall process quality for that type of exam. This is because the lab's QC system would (hopefully) catch most if not all analyst errors, and CTS would never know if the individual analyst really got the right answer on his/her own or instead got it wrong but was corrected by other people in the lab's QC chain of review. If the purpose of the PT is to test the lab, then that's fine; but if the purpose is to test individual analyst competency it is not fine because only the lab will know if the analyst made a mistake - no one else will know unless the lab chooses to proactively reveal it (and how many do you think will do that?). For PT's used as part of an external individual certification program, the results are then rendered meaningless. A certification program uses an individual's PT performance results to judge whether or not that individual analyst is producing correct answers, independent of the laboratory QC process (certification is intended to attest to the capabilities of individuals, not laboratories). If the lab reviews and corrects those results prior to submission back to CTS, then it defeats the purpose of the PT as far as certification is concerned, because the certification program will never know when an analyst makes an error. An analyst could in this way consistently make errors and yet still retain certification, because the lab would be correcting the errors prior to submitting the results and the certification board would never know. That effectively amounts to a falsification of PT results for certification purposes, and renders that portion of the certification process without value. Labs that support certification but do QC review on PT results prior to submission of those results to PT providers are doing themselves and the certification program a disservice that is counterproductive to the goals and value of individual certification. If the lab management was completely forthright, it could solve the problem by reporting the analyst's failure to the certification board, even though the QC process corrected the result sent to CTS. I'm enough of an idealist to believe most would do this; but I'm enough of a cynic to know that some would not. These two competing and incompatible interests in use of PTs need not constitute an insurmountable conundrum. If a lab's management wants use PT results to support both lab accreditation and individual certification, it can do so by submitting the analyst's PT results to CTS _PRIOR TO_ internal QC review (satisfying the certification goal of testing unassisted analyst performance), then do the in-house QC review afterwards (satisfying the accreditation goal of testing lab overall quality process). In my view, legitimate certification boards should require exactly this. Compiled CTS results would then reflect analyst rather than lab performance, but only if every participating lab adhered to this policy. As it is, some labs submit results with QC review, and some labs submit results without it, so it is impossible to know whether CTS results truly reflect individual analyst and/or trainee performance; or instead reflect lab QC performance (possibly masking a significantly lower level of analyst performance). One hopes that when certified analysts submit their annual external PT affidavit to their certification board, they and their management are honest about revealing analyst errors if and when they occur, but there is no assurance of this. A possible solution would be for certification boards to require submission of raw analytical data, but this becomes difficult logistically for most certification boards, which must rely on a limited supply of volunteer labor to do their assessment and monitoring of participants. 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 Bentley Atchison Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:29 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message The idea of QA in any area of forensic science is to test the case management system ie., you treat the items as real cases to assess whether there are problems with the practical use of the methods as well as the competency of the staff. If you treat QA as a training exercise for unqualified staff without the checks you normally would do, then it is not assessing the procedures. The summary of the QA results produced by Collaborative Testing are clearly useless if there are a number of trainee reports with no internal checks. Perhaps labs submitting trainee results should make it clear to CTS so that they can separate them from the final summary. Better still don't submit results from unqualified staff. Some other people have stated that anyone can participate in the QA exercise. I agree that you don't have to be accredited to do the exercise, but it now is apparent that anyone can participate. Therefore, we have no measure of how good the tests are in a forensic science setting. Isn't that what the QA is all about? Surely Collaborative Testing uses some judgement when giving a person these samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher J. Basten Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:53 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: [forens] Fingerprints From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:34:33 -0500 No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as training exercises for examiners still in training. Adam Becnel Bentley Atchison cc: Sent by: Subject: [forens] Fingerprints owner-forens@statg en.ncsu.edu 06/24/2004 12:35 AM Please respond to forens Perhaps we can all see the efficacy of fingerprinting procedures by looking at the QA data at http://www.collaborativetesting.com/forensics/forensics_prints.html. It doesn't tell us where the FBI participates in this program but gives people an idea of how accurate the ID process is for accredited labs (I assume the participants are all accredited ). Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecuar Biology PS Quality assurance for other forensic procedures are also detailed at this site. * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:36:41 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1afjw027377 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1afr3027376 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Scholls@aol.com Message-ID: <128.44e0d5c2.2e0e2d27@aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:36:39 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6028 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 Please stopsending mail to this address. Thank You --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Scholls@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Jun 25 21:38:24 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q1cO0e027661 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:38:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q1cO21027660 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:38:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Gunis77@aol.com Message-ID: <7a.5ac119d4.2e0e2d86@aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:38:14 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] CTS Fingerprint PTs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6032 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu This post by Mr. Parsons is among the most insightful posts on this list that I have seen. Well done! --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Gunis77@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 00:20:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q4KgPT029516 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q4KgBh029515 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:20:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <020901c45b34$cd451460$075f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <00c001c45b1b$43e25ed0$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> Subject: Re: [forens] Death Investigation systems (was: LIMS issues) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:19:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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 can't answer how common. Here in Missouri we have coroners unless counties have opted to abolish the office of corner and establish an ME system, which I seem to remember can be a consortium of several counties. Around the country, there are about as many different ways of organizing death investigation systems as there are states (not counting California, which has Medical Examiners, Coroners, Medical Examiner-Coroners, Sheriff-Coroners, and probably several other combinations.) They may be free-standing, reporting to the chief executive of the jurisdiction; subordinate to the law enforcement authority; subordinate to the public health authority; or purely independent, like most county coroners; some are private practices contracting with the governing authority (Nashville, TN, comes to mind.) The military, of course, does something else and has an Armed Forces Medical Examiner (see 10 USC 1471) with investigatory authority, which is overlapped by Post Commander as (uninterested) coroner and Hospital Commander as (uninterested) coroner, and various level unit commanders as (uninterested) coroners. To quote Yakoff Smirnov, "What a country!" Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO (Disclaimer: any resemblance between my comments and official DOD policy is purely accidental.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" I never knew that, Dave! How common is that in other states? In Florida the Medical Examiner system is completely independent of the rest of the state government. MEO's here are directly appointed by the Governor upon recommendation of a consulting committee, and operate as independent Special District agencies. It seems logical that ME's should be independent and free from LE influence (rear or imagined, operational or financial). [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 03:07:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5Q77AnB001339 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5Q77A9Y001338 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:07:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:07:03 -0400 From: SkipnCar@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] CTS MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <392EF693.3148EBB8.0082C61F@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-AOL-IP: 63.100.198.88 X-AOL-Language: english 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 CTS has provided a good service for many years. Use it as a constructive tool, or use it as an explanatory crutch. Your choice. Carla -- Carla Noziglia, MS, FAAFS Forensic Scientist 8513 Northwest 47 Street Coral Springs, FL  33067-3403 954-796-8063 Live well Laugh often Love much [EndPost by SkipnCar@aol.com] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 10:11:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5QEBfae003953 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:11:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5QEBfJY003952 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:11:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:11:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:27:43 -0500 Sorry Pete, doesn't matter what you think. CTS is what you make of it. An external proficiency test to comply with ASCLD/LAB or an internal training aid. You pick. Why? because you are paying for it. Adam Becnel Pete Barnett wrote: Is this really true? Laboratories allow examiners to take, and report, the CTS proficiency tests and yet these same examiners are not allowed [yet] to engage in casework? I find this incredible and unbelievable. Adam Becnel wrote: >No. Participants do not have to be accredited to use CTS. Furthermore, you >can not draw any correlation from CTS data as many labs use them as >training exercises for examiners still in training. [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 10:12:22 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5QECMpO003989 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5QECMEW003988 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:12:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:12:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message 2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:34:15 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Am I missing something... Try to close it. (clockwise) The stem should retract if it is open and you close it. If the stem extends then you will be opening it. Document the number of revolutions you make and in what direction. Photograph fist. I would even scribe the stem where it hits the valve body so you can go back to the beginning position. Adam Becnel "Amy S. Duhaime" To: Sent by: cc: owner-forens@statg Subject: [forens] valve open or closed en.ncsu.edu 06/24/2004 01:27 PM Please respond to forens List, I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if it is in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been asked to do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about it, but I am wondering what other labs do. Thanks in advance, Amy Duhaime RI State Crime Lab [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 10:13:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5QED2tl004122 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5QED26B004118 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:13:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:13:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message 3 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: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 06:50:26 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: Interpreting CTS test results While it is absolutely true that anyone can subscribe to a (non drug)CTS test, why would someone do such a thing if they were not going to use it for it's intended purpose(s)? To throw off the stats? I don't think so. And while it is also true that some lab directors (the ones with extra money;) use external rather than internal proficiency tests for training, why would they submit their answers? They will be provided with everyone else's answers whether they submit their own or not. And when they get a PT "wrong," directors of accredited labs, like Lucy, "got some splainin to do." Despite the many disclaimers about not using CTS results as a measure of the overall quality of a particular discipline, in my view, we should look for the "best evidence." And it would seem that the best evidence available is the collected results of two hundered or more labs' answers to the same question. At worst, the CTS data can tell us the maximum error rate for labs that subscribe to the CTS program. If there is a better source of evidence about the rate of error in a particular discipline, I'd like to know where it is. -- LeonStein@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/24/2004 7:37:45 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > bentleya@vifm.org writes: > > Some other people have stated that anyone can > participate in the QA > exercise. I agree that you don't have to be > accredited to do the > exercise, but it now is apparent that anyone > can participate. > Therefore, we have no measure of how good the > tests are in a forensic > science setting. Isn't that what the QA is all > about? Surely > Collaborative Testing uses some judgement when > giving a person these > samples. > > > > The tests are a product for sale to anyone with > ready cash. The lone > exception is controlled substances where you > must provide a DEA license number to > purchase those samples. > > David > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts > --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] > ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 15:27:52 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5QJRqmB007602 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5QJRqek007601 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:27:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Originating-IP: [65.176.161.118] X-Originating-Email: [andremoenssens@msn.com] X-Sender: andremoenssens@msn.com From: "Andre Moenssens" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:22:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.00.0013.2101 Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:22:30 -0500 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 17:22:31.0330 (UTC) FILETIME=[298F4020:01C45BA2] 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 Robert: There was nothing attached to your email. Did I miss another FBI misidentification? Andre Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law Emeritus University of Missouri - Kansas City Permanent Mailing Address: 1760 E. Poplar Rd. Columbia City, IN 46925 Phone: 260-691-2562 Cell: 260-609-2607 E-mail: andremoenssens@msn.com Website: www.forensic-evidence.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Forrest" To: Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 9:17 AM Subject: RE: [forens] FBI fingerprint misidentification > Apart from the recent FBI/Spanish bombing cae, there is also this one: > > Robert Forrest > >> [EndPost by "Andre Moenssens" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 15:57:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5QJv1q4008147 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5QJv11F008146 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:57:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:56:56 +0300 From: Azriel Gorski Subject: RE: [forens] CTS Fingerprint PTs In-reply-to: <00c601c45b1c$b6d21650$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6.1.1.1.0.20040626224336.01a97d60@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1 References: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121B6@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> <00c601c45b1c$b6d21650$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu My comments below. >I find it perplexing that people can accept the concept that professions are >populated by imperfect humans and so will inevitably have error rates, yet >some seem to unreasonably expect doctors, forensic scientists, and some >other classes of professionals to be superhuman and have a zero error rate. >While I do not discount the seriousness of the error in this case, anyone >who expects absolute perfection in any field is engaging in a Quixotic >tilting at windmills and is doomed to perpetual disappointment. Good >science is highly reliable, but it is not and never will be perfectly >reliable, because human knowledge and abilities are not and will never be >perfect. > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >Ft. Pierce, FL I agree wholeheartedly with the above and appreciate the company out here in the wilderness of someone else with me "baying at the moon." I strongly disagree with the term "proficiency test". If anyone is interested in my reasoning, I wrote a letter to the editor about it, which I will not repeat here, many years ago to the Jor. of Forensic Science. Here I will only state that they are used by too many for too many different purposes, and would highly recommend that the word proficiency be dropped. Bob, thank you for your opinion. Azriel Gorski ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski, PhD Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes Richard Bach ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 19:37:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5QNbkOk009796 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5QNbkdl009795 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:37:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040626161436.026def40@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:31:21 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 3 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 07:13 AM 06/26/04, you wrote: >Despite the many disclaimers about not using CTS >results as a measure of the overall quality of a >particular discipline, in my view, we should look >for the "best evidence." And it would seem that >the best evidence available is the collected >results of two hundered or more labs' answers to >the same question. I think John is absolutely correct. No laboratory director should need to have proficiency test to determine if his people do good work. The lab director can look at the work and evaluate the work itself. The point of a proficiency test (and I agree with Azriel that it is a horribly bad misnomer) is to test how the FIELD does in a particular type of examination. That allows lab directors to compare the performance of their lab with the general performance in the field, it allows consumers of forensic science services to have some judgement of the reliability of certain types of examinations, it allows judges to apply some of the Daubert criteria when the are deciding whether expert testimony should be allowed, and it provides information on where R&D or training resources can be most usefully applied. Proficiency testing is of little or no value in deciding whether the work done in a particular case was done correctly, or if the opinions being expressed are accurate. Those decisions can only be made by other forensic scientists who are familiar with the techniques and procedures and science in the particular work that is being reviewed. For the purposes of that review (which is the only meaningful review in any specific case), proficiency tests are entirely irrelevant. As a person in a position to review work in specific cases, I am never interested in proficiency test results, would never request them in any discovery request, and would recommend that laboratories simply refuse to provide them. They are available on the internet for anyone interested in them -- and they are only of any use in the bulk form in which they are provided on the internet. To use proficiency testing as a training exercise (as opposed to using the samples) is like letting race car drivers train in the Indy500 - it puts the new drivers, the experienced drivers, and probably the fans at great risk for no purpose. Why would anyone do that? Do we send test patients to brain surgeons for them to practice on, or to see "how they do?" Why would anyone think THAT is a good idea? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Sat Jun 26 20:44:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5R0iIYt010537 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5R0iIEx010535 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:44:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <003401c45bdf$dbab5590$aeafac43@n1k5w3> From: "John P. Bowden" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 2 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:44:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 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 Adam, etal. Even though this sounds like a elegant solution, just because the valve seems to close, it is not always gas-tight. I learned this the hard way. I was setting up to use a hand-held propane torch. When I ignighted the flame, all of the sudden I had a ball of fire in my hand. The valve had failed and could not be shut off. Fortunately I was next to the laundry sink. Although water alone did not extinguish the fire, a covering of wet towels did the job. My next trip was to Home Depot to buy a new valve. John P. Bowden ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 7:12 AM Subject: [forens] forwarded message 2 > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Subject: Re: [forens] valve open or closed > From: adam.becnel@dps.la.gov > Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:34:15 -0500 > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Am I missing something... Try to close it. (clockwise) The stem should > retract if it is open and you close it. If the stem extends then you will > be opening it. Document the number of revolutions you make and in what > direction. Photograph fist. I would even scribe the stem where it hits the > valve body so you can go back to the beginning position. > > Adam Becnel > > > > "Amy S. Duhaime" > To: > Sent by: cc: > owner-forens@statg Subject: [forens] valve open or closed > en.ncsu.edu > > > 06/24/2004 01:27 > PM > Please respond to > forens > > > > > > > List, > > I've been asked to examine a valve from a propane tank to determine if it > is > in the open or closed position. This is the first time we've been asked to > do this type of examination. We have a few ideas of how to go about it, but > I am wondering what other labs do. > > Thanks in advance, > > Amy Duhaime > RI State Crime Lab > > [EndPost by "Amy S. Duhaime" ] > > > > > [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] > [EndPost by "John P. Bowden" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 27 04:08:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5R885V5013699 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5R884Tx013698 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:08:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040627092055.00a5d5a0@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: azrielg@mail.netvision.net.il Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 09:28:08 +0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Azriel Gorski Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 3 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040626161436.026def40@mail.fsalab.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 16:31 26/06/04 -0700, you wrote: >At 07:13 AM 06/26/04, you wrote: > >>Despite the many disclaimers about not using CTS >>results as a measure of the overall quality of a >>particular discipline, in my view, we should look >>for the "best evidence." And it would seem that >>the best evidence available is the collected >>results of two hundered or more labs' answers to >>the same question. > >I think John is absolutely correct. No laboratory director should need to >have proficiency test to determine if his people do good work. The lab >director can look at the work and evaluate the work itself. The point of >a proficiency test (and I agree with Azriel that it is a horribly bad >misnomer) is to test how the FIELD does in a particular type of >examination. That allows lab directors to compare the performance of their >lab with the general performance in the field, it allows consumers of >forensic science services to have some judgement of the reliability of >certain types of examinations, it allows judges to apply some of the >Daubert criteria when the are deciding whether expert testimony should be >allowed, and it provides information on where R&D or training resources >can be most usefully applied. The danger, in judging the results you have to know that the conditions of the experimental group were equal. They are not, and thus the danger. >Proficiency testing is of little or no value in deciding whether the work >done in a particular case was done correctly, or if the opinions being >expressed are accurate. Those decisions can only be made by other >forensic scientists who are familiar with the techniques and procedures >and science in the particular work that is being reviewed. For the >purposes of that review (which is the only meaningful review in any >specific case), proficiency tests are entirely irrelevant. As a person in >a position to review work in specific cases, I am never interested in >proficiency test results, would never request them in any discovery request Agree. >, and would recommend that laboratories simply refuse to provide them. If only it was that simple. When these tests first started, we lost a colleague to suicide, reportedly over this very issue. > They are available on the internet for anyone interested in them -- and > they are only of any use in the bulk form in which they are provided on > the internet. > >To use proficiency testing as a training exercise (as opposed to using the >samples) is like letting race car drivers train in the Indy500 - it puts >the new drivers, the experienced drivers, and probably the fans at great >risk for no purpose. Why would anyone do that? Do we send test patients >to brain surgeons for them to practice on, or to see "how they do?" Why >would anyone think THAT is a good idea? I agree, but it does happen. Unfortunate but true. Shalom from Jerusalem, Azriel Gorski >Pete Barnett > >Peter D. Barnett >Forensic Science Associates >Richmond CA >510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com >http://www.fsalab.com > > >[EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] ******************************************************************** Azriel Gorski, PhD Forensic Science Science and Antiquities Group, Kuvin Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem http://kuvin.huji.ac.il/sci_ant/ Choice - The enchanted blade, with an edge that shapes lifetimes Richard Bach ******************************************************************** --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Azriel Gorski ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 27 13:04:38 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5RH4b2L018031 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5RH4bNg018030 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:04:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <40DEFE24.3020707@syr.edu> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:04:36 -0400 From: William Shields User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 3 References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040626161436.026def40@mail.fsalab.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040626161436.026def40@mail.fsalab.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Pete: Proficiency is evaluated in the professions you used as examples. In racing "rookie" drivers do get to drive in the Indy 500, sometimes with dire consequence, but the owner who puts them in their million dollar vehicles has surely looked at past performance as an indicator of their personal abilities. Similarly, morbidity and mortality statistics are gathered in the medical profession and published in a variety of formats for individual physicians, practice groups, hospitals and specialties. In NY such data can inform one of the "best" place or person to go for bypass surgery or oncology treatment. Imperfect though it may be insurers constantly evaluate success and failure by medical specialty and individual when underwriting policies and setting premiums. Should forensics be immune to a similar kind of scrutiny? Bill Shields [EndPost by William Shields ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 27 14:57:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5RIvkUe018810 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5RIvklT018809 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:57:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040627113844.02b3f040@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:54:58 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 3 In-Reply-To: <40DEFE24.3020707@syr.edu> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040626161436.026def40@mail.fsalab.com> <40DEFE24.3020707@syr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 10:04 AM 6/27/04, you wrote: >Proficiency is evaluated in the professions you used as examples. In >racing "rookie" drivers do get to drive in the Indy 500, sometimes with >dire consequence, but the owner who puts them in their million dollar >vehicles has surely looked at past performance as an indicator of their >personal abilities. You miss the point. "Rookies" are not the same as "trainees". Rookies are people who are starting out with the minimal experience, but necessary qualifications, to participate. No one would consider the Indy500 as a "training" exercise -- even the "rookies" participate with the same rules as everyone else. >Similarly, morbidity and mortality statistics are gathered in the medical >profession and published in a variety of formats for individual >physicians, practice groups, hospitals and specialties. In NY such data >can inform one of the "best" place or person to go for bypass surgery >or oncology treatment. Again, the point is missed. Proficiency test data should be available for forensic science. The data should not be contaminated by trainees or unqualified practitioners (and, frankly, I don't believe the forensic science data is, to any appreciable extent). Medical morbidity statistics are not gathered for everybody, only those people considered by the medical profession qualified to contribute to that pool of statistics. The contribution of people who the medical profession has not deemed qualified to do the procedure is not in the statistics. How such statistics would be affected by inclusion of other people is unknown. > Imperfect though it may be insurers constantly evaluate success and > failure by medical specialty and individual when underwriting policies > and setting premiums. Should forensics be immune to a similar kind of > scrutiny? Of course medical insurers are betting on average future outcomes. In review of forensic science cases, we are interested in establishing the accuracy of a specific outcome that is known. Average proficiency, or even past proficiency of a particular individual or laboratory, is pretty irrelevant to that review. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 27 15:24:57 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5RJOvns019420 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5RJOvGN019419 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:24:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:24:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] LIMS issues In-Reply-To: <00c001c45b1b$43e25ed0$8400a8c0@IRRCL.local> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Robert Parsons wrote: > I never knew that, Dave! How common is that in other states? In Florida > the Medical Examiner system is completely independent of the rest of the > state government. MEO's here are directly appointed by the Governor upon > recommendation of a consulting committee, and operate as independent Special > District agencies. It seems logical that ME's should be independent and > free from LE influence (rear or imagined, operational or financial). I > stupidly assumed that something similar was the norm in Georgia (my > mistake). > In the US, what constitutes a Coroner, what constitutes a Medical Examiner, and what duties they have are more a matter of local historical accident than anything else. The movement to state-based Medical Examiner systems was a good one that has sort of dribbled down to nothing because it costs money. As a result, there are some states that have statewide ME offices staffed by forensic pathologists, some counties that have elected Coroners that have no particular qualificatiosn, some places that have elected Coroners that act as administrators and hire professional Medical Examiners, some states that have Coroners that act essentially as investigators for Medical Examiners, and some states that have parallel and independent Medical Examiner and Coroner systems. For instance, in North Carolina, the Coroner system was a political plum that provided income for local politicians with minimal work, and, for funeral homes, a way to get a huge competitive edge (which is why so many Coroners were funeral home directors). When the movement towards a professional Medical Examiner system came around, the local politicians balked at losing such a nice sinecure, so instead of disbanding the Coroner system, the State set up a separate Medical Examiner system consisting of professionals. When I was working for the NC ME office, some local Coroner would occasionally hold an inquest on a newsworthy case and come up with some sort of bizarre finding. In one case, for instance, a local law enforcement agent killed a young man. The local coroner, who was related to the LEO, held an inquest and found it to be an accident (while, of course, the ME office called it a homicide). The newspapers would call and ask about it, and we had to explain that whatever the Coroners did had nothing to do with us. In general, being a Coroner does not imply any professional expertise, calling a Medical Examiner a "Coroner" is an insult, except in those specific jurisdictions where the title "Coroner" has been subsumed under that of Medical Examiner. > My apologies to you, Bill. If I had known that, I wouldn't have tried to > inform you about GBI's experience (which I now understand you know better > than I). I understand why you became so irritated now, and can't say I > blame you. > No problem. The bottom line is that I have to be careful not to imply in any way that I am speaking on behalf of my current employer, whoever that happens to be at the time. Thus, I can't really come out and say "well, we Army folk feel... " or "well, we at the AFIP feel..." or whatever. It is, however, frustrating when someone opines that my experience is not what it is. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] From forens-owner Sun Jun 27 20:06:18 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5S06I2R022158 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5S06Hk4022157 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:06:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:05:54 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Subject: [forens] fingerprint statistics To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <6BC4DCAD6F0B0F48BC8102EF5D24AFEF0121BA@my.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6556.0 Thread-Topic: fingerprint statistics Thread-Index: AcRco62hhWJ2olUqR/SdG4TexlE5JA== content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 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 Robert Parsons supplied the information that about 1% of fingerprint comparisons in the CTS testing produced false matches. It seems that the true rate for most examiners is almost certainly is not 1 in 100 since apparently unqualified people can participate in the CTS trials. However, If it is conceded a false matching rate exists then it really has implications for how fingerprint evidence should be presented. Consider what a court really is asking viz., "How likely is it that a match would be declared, if the latent print definitely did not come from the accused?" If we say a partial fingerprint is unique, and we have no possibility of error, then this probability is zero. Therefore, it obviously overrides any other evidence to the contrary (eg., accused has never been in Spain and could not have left the latent print). However, if it is conceded that the probability is not zero, then other evidence may override the fingerprint-examiner' s evidence. For a court to answer the above question, then someone should ask "If the probability of a false match is not zero, then what is it?". CTS testing results do not help to answer this. If they do not ask this question and rely only on the "unique fingerprint" approach, then a court could be misled about the weight of the fingerprint evidence. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology * * * CONFIDENTIAL * * * The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Bentley Atchison ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 28 10:36:23 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5SEaNfc000705 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5SEaNmX000704 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:36:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040626161436.026def40@mail.fsalab.com> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 Message-ID: From: RBost@ucok.edu Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:36:46 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 06/28/2004 09:36:59 AM, Serialize complete at 06/28/2004 09:36:59 AM X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I would like to weigh in on the subject of using "proficiency test" samples for in-house purposes. At a laboratory where I worked years ago, we received samples for blood alcohol analyses. We processed these as normal samples: receipt, analysis, reporting. They were handled by the individual who was responsible for blood alcohol analysis at that time (our assignments rotated periodically). However, after the process was completed, the director of the laboratory then directed that everyone perform the analyses individually. He used these as internal "PT" samples; he reviewed to find if someone was producing results "out of line with the others" and could then direct some refresher activities. Thus, everyone kept their hand in, as it were, even if they were not directly responsible for the analysis at that time. These individual analyses were not reported to the PT agency but were only used for our internal review and evaluation. Perchance this type of dual use of PT samples might not be applicable in other disciplines, but it was quite useful in this particular application. Robert O. Bost, Ph.D., DABFT Director, MS in Forensic Sciences Program Department of Chemistry University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 (405) 974-5519 "Peter D. Barnett" Sent by: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 06/26/2004 06:31 PM Please respond to forens To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu cc: Subject: Re: [forens] forwarded message 3 At 07:13 AM 06/26/04, you wrote: >Despite the many disclaimers about not using CTS >results as a measure of the overall quality of a >particular discipline, in my view, we should look >for the "best evidence." And it would seem that >the best evidence available is the collected >results of two hundered or more labs' answers to >the same question. I think John is absolutely correct. No laboratory director should need to have proficiency test to determine if his people do good work. The lab director can look at the work and evaluate the work itself. The point of a proficiency test (and I agree with Azriel that it is a horribly bad misnomer) is to test how the FIELD does in a particular type of examination. That allows lab directors to compare the performance of their lab with the general performance in the field, it allows consumers of forensic science services to have some judgement of the reliability of certain types of examinations, it allows judges to apply some of the Daubert criteria when the are deciding whether expert testimony should be allowed, and it provides information on where R&D or training resources can be most usefully applied. Proficiency testing is of little or no value in deciding whether the work done in a particular case was done correctly, or if the opinions being expressed are accurate. Those decisions can only be made by other forensic scientists who are familiar with the techniques and procedures and science in the particular work that is being reviewed. For the purposes of that review (which is the only meaningful review in any specific case), proficiency tests are entirely irrelevant. As a person in a position to review work in specific cases, I am never interested in proficiency test results, would never request them in any discovery request, and would recommend that laboratories simply refuse to provide them. They are available on the internet for anyone interested in them -- and they are only of any use in the bulk form in which they are provided on the internet. To use proficiency testing as a training exercise (as opposed to using the samples) is like letting race car drivers train in the Indy500 - it puts the new drivers, the experienced drivers, and probably the fans at great risk for no purpose. Why would anyone do that? Do we send test patients to brain surgeons for them to practice on, or to see "how they do?" Why would anyone think THAT is a good idea? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by RBost@ucok.edu] From forens-owner Mon Jun 28 18:33:42 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5SMXge9007148 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5SMXgqu007147 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:33:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:32:34 -0700 From: "Mike Potts" To: Subject: [forens] end Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu delete CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. [EndPost by "Mike Potts" ] From forens-owner Mon Jun 28 18:35:31 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5SMZVqS007240 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5SMZUDI007239 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:35:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:34:35 -0700 From: "Mike Potts" To: Subject: [forens] I want to be deleted from the list. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I want to be deleted from the list. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. [EndPost by "Mike Potts" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 08:32:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TCW1OQ015424 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TCW10w015423 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:32:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1e8.24184631.2e12bb39@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:31:53 EDT Subject: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I have read in Max Houck's "Trace Evidence Analysis" that "A Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline was published in May 2000. It was produced by the Paint Subgroup of the FBI-sponsored Scientific Working Group for Materials (SWGMAT) to assis personnel w ho conduct forensic paint analysis in the evaluation, selection and application of tests that may be of value to an investigation." Where can I acquire a copy of this guideline? Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 09:42:16 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TDgGPa016664 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TDgFik016663 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:47:43 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline Thread-Index: AcRd1oTKl2S7JctMRT2uvYkrdNd2DQACMOGA From: "Doyle, Janet M.." To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5TDgEs9016658 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu The following link should take you right there. www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. Jan Doyle Chemist CTFSRU FBI Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:32 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline I have read in Max Houck's "Trace Evidence Analysis" that "A Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline was published in May 2000. It was produced by the Paint Subgroup of the FBI-sponsored Scientific Working Group for Materials (SWGMAT) to assis personnel w ho conduct forensic paint analysis in the evaluation, selection and application of tests that may be of value to an investigation." Where can I acquire a copy of this guideline? Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] [EndPost by "Doyle, Janet M.." ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 10:05:44 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TE5iXu017334 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TE5ijD017333 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:05:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040629065419.02698058@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:02:13 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 06:47 AM 06/29/04, you wrote: >The following link should take you right there. > >www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. I have a question about the above document. It is published in the July 1999 issue of For Sci Communications, but is noted to be the "May 2000 revision", which was " Originally Published as the January 1999 Revision." Was the May 2000 revision of this document originally published in the July 1999 issue of FSC (which then must have been published nearly a year after its stated date of July 1999), or was the original published document replaced in the electronic edition with the May 2000 revision. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 16:44:47 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TKiluU024931 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TKil5q024930 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <7a.5afd91c9.2e132eaa@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:44:26 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 6/29/2004 9:46:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdoyle@fbiacademy.edu writes: The following link should take you right there. www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. Jan Doyle Chemist CTFSRU FBI Laboratory Jan Is that address incorrect. I tried it but it would not open. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 16:58:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TKw9IZ025390 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TKw94q025389 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:58:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <7BD898E2F2ADD511B85200D0B7B9EC9F06F3B1B8@jimsmail.sdsheriff.org> From: "Fink, Marty" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:53:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Fred, I just tried the direct link in Jan's e-mail and it got me right to the site and the guidelines. Marty Fink San Diego Sheriff's Lab -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:44 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:46:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdoyle@fbiacademy.edu writes: The following link should take you right there. www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. Jan Doyle Chemist CTFSRU FBI Laboratory Jan Is that address incorrect. I tried it but it would not open. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] [EndPost by "Fink, Marty" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 17:08:55 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TL8tDr025832 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TL8tC2025831 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:08:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040629140517.02b43500@mail.fsalab.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@fsalab.com@mail.fsalab.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:05:39 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline In-Reply-To: <7a.5afd91c9.2e132eaa@aol.com> References: <7a.5afd91c9.2e132eaa@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu It work fine for me. Pete Barnett At 01:44 PM 6/29/04, you wrote: > >In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:46:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, >jdoyle@fbiacademy.edu writes: > >The following link should take you right there. > >www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. > >Jan Doyle >Chemist >CTFSRU >FBI Laboratory > > > > > >Jan >Is that address incorrect. I tried it but it would not open. >Fred Whitehurst > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- >[EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 17:29:32 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TLTWoA026645 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TLTWcT026644 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:29:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <11.2d1dd985.2e133931@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:29:21 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 Tried it again and no contact. Said no such site. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 6/29/2004 5:00:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, Marty.Fink@sdsheriff.org writes: Fred, I just tried the direct link in Jan's e-mail and it got me right to the site and the guidelines. Marty Fink San Diego Sheriff's Lab -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:44 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:46:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdoyle@fbiacademy.edu writes: The following link should take you right there. www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. Jan Doyle Chemist CTFSRU FBI Laboratory Jan Is that address incorrect. I tried it but it would not open. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 17:32:13 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TLWCOB026908 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TLWCOC026907 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:32:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <1d2.24ca5f1b.2e1339cf@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:31:59 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 6/29/2004 5:09:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, pbarnett@fsalab.com writes: It work fine for me. Pete Barnett So I highlighted, copied and would not work but when I typed it in it went just fine. Thanks. Computers give me a headache. Fred :-) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 19:13:09 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5TND9bJ028104 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5TND92Q028103 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:13:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.7.1 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:06:57 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id i5TND9bJ028105 Fred, Link takes you right to the site. No problems. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Cfwhiteh@aol.com 6/29/2004 2:29:21 PM >>> Tried it again and no contact. Said no such site. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 6/29/2004 5:00:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, Marty.Fink@sdsheriff.org writes: Fred, I just tried the direct link in Jan's e-mail and it got me right to the site and the guidelines. Marty Fink San Diego Sheriff's Lab -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:44 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline In a message dated 6/29/2004 9:46:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdoyle@fbiacademy.edu writes: The following link should take you right there. www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. Jan Doyle Chemist CTFSRU FBI Laboratory Jan Is that address incorrect. I tried it but it would not open. Fred Whitehurst --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Cfwhiteh@aol.com] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Tue Jun 29 20:30:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5U0UkmC029127 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5U0Ukhu029126 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:30:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <8d.e954d2e.2e1363a7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:30:31 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5000 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 6/29/2004 5:37:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Cfwhiteh@aol.com writes: So I highlighted, copied and would not work but when I typed it in it went just fine. Thanks. Computers give me a headache. Fred :-) Fred, by chance did you highlight the entire line? If so, you picked up the period at the end of her sentance, which would throw off your browser, David --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Wed Jun 30 08:17:05 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5UCH4iQ005002 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5UCH47h005001 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:49:55 -0700 On Jun 29, 2004, at 5:31 AM, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > I have read in Max Houck's "Trace Evidence Analysis" that "A Forensic > Paint > Analysis and Comparison Guideline was published in May 2000. It was > produced > by the Paint Subgroup of the FBI-sponsored Scientific Working Group for > Materials (SWGMAT) to assist personnel who conduct forensic paint > analysis in the > evaluation, selection and application of tests that may be of value to > an > investigation." Where can I acquire a copy of this guideline? > > Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. > Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant > PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 > 252 825 1123 > > Dear Fred, The guideline is published by ASTM as standard E-1610-02. You can get it from the ASTM 2003 book of standards, volume 14.02, or purchase it from ASTM as an individual document. ASTM approved the material that SWGMAT's paint analysis subcommittee developed and replaced the old E-1610 that was about 8 years old. SWGMAT is in the process of writing detailed guidelines for the individual analytical techniques that are discussed in E-1610, and has already developed a training guideline to support it. SWGMAT's work will ultimately yield quite a collection of paint analysis standards. Best wishes, Mike Eyring [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Wed Jun 30 08:17:46 2004 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5UCHkVv005039 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id i5UCHkNH005038 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 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: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:59:52 -0400 From: Marilyn Harris Subject: Re: [forens] Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison Guideline >Tried it again and no contact. Said no such site. >Fred Whitehurst >www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm. Hi Fred; The "no such site" message you received could have been a response to the period at the end of the original URL. A better URL would have been: www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm Marilyn [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ]