From forens-owner  Wed Mar  1 13:40:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25403
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25398
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:40:49 -0500 (EST)
From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov
Message-Id: <200003011840.NAA25398@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <FZ7WGJ5C>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:41:26 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Soluble Tape Thank You
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:38:00 -0800 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I have the information I needed.  Thank you to everyone who replyed.  You
have been the best resource.  Helen Griffin

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  1 19:17:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28339
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:17:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28334
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:17:05 -0500 (EST)
From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov
Message-Id: <200003020017.TAA28334@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <FZ7WGKKN>; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:17:47 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Summary of Info for Soluble Tape
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:07:00 -0800 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Two kinds:

Alcohol soluble - 3M No. 902

Water soluble - 3M Mask Plus II No. 5414

Phone number for 3M 1-800-364-3577.
Phone number for Seattle, WA distributor of Mask Plus II No. 5414
1-206-767-4463 - cost per roll $59.61/for 9 rolls $41.73 per roll.

Less nasty substance than xylene recommended for removing materials from
regular tape - Shandon's Substitute Xylene.  Anyone else used any xylene
substitutes for removing trace from tape?  Helen Griffin

From forens-owner  Thu Mar  2 21:42:02 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10230
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:42:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx1.magmacom.com (mx1.magmacom.com [206.191.0.217])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10225
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:41:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail4.magma.ca (mail4.magma.ca [206.191.0.222])
	by mx1.magmacom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08433
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:41:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (port-4-69.magma.ca [206.191.1.69])
	by mail4.magma.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA06009
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:41:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000302214237.007ade70@mail.magma.ca>
X-Sender: quincy@mail.magma.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:42:37 -0500
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: joel harris <jharris@quincy.ca>
Subject: Forensic Science Calendar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I want to thank many of you who purchased this calendar in advance of the
AAFS meeting.  All monies will be forwarded to the United Way charity in
Canada.  Approximately $600 was collected.  All remaining unsold calendars
were returned to Foster & Freeman, the main sponsor.

If you were unable to obtain a calendar at the AAFS you may wish to contact
F&F at 
sales@fosterfreeman.co.uk.

We will offer a calendar in 2001 but it will not be sold for charity with
the main distribution at the Seatle AAFS.  We welcome your photos, which
will be returned with a complimentary calendar, if used.

Thank you for your positive support and for overlooking some glaring typos.

I remain respectively,

Joel S. Harris


From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 09:06:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15928
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:06:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA15920
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:06:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:06:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000303090600.15908A-100000@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Reply-To: <Elvis@wOLf-weB.cOm>
From: "Catten" <Elvis@wOLf-weB.cOm>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Where to go?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:13:21 -0600
Message-ID: <000701bf83cb$5a879d20$e5baaec7@oemcomputer>

Hi all,

I've become very interested in forensics over the past year and would like
to pursue a degree in it if possible. My problem: where to go? I just left
Houston (doh!) which is not far from Sam Houston's Criminal Justice
department. Right now I am in Minnesota. I hope there is something here; if
not, are distance courses for credit available anywhere?

I am hesitant to bother with Knowledge Solutions because of all the bad
things I've seen on them on other lists.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Cat




From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 09:27:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16260
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:27:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mhub3.tc.umn.edu (IDENT:0@mhub3.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.43])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16232
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:27:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [128.101.46.18] by mhub3.tc.umn.edu for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:27:43 -0600
Message-Id: <12D3656E.6733@tc.umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1980 08:25:50 -0600
From: kristin <mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu>
Reply-To: Kristin A McDonald <mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: [Fwd: Re: forwarded message]
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Message-ID: <12D3653C.1B27@tc.umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1980 08:25:00 -0600
From: kristin <mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu>
Reply-To: mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: forwarded message
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000303090600.15908A-100000@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cat,

I am also in MN, and have applied to grad programs for the fall.
Unfortunately, there are no grad or undergrad programs in MN that I know
of, the only program is a certification program at Hamline University in
St. Paul. If you're interested, contact Sue Meister in the Anthropology
Dept. there.

-Kristin.


Basten wrote:
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Reply-To: <Elvis@wOLf-weB.cOm>
> From: "Catten" <Elvis@wOLf-weB.cOm>
> To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
> Subject: Where to go?
> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:13:21 -0600
> Message-ID: <000701bf83cb$5a879d20$e5baaec7@oemcomputer>
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've become very interested in forensics over the past year and would like
> to pursue a degree in it if possible. My problem: where to go? I just left
> Houston (doh!) which is not far from Sam Houston's Criminal Justice
> department. Right now I am in Minnesota. I hope there is something here; if
> not, are distance courses for credit available anywhere?
> 
> I am hesitant to bother with Knowledge Solutions because of all the bad
> things I've seen on them on other lists.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cat


From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 11:07:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18015
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:07:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhub.state.ma.us (mailhub.state.ma.us [146.243.12.156])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18010
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:07:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [146.243.91.120] by mailhub.state.ma.us with ESMTP; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:01:49 -0500
Message-Id: <38BFE2F2.B2191D78@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:06:10 -0500
From: stephanie page <spage@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "'forens-l'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: condom use?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


        I need to learn as much as I can about whether there exists the
capability to determine from vaginal swabs whether or not a condom was
used. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I thank you all in
advance.




From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 14:39:47 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19842
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:39:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web1610.mail.yahoo.com (web1610.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.164])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA19836
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:39:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 27840 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Mar 2000 19:42:06 -0000
Message-ID: <20000303194206.27839.qmail@web1610.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [156.29.73.19] by web1610.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:42:06 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:42:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Patricia Lough <plough7537@yahoo.com>
Subject: Endogenous GHB Levels
To: CAT Forum <catforum@onelist.com>, forensl <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I am looking for normal, endogenous GHB levels in
living human beings.  Baselt's Fifth Edition (Dispo of
Toxic Drugs) says it is <1 mg/L and therefore not
detectable in blood or urine of living persons.  Any
other numbers? References?  I need the info as soon as
possible - thanks,
Pattie Lough
San Diego PD
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 14:39:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19863
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:39:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sd.znet.com (sd.znet.com [207.167.64.5])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19843;
	Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:39:46 -0500 (EST)
From: enelson@znet.com
Received: from enelson (sdts10-55.znet.net [207.167.66.55])
	by sd.znet.com (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12/jjb-sd) with SMTP id e23JdbZ00861;
	Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000303114136.00864290@sd.znet.com>
X-Sender: enelson@sd.znet.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:41:36 -0800
To: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: forwarded message
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000303090600.15908A-100000@brooks.statgen.n
 csu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO




Some time in the future National University in San Diego
will be offering part or perhaps all of its forensic courses
on line (I'm not sure if all of them will be available).  I teach
in the forensic science dept, and in the criminal justice
programs... feel free to ask questions.  I'm scheduled to
teach the first two CJ courses online, when that side of
the house kicks off online education ~this summer.

Good luck,

Eric Nelson




At 09:06 AM 03/03/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Reply-To: <Elvis@wOLf-weB.cOm>
>From: "Catten" <Elvis@wOLf-weB.cOm>
>To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
>Subject: Where to go?
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:13:21 -0600
>Message-ID: <000701bf83cb$5a879d20$e5baaec7@oemcomputer>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I've become very interested in forensics over the past year and would like
>to pursue a degree in it if possible. My problem: where to go? I just left
>Houston (doh!) which is not far from Sam Houston's Criminal Justice
>department. Right now I am in Minnesota. I hope there is something here; if
>not, are distance courses for credit available anywhere?
>
>I am hesitant to bother with Knowledge Solutions because of all the bad
>things I've seen on them on other lists.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Cat
>
>
>
>











Notice: This email is intended for viewing by the individual(s)
noted in the "To" line of the original message.  The contents 
are private, for their viewing only.  Please do not forward 
any portion of this message without written permission from 
Eric Nelson.  Thank you for your cooperation.


"A man who dares to waste an hour of life has not discovered 
the value of life."                                        Charles Darwin

"Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night; God said, Let 
Newton be! And all was light."                     Alexander Pope

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not 
any simpler."                                             Albert Einstein

From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 15:19:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20309
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:19:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20304
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:19:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from forensic.demon.co.uk ([194.222.14.17])
	by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12QyXm-0006H1-0Y; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:19:27 +0000
Message-ID: <vJr7GCAY3Bw4Ewsu@forensic.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:17:28 +0000
To: stephanie page <spage@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us>
Cc: "'forens-l'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: "Stuart S. Kind" <kind@forensic.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: condom use?
References: <38BFE2F2.B2191D78@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us>
In-Reply-To: <38BFE2F2.B2191D78@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01  <DwmOZC+c89wjAeIaHyGktLTnQf>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

In message <38BFE2F2.B2191D78@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us>, stephanie page
<spage@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us> writes
>
>        I need to learn as much as I can about whether there exists the
>capability to determine from vaginal swabs whether or not a condom was
>used. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I thank you all in
>advance.
>
Case report Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1965, Vol 5 No 2
P115 by Kind SS and Broster CG 

Contraceptive Sheath silicone lubricant detected on a vaginal swab by IR
Absorption Spectrophotometry 

Best wishes

Stuart Kind
>
>

******************************************************************************* 
            THE SCEPTICAL WITNESS (published 8 June 1999)
                      by Stuart S. Kind
 an autobiographical account of the development of forensic science for 
  lawyers, pathologists, police investigators, scientists and students
                      www.forensic.demon.co.uk
*******************************************************************************

From forens-owner  Fri Mar  3 16:08:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21011
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:08:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from co.sanmateo.ca.us (mail.co.sanmateo.ca.us [204.114.51.20])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA21006
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:08:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CSM-Message_Server by co.sanmateo.ca.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:07:05 -0800
Message-Id: <s8bfb8f9.045@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:05:09 -0800
From: "Linda French" <ljfrench@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Seeking source for laboratory bell jar
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_D0892569.16770D18"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--=_D0892569.16770D18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

I trying to locate a source for small laboratory bell jars.  The kind
I'm looking for is about the size of a cheese dome but has thick walls
and a knob on top.  I've attached an image of one we have.

You may replay off-list to ljfrench@co.sanmateo.ca.us 

Thank you
Linda French
Criminalist
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
San Mateo, California



--=_D0892569.16770D18
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="bell jar.jpg"
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--=_D0892569.16770D18--

From forens-owner  Sat Mar  4 09:00:30 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27416
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:00:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from MAIL.JUS.STATE.NC.US (mail.jus.state.nc.us [199.90.247.208])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA27411
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:00:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SBI-Message_Server by MAIL.JUS.STATE.NC.US
	with Novell_GroupWise; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:00:18 -0500
Message-Id: <s8c0d0a2.011@MAIL.JUS.STATE.NC.US>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 08:59:58 -0500
From: Troy Hamlin <THAMLIN@MAIL.JUS.STATE.NC.US>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Job Announcement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_653C91E2.E081FCAE"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

--=_653C91E2.E081FCAE
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation has a Forensic Chemist
Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the Crime Laboratory, (please
see attachment). This position will perform analysis in one or more of the
following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, Glass, Gunshot Residue, and
Arson debris analysis. This position will located in the Raleigh, North
Carolina area. This is a sworn position. Questions can be directed to:
Troy Hamlin
Special Agent in Charge
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
Raleigh North Carolina
(919) 662-4509 ext 3535

--=_653C91E2.E081FCAE
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="2121.WPD"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="2121.WPD"
Content-Description: WordPerfect 6.0
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==

--=_653C91E2.E081FCAE--

From forens-owner  Sat Mar  4 19:11:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00757
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:11:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00752
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:11:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.1.48]) by mail.i2020.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35)
          with ESMTP id net for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>;
          Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:11:08 -0500
Message-ID: <38C1A5AC.C6056679@i2020.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 19:09:16 -0500
From: Sheila Berry <dberry@i2020.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens-l <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: An Old Thread
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Those who are still interested in the issue of ethics in science will
probably want to read the editorial by Dr. Andreas Toupadakis, quit his
job as a research chemist with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
based on a deep sense of personal morality and ethics.  Editorial at
http://www.oasistv.com/editorials/index-editorial-2.asp

--
Sheila Martin Berry
E-mail:  dberry@i2020.net
Web Sites:
http://spiritlink.com/
http://truthinjustice.org/

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who
are
evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
  - Albert Einstein



From forens-owner  Sat Mar  4 19:17:33 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00993
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:17:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00988
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:17:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.1.48]) by mail.i2020.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35)
          with ESMTP id net for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>;
          Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:17:23 -0500
Message-ID: <38C1A722.D0F6207F@i2020.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 19:15:30 -0500
From: Sheila Berry <dberry@i2020.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens-l <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: For Your Consideration and Response]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I'm reposting this because I never got a copy, which leads me to suspect
that for some reason the listserver didn't send it out.  If you already
received it, please delete.

Sheila

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: For Your Consideration and Response
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:32:50 -0500
From: Sheila Berry <dberry@i2020.net>
To: forens-l <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
CC: Doug Berry <dberry@earthlink.net>

Below is an article from today's (3/4/00) Richmond, VA Times-Dispatch
about a capital murder trial being conducted in Spotsylvania County
(between Richmond and Fredericksburg).  I am typing the text of the
article into this e-mail because the Times-Dispatch has not yet updated
its website.

In discussing this case this morning, my husband said that if he were a
juror, he would let the conflicting testimony of the eyewitnesses cancel
each other out, disregard the inconclusive DNA test results, and find
the defendant guilty of capital murder based solely on testimony that
the defendant's fingerprints were found on items inside the victim's
car.  He says he would do this because "fingerprint evidence is 100%
accurate."

Please read the article -- so that you know what my husband's opinion is
based on.  Then we would both appreciate learning the opinions of
forensics professionals regarding the "100% accuracy" of fingerprint
evidence.

Witness:  Wrong person charged

She testifies neither man she saw talking with victim is the accused.

Spotsylvania -- A defense witness testified that she saw two men,
neither of them accused killer Michael Anthony Morris, talking with and
watching a woman resembling Nancy Smith Seay, whose naked body was later
found in her car trunk.

Athena Caldwell told jurors yesterday that, when she saw Seay's photo
after the killing, she recognized the 46-year-old secretary as the woman
who had been talking with the men outside the Spotsylvania County
grocery store from where Seay was abducted.

"Cold chills went through me," Caldwell told jurors, who will begin
their deliberations when Morris' capital murder trial resumes Tuesday.

The prosecution quesioned whether Caldwell was at the store on July 23,
1990, the afternoon Seay was abducted, and whether the woman she saw was
inded the victim.  Morris' fingerprints were found on Seay's car and
purse contents, and prosecutors allege he is also the source of a hair
found in the vehicle.

Morris, a 38-year-old father of four children, faces the death penalty
if convicted of capital murder.  Prosecutors allege that he drove Seay
in her car to a remote area, where he robbed and sexually assaulted her.

Seay's body was found several hours later inside the locked trunk of her
car at a parking lot across from the Food Lion supermarket on state
Route 3.  An autopsy determined that Seay died of heat stroke, although
a medical examiner testified she also might have been strangled with
knotted pantyhose found in the car's trunk.

In court yesterday, Caldwell described the two men she saw as a tall
white man wearing denim overalls and a short, thin black man wearing a
black tank top and tight black shorts.  Another witness who identified
Morris as the man he saw struggling with Seay in her car described the
suspect as wearing a red tank top and tight black shorts.  Morris, who
is black, is about 6 feet tall and a muscular 190 pounds.

Caldwell told jurors she initially saw the men talking with the
well-dressed woman near the store's entrance, then later saw the men
sitting in a blue van and watching the woman, who was using a pay
telephone outside the store.  The other witness also reported seeing a
blue van, although he said it was parked directly beside Seay's car in a
different part of the parking lot.  Police kept a lookout for the van
immediately after the slaying.

Caldwell, 40, said she watched from her vehicle for about five minutes
before leaving because she was scare of the men.  "They saw me watching
them, then her, then them," she told jurors.

Questioned by Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Attorney William F. Neely,
Caldwell said she was not sure of the exact day or time she saw the men,
but that it was one or two days before she learned Seay had been slain.
Caldwell told jurors she reported what she saw that afternoon to
authorities shortly after Seay's abduction, but that she never heard
back from an investigator at that time.

After Morris' arrest in the spring, Caldwell called the Spotsylvania
Sheriff's Office to tell them they had arrested the wrong man.  She
spoke with Detective John Young, who testified yesterday that he didn't
probe the matter further because Caldwell didn't definitively identify
Seay as the woman during their converesation and because Caldwell told
him she was int he parking lot between 2 and 5 p.m. the day she saw the
events.  A grocery store receipt found in Seay's car was stamped with a
time of 1:06 p.m.

Caldwell was the only witness called by defense attorneys, who then
rested their case.  Prosecutors called 29 witnesses during the three
days of testimony, including a fingerprint analyst, DNA expert and the
witness who identified Morris and Seay as the people he saw struggling
in a burgundy Oldsmobile around 1 p.m. the day Seay was slain.

Morris' fingerprints were on the driver's side roof of Seay's car and on
a bank card and makeup case found inside her car, according to
testimony.  However, fingerprints found on the car's trunk have never
been identified.  No prints were recovered from the car's interior.

DNA tests of a hair found on a head of lettuce in the car's trunk
indicated Morris could not be ruled out as the source of the strand,
according to testimony.  Tests showed that a second hair found on Seay's
lower body was not hers and did not come from her husband or from
Morris.

Also yesterday, Spotsylvania Circuit Judge William H. Ledbetter, Jr.
agreed with a defense request to dismiss a juror who waved to the area
of the courtroom where Seay's family was seated.  The juror had
previously acknowledged working with Seay's son-in-law, but neither the
prosecution nor the defense had sought his removal before the trial
started.  The juror will be replaced with on of two alternate jurors who
are hearing the case.

--
Sheila Martin Berry
E-mail:  dberry@i2020.net
Web Sites:
http://spiritlink.com/
http://truthinjustice.org/

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who
are
evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
  - Albert Einstein

From forens-owner  Sat Mar  4 19:26:30 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01288
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:26:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA01283
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:26:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:26:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject:   (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000304192559.1270B-100000@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:53:56 -0500
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Dennis C. Hilliard" <dch@uri.edu>
Subject: Voice Analysis FWD

List members:

I received this request today and I would hope someone on this list may
have an answer for this person. This is not my area of expertise.

Please reply to this person at: Cihanipek@aol.com  since this person is not
subscribe to the list. You can also reply to me or the list and I will
forward the information. I am curious about this aspect of forensics as
well, we get about 5 -6 calls a year about this topic.



<<<As an attorney, I would like to ask your favour on a topic that is your
scope, and expertise.

Currently me, and my partner Ali Tizik are together making some research on
the topic, voice identification and tape evidence. In order to develop a
view on the topic, we are making a worldwide investigation and getting in
touch with the experts in the area. With this research we intend to collect
as many information in the are -technical- and valuable opinions, and
comments of yours. I would like to ask your help of technical information
for the below specific points:


1. Can the voice of a person be identified with the voice on the tape for
100% certainty? To what level of certainty, is it possible to identify a
person through an audio recording ?

2. Could the words of a person be rearranged in such way to make up a
conversation which he has not made at all?
If an analog recording is transferred to digital system, and then
transferred back to analog signal, could this be realized from the nature
of the signal? Is it possible to conceive the tampering done during the
digital system, when this is transformed back into analog tape?


I would appreciate your kind and prompt response for the below questions.
Yours sincerely

Attorney Cihan Ipek>>>

Sincerely,

Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S.
Director/Adj. Asst. Professor




From forens-owner  Sun Mar  5 10:44:19 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06611
	for forens-outgoing; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:44:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06605
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:44:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com
Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com
	by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id l.92.238c2d8 (4390);
	Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:43:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <92.238c2d8.25f3da9d@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:43:25 EST
Subject: Re: condom use?
To: spage@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

There are various lubricants used on condoms which can be found in vaginal 
swabs providing the DNA analysts do not destroy the sample during analysis.  
If memory serves me correctly one can detect silicon based oils very quickly 
with FTIR.   The FBI did quite a bit of research in this area in the middle 
to late 1990's.  In fact at one point I bought three samples of 750 condoms 
to build a collection for comparison.  We used one of the three for analysis, 
one for comparison and one (well I don't know what those old boys in the 
Chem/Tox did with those other 250 condoms.)  You might look up Blackledge 
also on this one as he has done a great deal of work in the area.  A fellow 
at the FBI who will be able to help you is Steve Burmeister, the Chemistry 
Unit Chief.  Calll 202 324 2000 and ask for Steve Burmeister in the FBI 
laboratory and they will patch you through.  Tell him I referred you to him.

Fred Whitehurst

From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 00:21:52 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11499
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:21:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f265.hotmail.com [209.185.130.181])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA11494
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:21:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 44912 invoked by uid 0); 6 Mar 2000 05:21:15 -0000
Message-ID: <20000306052115.44911.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 203.109.134.14 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:21:14 PST
X-Originating-IP: [203.109.134.14]
From: "Karina Allwell" <kallwell@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: Claude.Roux@uts.edu.au
Subject: RE: Condom use
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:21:14 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi Stephanie,
It can be possible to detect condom lubricant on vaginal swabs, indicating 
condom use.  I completed an honours thesis on "the Forensic Analysis of 
Sexual Lubricants" last year at the University of Technology, Sydney (my 
supervisor made me put that in for a plug!)

The technique may begin with solvent extraction followed by Fourier 
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy detection, and further techniques.  The 
detection time after recovery depends on the type of condom used - although 
most are lubricated with a siloxane fluid, some condoms are lubricated with 
polyethylene glycol, some are also spermicidal, and some are not lubricated 
at all.  Please feel free to contact me directly for more information.

Mr. Robert Blacklegde remians the major authority on this topic, and a 
search for his publications (I don't have the references on hand) will give 
more information as well.  I am also hoping to publish soon, but that might 
take more time than you appear to have!

Sincerely,
Karina Allwell
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 08:40:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14919
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:40:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net [129.250.36.42])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14914
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:40:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [129.250.38.62] (helo=dfw-mmp2.email.verio.net)
	by dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #7)
	id 12Rxk4-0000bZ-00
	for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:40:12 +0000
Received: from [206.68.77.40] (helo=default)
	by dfw-mmp2.email.verio.net with smtp (Exim 3.12 #7)
	id 12Rxjr-0001VH-00
	for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:40:07 +0000
Message-ID: <001e01bf8772$8fb21f20$284d44ce@default>
From: "David Green" <lccrime@harborcom.net>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: nitrous oxide testing
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:47:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF8748.92EC0680"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF8748.92EC0680
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

List Members,
I would appreciate any information the list could provide me regarding =
nitrous oxide testing at your laboratories. Do any government forensic =
labs provide this service? If so, what instrumentation is needed and how =
expensive is it to test? If not, where do you send the samples, and how =
do you package them? Also, what is the basic cost? Thank you for your =
assistance in advance. Anyone with information can reply to me off the =
list at: LMErdei@aol.com.

Linda M. Erdei
Assistant Laboratory Director
Lake County Regional Forensic Laboratory
235 Fairgrounds Road
Painesville, OH 44077
440-350-2184
LMErdei@aol.com

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF8748.92EC0680
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>List Members,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would appreciate any information the =
list could=20
provide me regarding nitrous oxide testing at your laboratories. Do any=20
government forensic labs provide this service? If so, what =
instrumentation is=20
needed and how expensive is it to test? If not, where do you send the =
samples,=20
and how do you package them? Also, what is the basic cost? Thank you for =
your=20
assistance in advance. Anyone with information can reply to me off the =
list at:=20
<A href=3D"mailto:LMErdei@aol.com">LMErdei@aol.com</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Linda M. Erdei</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Assistant Laboratory =
Director</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lake County Regional Forensic=20
Laboratory</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>235 Fairgrounds Road</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Painesville, OH 44077</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>440-350-2184</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:LMErdei@aol.com">LMErdei@aol.com</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></=
HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF8748.92EC0680--


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 10:41:25 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16378
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:41:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f302.hotmail.com [216.32.180.156])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA16373
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:41:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 7857 invoked by uid 0); 6 Mar 2000 15:40:48 -0000
Message-ID: <20000306154048.7856.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 216.209.231.50 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Mon, 06 Mar 2000 07:40:47 PST
X-Originating-IP: [216.209.231.50]
From: "Marie-Catherine Bernard" <marie_catbernard@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: forensic vs non-forensic remains
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:40:47 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi everyone!
I hope you can help me.... I am looking for a list of works done on the 
identification of forensic vs non-forensic human bones.  Also I would like 
to know if anyone knows of any works done on embalming and the preservation 
of bone?
Thanks in advance for your help
MCB
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 12:51:28 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18438
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:51:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18433
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:51:23 -0500 (EST)
From: LamarM@aol.com
Received: from LamarM@aol.com
	by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.75.20d5203 (3991)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:50:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <75.20d5203.25f549f3@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:50:43 EST
Subject: Toxicologist Needed
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 66
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I have received a letter from an inmate requesting assistance on a matter 
involving the analysis of stomach contents for belladonna alkaloids.  If 
interested, please let me know.  Thanks, Lamar Miller, Forensic Document 
Examiner, Miami, Florida. 

From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 16:15:28 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20090
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:15:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20085
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:15:22 -0500 (EST)
From: KJohn39679@aol.com
Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com
	by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.9e.1f5620e (9492)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:14:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <9e.1f5620e.25f579c3@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:14:43 EST
Subject: Fwd: bfi report
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_9e.1f5620e.25f579c3_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


--part1_9e.1f5620e.25f579c3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

--part1_9e.1f5620e.25f579c3_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <ldtumulty@hotmail.com>
Received: from  rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (rly-zc02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.2]) by
	air-zc01.mail.aol.com (v69.17) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:28:55
	-0500
Received: from  hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by
	rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (v69.17) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:28:37
	-0500
Received: (qmail 78290 invoked by uid 0); 6 Mar 2000 03:28:37 -0000
Message-ID: <20000306032837.78289.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 209.110.227.157 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:28:36 PST
X-Originating-IP: [209.110.227.157]
From: "L.D. Tumulty" <ldtumulty@hotmail.com>
To: kjohn39679@aol.com
Subject: bfi report
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 03:28:36 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




                                                  FBI expert said bureau 
misled Reno on options in
                                                  Waco

                                                  Agent said he believed 
officials suppressed his view that force
                                                  should be last choice

                                                  03/06/2000

                                                  By Lee Hancock / The 
Dallas Morning News

                                                  ©2000, The Dallas Morning 
News

                                                  A veteran FBI behavioral 
expert told a bureau lawyer in a 1995 interview that he
                                                  believed FBI officials 
"misled" Attorney General Janet Reno to gain her approval to
                                                  gas the Branch Davidian 
compound on April 19, 1993, a confidential document
                                                  states.

                                                  Retired FBI Agent Peter 
Smerick, whose psychological profiles were termed the
                                                  best predictors of the 
Waco tragedy by experts and negotiators involved in the
                                                  siege, told FBI 
interviewers that he believed "the FBI misled the attorney general by
                                                  giving her 'a slanted view 
of the operation' in Waco."

                                                  A 1995 report obtained by 
The Dallas Morning News says that Mr. Smerick
                                                  blamed FBI headquarters 
for convincing the attorney general that using tear gas
                                                  was the only way to end 
the standoff peacefully.

                                                  He said that he and one of 
the FBI's top negotiators had by then "concluded that
                                                  the best strategy would 
have been to convert the Branch Davidian compound into a
                                                  prison and simply announce 
to [sect leader David] Koresh that he was in the
                                                  custody of the United 
States. This idea was not endorsed, however."

                                                  "Smerick speculated that 
FBI headquarters viewed this option as one which would
                                                  have caused them to 'lose 
face' and therefore was unacceptable," the report said.

                                                  Mr. Smerick, who retired 
from the FBI in late 1993 and now is a behavioral
                                                  consultant in a firm of 
ex-FBI agents, could not be reached for comment. He has
                                                  declined interviews, 
citing ongoing investigations by Congress and Waco special
                                                  counsel John Danforth. Ms. 
Reno's spokesman declined to comment.

                                                  The 15-page FBI report of 
Mr. Smerick's interview, written by the FBI general
                                                  counsel's office, is 
labeled "attorney-client privileged and confidential." It has never
                                                  before been made public, 
and lawyers representing the Branch Davidians in a
                                                  federal wrongful-death 
lawsuit say they have never seen the document despite
                                                  repeated requests for such 
information.

                                                  The report states that Mr. 
Smerick based his allegation that Ms. Reno was misled
                                                  on the fact that his five 
Waco profiling memos were not in the "briefing book" that
                                                  FBI leaders gave her when 
they began lobbying her on April 12 to approve using
                                                  tear gas.

                                                  Those memos warned that 
using force against the Branch Davidians would
                                                  intensify a "bunker 
mentality" in which "they would rather die than surrender." Mr.
                                                  Smerick's memos also 
warned that the sect considered its home "sacred ground"
                                                  and would "fight back to 
the death" if the authorities tried to go in. "The bottom line
                                                  is that we can always 
resort to tactical pressure, but it should be the absolute last
                                                  option we should 
consider," one memo said.

                                                  Two of the most 
experienced negotiators in Waco, including the current head of
                                                  FBI negotiations and 
crisis management, said in recent depositions that they
                                                  agreed with Mr. Smerick's 
assessments and recommendations in Waco. Both
                                                  testified that they shared 
his belief that punitive FBI tactics and impatience killed
                                                  negotiations and kept many 
Branch Davidians from leaving before the final day.

                                                  More than 80 sect members 
died when the compound burned. The fire erupted
                                                  about six hours after FBI 
agents began spraying in tear gas and ramming the
                                                  building with tanks. "I 
think we could've gotten more people out if there were better
                                                  decisions," retired FBI 
Agent Frederick Lanceley testified. "I don't think we would
                                                  have gotten everybody out. 
But I think we would've gotten more people out."

                                                  Mr. Smerick's memos were 
so adamant about the danger of using force that they
                                                  drew intense criticism 
from FBI leaders in Waco and Washington who favored
                                                  tactical options, FBI 
records show.

                                                  An administrative notebook 
kept by the hostage rescue team in Waco belittled his
                                                  profiling of Mr. Koresh. 
One unsigned note in the notebook outlined Mr. Smerick's
                                                  recommendations for 
ensuring "safety of children who are victims," and
                                                  "facilitat[ing] peaceful 
surrender." It concluded: "psychological profile of a . . .
                                                  [expletive] by jerks."

                                                  On March 9, Mr. Smerick 
told FBI interviewers, he was called by his boss in
                                                  Washington and told that 
his future memos must go to Washington before being
                                                  read by commanders in 
Waco.

                                                  Although no one plainly 
stated that he would be censored, Mr. Smerick said in
                                                  1995, he felt unmistakable 
pressure to change his advice. He added in the
                                                  confidential interview 
that he believed that "the traditionally independent process of
                                                  FBI criminal analysis . . 
. was compromised at Waco."

                                                  Mr. Smerick told 
interviewers that he quit writing after submitting an "acquiescent"
                                                  final memo that omitted 
previous cautions against pushing the sect and
                                                  incorporated suggestions 
from his Washington boss for tactical pressure. He said
                                                  he left Waco "in 
frustration" on March 17, though he kept in contact with some
                                                  negotiators.

                                                  Ms. Reno initially balked 
at the tear-gas plan. On April 16, she asked senior FBI
                                                  and Justice officials to 
prepare an annotated report explaining the situation in
                                                  Waco and the need for a 
tactical resolution.

                                                  FBI headquarters 
immediately sent a detailed request to Texas seeking "specific
                                                  documentation to support 
our position" that tear gas was the only option. The
                                                  request outlined how the 
information would be used to argue against waiting out
                                                  the sect.

                                                  The request also stated 
the FBI's plan for addressing questions about
                                                  negotiations in the report 
to the attorney general: "The universal assessment of all
                                                  involved - including FBI 
and outside consultants: that negotiation would not work,"
                                                  the internal memo says.

                                                  The resulting report, 
presented to Ms. Reno on the evening of April 17, does not
                                                  mention Mr. Smerick's 
behavioral memos. The report said nothing about repeated
                                                  complaints from him and 
top negotiators that their efforts to coax sect members
                                                  out were working until 
negotiations were derailed by intimidating FBI tactics. The
                                                  report also said nothing 
about their warnings that using tanks or other force
                                                  against the Branch 
Davidians would cause violence and death.

                                                  Instead, the final report 
to Ms. Reno offered a terse assessment of the Waco
                                                  negotiations: "Since 
negotiations began on Feb. 28, 1993, despite 51 days of
                                                  efforts, the negotiators 
have concluded that they have not been able to successfully
                                                  negotiate a single item 
with Koresh."

                                                  According to the 1993 
Justice review, Ms. Reno gave that report "a cursory review"
                                                  and then said that the 
gassing operation could begin at dawn on April 19.

                                                  After seeing the briefing 
book presented to the attorney general, the report on Mr.
                                                  Smerick's 1995 FBI 
interview said, "Smerick speculated that the preparers
                                                  selectively incorporated 
memoranda and evidence from the case which selectively
                                                  supported the tactical 
step of tear-gas insertion."

                                                  "He feels compelled to 
present the foregoing information for the Bureau's
                                                  consideration and 
deliberation in an attempt to prevent similar outcomes in future
                                                  hostage situations," the 
report said. "Smerick explained that if he is called to testify
                                                  at any official public 
hearings regarding this matter, he will present the facts in a
                                                  fashion as favorable to 
the FBI as possible."

                                                  Two months after his 
confidential FBI interview, Mr. Smerick was a witness in
                                                  congressional Waco 
hearings. He discussed his memos briefly but offered none
                                                  of the intense criticisms 
that he voiced in his FBI interview.

                                                  FBI leaders also 
testified, maintaining that they did everything possible to resolve
                                                  the 51-day siege 
peacefully before taking tactical action.

                                                  Ms. Reno echoed that in 
her 1995 testimony, telling Congress that she was "very
                                                  satisfied" with the 
information she was given by FBI officials.

                                                  The Justice Department's 
1993 review of government actions in Waco offered a
                                                  similar assessment, adding 
that Ms. Reno's belief "was well founded. . . . No
                                                  witness involved in this 
review has claimed otherwise."

                                                  Mr. Smerick and some top 
negotiators did offer highly critical statements to Justice
                                                  interviewers after the 
siege, but most details of those complaints were omitted
                                                  from the review, internal 
Justice memos show.

                                                  Internal FBI records show 
that reports from other interviews conducted by the FBI
                                                  for the 1993 review, 
including earlier interviews with Mr. Smerick, were edited to
                                                  remove critical or 
controversial statements that might reflect negatively on the FBI's
                                                  efforts in Waco.

                                                  In his 1995 FBI interview, 
Mr. Smerick voiced concerns about the objectivity and
                                                  accuracy of the Justice 
review. He complained that he had been shut out of
                                                  presentations to a panel 
of outside experts that the Justice Department asked to
                                                  help with the review in 
the summer of 1993.

                                                  Mr. Smerick said he was 
excluded from initial meetings with the panel and talked
                                                  with them only because he 
barged in uninvited to a final meeting.

                                                  "He walked into the 
meeting room unannounced and requested to speak to the
                                                  panel . . . and gave them 
copies of the memoranda he had authored," the 1995 FBI
                                                  report said. Mr. Smerick 
added that the agents there were so displeased "that they
                                                  would not speak to him 
afterwards."

                                                  The panel of experts 
recommended that select FBI regional leaders receive
                                                  intensive training in 
crisis management, including behavioral-science training.

                                                  The recommendation 
prompted a new FBI crisis-training program. But Mr. Smerick
                                                  told FBI lawyers in 1995 
that he and other Waco behavioral experts and
                                                  negotiators were excluded 
from classes detailing what happened in the Branch
                                                  Davidian standoff. 
Instead, he noted in his 1995 interview, only the two FBI
                                                  commanders who led the 
operation in Waco - both vocal advocates of aggressive
                                                  tactics against the sect - 
were asked to brief the FBI classes.

                                                  "Smerick explained that he 
finds this very troubling because these [leaders] should
                                                  have been advised as to 
what actually happened at Waco from a
                                                  behavioral-science 
perspective," the report on the interview said. "Smerick
                                                  concluded the interview by 
noting that he has always been loyal to the FBI and will
                                                  continue to be loyal. He 
advised that he is providing the foregoing information for
                                                  in-house edification, not 
to publicly criticize the FBI."



                                                  [ Waco Re-examined | Texas 
& Southwest | Dallasnews.com ]
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--part1_9e.1f5620e.25f579c3_boundary--

From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 16:22:30 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20228
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:22:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20223
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:22:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GG7AFBY6>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:20:29 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB62C@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: bfi report
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:21:29 -0600 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Cool!  Not only is there no apparent independent thought here, but the
correspondent who sent it to him didn't have any, either.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:15 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Fwd: bfi report


 

From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 16:58:29 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20777
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:58:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.ucok.edu (ucok.edu [192.206.65.7])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20769
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:58:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dminden ([204.154.117.50])
          by mail1.ucok.edu (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.2c)
          with SMTP id 2000030615564269:1482 ;
          Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:56:42 -0600 
Message-ID: <007e01bf87b7$2779ec90$32759acc@chemistry>
From: "David von Minden" <dvonminden@ucok.edu>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB62C@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: bfi report
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:58:49 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Mail1/UCO(Release 5.0.2c |February 2, 2000) at 03/06/2000
 03:56:42 PM,
	Serialize by Router on Mail1/UCO(Release 5.0.2c |February 2, 2000) at 03/06/2000
 03:56:44 PM,
	Serialize complete at 03/06/2000 03:56:44 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Is "bfi" code for FBI. There is a conspiracy here!


David L. von Minden

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: bfi report


> Cool!  Not only is there no apparent independent thought here, but the
> correspondent who sent it to him didn't have any, either.
> Dave Hause
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:15 PM
> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Fwd: bfi report
> 
> 
> 


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 16:58:42 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20810
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:58:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20775
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:58:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA09478;
	Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:58:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:58:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: bfi report
In-Reply-To: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB62C@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000306165647.24155B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


Oh, Dave, we don't want original thought here.  You
must mean another list.  This list is for roboposting
only.  Get with the program. 

billo

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Hause, David W LTC GLWACH wrote:

> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
> 
> Cool!  Not only is there no apparent independent thought here, but the
> correspondent who sent it to him didn't have any, either.
> Dave Hause
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:15 PM
> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Fwd: bfi report
> 
> 
>  
> 


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 17:05:27 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA21059
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:05:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21054
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:05:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GG7AFC8G>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:03:43 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB62E@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: bfi report
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:04:45 -0600 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Actually, it usually stands for Blunt Force Injury.  Maybe Kelly was hit in
the head and that's why he no longer has ideas.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: David von Minden [mailto:dvonminden@ucok.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:59 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: bfi report


Is "bfi" code for FBI. There is a conspiracy here!


David L. von Minden

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: bfi report


> Cool!  Not only is there no apparent independent thought here, but the
> correspondent who sent it to him didn't have any, either.
> Dave Hause
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:15 PM
> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Fwd: bfi report
> 
> 
> 

From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 17:12:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA21211
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:12:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.rdc1.az.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.az.home.com [24.1.240.66])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21206
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:12:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from JeffBaluch ([24.1.210.152]) by mail.rdc1.az.home.com
          (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP
          id <20000306221247.UWTQ21214.mail.rdc1.az.home.com@JeffBaluch>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:12:47 -0800
From: "Page Baluch" <pbaluch@home.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: forward msg: forensic vs non-forensic remains
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:16:26 -0700
Message-ID: <000401bf87b9$9d21c9c0$98d20118@chnd1.az.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello everyone,
   I am forwarding a message from the humbio-L newsgroup. I am sure someone
on the list can answer this question. Marie is not a member of this
newsgroup so please respond to her directly. Thanks,  Page
--------------------------------


Hi there!
I hope you can help me... I am looking for a list of works on the
identification of human forensic vs non-forensic remains... also I would
like to know if anyone knows of any work done on embalming at the effect on
the preservation of the bone?
Thanks for all your help
mcb
marie_catbernard@hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 18:11:28 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21790
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:11:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21779;
	Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:11:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pnoth (1Cust142.tnt3.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net [63.15.134.142])
	by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA06231;
	Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000306170546.008d8a30@mail.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:05:46 -0600
To: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu,
        Cihanipek@aol.com
From: Peter Nothnagle <pnoth@earthlink.net>
Subject: voice ID and tape evidence
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000304192559.1270B-100000@brooks.statgen.nc
 su.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Dear Basten and all,

I'm only a Forens-L "lurker" but in real life I am a recording engineer, so
I would like to address Messrs. Ipek and Tizik's questions about voice
identification and verification of tape recorded evidence.

Disclaimer section: please keep in mind that I am not a forensic science
professional and my opinions reflect a lack of understanding about any
legal applications of this information.

The first question concerns the validity of "voiceprint identification".
I'm no expert but I will say what perhaps many are thinking -- even the
much more tangible areas of trace evidence, fingerprints, and even DNA are
controversial, and I think that voice identification must be much less
reliable.  It MIGHT be suitable as an investigative tool, but don't present
it as evidence in any trial where I'm on the jury!

The second question is in two parts and relates to the verification of tape
recorded evidence.  Can a recording of speech be edited to change the
verbal content?  Most definitely.  In fact, modern computers have put the
necessary equipment within the reach of almost everybody.  The typical ways
to detect an edited recording basically amount to listening closely for
telltale artifacts: inappropriate spoken inflection,  discontinuity in
backgound sound, etc.  A skilled audio engineer might think to manipulate
the inflection and mask background noises.  For example, if, after editing,
some music were added to the background of a recording, a listener could be
fooled into thinking the voice hadn't been edited at all.  Still, I think
the work of an inexperienced operator would be fairly easy to detect.

The second part of the second question asked if it is possible to determine
whether an analog tape recording had been converted to digital, edited in a
digital editing system, and copied back to analog.  A typical case would
faking a telephone anwering machine tape.  As I say, a skillful editing job
cannot be detected, but there might be some signs that a given tape is a
copy, not an original.  For example, all telephone answering machine tapes
are monophonic.  But if an analog tape is converted to digital, edited, and
then converted back to analog, a tape recorder must be used to make the
final tape in hand.  If the tape in hand had been made on a stereo
recorder, that would prove that it had not been made on an answering
machine.  [A tape made on a stereo recorder will have a tiny "guard band"
of unrecorded space between the stereo tracks, which would be revealed by
spraying the tape with a product called "Magnasee" and examining it under a
microcope (I should admit that I've never actually tried this).]

Furthermore, an answering machine tape recording will contain a certain
amount of AC hum (precisely 60 Hz in the US).  An answering machine is not
a very precise recorder, and each machine will run at a slightly different
speed.  If the questioned tape contains AC hum which is not precisely 60 Hz
when played on a given machine, that would indicate that it was recorded on
a different machine.  Likewise, it might be possible to show the mechanical
alignment of the tape heads includes or excludes a given machine as having
made a given tape recording.

I hope this has been helpful.

With best regards,
Peter Nothnagle


At 07:26 PM 3/4/00 -0500, Basten wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:53:56 -0500
>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
>From: "Dennis C. Hilliard" <dch@uri.edu>
>Subject: Voice Analysis FWD
>
>List members:
>
>I received this request today and I would hope someone on this list may
>have an answer for this person. This is not my area of expertise.
>
>Please reply to this person at: Cihanipek@aol.com  since this person is not
>subscribe to the list. You can also reply to me or the list and I will
>forward the information. I am curious about this aspect of forensics as
>well, we get about 5 -6 calls a year about this topic.
>
>
>
><<<As an attorney, I would like to ask your favour on a topic that is your
>scope, and expertise.
>
>Currently me, and my partner Ali Tizik are together making some research on
>the topic, voice identification and tape evidence. In order to develop a
>view on the topic, we are making a worldwide investigation and getting in
>touch with the experts in the area. With this research we intend to collect
>as many information in the are -technical- and valuable opinions, and
>comments of yours. I would like to ask your help of technical information
>for the below specific points:
>
>
>1. Can the voice of a person be identified with the voice on the tape for
>100% certainty? To what level of certainty, is it possible to identify a
>person through an audio recording ?
>
>2. Could the words of a person be rearranged in such way to make up a
>conversation which he has not made at all?
>If an analog recording is transferred to digital system, and then
>transferred back to analog signal, could this be realized from the nature
>of the signal? Is it possible to conceive the tampering done during the
>digital system, when this is transformed back into analog tape?
>
>
>I would appreciate your kind and prompt response for the below questions.
>Yours sincerely
>
>Attorney Cihan Ipek>>>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S.
>Director/Adj. Asst. Professor
>
>
>
>
>


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 18:17:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21929
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:17:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.mailstart.com (mail.mailstart.com [207.231.76.67])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21924
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:17:24 -0500 (EST)
From: klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au
Received: from lavender [207.231.76.90] by mail.mailstart.com
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC83A7B00BE; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:17:23 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
CC: 
Subject: Portable Accelerant Detector
Message-Id: <06030066.55044@139.134.23.66>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon,  6 Mar 2000 15:17:30 -0800
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


Can anyone point me to some references for portable accelerant
detectors?  The only articles I have found so far refer to canine
detectors, and although they are portable, they're not what I'm
looking for.  Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Karen Cavanagh

-----
Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!


From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 19:17:09 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22426
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22421
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:17:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pete (A097024.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.24]) 
	by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id QAA07550; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:16:44 -0800 (PST)
        env-from (pbarnett@crl.com)
Message-Id: <200003070016.QAA07550@mail.crl.com>
X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:50:34 -0800
To: marie_catbernard@hotmail.com, <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
Subject: Re: forward msg: forensic vs non-forensic remains
In-Reply-To: <000401bf87b9$9d21c9c0$98d20118@chnd1.az.home.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 03:16 PM 3/6/00 -0700,  someone wrote:

>I hope you can help me... I am looking for a list of works on the
>identification of human forensic vs non-forensic remains... also I would
>like to know if anyone knows of any work done on embalming at the effect on
>the preservation of the bone?

And here I thought remains, were remains, were remains.  I am glad to know
that while I am moudlering away my ashes and dusts will be forensic ashes
and dust, and not non-forensic ashes and dust.  A very  good example of the
misuse of the adjective "forensic".

Pete Barnett


Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com
http://www.fsalab.com

From forens-owner  Mon Mar  6 19:27:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22665
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:27:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22660
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:27:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hdcdojnet.state.ca.us by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA19882; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DOM_DOJ-Message_Server by hdcdojnet.state.ca.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:25:37 -0800
Message-Id: <s8c3dc01.008@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:25:20 -0800
From: "Joel Duncan" <DuncanJ1@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Portable Accelerant Detector
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id TAA22661
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Look for the EGIS system, web search with keywords "EGIS, explosive" should yield a bit of info.

Apologies for not having more info at my fingertips.  I'll see if it's at the house.



Joel R. Duncan
Criminalist - CalDNA
email - DuncanJ1@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us
Berkeley, California
510-540-2434
voicemail ext-239

>>> <klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au> 03/06 3:18 PM >>>

Can anyone point me to some references for portable accelerant
detectors?  The only articles I have found so far refer to canine
detectors, and although they are portable, they're not what I'm
looking for.  Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Karen Cavanagh

-----
Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!



From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 08:49:49 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28191
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfs.state.va.us (dgsgtfo.dgs.state.va.us [159.169.223.252])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28186
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:49:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DFS-PDC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GF492GWH>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:44:34 -0500
Message-ID: <A1AD99DCB380D2119C7400805FC719983F077A@DFS-PDC>
From: "Dolan, Julia" <JDolan@dfs.state.va.us>
To: "'klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au'" <klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au>,
        forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Portable Accelerant Detector
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:44:34 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

		The reference to EGIS detectors is more for field screening
of explosive residues, and is not particularly applicable to accelerants.
My understanding of your question is that the need is for a detector of
ignitable liquid vapors.

		Historically, there have been problems with hydrocarbon
detectors in that they lack selectivity.  Many of the pyrolysis products
formed in a fire will cause a positive indication on these type of
detectors.  It is for this reason that many in the field of fire
investigation have placed more emphasis on the use of a well-trained canine,
with a documented training and work history.  Canines that are properly
trained are trained to alert to a variety of ignitable liquids and their
residues, and more importantly are trained not to alert to common pyrolysis
products.

		That said however, even a well-trained canine's alert is
meaningless beyond probable cause without a laboratory confirmation.

		My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of the VA DFS.

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us

				-----Original Message-----
				From:	klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au
[SMTP:klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au]
				Sent:	Monday, March 06, 2000 6:18 PM
				To:	forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
				Subject:	Portable Accelerant Detector


			Can anyone point me to some references for portable
accelerant
			detectors?  The only articles I have found so far
refer to canine
			detectors, and although they are portable, they're
not what I'm
			looking for.  Any help would be appreciated.

			Thanks in advance,

			Karen Cavanagh

			-----
			Sent using MailStart.com (
http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
			The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web
browser, anywhere!

From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 15:52:36 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01952
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:52:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pbsomail.pbso.org (mail.pbso.org [209.149.216.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01947
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:52:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: by PBSOMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <1891GAD2>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:52:02 -0500
Message-ID: <E8F7CE22EFBAD211B2930090273AB1EA069014@PBSOMAIL>
From: "Barbara K. Caraballo" <CaraballoB@pbso.org>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Annual Physicals
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:51:54 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Dear List Members,
I am trying to determine if any laboratories or systems offer annual
physicals to
their employees.  Would you please respond either to the list or to me
personally
at CaraballoB@pbso.org.  I am presently drafting a memo arguing for this
benefit.
Thanks for your input.
Barbara Caraballo
QA Manager - Technical Services Bureau  
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office 

From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 16:22:21 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02250
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:22:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA02245
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:22:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 21:11:09 UT
Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Tue Mar 07 13:21:36 2000 -0800
Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:22:13 -0800
Message-Id: <s8c50285.096@co.kern.ca.us>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:21:17 -0800
From: "Greg Laskowski" <GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us>
To: CaraballoB@pbso.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Annual Physicals
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Barabara,

While it is supposed to be a County policy that criminalists have annual
physicals, only those that respond to clandestine laboratopry scenes have
recently been examined.  This is an issue that crops up now and then.  It
appears that it is a too burdensome expense.

Gregory E. Laskowski
Supervising Criminalist
Kern County District Attorney
Forensic Science Division
e-mail:  glaskows@co.kern.ca.us

>>> "Barbara K. Caraballo" <CaraballoB@pbso.org> 03/07 12:51 PM >>>
Dear List Members,
I am trying to determine if any laboratories or systems offer annual
physicals to
their employees.  Would you please respond either to the list or to me
personally
at CaraballoB@pbso.org.  I am presently drafting a memo arguing for this
benefit.
Thanks for your input.
Barbara Caraballo
QA Manager - Technical Services Bureau  
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office 

From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 17:49:50 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03203
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:49:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ssmtp01.arrakis.isp (smtp.arrakis.es [212.59.199.83])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03198
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:49:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from casa ([212.59.205.190]) by ssmtp01.arrakis.isp
          (Netscape Messaging Server 4.1) with SMTP id FR2PZX03.J80 for
          <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:47:57 +0100 
From: "P mf" <pmf@arrakis.es>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=BFaddress_of_Forens-L=3F?=
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:58:25 +0100
Message-ID: <NDBBKDOBHPNHLKDPMJBDIEIMCBAA.pmf@arrakis.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: <38B187BD.813F3EFA@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Disposition-Notification-To: "P mf" <pmf@arrakis.es>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello:

Which is the URL of Forens-L?

Thank you,
J Rosello
Médico Forense


From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 18:15:57 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03508
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:15:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03503
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:15:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.50.61])
          by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.31a 201-229-119-114) with ESMTP
          id <20000307231521.WBEL24363.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:15:21 +0000
Message-ID: <38C58C54.D333C105@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:10:12 -0800
From: John Bowden <jaybow@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Portable Accelerant Detector
References: <06030066.55044@139.134.23.66>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Karen,

I recently remember an article published by the Swedish National
Laboratory of Forensic Science (SKL) dealing with this very subject.
The article was in English.  Unfortunately I remember it because I
discarded it while straightening up my office.

I have spent some time on the web this p.m. looking for a URL for the
laboratory.  Although there are many references to SKL, I could not find
a list of their publications.  Later this week I shall check out the CCI
laboratory.

Keep your fingers crossed.

John P. Bowden
"Dum Spiro Spero"

klcavanagh@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> Can anyone point me to some references for portable accelerant
> detectors?  The only articles I have found so far refer to canine
> detectors, and although they are portable, they're not what I'm
> looking for.  Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Karen Cavanagh
>
> -----
> Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
> The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for two free plane tickets:
http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/



From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 18:37:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03768
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:37:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from arnie.systems.sa.gov.au (arnie.systems.sa.gov.au [203.26.120.3])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03763
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:37:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from arnie.systems.sa.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
                        by arnie.systems.sa.gov.au OUTGOING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08844;
                        Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:07:14 +1030 (CST)'
Received: from SAGEMSBB005.saugov.sa.gov.au (sagemsbb005.saugov.sa.gov.au [143.216.59.16])
                        by arnie.systems.sa.gov.au INCOMING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08839;
                        Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:07:14 +1030 (CST)'
Received: by SAGEMSBB005.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GB5KR7Y0>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:07:14 +1030
Message-ID: <833BFC64AC56D21190F00008C71E39540274C428@SAGEMSG0002.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au>
From: "Gilbert, John (FORENSIC)" <gilbert.john@saugov.sa.gov.au>
To: "'P mf'" <pmf@arrakis.es>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_=BFaddress_of_Forens-L=3F?=
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:07:13 +1030 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id SAA03764
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

http://statgen.ncsu.edu/statgen/forens.html

On Wednesday, 8 March 2000 8:28, P mf [SMTP:pmf@arrakis.es] wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> Which is the URL of Forens-L?
> 
> Thank you,
> J Rosello
> Médico Forense

From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 20:09:21 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04643
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:09:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04638
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:09:16 -0500 (EST)
From: LCTOX@aol.com
Received: from LCTOX@aol.com
	by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.e8.255f70f (7042)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:08:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <e8.255f70f.25f7021a@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:08:42 EST
Subject: Forensic Conference
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello,

I would like to invite you all to attend the spring meeting of the Northwest 
Association of Forensic Scientists to be held in Sacramento, CA, May 15-19, 
2000.

This meeting will have a unique format in that the entire week is composed of 
workshops only. There will be a poster session during one evening and a Bring 
Your Own Slides night as well. For more information on the meeting and to 
download a registration form please visit the following URL:

http://members.aol.com/lctox/spr00.htm

If you have any questions please feel free to e-mail me.
Hope to see you in Sacramento,
Lisa Caughlin


Lisa Caughlin
Sacramento County
Office of the District Attorney's
Laboratory of Forensic Services
4800 Broadway Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95820
916-874-9240
fax 916-874-9620

From forens-owner  Tue Mar  7 20:59:27 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05054
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:59:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05049
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:59:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003080159.UAA05049@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0)
	id G12M5ASY; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:04:52 +1300
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:03:00 +1200
From: "Ashton, Jason" <JAshton@esr.cri.nz>
Subject: Urgent request - Recovery of video image
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


This is an urgent request so please contact me ASAP.

We have a video tape (PAL) that has been recorded over once.

We need to know a method or technique or service provider to recover the   
previous images.

Jason
 -------------------------------------------------
Jason M Ashton <library.masc@esr.cri.nz>
Information Research Services
ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and Research
Private Bag 92021
Auckland
New Zealand

Fax +64 9 8496046

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 09:35:45 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10620
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:35:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10615
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:35:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.224.237])
          by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134)
          with ESMTP id <20000308143509.PIWY21298@worldnet.att.net>;
          Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:35:09 +0000
Message-ID: <38C665B2.1BE3A12C@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:37:45 -0500
From: "E. J. Wagner" <EJWagner@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Science and Sherlock Holmes
References: <92.238c2d8.25f3da9d@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Thought this might be of interest to the list:

On Sunday afternoon at 4 PM, (March 12), I'll be presenting a program
called "Murder Under the Microscope;Forensic Science, Scotland Yard, and
Sherlock Holmes"
This grand event will take place at the Museum of Long Island Natural
Sciences,SUNY at Stony Brook, New York, located in the Earth and Space
Sciences Building.

I'll be examining the forensic evidence and historical background of
true crimes investigated by Conan Doyle, including the Gilchrist
murderthe Edalji case, and the ever popular" Brides in the Bath".Some
truly spectacular poster-size photographs from John Houde's book "Crome
Lab" will be on display.

There is a small fee-$12-$10 for seniors and $8 for students-the profits
go to support sciences programs for young people.phone is 631-632-8230.

EJ

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 11:39:40 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11682
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:39:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11677
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:39:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GRM9B2K4>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:39:01 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B2F@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: family relatedness
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:39:32 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF891C.CE82B3A8"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF891C.CE82B3A8
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Do any of you perform mixture stats on a DNA case where the father is the
suspect and the profile is consistent with a mixture of the daughter and the
father?  By this I mean the intensities are such that you cannot determine
major and minor contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your
calculations?  Either Likelihood or RMNE.  Comments?

Thanks,

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF891C.CE82B3A8
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>family relatedness</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Do any of you perform mixture stats on a DNA case =
where the father is the suspect and the profile is consistent with a =
mixture of the daughter and the father?&nbsp; By this I mean the =
intensities are such that you cannot determine major and minor =
contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your =
calculations?&nbsp; Either Likelihood or RMNE.&nbsp; =
Comments?</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or =
policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF891C.CE82B3A8--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 13:19:27 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12637
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:19:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.verio.net (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.161])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12625
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:19:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cbrenner (h207-21-136-163.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.163])
	by smtp1.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA21074;
	Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.1.20000308100951.00c1f170@pop.ncal.verio.com>
X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:19:39 -0800
To: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
        <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: "Charles H. Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: family relatedness
In-Reply-To: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B2F@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.
 charlotte.nc.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_41982369==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--=====================_41982369==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:39 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 

>
> Do any of you perform mixture stats on a DNA case where the father is the
> suspect and the profile is consistent with a mixture of the daughter and the
> father?  By this I mean the intensities are such that you cannot determine
> major and minor contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your
> calculations?  Either Likelihood or RMNE.  Comments?


These are potentially difficult (to calculate) questions. 
But sometimes they are easier than it first appears.

If the father/suspect is available and you have determined the 
DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they
are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation
that you would make for any putative rapist.

If the father/suspect has absconded and cannot be tested,
then the problem is trickier. The mere fact that there are only
three alleles per locus is of course evidence against him, but
the right formulas to quantify this are not in the books. It would
be a one-off analysis. I once calculated a case where two 
rapists were presumably brothers, but only one of them was
arrested. That was a lot of work.

Also, if the suspect alleges that the uncle of the girl
is the real rapist, then, whether the suspect is himself a 
relative or not, a special one-off calculation is necessary.

Charles 

Charles Brenner, Ph.D.
forensic mathematics 
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner
--=====================_41982369==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 11:39 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: <br>
<br>
<font size=2><blockquote type=cite cite>Do any of you perform mixture
stats on a DNA case where the father is the suspect and the profile is
consistent with a mixture of the daughter and the father?&nbsp; By this I
mean the intensities are such that you cannot determine major and minor
contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your
calculations?&nbsp; Either Likelihood or RMNE.&nbsp;
Comments?</font></blockquote><br>
These are potentially difficult (to calculate) questions. <br>
But sometimes they are easier than it first appears.<br>
<br>
If the father/suspect is available and you have determined the <br>
DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they<br>
are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation<br>
that you would make for any putative rapist.<br>
<br>
If the father/suspect has absconded and cannot be tested,<br>
then the problem is trickier. The mere fact that there are only<br>
three alleles per locus is of course evidence against him, but<br>
the right formulas to quantify this are not in the books. It would<br>
be a one-off analysis. I once calculated a case where two <br>
rapists were presumably brothers, but only one of them was<br>
arrested. That was a lot of work.<br>
<br>
Also, if the suspect alleges that the uncle of the girl<br>
is the real rapist, then, whether the suspect is himself a <br>
relative or not, a special one-off calculation is necessary.<br>
<br>
Charles <br>
<br>
Charles Brenner, Ph.D.<br>
forensic mathematics <br>
<a href="http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner" eudora="autourl">www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</a></html>

--=====================_41982369==_.ALT--


From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 16:01:02 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14154
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:01:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14146
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:00:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GRM9BJJD>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:40:04 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B30@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: family relatedness
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:40:34 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF893E.7A6D19B2"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF893E.7A6D19B2
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<<<If the father/suspect is available and you have determined the 
DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they
are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation
that you would make for any putative rapist.>>>
 
Thank you.  This was my initial impression but I thought I would get a
second opinion.  The case I am interested in, (although it could present
itself in otherways), is an alleged sexual assault on the female (daughter)
by the father by him performing oral sex on her.  The length of time of
contact being upwards of 5 minutes and a significant presence of amylase
indicates the possibility of obtaining a mixture of both persons.  Standards
from both individuals are available.
 
Thanks,
 

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:20 PM
To: Sailus, Jeff; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: family relatedness


At 11:39 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 



Do any of you perform mixture stats on a DNA case where the father is the
suspect and the profile is consistent with a mixture of the daughter and the
father?  By this I mean the intensities are such that you cannot determine
major and minor contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your
calculations?  Either Likelihood or RMNE.  Comments?


These are potentially difficult (to calculate) questions. 
But sometimes they are easier than it first appears.

If the father/suspect is available and you have determined the 
DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they
are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation
that you would make for any putative rapist.

If the father/suspect has absconded and cannot be tested,
then the problem is trickier. The mere fact that there are only
three alleles per locus is of course evidence against him, but
the right formulas to quantify this are not in the books. It would
be a one-off analysis. I once calculated a case where two 
rapists were presumably brothers, but only one of them was
arrested. That was a lot of work.

Also, if the suspect alleges that the uncle of the girl
is the real rapist, then, whether the suspect is himself a 
relative or not, a special one-off calculation is necessary.

Charles 

Charles Brenner, Ph.D.
forensic mathematics 
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner <http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner>  


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF893E.7A6D19B2
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">



<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></SPAN>If the father/suspect is available and you have 
determined the <BR>DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that 
they<BR>are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation<BR>that you 
would make for any putative rapist.<SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT 
color=#000000 face=Arial size=3>&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=3>Thank 
you.&nbsp; This was my initial impression but I thought I would get a second 
opinion.&nbsp; The case I am interested in, (although it could present itself in 
otherways), is an alleged sexual assault on the female (daughter) by the father 
by him performing oral sex on her.&nbsp; The length of time of contact being 
upwards of 5 minutes and a significant presence of amylase indicates the 
possibility of obtaining a mixture of both persons.&nbsp; Standards from both 
individuals are available.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=520502520-08032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies 
of CMPD.<BR><BR>Jeff Sailus, MSFS<BR>CMPD Crime Lab<BR>DNA Section<BR>601 E. 
Trade Street<BR>Charlotte, NC 28202<BR>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755<BR>fax 
704-353-0088<BR>email&nbsp; 
jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us<BR></FONT>&nbsp;</P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Charles H. Brenner 
    [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 08, 
    2000 1:20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Sailus, Jeff; 
    forens@statgen.ncsu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: family 
    relatedness<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>At 11:39 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff 
    wrote: <BR><BR><FONT size=2>
    <BLOCKQUOTE cite type = cite>Do any of you perform mixture stats on a 
        DNA case where the father is the suspect and the profile is consistent 
        with a mixture of the daughter and the father?&nbsp; By this I mean the 
        intensities are such that you cannot determine major and minor 
        contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your 
        calculations?&nbsp; Either Likelihood or RMNE.&nbsp; 
    Comments?</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>These are potentially difficult (to 
    calculate) questions. <BR>But sometimes they are easier than it first 
    appears.<BR><BR>If the father/suspect is available and you have determined 
    the <BR>DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they<BR>are 
    related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation<BR>that you would 
    make for any putative rapist.<BR><BR>If the father/suspect has absconded and 
    cannot be tested,<BR>then the problem is trickier. The mere fact that there 
    are only<BR>three alleles per locus is of course evidence against him, 
    but<BR>the right formulas to quantify this are not in the books. It 
    would<BR>be a one-off analysis. I once calculated a case where two 
    <BR>rapists were presumably brothers, but only one of them was<BR>arrested. 
    That was a lot of work.<BR><BR>Also, if the suspect alleges that the uncle 
    of the girl<BR>is the real rapist, then, whether the suspect is himself a 
    <BR>relative or not, a special one-off calculation is 
    necessary.<BR><BR>Charles <BR><BR>Charles Brenner, Ph.D.<BR>forensic 
    mathematics <BR><A href="http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner" eudora = 
    autourl>www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</A> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF893E.7A6D19B2--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 16:04:09 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14284
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:04:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mhmres1.mhmr.state.tx.us (mhmres1.mhmr.state.tx.us [163.126.158.8])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14279
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:04:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mhmres1.mhmr.state.tx.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GPYDFZGR>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:06:05 -0600
Message-ID: <1D66906D4B5CD1118D8900A0C98F1A5401C7086A@mhmrkshes1.ksh.mhmr.state.tx.us>
From: "Frantzen, Roxanne" <Roxanne.Frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: looking for video
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:03:48 -0600 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Would any of you know of a video which teaches mental health hospital
personnel how to effectively communicate and deal with forensic patients.
These patients are a new  population in our hospital and some of our staff,
especially our nurses, are not sure how to respond to the aggressive
behavior of these new clients.  Thanks for any and all help.

Roxanne Frantzen
Staff Librarian
Kerrville State Hospital
721 Thompson Drive
Kerrville, TX   78028
830-896-2211  x6283; FAX 830 792-4926
roxanne.frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us
 

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 16:39:44 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15015
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:39:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15010
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:39:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GRM9BJQ9>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:39:09 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B32@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: family relatedness
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:39:40 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8946.BBEB8F1A"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8946.BBEB8F1A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<<<You might consider some other calculations if there's a chance the
defense
will accuse a brother or uncle, which could happen once they are confronted
by the DNA evidence?>>>

Thank you.  I suppose there are a million "what ifs" that they could ask and
I do not feel it is necessary for me to calculate every possible scenerio.
If it took some work for Charles to figure it out, I will not attempt
different scenerios.  It is one thing to calculate them for a single source,
and another for a mixture.  I am always willing to run a standard of a
brother, uncle, etc.  So unless they come up with it at the last minute, I
prefer to actually type all potential persons involved.  If they do not want
the other persons typed, then it becomes upon them to provide an expert to
perform their many possible calculations.  I will provide all the data.

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 

-----Original Message-----
From: JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us [mailto:JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:19 PM
To: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
Subject: RE: family relatedness


True, if you have both types, you can calculate the probability of the
father's sharing the same type as the perpetrator/mixture contributor
without reference to their relationship. But, since the father and daughter
share half their alleles, and since you couldn't separate the two sources
since you're dealing with saliva, depending upon their ratios, your
probabilities may not be be too great, unless the signal strength of the
perp is significantly greater than that of the girl. 
 
You might consider some other calculations if there's a chance the defense
will accuse a brother or uncle, which could happen once they are confronted
by the DNA evidence?

[John Hartmann] 
 ----Original Message-----
From: Sailus, Jeff [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:41 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: family relatedness



<<<If the father/suspect is available and you have determined the 
DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they
are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation
that you would make for any putative rapist.>>>
 
Thank you.  This was my initial impression but I thought I would get a
second opinion.  The case I am interested in, (although it could present
itself in otherways), is an alleged sexual assault on the female (daughter)
by the father by him performing oral sex on her.  The length of time of
contact being upwards of 5 minutes and a significant presence of amylase
indicates the possibility of obtaining a mixture of both persons.  Standards
from both individuals are available.
 
Thanks,
 

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:20 PM
To: Sailus, Jeff; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: family relatedness


At 11:39 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 



Do any of you perform mixture stats on a DNA case where the father is the
suspect and the profile is consistent with a mixture of the daughter and the
father?  By this I mean the intensities are such that you cannot determine
major and minor contributors. How do you state the effect of this on your
calculations?  Either Likelihood or RMNE.  Comments?


These are potentially difficult (to calculate) questions. 
But sometimes they are easier than it first appears.

If the father/suspect is available and you have determined the 
DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact that they
are related is irrelevant. You can make the same computation
that you would make for any putative rapist.

If the father/suspect has absconded and cannot be tested,
then the problem is trickier. The mere fact that there are only
three alleles per locus is of course evidence against him, but
the right formulas to quantify this are not in the books. It would
be a one-off analysis. I once calculated a case where two 
rapists were presumably brothers, but only one of them was
arrested. That was a lot of work.

Also, if the suspect alleges that the uncle of the girl
is the real rapist, then, whether the suspect is himself a 
relative or not, a special one-off calculation is necessary.

Charles 

Charles Brenner, Ph.D.
forensic mathematics 
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner <http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner>  

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8946.BBEB8F1A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: family relatedness</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;You might consider some other =
calculations if there's a chance the defense</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>will accuse a brother or uncle, which could happen =
once they are confronted</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>by the DNA evidence?&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thank you.&nbsp; I suppose there are a million =
&quot;what ifs&quot; that they could ask and I do not feel it is =
necessary for me to calculate every possible scenerio.&nbsp; If it took =
some work for Charles to figure it out, I will not attempt different =
scenerios.&nbsp; It is one thing to calculate them for a single source, =
and another for a mixture.&nbsp; I am always willing to run a standard =
of a brother, uncle, etc.&nbsp; So unless they come up with it at the =
last minute, I prefer to actually type all potential persons =
involved.&nbsp; If they do not want the other persons typed, then it =
becomes upon them to provide an expert to perform their many possible =
calculations.&nbsp; I will provide all the data.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or =
policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us">mailto:JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us</=
A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:19 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: family relatedness</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>True, if you have both types, you can calculate the =
probability of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>father's sharing the same type as the =
perpetrator/mixture contributor</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>without reference to their relationship. But, since =
the father and daughter</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>share half their alleles, and since you couldn't =
separate the two sources</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>since you're dealing with saliva, depending upon =
their ratios, your</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>probabilities may not be be too great, unless the =
signal strength of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>perp is significantly greater than that of the girl. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>You might consider some other calculations if =
there's a chance the defense</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>will accuse a brother or uncle, which could happen =
once they are confronted</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>by the DNA evidence?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>[John Hartmann] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Sailus, Jeff [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us">mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.c=
harlotte.nc.us</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:41 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: family relatedness</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;If the father/suspect is available and =
you have determined the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact =
that they</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>are related is irrelevant. You can make the same =
computation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that you would make for any putative =
rapist.&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thank you.&nbsp; This was my initial impression but =
I thought I would get a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>second opinion.&nbsp; The case I am interested in, =
(although it could present</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>itself in otherways), is an alleged sexual assault =
on the female (daughter)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>by the father by him performing oral sex on =
her.&nbsp; The length of time of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>contact being upwards of 5 minutes and a significant =
presence of amylase</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>indicates the possibility of obtaining a mixture of =
both persons.&nbsp; Standards</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>from both individuals are available.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or =
policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Charles H. Brenner [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu">mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berk=
eley.edu</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:20 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Sailus, Jeff; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: family relatedness</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At 11:39 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Do any of you perform mixture stats on a DNA case =
where the father is the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>suspect and the profile is consistent with a mixture =
of the daughter and the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>father?&nbsp; By this I mean the intensities are =
such that you cannot determine</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>major and minor contributors. How do you state the =
effect of this on your</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>calculations?&nbsp; Either Likelihood or RMNE.&nbsp; =
Comments?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>These are potentially difficult (to calculate) =
questions. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>But sometimes they are easier than it first =
appears.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If the father/suspect is available and you have =
determined the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA types for both father and daughter, then fact =
that they</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>are related is irrelevant. You can make the same =
computation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that you would make for any putative rapist.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If the father/suspect has absconded and cannot be =
tested,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>then the problem is trickier. The mere fact that =
there are only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>three alleles per locus is of course evidence =
against him, but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the right formulas to quantify this are not in the =
books. It would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>be a one-off analysis. I once calculated a case =
where two </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>rapists were presumably brothers, but only one of =
them was</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>arrested. That was a lot of work.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Also, if the suspect alleges that the uncle of the =
girl</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>is the real rapist, then, whether the suspect is =
himself a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>relative or not, a special one-off calculation is =
necessary.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charles </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charles Brenner, Ph.D.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>forensic mathematics </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner &lt;<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</A>&gt;&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8946.BBEB8F1A--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 17:04:44 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15284
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:04:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15279
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:04:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Rijeca@aol.com
Received: from Rijeca@aol.com
	by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.19.1bb8bda (3318)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:03:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19.1bb8bda.25f82847@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:03:51 EST
Subject: craniofacial reconstruction
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello all,

    I am "delurking" once again to ask for your assistance (once again).  I 
am currently embarking on a research project about the accuracy of 
craniofacial reconstruction and its benefit to the identification of human 
remains.  If anyone has knowledge of any articles, books, or web sites that 
would be of assistance I would greatly appreciate the information.

Thank you

Serena Grant
Rijeca@aol.com

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 17:39:40 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15590
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:39:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA15585
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:39:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 8 Mar 2000 22:39:36 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD68GW>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:30:55 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A3476DA@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'Frantzen, Roxanne'" <Roxanne.Frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us>,
        "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: looking for video
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:30:54 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF894D.F792E6B0"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF894D.F792E6B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

I'm afraid I don't have any resources to offer you, but I am confused by
your inquiry.  I would have thought that any residential mental health
facility has to deal with aggressive and/or violent patients from time to
time, and would have routine training for its staff in how to deal with
them.  From what I understand, many common disorders (schizophrenias,
paranoias, etc.) can result in aggressive behavior, but perhaps your
hospital has only dealt with milder disorders in the past.  

What exactly do you mean by "forensic patient"?  I am unfamiliar with the
term.  Do you mean a patient committed as "criminally insane," one held only
temporarily for examination to determine competence to stand trial, one
committed through civil procedure but with a history of violent criminal
behavior, all of the above, or what?  Is an aggressive criminal patient any
more or less dangerous than an aggressive non-criminal patient committed for
other reasons?  Would not both be handled the same way, except that the
criminal patient cannot "sign themselves out"?  It seems to me that some
mental patients are violent and some are not, regardless of their legal
status.  I don't understand the distinction.

Thanks for listening to my questions.  I look forward to your answers to
better understand your situation.  Hopefully someone on the list will be
able to help you find the resources you need.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Frantzen, Roxanne [mailto:Roxanne.Frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:04 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: looking for video


Would any of you know of a video which teaches mental health hospital
personnel how to effectively communicate and deal with forensic patients.
These patients are a new  population in our hospital and some of our staff,
especially our nurses, are not sure how to respond to the aggressive
behavior of these new clients.  Thanks for any and all help.

Roxanne Frantzen
Staff Librarian
Kerrville State Hospital
721 Thompson Drive
Kerrville, TX   78028
830-896-2211  x6283; FAX 830 792-4926
roxanne.frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us
 

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF894D.F792E6B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: looking for video</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm afraid I don't have any resources to offer you, =
but I am confused by your inquiry.&nbsp; I would have thought that any =
residential mental health facility has to deal with aggressive and/or =
violent patients from time to time, and would have routine training for =
its staff in how to deal with them.&nbsp; From what I understand, many =
common disorders (schizophrenias, paranoias, etc.) can result in =
aggressive behavior, but perhaps your hospital has only dealt with =
milder disorders in the past.&nbsp; </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What exactly do you mean by &quot;forensic =
patient&quot;?&nbsp; I am unfamiliar with the term.&nbsp; Do you mean a =
patient committed as &quot;criminally insane,&quot; one held only =
temporarily for examination to determine competence to stand trial, one =
committed through civil procedure but with a history of violent =
criminal behavior, all of the above, or what?&nbsp; Is an aggressive =
criminal patient any more or less dangerous than an aggressive =
non-criminal patient committed for other reasons?&nbsp; Would not both =
be handled the same way, except that the criminal patient cannot =
&quot;sign themselves out&quot;?&nbsp; It seems to me that some mental =
patients are violent and some are not, regardless of their legal =
status.&nbsp; I don't understand the distinction.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks for listening to my questions.&nbsp; I look =
forward to your answers to better understand your situation.&nbsp; =
Hopefully someone on the list will be able to help you find the =
resources you need.</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Frantzen, Roxanne [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:Roxanne.Frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us">mailto:Roxanne.Frantze=
n@mhmr.state.tx.us</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:04 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: looking for video</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Would any of you know of a video which teaches mental =
health hospital</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>personnel how to effectively communicate and deal =
with forensic patients.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>These patients are a new&nbsp; population in our =
hospital and some of our staff,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>especially our nurses, are not sure how to respond =
to the aggressive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>behavior of these new clients.&nbsp; Thanks for any =
and all help.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Roxanne Frantzen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Staff Librarian</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Kerrville State Hospital</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>721 Thompson Drive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Kerrville, TX&nbsp;&nbsp; 78028</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>830-896-2211&nbsp; x6283; FAX 830 792-4926</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>roxanne.frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF894D.F792E6B0--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 18:08:22 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15864
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:08:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.i-c.net (IDENT:root@mailhost.i-c.net [216.230.11.10])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15859
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:08:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from vcu.org (4000-125.inetconnect.net [216.230.3.125])
	by mailhost.i-c.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24056
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:07:54 -0500
Message-ID: <38C6DBFF.98AB5234@vcu.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:02:24 -0500
From: Steven Schwartz <nutzoid@vcu.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Forensic List <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Drug info?
References: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A3476DA@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi all.  I have a question for all the Drug Chemists and Toxicologists
out there:  Have any of you come upon phenylpropylmethylamine (AKA: N,
beta-dimethylphenethylamine, phenpromethamine, or a methamphetamine
isomer with the methyl group moved from the 2nd carbon from the ring to
the 1st carbon from the ring).  We have found that it was once marketed
as Vonedrine, but cannot seem to locate any reference spectra (MS or
FTIR) or a chemical supply company who can provide a standard.  Any help
would be much appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

        Steve Schwartz
        Student, Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine


From forens-owner  Wed Mar  8 21:25:24 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17064
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:25:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sttlpop2.sttl.uswest.net (sttlpop2.sttl.uswest.net [206.81.192.2])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA17059
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:25:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 85472 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2000 02:25:17 -0000
Delivered-To: fixup-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu@fixme
Received: (qmail 85432 invoked by uid 0); 9 Mar 2000 02:25:16 -0000
Received: from dialupv120.sttl.uswest.net (HELO pol.net) (216.160.85.120)
  by pop.sttl.uswest.net with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 02:25:16 -0000
Message-ID: <38C70B64.BA4F1BD9@pol.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:24:36 -0800
From: gary goldfogel <ggoldfogel@pol.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Science and Sherlock Holmes
References: <92.238c2d8.25f3da9d@aol.com> <38C665B2.1BE3A12C@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

How about either taping the talk and making it available over the web, or
alternately printing out your lecture and sharing the wealth.  Since you
made the invitation, those of us who cannot attend (I'm in Washington State)
and are interested would like hear your story.  Thanks in advance!

"E. J. Wagner" wrote:

> Thought this might be of interest to the list:
>
> On Sunday afternoon at 4 PM, (March 12), I'll be presenting a program
> called "Murder Under the Microscope;Forensic Science, Scotland Yard, and
> Sherlock Holmes"
> This grand event will take place at the Museum of Long Island Natural
> Sciences,SUNY at Stony Brook, New York, located in the Earth and Space
> Sciences Building.
>
> I'll be examining the forensic evidence and historical background of
> true crimes investigated by Conan Doyle, including the Gilchrist
> murderthe Edalji case, and the ever popular" Brides in the Bath".Some
> truly spectacular poster-size photographs from John Houde's book "Crome
> Lab" will be on display.
>
> There is a small fee-$12-$10 for seniors and $8 for students-the profits
> go to support sciences programs for young people.phone is 631-632-8230.
>
> EJ


From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 10:01:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23262
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:01:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23257
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:01:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GNSF9HXM>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:01:05 -0600
Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C03DCCF15@UMKC-MAIL02>
From: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
To: "'gary goldfogel'" <ggoldfogel@pol.net>, EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Science and Sherlock Holmes
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:01:04 -0600 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi, E.J.:
Gary's suggestion sounds like a great idea! I, too, am very interested in your
program and would love to attend but cannot do so because of the short notice.
If there were any way to obtain a video or audio tape, or even a transcript,
hard copy or on-line, that would be wonderful. Be glad to pay the "attendance"
fee or more for it.
Andre 
Andre A. Moenssens
Douglas Stripp Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110
Phone:(816) 235-5312
FAX: (816) 235-5276
http://www.forensic-evidence.com



-----Original Message-----
From: gary goldfogel [mailto:ggoldfogel@pol.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:25 PM
To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Science and Sherlock Holmes


How about either taping the talk and making it available over the web, or
alternately printing out your lecture and sharing the wealth.  Since you
made the invitation, those of us who cannot attend (I'm in Washington State)
and are interested would like hear your story.  Thanks in advance!

"E. J. Wagner" wrote:

> Thought this might be of interest to the list:
>
> On Sunday afternoon at 4 PM, (March 12), I'll be presenting a program
> called "Murder Under the Microscope;Forensic Science, Scotland Yard, and
> Sherlock Holmes"
> This grand event will take place at the Museum of Long Island Natural
> Sciences,SUNY at Stony Brook, New York, located in the Earth and Space
> Sciences Building.
>
> I'll be examining the forensic evidence and historical background of
> true crimes investigated by Conan Doyle, including the Gilchrist
> murderthe Edalji case, and the ever popular" Brides in the Bath".Some
> truly spectacular poster-size photographs from John Houde's book "Crome
> Lab" will be on display.
>
> There is a small fee-$12-$10 for seniors and $8 for students-the profits
> go to support sciences programs for young people.phone is 631-632-8230.
>
> EJ

From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 10:29:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23546
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:29:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gateway.pnu.com (gateway.pnu.com [146.240.240.5])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23541
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:29:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark.E.Gerger@am.pnu.com
Received: from am.pnu.com (pw14mg.uskzo.am.pnu.com [10.121.195.250])
	by gateway.pnu.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04158;
	Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:24:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ccMail by am.pnu.com
  (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 003242EF; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:21:41 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:26:44 -0500
Message-ID: <003242EF.C22094@am.pnu.com>
To: "'gary goldfogel'" <ggoldfogel@pol.net>, EJWagner@worldnet.att.net,
        "Moenssens; Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Science and Sherlock Holmes
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IMA.Boundary.1035162590"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--IMA.Boundary.1035162590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

  Dr. Wagner, 
  
  I am also very interested in your presentation, but am unable to 
  attend.  I agree with Professor Moenssens that having access to some 
  form of the presentation would be great.  I'd also be glad to pay the 
  "attendance" fee or a bit more for it.
  
  Mark
  
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------- 
  Mark E. Gerger
  Quality Engineer
  Pharmacia & Upjohn
  7171 Portage Rd.
  Kalamazoo, MI  49001
  Tx: 616 833 7238
  Fax: 616 833 6729
  
  also,
  
  Director
  Forensic Science Workshop
  Portage, MI  49024
  Tx: 616 329 0447
  E-mail: MEGERGER@aol.com
  
  and 
  
  Part-time Instructor
  Kalamazoo Valley Community College
  Kalamazoo, MI  49003
  E-mail: mark-gerger@kvcc.edu
  
  --------------------------------------------------- 
  


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Science and Sherlock Holmes
Author:  "Moenssens; Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu> at Internet-America
Date:    3/9/00 9:01 AM


Hi, E.J.:
Gary's suggestion sounds like a great idea! I, too, am very interested in your 
program and would love to attend but cannot do so because of the short notice. 
If there were any way to obtain a video or audio tape, or even a transcript, 
hard copy or on-line, that would be wonderful. Be glad to pay the "attendance" 
fee or more for it.
Andre 
Andre A. Moenssens
Douglas Stripp Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110
Phone:(816) 235-5312
FAX: (816) 235-5276
http://www.forensic-evidence.com
  
  
  
-----Original Message-----
From: gary goldfogel [mailto:ggoldfogel@pol.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:25 PM
To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Science and Sherlock Holmes
  
  
How about either taping the talk and making it available over the web, or 
alternately printing out your lecture and sharing the wealth.  Since you 
made the invitation, those of us who cannot attend (I'm in Washington State) 
and are interested would like hear your story.  Thanks in advance!
  
"E. J. Wagner" wrote:
  
> Thought this might be of interest to the list: 
>
> On Sunday afternoon at 4 PM, (March 12), I'll be presenting a program
> called "Murder Under the Microscope;Forensic Science, Scotland Yard, and 
> Sherlock Holmes"
> This grand event will take place at the Museum of Long Island Natural 
> Sciences,SUNY at Stony Brook, New York, located in the Earth and Space 
> Sciences Building.
>
> I'll be examining the forensic evidence and historical background of 
> true crimes investigated by Conan Doyle, including the Gilchrist
> murderthe Edalji case, and the ever popular" Brides in the Bath".Some
> truly spectacular poster-size photographs from John Houde's book "Crome 
> Lab" will be on display.
>
> There is a small fee-$12-$10 for seniors and $8 for students-the profits 
> go to support sciences programs for young people.phone is 631-632-8230. 
>
> EJ
--IMA.Boundary.1035162590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"

Received: from uspowmg32.uskzo.am.pnu.com ([146.240.200.97]) by am.pnu.com with
SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 0000EACB; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:01:24 -0500
Received: FROM gateway.pnu.com BY uspowmg32.uskzo.am.pnu.com ; Thu Mar 09
10:05:40 2000 -0500
Received: from brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36])
	by gateway.pnu.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00055
	for <Mark.E.Gerger@am.pnu.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:02:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA23306;
	Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:02:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 9 Mar 2000
10:01:13 -0500
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23262
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:01:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23257
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:01:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GNSF9HXM>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:01:05 -0600
Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C03DCCF15@UMKC-MAIL02>
From: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
To: "'gary goldfogel'" <ggoldfogel@pol.net>, EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Science and Sherlock Holmes
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:01:04 -0600 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
--IMA.Boundary.1035162590--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 12:22:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24982
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:22:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA24977
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:22:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 9 Mar 2000 17:22:15 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD692J>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:21:24 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A3476DF@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'Steven Schwartz'" <nutzoid@vcu.org>,
        Forensic List
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Drug info?
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:21:23 -0500 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF89EB.E476B82E"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF89EB.E476B82E
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

This is a case where it pays to have hung on to old references.
Phenylpropylmethylamine appears in the first edition (1969) Clarke's
"Isolation and Identification of Drugs."  The monograph appears on page 495
of that edition, but was deleted from the second (current) edition,
presumably because it had been off the market for a significant period of
time.  Unfortunately, MS and IR spectra are not provided.  The monograph
details extraction methodology, paper chromatography and TLC, color test,
crystal test, and UV spectral data.

The 1981 edition of Irving Sunshine's "CRC Handbook of Spectrophotometric
Data of Drugs" lists UV absorption data, plus IR data in the form of the
1974 Sadtler Pharmaceuticals Spectra Index ("Spec Finder") - the index
number is R686P.  The use of this index is somewhat complex and labor
intensive, but if you find a reference for the index in your library, you
should be able to use the data in Sunshine's book to identify your sample.

Good luck.



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


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Schwartz [mailto:nutzoid@vcu.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 6:02 PM
To: Forensic List
Subject: Drug info?


Hi all.  I have a question for all the Drug Chemists and Toxicologists
out there:  Have any of you come upon phenylpropylmethylamine (AKA: N,
beta-dimethylphenethylamine, phenpromethamine, or a methamphetamine
isomer with the methyl group moved from the 2nd carbon from the ring to
the 1st carbon from the ring).  We have found that it was once marketed
as Vonedrine, but cannot seem to locate any reference spectra (MS or
FTIR) or a chemical supply company who can provide a standard.  Any help
would be much appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

        Steve Schwartz
        Student, Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF89EB.E476B82E
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Drug info?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is a case where it pays to have hung on to old =
references.&nbsp; Phenylpropylmethylamine appears in the first edition =
(1969) Clarke's &quot;Isolation and Identification of =
Drugs.&quot;&nbsp; The monograph appears on page 495 of that edition, =
but was deleted from the second (current) edition, presumably because =
it had been off the market for a significant period of time.&nbsp; =
Unfortunately, MS and IR spectra are not provided.&nbsp; The monograph =
details extraction methodology, paper chromatography and TLC, color =
test, crystal test, and UV spectral data.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The 1981 edition of Irving Sunshine's &quot;CRC =
Handbook of Spectrophotometric Data of Drugs&quot; lists UV absorption =
data, plus IR data in the form of the 1974 Sadtler Pharmaceuticals =
Spectra Index (&quot;Spec Finder&quot;) - the index number is =
R686P.&nbsp; The use of this index is somewhat complex and labor =
intensive, but if you find a reference for the index in your library, =
you should be able to use the data in Sunshine's book to identify your =
sample.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Good luck.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Steven Schwartz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:nutzoid@vcu.org">mailto:nutzoid@vcu.org</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 6:02 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Forensic List</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Drug info?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi all.&nbsp; I have a question for all the Drug =
Chemists and Toxicologists</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>out there:&nbsp; Have any of you come upon =
phenylpropylmethylamine (AKA: N,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>beta-dimethylphenethylamine, phenpromethamine, or a =
methamphetamine</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>isomer with the methyl group moved from the 2nd =
carbon from the ring to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the 1st carbon from the ring).&nbsp; We have found =
that it was once marketed</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>as Vonedrine, but cannot seem to locate any =
reference spectra (MS or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>FTIR) or a chemical supply company who can provide a =
standard.&nbsp; Any help</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>would be much appreciated.&nbsp; Thanks in =
advance.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Steve =
Schwartz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Student, =
Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF89EB.E476B82E--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 13:38:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25611
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:38:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25606
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 13:38:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.225.156])
          by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.31a 201-229-119-114) with ESMTP
          id <20000309183740.VLWA22178.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>;
          Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:37:40 +0000
Message-ID: <38C7F00B.3695098E@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:40:55 -0500
From: "E. J. Wagner" <EJWagner@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
CC: "'gary goldfogel'" <ggoldfogel@pol.net>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Science and Sherlock Holmes
References: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C03DCCF15@UMKC-MAIL02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I'm delighted to have aroused such interest-but unfortunately the museum
wants to hold off taping because we have a series of audio tapes in the
works which they intend to offer for sale.(Remember, this is an outreach
program and they are trying to make money). The idea is  for me  to
record professional quality narrations of famous historic crimes,
complete with sound effects. They will be packaged with and without
study-guides, so they can be used either for entertainment or for
educational purposes.

We decided to do this when we discovered some of my programs had been
surreptiously recorded and were being sold. The worst part of this was
that a lousy mike was used, and I sound like a duck with
appendicitis.Completely missed my ahem resonance.

BTW, I am not a Dr, but just EJ-degree in Theatre Arts-altho I've spent
my share of time in autopsy rooms. My bio is available on request-that
is something I have complete control over.Basically, I use the old art
of storytelling to teach the history of crime and forensic science.

>From time to time I travel to speak and I'll be happy to post the news
if the programs are open to the public.

I do thank you all very much for your interest-and I'll let you know as
soon as the tapes are available.

Yours EJ

From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 14:39:19 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26520
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:39:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26515
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:39:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Unbound123@aol.com
Received: from Unbound123@aol.com
	by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.29.23d5bc7 (4464);
	Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <29.23d5bc7.25f957af@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:38:23 EST
Subject: Talk on Sherlock Holmes etc.
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
CC: Unbound123@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello, list members & E.J.:

I too am intrigued by the 3-12-2K presentation in New York, but will be 
unable to attend; I wish this were live on the internet via Real Player or 
some other medium.

Regards,

Phil Harris
Columbia, Missouri

From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 15:44:45 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27407
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:44:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27401
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:44:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23])
	by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25580;
	Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000309124506.00a9e630@mail.dnai.com>
X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 12:48:17 -0800
To: Rijeca@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Kim Kruglick <kim@kruglaw.com>
Subject: Re: craniofacial reconstruction
In-Reply-To: <19.1bb8bda.25f82847@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 05:03 PM 03/08/2000 -0500, Rijeca@aol.com wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>     I am "delurking" once again to ask for your assistance (once again).  I 
>am currently embarking on a research project about the accuracy of 
>craniofacial reconstruction and its benefit to the identification of human 
>remains.  If anyone has knowledge of any articles, books, or web sites that 
>would be of assistance I would greatly appreciate the information.


Facial Reconstruction for Forensic Sciences
http://www.swan.ac.uk/compsci/ResearchGroups/CGVGroup/Docs/SDM/SDM.html

Forensic Artist - facial reconstruction
http://www.forensicartist.com/reconstruction.html

Se also the Facial Recognition page at my site at: http://www.kruglaw.com/f_facial.htm


Best regards,
Kim Kruglick
mailto:kim@kruglaw.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Forensic Resource and
Criminal Law Search Site
http://www.kruglaw.com


From forens-owner  Thu Mar  9 18:42:01 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29240
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:42:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web221.mail.yahoo.com (web221.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.121])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA29235
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:41:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20000309234154.16868.rocketmail@web221.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web221.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:41:54 PST
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:41:54 -0800 (PST)
From: John Lentini <johnlentini@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com
Subject: Key Pathways Article
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Key pathways, the "proprietary" method that one
company uses to determine the last key used in a
vehicle, has been reviewed in a recent ABA
Journal
article.

Because the proponent of the process refuses to
publish, it is difficult to evaluate the efficacy
of the method.

Both times that Daubert challenges have been
raised, the cases settled.  Most people placed
under suspicion by the method do not have the
resources to fight over a small sum (the value of
the car).  Then again, some people put under
suspicion by the method realy are guilty. 

Anyone have any thoughts on how to approach this
low-stakes problem?

The article is at:

http://www.abanet.org/journal/03LKEY.html



=====
There is no limit to what we can accomplish, as long as it doesn't matter who gets the credit.
John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com
Certified Fire Investigator
Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics
Applied Technical Services, Inc.
http://www.atslab.com  800-544-5117
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 10 11:24:15 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06608
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:24:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f59.hotmail.com [216.32.181.59])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA06603
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:24:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 6071 invoked by uid 0); 10 Mar 2000 16:23:38 -0000
Message-ID: <20000310162338.6070.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 64.228.160.58 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:23:38 PST
X-Originating-IP: [64.228.160.58]
From: "Marie-Catherine Bernard" <marie_catbernard@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: new request/physical anthropology
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:23:38 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello!
I am sorry to bother you again, but as was pointed out to me I made a 
mistake in formulating my question...(thanks by the way!)
I wanted to know if there are any textbooks or article written on the 
difference between forensic and archaeological/historical bone?
Again thanks for your help
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 10 14:04:37 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08187
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:04:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08182
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:04:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from metsys.demon.co.uk ([158.152.36.125])
	by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 12TUhx-000G9e-0V; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:04:22 +0000
Message-ID: <38C94734.95DDB10@metsys.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:04:20 +0000
From: John Standen <John@metsys.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marie-Catherine Bernard <marie_catbernard@hotmail.com>
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: new request/physical anthropology
References: <20000310162338.6070.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



Marie-Catherine Bernard wrote:

> Hello!
> I am sorry to bother you again, but as was pointed out to me I made a
> mistake in formulating my question...(thanks by the way!)
> I wanted to know if there are any textbooks or article written on the
> difference between forensic and archaeological/historical bone?
> Again thanks for your help
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Forensic is defined as 'used or connected with a court of law'. Hence a
forensic bone is one in which a legal case is involved and an
archaeological bone, is one that is not subject to process of law. The
bone may be identical in both cases. There is no osteological
significance in the term 'Forensic'. Hence there will be no articles on
the subject as there is no difference.

John

MSc Forensic Archaeology student.



From forens-owner  Fri Mar 10 18:21:36 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10646
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:21:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA10641
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:21:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 23:10:02 UT
Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Mar 10 15:20:42 2000 -0800
Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:21:24 -0800
Message-Id: <s8c912f4.086@co.kern.ca.us>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:20:41 -0800
From: "Greg Laskowski" <GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Kern County District Attorney Has Openings for Criminalist
	I/II
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_7E278264.60016E79"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

--=_7E278264.60016E79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

See Attachment for further description or visit the website at: 
http//www.co.kern.ca.us/person/jobs/bulletin.htm

Gregory E. Laskowski
Supervising Criminalist
Kern County District Attorney
Forensic Science Division
e-mail:  glaskows@co.kern.ca.us

--=_7E278264.60016E79
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="jb3227.wpd"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="jb3227.wpd"
Content-Description: WordPerfect 6.1
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--=_7E278264.60016E79--

From forens-owner  Mon Mar 13 17:10:37 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10518
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:10:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10506
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:10:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Rijeca@aol.com
Received: from Rijeca@aol.com
	by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.7e.22cfb67 (6695)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:09:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <7e.22cfb67.25fec137@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:09:59 EST
Subject: craniofacial reconstruction
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Thank you all for your input.  I am currently gathering sources and 
information (your suggestions have been very useful) for use in my paper.  I 
may need to pose some questions to you later.  Again, I appreciate the help 
of  all who replied to my inquiry.  Thank you very much.

Serena Grant
Rijeca@aol.com

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 09:58:46 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19925
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19914
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:58:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z9Q7A>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:37:51 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B43@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: stats again
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:37:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DC2.DF99668C"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DC2.DF99668C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Given the new DAB document, we do not really have an option to not report
stats on mixtures any more, unless you want to give a reason why the profile
was not suitable.  I would like to know if any of you report a CPI or CPE
for mixtures.  If so, (1) what is the wording on your report and (2) do your
courts frown upon CPE and prefer CPI?

I am not really interested in sparking another LR debate because I
definitely see the advantages to LR, but in some more complicated cases I
see the advantage to CPE/CPI and would like to have it available if the
court wants it.

Feel free to respond off list if you prefer.

Thank you,

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 




------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DC2.DF99668C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>stats again</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Given the new DAB document, we do not =
really have an option to not report stats on mixtures any more, unless =
you want to give a reason why the profile was not suitable.&nbsp; I =
would like to know if any of you report a CPI or CPE for =
mixtures.&nbsp; If so, (1) what is the wording on your report and (2) =
do your courts frown upon CPE and prefer CPI?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I am not really interested in sparking =
another LR debate because I definitely see the advantages to LR, but in =
some more complicated cases I see the advantage to CPE/CPI and would =
like to have it available if the court wants it.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Feel free to respond off list if you =
prefer.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Thank you,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">My opinion are my =
own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Jeff Sailus, =
MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">CMPD Crime =
Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">601 E. Trade =
Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Charlotte, NC 28202 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">ph&nbsp; =
704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">fax =
704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">email&nbsp; =
jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DC2.DF99668C--

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 10:04:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20126
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:04:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange1.state.id.us (exchange1.dle.state.id.us [164.165.39.254])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20105
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:03:55 -0500 (EST)
From: dave.laycock@dle.state.id.us
Received: by exchange1.dle.state.id.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <FG4GKJTN>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:05:14 -0700
Message-ID: <A01253EB36C6D311A72008002BBAA4A943C170@exchange1.dle.state.id.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: RSIMMO@state.wy.us
Subject: Report Wording, Hair Comparisons
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:05:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


Years ago I was taught to include a disclaimer in  hair comparison reports,
something to the effect that a hair comparison does not identify a single
person to the exclusion of all others.  Is this still standard practice
among hair examiners?

Thanks.

Dave

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 11:30:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21316
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:30:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21310
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:30:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pete (A098011.sfx2.as.crl.com [168.75.98.11]) 
	by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id IAA21675
        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:29:40 -0800 (PST)
        env-from (pbarnett@crl.com)
Message-Id: <200003141629.IAA21675@mail.crl.com>
X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:32:27 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Report Wording, Hair Comparisons
In-Reply-To: <A01253EB36C6D311A72008002BBAA4A943C170@exchange1.dle.state
 .id.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 08:05 AM 3/14/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Years ago I was taught to include a disclaimer in  hair comparison reports,
>something to the effect that a hair comparison does not identify a single
>person to the exclusion of all others.  Is this still standard practice
>among hair examiners?

Why did you include such language in the first place? Have those reasons
changed?

Pete Barnett


Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com
http://www.fsalab.com

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 15:30:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24490
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:30:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24485
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:30:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z9SB6>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:29:50 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B46@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: ASCLD/LAB
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:29:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DF4.0C2D46F6"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DF4.0C2D46F6
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

For those of you who are inspectors or have been inspected by ASCLD/LAB.
Does a technical reviewer (in any discipline) have to be current in PT
testing to be qualified to do a technical review (ie could a supervisor who
stopped doing cases and PTs in a discipline 2 years ago still do a technical
review).

Thanks,

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DF4.0C2D46F6
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>ASCLD/LAB</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">For those of you who are inspectors or =
have been inspected by ASCLD/LAB.&nbsp; Does a technical reviewer (in =
any discipline) have to be current in PT testing to be qualified to do =
a technical review (ie could a supervisor who stopped doing cases and =
PTs in a discipline 2 years ago still do a technical =
review).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Thanks,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">My opinion are my =
own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Jeff Sailus, =
MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">CMPD Crime =
Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">601 E. Trade =
Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Charlotte, NC 28202 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">ph&nbsp; =
704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">fax =
704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">email&nbsp; =
jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DF4.0C2D46F6--

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 16:32:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25099
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:32:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25094
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:32:07 -0500 (EST)
From: LeonStein@aol.com
Received: from LeonStein@aol.com
	by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.4e.2d503e3 (2616);
	Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:31:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4e.2d503e3.260009b3@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:31:31 EST
Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB
To: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 66
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Jeff:

No, a technical/peer review does not have to be preformed by a proficiency 
tested individual.  They must have the training and experience in that 
discipline.  Therefore, a non-case working former analyst is still qualified 
to technical/peer review casework.

David Epstein

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 22:09:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA29010
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:09:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29005
	for <Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:09:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Gervforsci@aol.com
Received: from Gervforsci@aol.com
	by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.3e.1b9529e (4220)
	 for <Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:09:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3e.1b9529e.260058d2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:09:06 EST
Subject: Serologist
To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 68
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Looking for an experienced serologist in the Metro DC area who might be 
interested in working on a contract basis in our facility to screen evidence 
to determine if blood is present and if semen/spermatazoa are present.  The 
contract would be for approximately six months.

Please respond to me directly.

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 14 23:21:27 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29833
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:21:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29828
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:21:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cbrenner (h207-21-136-155.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.155])
	by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA24607
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:21:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.1.20000314184913.00c1f920@pop.ncal.verio.com>
Message-Id: <4.1.20000314184913.00c1f920@pop.ncal.verio.com>
X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:21:57 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Charles H. Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: stats again
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_4320812==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--=====================_4320812==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:37 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Jeff Sailus wrote: 

>
> Given the new DAB document, we do not really have an option to not report
> stats on mixtures any more, unless you want to give a reason why the profile
> was not suitable.  I would like to know if any of you report a CPI or CPE for
> mixtures.  If so, (1) what is the wording on your report and (2) do your
> courts frown upon CPE and prefer CPI?


Meaning "cumulative power of exclusion" and "cumulative power of inclusion"?

Between the "exclusion" phraseology 

"The defendant may be a contributor to the stain. He was not excluded as a
contributor by a test which would exclude 99.99% of men selected at random."

or the "inclusion" version

"He was included as a possible contributor, by a test which would include only
1 in 10000 of random suspects."

I would have thought there is no difference, but recently Koehler presented
research in which he showed that mock jurors evaluate these statements
extremely differently. Sorry, I can't remember which is more accurately
evaluated. (I think the inclusion.) I only remember that either way, the jurors
were likely to underestimate the meaning of the evidence by a lot.

Btw, I mentioned the statements for purposes of discussion. I have never
presented such a statement to a court, although I'm not dead set against it.

>
> I am not really interested in sparking another LR debate because I definitely
> see the advantages to LR, but in some more complicated cases I see the
> advantage to CPE/CPI and would like to have it available if the court wants
> it.


Ok, I won't resurrect the religious war. Besides, I think I go along with your
conclusion.

However, is it okay if I demur as to the computation of PE? The standard
formula for PE of course reflects the assumption that a single mismatch -- out
of 12 loci with 4-6 peaks of varying heights in each locus for example -- would
translate into a "walk" for the defendant. I suspect that this is an
unrealistic assumption. If I am right, then by using that standard formula we
may be in the habit of overstating the strength of the evidence by an order of
magnitude. 

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics etc.
http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner
--=====================_4320812==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 09:37 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Jeff Sailus wrote: <br>
<br>
<font size=2><blockquote type=cite cite>Given the new DAB document, we do
not really have an option to not report stats on mixtures any more,
unless you want to give a reason why the profile was not suitable.&nbsp;
I would like to know if any of you report a CPI or CPE for
mixtures.&nbsp; If so, (1) what is the wording on your report and (2) do
your courts frown upon CPE and prefer CPI?</font></blockquote><br>
Meaning &quot;cumulative power of exclusion&quot; and &quot;cumulative
power of inclusion&quot;?<br>
<br>
Between the &quot;exclusion&quot; phraseology <br>
<br>
&quot;The defendant may be a contributor to the stain. He was not
excluded as a contributor by a test which would exclude 99.99% of men
selected at random.&quot;<br>
<br>
or the &quot;inclusion&quot; version<br>
<br>
&quot;He was included as a possible contributor, by a test which would
include only 1 in 10000 of random suspects.&quot;<br>
<br>
I would have thought there is no difference, but recently Koehler
presented research in which he showed that mock jurors evaluate these
statements extremely differently. Sorry, I can't remember which is more
accurately evaluated. (I think the inclusion.) I only remember that
either way, the jurors were likely to underestimate the meaning of the
evidence by a lot.<br>
<br>
Btw, I mentioned the statements for purposes of discussion. I have never
presented such a statement to a court, although I'm not dead set against
it.<br>
<br>
<font size=2><blockquote type=cite cite>I am not really interested in
sparking another LR debate because I definitely see the advantages to LR,
but in some more complicated cases I see the advantage to CPE/CPI and
would like to have it available if the court wants it.</blockquote><br>
</font>Ok, I won't resurrect the religious war. Besides, I think I go
along with your conclusion.<br>
<br>
However, is it okay if I demur as to the computation of PE? The standard
formula for PE of course reflects the assumption that a single mismatch
-- out of 12 loci with 4-6 peaks of varying heights in each locus for
example -- would translate into a &quot;walk&quot; for the defendant. I
suspect that this is an unrealistic assumption. If I am right, then by
using that standard formula we may be in the habit of overstating the
strength of the evidence by an order of magnitude. <br>
<br>
Charles Brenner<br>
forensic mathematics etc.<br>
<a href="http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner" eudora="autourl">http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</a></html>

--=====================_4320812==_.ALT--


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 08:37:22 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04610
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04605
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:37:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z9T6N>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:36:43 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B48@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: stats again
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:37:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.7F9A5446"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.7F9A5446
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Thank you for your phrasing.  
 
<<<<Meaning "cumulative power of exclusion" and "cumulative power of
inclusion"?
 
A:  Cumulative or Combined

<<<<<<<I would have thought there is no difference, but recently Koehler
presented research in which he showed that mock jurors evaluate these
statements extremely differently. Sorry, I can't remember which is more
accurately evaluated. (I think the inclusion.) I only remember that either
way, the jurors were likely to underestimate the meaning of the evidence by
a lot.
 
A:  I can see that.  I know he did a similar study with random match
probabilities.  Of the articles I have of Koehler, I don't see the study on
PE or PI but the articles are a couple years old.  I know he thinks random
match probabilities are predjudical, but he has some other odd ideas about
error rates also.  To me the exclusion statement is easier for a layperson
to understand.  The inclusion statement on its face is a little elusive.  I
ask be cause in a abstract from the AAFS meeting (B23) the authors say that
some courts preferred inclusion.

<<<<<<<<However, is it okay if I demur as to the computation of PE? The
standard formula for PE of course reflects the assumption that a single
mismatch -- out of 12 loci with 4-6 peaks of varying heights in each locus
for example -- would translate into a "walk" for the defendant. I suspect
that this is an unrealistic assumption.
 
A:  Of course, I use the case by case basis as an excuse.  The first step is
to evaluate the whole profile.  If in the majority of the loci, you can pick
out a primary contributor and my inclusion of an individual is based on one
peak that is 3000 RFU and the second allele is 1000, and assuming that you
cannot explain (using other profiles of knowns) why the larger allele is
magnified, then I have a decision to make.  It could be increased by a
person whose standard we do not have.  And this decision can only be made by
looking at the data at hand.
 
<<<<<<<<. If I am right, then by using that standard formula we may be in
the habit of overstating the strength of the evidence by an order of
magnitude. 
 
A:  I agree that all of the factors, positive and negative should be taken
into account in the presentation to a jury.  I would have no problem in
explaining any potential shortfalls in my system if I had a multiple rape
with 3 or 4 unknown persons involved in the mixture.  Of course, normally
you do not have that many completely "unknown" individuals.  Meaning the
victim says that the others are boyfriends etc.

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 11:22 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: stats again


At 09:37 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Jeff Sailus wrote: 



Given the new DAB document, we do not really have an option to not report
stats on mixtures any more, unless you want to give a reason why the profile
was not suitable.  I would like to know if any of you report a CPI or CPE
for mixtures.  If so, (1) what is the wording on your report and (2) do your
courts frown upon CPE and prefer CPI?


Meaning "cumulative power of exclusion" and "cumulative power of inclusion"?

Between the "exclusion" phraseology 

"The defendant may be a contributor to the stain. He was not excluded as a
contributor by a test which would exclude 99.99% of men selected at random."

or the "inclusion" version

"He was included as a possible contributor, by a test which would include
only 1 in 10000 of random suspects."

I would have thought there is no difference, but recently Koehler presented
research in which he showed that mock jurors evaluate these statements
extremely differently. Sorry, I can't remember which is more accurately
evaluated. (I think the inclusion.) I only remember that either way, the
jurors were likely to underestimate the meaning of the evidence by a lot.

Btw, I mentioned the statements for purposes of discussion. I have never
presented such a statement to a court, although I'm not dead set against it.



I am not really interested in sparking another LR debate because I
definitely see the advantages to LR, but in some more complicated cases I
see the advantage to CPE/CPI and would like to have it available if the
court wants it.


Ok, I won't resurrect the religious war. Besides, I think I go along with
your conclusion.

However, is it okay if I demur as to the computation of PE? The standard
formula for PE of course reflects the assumption that a single mismatch --
out of 12 loci with 4-6 peaks of varying heights in each locus for example
-- would translate into a "walk" for the defendant. I suspect that this is
an unrealistic assumption. If I am right, then by using that standard
formula we may be in the habit of overstating the strength of the evidence
by an order of magnitude. 

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics etc.
http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner <http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner>  


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.7F9A5446
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">



<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#0000ff 
face=Arial size=2>Thank you for your phrasing.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></SPAN>Meaning &quot;cumulative power of 
exclusion&quot; and &quot;cumulative power of inclusion&quot;?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>A:&nbsp; Cumulative or Combined</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR><SPAN 
class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></SPAN>I would have thought there is 
no difference, but recently Koehler presented research in which he showed that 
mock jurors evaluate these statements extremely differently. Sorry, I can't 
remember which is more accurately evaluated. (I think the inclusion.) I only 
remember that either way, the jurors were likely to underestimate the meaning of 
the evidence by a lot.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>A:&nbsp; I can see that.&nbsp; I know he did a similar study with random 
match probabilities.&nbsp; Of the articles I have of Koehler, I don't see the 
study on PE or PI but the articles are a couple years old.&nbsp; I know he 
thinks random match probabilities are predjudical, but he has some other odd 
ideas about error rates also.&nbsp; To me the exclusion statement is easier for 
a layperson to understand.&nbsp; The inclusion statement on its face is a little 
elusive.&nbsp; I ask be cause in a abstract from the AAFS meeting (B23) the 
authors say that some courts preferred inclusion.</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR><SPAN 
class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></SPAN>However, is it okay if I 
demur as to the computation of PE? The standard formula for PE of course 
reflects the assumption that a single mismatch -- out of 12 loci with 4-6 peaks 
of varying heights in each locus for example -- would translate into a 
&quot;walk&quot; for the defendant. I suspect that this is an unrealistic 
assumption<SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><FONT 
size=3>A:&nbsp; Of course, I use the case by case basis as an excuse.&nbsp; The 
first step is to evaluate the whole profile.&nbsp; If in the majority of the 
loci, you can pick out a primary contributor and my inclusion of an individual 
is based on one peak that is 3000 RFU and the second allele is 1000, and 
assuming that you cannot explain (using other profiles of knowns) why the larger 
allele is magnified, then I have a decision to make.&nbsp; It could be increased 
by a person whose standard we do not have.&nbsp; And this decision can only be 
made by looking at the data at hand.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></SPAN>. If I am right, then by 
using that standard formula we may be in the habit of overstating the strength 
of the evidence by an order of magnitude. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=100475712-15032000><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=3>A:&nbsp; I agree that all of the factors, positive and negative should be 
taken into account in the presentation to a jury.&nbsp; I would have no problem 
in explaining any potential shortfalls in my system if I had a multiple rape 
with 3 or 4 unknown persons involved in the mixture.&nbsp; Of course, normally 
you do not have that many completely &quot;unknown&quot; individuals.&nbsp; 
Meaning the victim says that the others are boyfriends etc.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies 
of CMPD.<BR><BR>Jeff Sailus, MSFS<BR>CMPD Crime Lab<BR>DNA Section<BR>601 E. 
Trade Street<BR>Charlotte, NC 28202<BR>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755<BR>fax 
704-353-0088<BR>email&nbsp; 
jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us<BR></FONT>&nbsp;</P><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Charles H. Brenner 
    [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 14, 
    2000 11:22 PM<BR><B>To:</B> forens@statgen.ncsu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> stats 
    again<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>At 09:37 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Jeff Sailus wrote: 
    <BR><BR><FONT size=2>
    <BLOCKQUOTE cite type = cite>Given the new DAB document, we do not 
        really have an option to not report stats on mixtures any more, unless 
        you want to give a reason why the profile was not suitable.&nbsp; I 
        would like to know if any of you report a CPI or CPE for mixtures.&nbsp; 
        If so, (1) what is the wording on your report and (2) do your courts 
        frown upon CPE and prefer CPI?</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Meaning 
    &quot;cumulative power of exclusion&quot; and &quot;cumulative power of 
    inclusion&quot;?<BR><BR>Between the &quot;exclusion&quot; phraseology 
    <BR><BR>&quot;The defendant may be a contributor to the stain. He was not 
    excluded as a contributor by a test which would exclude 99.99% of men 
    selected at random.&quot;<BR><BR>or the &quot;inclusion&quot; 
    version<BR><BR>&quot;He was included as a possible contributor, by a test 
    which would include only 1 in 10000 of random suspects.&quot;<BR><BR>I would 
    have thought there is no difference, but recently Koehler presented research 
    in which he showed that mock jurors evaluate these statements extremely 
    differently. Sorry, I can't remember which is more accurately evaluated. (I 
    think the inclusion.) I only remember that either way, the jurors were 
    likely to underestimate the meaning of the evidence by a lot.<BR><BR>Btw, I 
    mentioned the statements for purposes of discussion. I have never presented 
    such a statement to a court, although I'm not dead set against 
    it.<BR><BR><FONT size=2>
    <BLOCKQUOTE cite type = cite>I am not really interested in sparking 
        another LR debate because I definitely see the advantages to LR, but in 
        some more complicated cases I see the advantage to CPE/CPI and would 
        like to have it available if the court wants it.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT>Ok, 
    I won't resurrect the religious war. Besides, I think I go along with your 
    conclusion.<BR><BR>However, is it okay if I demur as to the computation of 
    PE? The standard formula for PE of course reflects the assumption that a 
    single mismatch -- out of 12 loci with 4-6 peaks of varying heights in each 
    locus for example -- would translate into a &quot;walk&quot; for the 
    defendant. I suspect that this is an unrealistic assumption. If I am right, 
    then by using that standard formula we may be in the habit of overstating 
    the strength of the evidence by an order of magnitude. <BR><BR>Charles 
    Brenner<BR>forensic mathematics etc.<BR><A 
    href="http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner" eudora = 
    autourl>http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</A> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.7F9A5446--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 08:40:49 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04697
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:40:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04692
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:40:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z9T7B>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:40:13 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B49@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: ASCLD/LAB
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:40:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.FCE2657E"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.FCE2657E
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

That was my understanding but the Manual doesn't exactly state the
qualifications of the reviewer so I was wondering if some auditors might
take it the other way.  Thanks.

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Melannw@aol.com [mailto:Melannw@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 5:12 PM
To: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB


I used to work for an accredited lab and our technical reviewers had long
ago 
stopped doing casework.  Their PTs are esentially done by them reviewing PT 
cases.  They were all sure to review at least 2 PT cases apiece, and that 
served their purposes.  They do not need to be proficient in hands-on
testing 
that a PT could evaluate, but they are "tested" on their ability to review 
cases that way.  Hope this helps!

Melisa Weber
NHSP Crime lab

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.FCE2657E
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: ASCLD/LAB</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>That was my understanding but the Manual doesn't =
exactly state the qualifications of the reviewer so I was wondering if =
some auditors might take it the other way.&nbsp; Thanks.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or =
policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Melannw@aol.com [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:Melannw@aol.com">mailto:Melannw@aol.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 5:12 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: ASCLD/LAB</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I used to work for an accredited lab and our =
technical reviewers had long ago </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>stopped doing casework.&nbsp; Their PTs are =
esentially done by them reviewing PT </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>cases.&nbsp; They were all sure to review at least 2 =
PT cases apiece, and that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>served their purposes.&nbsp; They do not need to be =
proficient in hands-on testing </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that a PT could evaluate, but they are =
&quot;tested&quot; on their ability to review </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>cases that way.&nbsp; Hope this helps!</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Melisa Weber</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>NHSP Crime lab</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E83.FCE2657E--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 09:19:32 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05285
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05280
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:19:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z94B2>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:18:57 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B4A@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: 310 users
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:19:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E89.6664AE62"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E89.6664AE62
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

If there are any 310 users willing to exchange technical review duties on
cases for a limited period of time, please let me know. (ie I do yours, and
you do mine)  Any labs with single persons using Profiler Plus and/or
Cofiler would be ideal. 

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E89.6664AE62
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>310 users</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">If there are any 310 users willing to =
exchange technical review duties on cases for a limited period of time, =
please let me know. (ie I do yours, and you do mine)&nbsp; Any labs =
with single persons using Profiler Plus and/or Cofiler would be ideal. =
</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">My opinion are my =
own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Jeff Sailus, =
MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">CMPD Crime =
Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">601 E. Trade =
Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Charlotte, NC 28202 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">ph&nbsp; =
704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">fax =
704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">email&nbsp; =
jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8E89.6664AE62--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 09:23:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05465
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:23:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05460
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:23:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.218])
	by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07363;
	Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:23:03 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <38CF9CA7.FD365CA3@mail.state.mo.us>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:22:31 -0600
From: Jenny Smith <jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dave.laycock@dle.state.id.us
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, RSIMMO@state.wy.us
Subject: Re: Report Wording, Hair Comparisons
References: <A01253EB36C6D311A72008002BBAA4A943C170@exchange1.dle.state.id.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Dave,
I think the disclaimer on hair comparison is as applicable now as it always has
been.  My associative hair reports read something like this:  "The questioned
hair of specimen 2 falls in the range of characterisitics of the hair control
from John Doe (specimen1).  Therefore, John Doe can not be excluded as a source
of the questioned hair based upon microscopic characteristics.  The questioned
hair has been forwarded to the DNA lab for further testing".
I don't offer the same disclaimer you do.  Maybe I should?

I too would be interested in hearing how other hair examiners are wording their
associative hair reports.
Jenny Smith

dave.laycock@dle.state.id.us wrote:

> Years ago I was taught to include a disclaimer in  hair comparison reports,
> something to the effect that a hair comparison does not identify a single
> person to the exclusion of all others.  Is this still standard practice
> among hair examiners?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dave


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 09:51:28 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05979
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:51:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hola.hospvd.ch (hola.hospvd.ch [155.105.50.102])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05974
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:51:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pcbch6208a by hola.hospvd.ch; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:50:19 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200003151450.PAA08215@hola.hospvd.ch>
X-Sender: ftaroni@hola.hospvd.ch
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:52:05 +0100
To: Jenny Smith <jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us>
From: Franco Taroni <Franco.Taroni@inst.hospvd.ch>
Subject: Re: Report Wording, Hair Comparisons
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
In-Reply-To: <38CF9CA7.FD365CA3@mail.state.mo.us>
References: <A01253EB36C6D311A72008002BBAA4A943C170@exchange1.dle.state.id.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

<html>
<tt>Dear all,<br>
<br>
I believe that conclusions such as :=A0<br>
<br>
&gt;&quot;The questioned<br>
&gt;hair of specimen 2 falls in the range of characterisitics of the hair
control<br>
&gt;from John Doe (specimen1).=A0 Therefore, John Doe can not be excluded
as a source<br>
&gt;of the questioned hair based upon microscopic characteristics.=A0 The
questioned<br>
&gt;hair has been forwarded to the DNA lab for further testing&quot;
<br>
<br>
create (1) confusions and (2) do not assess the value of the link between
a suspect and the recovered trace.<br>
<br>
Another similar conclusion (=91Could have come from the suspect=92) used in
forensic context is a transposed conditional as it is expressing a view
about the probability of the hypothesis. <br>
<br>
I do not want to start (again) a discussion on the evaluation of
evidence, but <br>
I believe that the scientist should express a degree of support for one
hypothesis versus the other.<br>
(Therefore, at first the decision maker have to define the relevant
hypotheses). This assessment is inevitably linked with probability as
measure of uncertainty and therefore a model to interpret the value of
the evidence is essential.&nbsp; The Bayesian framework for
interpretation is relatively ignored or received with scepticism in
numerous fields of criminalistics whilst being recommended for the
evaluation of some type of evidence such as glass, fibres and biological
traces.<br>
There is continuing resistance in some quarters to the idea that Bayesian
methods have a place in the evaluation and interpretation of evidence and
yet it has much to offer for evaluation and interpretation.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
F. Taroni<br>
<br>
<BR>
</html>

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 10:29:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06534
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:29:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06529
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:29:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cbrenner (h207-21-136-161.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.161])
	by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA25079
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.1.20000315071848.00c2a830@pop.ncal.verio.com>
X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:30:36 -0800
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: "Charles H. Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: odd ideas about error rates
In-Reply-To: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B48@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.
 charlotte.nc.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 

>[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error rates ...

Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N,
then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N.

Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall
not prepare to confront up to three of them this year.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematicking
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 10:54:38 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06784
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:54:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06779
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:54:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AY2M3R>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:51:56 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB65A@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:53:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

But isn't that actually saying "true number is not greater than 3/N"?  And
shouldn't N be the number of observations?  Assuming daily unicorn scans,
wouldn't that make the daily incidence of unicorns at Berkeley less than
3/365?  (Assuming you have a valid unicorn exemplar.  Don't I remember that
they can only be seen, or maybe captured, by female virgins?)
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:31 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: odd ideas about error rates


At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 

>[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error rates ...

Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N,
then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N.

Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall
not prepare to confront up to three of them this year.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematicking
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 11:01:57 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07032
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:01:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07027
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:01:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from laptop (A097001.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.1]) 
	by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id IAA01654
        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:01:47 -0800 (PST)
        env-from (pbarnett@crl.com)
Message-Id: <200003151601.IAA01654@mail.crl.com>
X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:03:21 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
Subject: Re: odd ideas about error rates
In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000315071848.00c2a830@pop.ncal.verio.com>
References: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B48@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci. charlotte.nc.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 07:30 AM 3/15/2000 -0800, Charles Brenner wrote:

>Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N,
>then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N.
>
>Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall
>not prepare to confront up to three of them this year.

But isn't this really the misleading aspect or "error rates" as they are
applied in consideration of forensic science problems?  Until the
event(error) under consideration is common enough that it occurs with some
measurable frequency in a series of trials, what does an error rate mean.
For the individual case, with which forensic science is always concerned,
the only error that is relevant is the error in that case.  

It sems to me that much of the efforts at QA and QC in forensic labs are
based on the wrong model. Rather than an error rate model, where the
percentage of error creeps toward some control point and a correction is
then applied, we should adopt a error-intolerant mode.  One practical
implication of this difference in perspective is that proficiency tests
would be less emphasized, and meaningful case review would be more emphasized.

We must realize that forensic science is different than manufacturing,
where an economically reasonable amount of product can be discarded, or
clinical chemistry, where redundant tests are combined with the judgment of
a knowledgeable clinician so that individual errors are minimally
significant.   A forensic lab report that states, as in today's example,
that "the suspect cannot be excluded based on DNA typing as the father of
the fetus" has pretty drastic implications for the suspect.  The fact that
1 man  in  6 would not be excluded is conveniently left out of the report,
but I am sure the analysts passed all proficiency tests in which the only
required answer was a correct allele determination.  Somehow, however, the
review process failed to prevent a very misleading report from being sent
out and being the predicate on which important decisions will be made.
That low error rate did not help this defendant.

Pete Barnett



Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com
http://www.fsalab.com

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 11:42:57 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07491
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:42:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07486
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:42:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20627;
	Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:42:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: odd ideas about error rates
In-Reply-To: <200003151601.IAA01654@mail.crl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000315111412.28986A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Peter D. Barnett wrote:

> From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
> 
> At 07:30 AM 3/15/2000 -0800, Charles Brenner wrote:
> 
> >Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N,
> >then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N.
> >
> >Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall
> >not prepare to confront up to three of them this year.
> 
> But isn't this really the misleading aspect or "error rates" as they are
> applied in consideration of forensic science problems?  Until the
> event(error) under consideration is common enough that it occurs with some
> measurable frequency in a series of trials, what does an error rate mean.
> For the individual case, with which forensic science is always concerned,
> the only error that is relevant is the error in that case.  
> 
> It sems to me that much of the efforts at QA and QC in forensic labs are
> based on the wrong model. Rather than an error rate model, where the
> percentage of error creeps toward some control point and a correction is
> then applied, we should adopt a error-intolerant mode.  One practical
> implication of this difference in perspective is that proficiency tests
> would be less emphasized, and meaningful case review would be more emphasized.


What do you mean by "error intolerant mode?"  In any realistic
sense, that is not outside the standard QA/QC paradigm; it only
means that you have strict error limits.  The fundamentals of QA, in
in particular -- collecting meaningful measures, attacking problems
in terms of process instead of people, using audits as a process rather
than punitive tool, instituting quality procedures at all stages of
the process, etc. -- are still the same.  Similarly, the fundamentals
of QC -- meaningful inspection, adequate recordkeeping, adequate review, 
etc. -- are also the same.

The two evaluation metrics you mention, proficiency testing and case 
review, are complimentary not competitive metrics.



> 
> We must realize that forensic science is different than manufacturing,
> where an economically reasonable amount of product can be discarded, or
> clinical chemistry, where redundant tests are combined with the judgment of
> a knowledgeable clinician so that individual errors are minimally
> significant.   

I disagree.  Forensic labs are very much like clinicla labs.  Your
example of a physician combining the results of multiple tests in
order to reach a diagnosis is the top of the quality control pyramid,
not its base.  The physician should not be the person who catches errors;
unusual or conflicting results should point to unusual pathophysiology,
not problems in QA.

Instead, clinical labs have embraced standard QA/QC with rather astounding
results.  The overstated semi-truthful horror stories that the press puts
out rarely involve hospital labs nowadays.

Forensic folk seem to have this feeling that they are something "special;"
there is something substantively different between convicting an 
innocent person as a result of a forensic lab error and killing an
otherwise healthy patient by giving him or her the wrong blood in
transfusion.  There isn't.  The same QA/QC methods that have so drastically
reduced errors in Blood Banking and Clinical Chemistry can work just
as well in any lab.


> A forensic lab report that states, as in today's example,
> that "the suspect cannot be excluded based on DNA typing as the father of
> the fetus" has pretty drastic implications for the suspect.  The fact that
> 1 man  in  6 would not be excluded is conveniently left out of the report,
> but I am sure the analysts passed all proficiency tests in which the only
> required answer was a correct allele determination.  Somehow, however, the
> review process failed to prevent a very misleading report from being sent
> out and being the predicate on which important decisions will be made.
> That low error rate did not help this defendant.


Yes it did.  It would have been much worse for the defendant had the report
stated "the suspect is the father of the fetus."  Your criticism that
the report did not include enough of a tutorial is a different question
altogether, in my mind. 

How detailed an interpretation to put in a report is not so clear-cut.
It makes me think of what I do when I interpret a biopsy.  As a Pathologist,
I provide different levels of interpretation depending on who is
asking for the consultation.  If Fred Askin (a well-known pulmonary pathologist)
were to ask me to look at a biopsy to confirm a suspicion, I might well
just write "c/w DAD" as my entire report, knowing that Fred knows more
about it than I do and just wants the benefit of my eye.  If a family practitioner
were to ask me to look at a slide, I might review the entire differential
diagnosis and suggest other tests.  I don't think there is a "one size fits
all" answer to degree of discussion in such an interpretation.


billo


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 12:05:45 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07868
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:05:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07862
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:05:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from geraldhu ([24.27.39.20]) by mail.austin.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35);
	 Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:06:32 -0600
From: "Gerald L. Hurst" <glhurst@onr.com>
To: "Forens E-mail Group" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: court/demonstration charts
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:09:22 -0600
Message-ID: <007901bf8ea1$351dfda0$14271b18@austin.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <05c101bf8278$eb6ae1c0$9a7237c0@dwhause>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I have never once encountered a situation in which one of
Bob's "shyster lawyers" recommended trying a case in which
a plea bargain was offered -- regardless of whether the client
was perceived as guilty or innocent.


Jerry

Gerald L. Hurst
ghurst@Austin.rr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
[mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Dave Hause
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:51 PM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: Re: court/demonstration charts


Minor correction to Bob's long rebuttal of Jerry's comment on...

PROSECUTORS aren't supposed to be focused on winning, but on justice.
Defense counsel, OTOH, have an ethical obligation to seek the client's best
interest, AS DETERMINED BY THE CLIENT.  I had a really amusing evening
several years ago with several defense counsel telling stories about their
idiot guilty clients who had refused plea offers, insisted on trial, and
gotten much harsher sentences than offered by the prosecutor for a plea.
Did an old cop's heart good.
Dave Hause
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Parsons" <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:19 PM

Jerry wrote:

<< Bob's view of plea bargaining appears to be influenced by the notion that
there is a correlation between actual guilt and pleading to a lesser
offense.  There is no such relationship.

<snip>
I'm not talking about legitimate legal procedures - we all have to live with
the delays inherent therein - I'm talking about games used as last resort
tricks or stalling measures.  The law is not a game about winning, Jerry, no
matter what so many lawyers seem to think - at least it's not supposed to be
one.  It's supposed to be about seeking truth and justice.
<snip>
But the shyster lawyers (as opposed to conscientious lawyers) don't care -
they get paid all the same.





From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 13:30:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08674
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:30:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08668
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:30:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z940N>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:29:43 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B4D@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:30:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8EAC.6DE7969A"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8EAC.6DE7969A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Right.  In one article he would estimate that "If a laboratory participated
in 100 tests without error then we could be 95% confident that its error
rate is between 0% and 3%".(Univ. of Colorado Law Review, 1996 (67))  If my
error rate is anywhere near 3%, I would not be in this business today.  All
the sample handling controls and reviews make this much much lower.  I would
never say it is zero, but that it can't be quantified like that.  And of
course, I don't want to be judged on the basis of "industry wide" error
rates because they may or may not have the same controls in place.

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:31 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: odd ideas about error rates


At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 

>[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error rates ...

Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N,
then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N.

Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall
not prepare to confront up to three of them this year.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematicking
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8EAC.6DE7969A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: odd ideas about error rates</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Right.&nbsp; In one article he would estimate that =
&quot;If a laboratory participated in 100 tests without error then we =
could be 95% confident that its error rate is between 0% and =
3%&quot;.(Univ. of Colorado Law Review, 1996 (67))&nbsp; If my error =
rate is anywhere near 3%, I would not be in this business today.&nbsp; =
All the sample handling controls and reviews make this much much =
lower.&nbsp; I would never say it is zero, but that it can't be =
quantified like that.&nbsp; And of course, I don't want to be judged on =
the basis of &quot;industry wide&quot; error rates because they may or =
may not have the same controls in place.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or =
policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Charles H. Brenner [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu">mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berk=
eley.edu</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:31 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: odd ideas about error rates</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: =
</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error =
rates ...</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error =
rate is zero out of N,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>then we must accept the possibility that the true =
rate is up to 3/N.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns =
last year, I shall</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>not prepare to confront up to three of them this =
year.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charles Brenner</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>forensic mathematicking</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8EAC.6DE7969A--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 13:32:26 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08784
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:32:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfs.state.va.us (dgsgtfo.dgs.state.va.us [159.169.223.252])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08777
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:32:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DFS-PDC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GF492MAY>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:31:20 -0500
Message-ID: <A1AD99DCB380D2119C7400805FC719983F07CD@DFS-PDC>
From: "Dolan, Julia" <JDolan@dfs.state.va.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Air bags
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:31:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


		We have recently received a case in which a suspect
allegedly fled a vehicle following leaving the scene of an accident in which
an air bag deployed.  We are asked to do a glass examination as well as look
for air bag powder residue on the suspect's clothing.  It is my
understanding that the air bags will deploy due to the reaction of a primary
explosive.

		If anyone here has info on air bags or examinations of this
type, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me.

		Thanking you in advance -

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 14:36:25 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09855
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:36:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09850
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:36:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9C40224>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:34:00 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB65E@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'Dolan, Julia'" <JDolan@dfs.state.va.us>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Air bags
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:35:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

A couple years ago a friend of mine did a small presentation on airbags
after hers kept her off her steering wheel.  I believe the primary charge
is/was lead azide.  The sweater she was wearing had a patterned burn mark
(an area under her shoulder harness was spared), so you might also look for
specific fabric changes.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Dolan, Julia [mailto:JDolan@dfs.state.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:31 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Air bags

		We have recently received a case in which a suspect
allegedly fled a vehicle following leaving the scene of an accident in which
an air bag deployed.  We are asked to do a glass examination as well as look
for air bag powder residue on the suspect's clothing.  It is my
understanding that the air bags will deploy due to the reaction of a primary
explosive.

		If anyone here has info on air bags or examinations of this
type, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me.

		Thanking you in advance -

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 16:40:10 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11005
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:40:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11000
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:39:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hdcdojnet.state.ca.us by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA00230; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DOM_DOJ-Message_Server by hdcdojnet.state.ca.us
	with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:37:57 -0800
Message-Id: <s8cf9235.045@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:37:22 -0800
From: "Adam Dutra" <DUTRAA@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us>
To: <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>, <JDolan@dfs.state.va.us>,
        <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Air bags
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id QAA11001
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

It is my understanding that sodium azide is the compound used in airbags.  

Adam Dutra

>>> "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> 03/15 11:35 AM >>>
A couple years ago a friend of mine did a small presentation on airbags
after hers kept her off her steering wheel.  I believe the primary charge
is/was lead azide.  The sweater she was wearing had a patterned burn mark
(an area under her shoulder harness was spared), so you might also look for
specific fabric changes.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Dolan, Julia [mailto:JDolan@dfs.state.va.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:31 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 
Subject: Air bags

		We have recently received a case in which a suspect
allegedly fled a vehicle following leaving the scene of an accident in which
an air bag deployed.  We are asked to do a glass examination as well as look
for air bag powder residue on the suspect's clothing.  It is my
understanding that the air bags will deploy due to the reaction of a primary
explosive.

		If anyone here has info on air bags or examinations of this
type, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me.

		Thanking you in advance -

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 17:04:30 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11425
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:04:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11420
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:04:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AY2XQZ>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:02:06 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB663@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Air bags
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:50:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Yeah, sodium azide makes more sense.  I must have lead on the brain from a
firearms thread.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Dutra [mailto:DUTRAA@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:37 PM
To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL; JDolan@dfs.state.va.us;
forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Air bags


It is my understanding that sodium azide is the compound used in airbags.  

Adam Dutra

>>> "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> 03/15 11:35
AM >>>
A couple years ago a friend of mine did a small presentation on airbags
after hers kept her off her steering wheel.  I believe the primary charge
is/was lead azide.  The sweater she was wearing had a patterned burn mark
(an area under her shoulder harness was spared), so you might also look for
specific fabric changes.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Dolan, Julia [mailto:JDolan@dfs.state.va.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:31 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 
Subject: Air bags

		We have recently received a case in which a suspect
allegedly fled a vehicle following leaving the scene of an accident in which
an air bag deployed.  We are asked to do a glass examination as well as look
for air bag powder residue on the suspect's clothing.  It is my
understanding that the air bags will deploy due to the reaction of a primary
explosive.

		If anyone here has info on air bags or examinations of this
type, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me.

		Thanking you in advance -

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 17:26:04 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11718
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:26:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ruby.co.clark.nv.us (ruby.co.clark.nv.us [198.200.132.17])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA11713
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:25:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ruby.co.clark.nv.us; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA32142; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:25:21 -0800
Received: from conversion.co.clark.nv.us by mailhub.co.clark.nv.us
 (PMDF V5.1-12 #29712) id <01JN2CO6B89S00CRBX@mailhub.co.clark.nv.us> for
 forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:25:09 PST
Received: from ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us by mailhub.co.clark.nv.us
 (PMDF V5.1-12 #29712) with SMTP id <01JN2CNYIG1400D0DX@mailhub.co.clark.nv.us>
 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from GWGATE-Message_Server by ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us with
 Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:24:35 -0800
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:25:53 -0800
From: Torrey Johnson <T4820J@ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us>
Subject: Re: RE: Air bags
To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, JDolan@dfs.state.va.us,
        DUTRAA@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Message-Id: <s8cf9d23.003@ccgwgate.co.clark.nv.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I have heard Emercency Medical personnel mention a white powder residue on victims where air bags have deployed.  It might be something like a "gloving powder" - to keep the undeployed bag from sticking to itself.  Might be something to check on.  Torrey J

>>> Adam Dutra <DUTRAA@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us> 03/15 1:37 PM >>>
It is my understanding that sodium azide is the compound used in airbags.  

Adam Dutra

>>> "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> 03/15 11:35 AM >>>
A couple years ago a friend of mine did a small presentation on airbags
after hers kept her off her steering wheel.  I believe the primary charge
is/was lead azide.  The sweater she was wearing had a patterned burn mark
(an area under her shoulder harness was spared), so you might also look for
specific fabric changes.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Dolan, Julia [mailto:JDolan@dfs.state.va.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:31 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 
Subject: Air bags

		We have recently received a case in which a suspect
allegedly fled a vehicle following leaving the scene of an accident in which
an air bag deployed.  We are asked to do a glass examination as well as look
for air bag powder residue on the suspect's clothing.  It is my
understanding that the air bags will deploy due to the reaction of a primary
explosive.

		If anyone here has info on air bags or examinations of this
type, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me.

		Thanking you in advance -

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us 



From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 17:31:38 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11859
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:31:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11854
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:31:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AY2Y1B>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:29:14 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB664@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:30:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

What am I missing?  This Koehler says an error rate is less than or equal to
3%.  Jeff says essentially 'mine is much lower than that'.  Doesn't
Koehler's statement include Jeff's?  Doesn't "less than" include "much less
than"?
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Sailus, Jeff [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:30 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates

Right.  In one article he would estimate that "If a laboratory participated
in 100 tests without error then we could be 95% confident that its error
rate is between 0% and 3%".(Univ. of Colorado Law Review, 1996 (67))  If my
error rate is anywhere near 3%, I would not be in this business today.  All
the sample handling controls and reviews make this much much lower.  I would
never say it is zero, but that it can't be quantified like that.  And of
course, I don't want to be judged on the basis of "industry wide" error
rates because they may or may not have the same controls in place.
My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD. 
Jeff Sailus, MSFS 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:31 AM 
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 
Subject: odd ideas about error rates 

At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 
>[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error rates ... 
Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N, 
then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N. 
Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall 
not prepare to confront up to three of them this year. 
Charles Brenner 
forensic mathematicking 
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner 

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 15 18:14:46 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12317
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:14:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.verio.net (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.161])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12311
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:14:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cbrenner (h207-21-136-209.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.209])
	by smtp1.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA06082
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.1.20000315145113.00c1b960@pop.ncal.verio.com>
X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:15:24 -0800
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: "Charles H. Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates
In-Reply-To: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB664@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.
 ARMY.MIL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

In response to my characterization of Koehler as believing
> that if the historical error rate is zero out of N, then we must accept
the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N.

At 09:53 AM 3/15/00 -0600, David Hause responded:

>But isn't that actually saying "true number is not greater than 3/N"?  And
>shouldn't N be the number of observations?  Assuming daily unicorn scans,
>wouldn't that make the daily incidence of unicorns at Berkeley less than
>3/365?  (Assuming you have a valid unicorn exemplar.  Don't I remember that
>they can only be seen, or maybe captured, by female virgins?)

and also at 04:30 PM 3/15/00 -0600, he further wrote:
>What am I missing?  This Koehler says an error rate is less than or equal to
>3%.  Jeff says essentially 'mine is much lower than that'.  Doesn't
>Koehler's statement include Jeff's?  Doesn't "less than" include "much less
>than"?

I think you have rephrased Koehler's claim to where it loses his point. He
testifies for the defense, and the point of his testimony is not that the
true error rate is less than 3/N, but rather that the possibility that it
equals 3/N is a legitimate concern, that the jury should not accept some
lower number.

Incidentally, I believe that he is quite sincere. Indeed, the 95%
confidence interval is the interval [0, 3/N], just as he says. The problem
with his analysis is that it is hard for lay people (and statistically
speaking psychologist Koehler is a lay person) to question and reject the
applicability of the confidence interval concept here, given the
realization that they do not clearly understand it. That is, I suppose
Koehler assumes that he is merely accepting at face value some very
standard bit of statistical lore.

The point that I am trying to make with my unicorn analogy is that the kind
of inference that a Koehler automatically makes from confidence intervals
in this kind of situation is not a valid inference. Careful analysis of the
exact definition of confidence interval shows why:

Let  E stand for the empirical observation: 0 errors in N trials.
Let  C stand for the hypothesis that the real error rate, over infinitely
many trials, is 3/N.

Confidence intervals refer to the chance that E would be observed, assuming
C. Answer: about 5%.

It is tempting but incorrect to reverse the role of condition and
hypothesis, to start with E and conclude that the chance of C is about 5%.
It is the same logical fallacy that is sometimes described by the slang
term "transposing the conditional."

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 06:43:37 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20491
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:43:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20486
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:43:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z9WZP>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:42:59 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B55@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:43:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8F3C.C74A3162"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8F3C.C74A3162
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

As for misleading statements, calling my error rate as high as 3% is much
more misleading and unfairly prejudicial against my credibility than a RMP
is against a defendant.  And that is assuming I have done 100 PT's, which I
have not yet.  With my 10 or 12 he could probably get that much higher.

My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:31 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates


What am I missing?  This Koehler says an error rate is less than or equal to
3%.  Jeff says essentially 'mine is much lower than that'.  Doesn't
Koehler's statement include Jeff's?  Doesn't "less than" include "much less
than"?
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Sailus, Jeff [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:30 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates

Right.  In one article he would estimate that "If a laboratory participated
in 100 tests without error then we could be 95% confident that its error
rate is between 0% and 3%".(Univ. of Colorado Law Review, 1996 (67))  If my
error rate is anywhere near 3%, I would not be in this business today.  All
the sample handling controls and reviews make this much much lower.  I would
never say it is zero, but that it can't be quantified like that.  And of
course, I don't want to be judged on the basis of "industry wide" error
rates because they may or may not have the same controls in place.
My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or policies of CMPD. 
Jeff Sailus, MSFS 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:31 AM 
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu 
Subject: odd ideas about error rates 

At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: 
>[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error rates ... 
Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error rate is zero out of N, 
then we must accept the possibility that the true rate is up to 3/N. 
Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no unicorns last year, I shall 
not prepare to confront up to three of them this year. 
Charles Brenner 
forensic mathematicking 
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner 

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8F3C.C74A3162
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: odd ideas about error rates</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As for misleading statements, calling my error rate =
as high as 3% is much more misleading and unfairly prejudicial against =
my credibility than a RMP is against a defendant.&nbsp; And that is =
assuming I have done 100 PT's, which I have not yet.&nbsp; With my 10 =
or 12 he could probably get that much higher.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views or =
policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL">mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AM=
EDD.ARMY.MIL</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:31 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What am I missing?&nbsp; This Koehler says an error =
rate is less than or equal to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>3%.&nbsp; Jeff says essentially 'mine is much lower =
than that'.&nbsp; Doesn't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Koehler's statement include Jeff's?&nbsp; Doesn't =
&quot;less than&quot; include &quot;much less</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>than&quot;?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave Hause</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Sailus, Jeff [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us">mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.c=
harlotte.nc.us</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:30 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: odd ideas about error rates</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Right.&nbsp; In one article he would estimate that =
&quot;If a laboratory participated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>in 100 tests without error then we could be 95% =
confident that its error</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>rate is between 0% and 3%&quot;.(Univ. of Colorado =
Law Review, 1996 (67))&nbsp; If my</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>error rate is anywhere near 3%, I would not be in =
this business today.&nbsp; All</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the sample handling controls and reviews make this =
much much lower.&nbsp; I would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>never say it is zero, but that it can't be =
quantified like that.&nbsp; And of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>course, I don't want to be judged on the basis of =
&quot;industry wide&quot; error</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>rates because they may or may not have the same =
controls in place.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and do not reflect the views =
or policies of CMPD. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message----- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Charles H. Brenner [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu">mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berk=
eley.edu</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:31 AM </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: odd ideas about error rates </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At 08:37 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Sailus, Jeff wrote: =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;[Koehler] he has some ... odd ideas about error =
rates ... </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Quite odd. He believes that if the historical error =
rate is zero out of N, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>then we must accept the possibility that the true =
rate is up to 3/N. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Call me a skeptic, but having encountered no =
unicorns last year, I shall </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>not prepare to confront up to three of them this =
year. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charles Brenner </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>forensic mathematicking </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8F3C.C74A3162--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 09:34:23 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22520
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:34:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfs.state.va.us (dgsgtfo.dgs.state.va.us [159.169.223.252])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22515
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:34:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DFS-PDC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GF492MXY>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:33:26 -0500
Message-ID: <A1AD99DCB380D2119C7400805FC719983F07D8@DFS-PDC>
From: "Dolan, Julia" <JDolan@dfs.state.va.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Cc: "Davis, Eileen" <EDavis@dfs.state.va.us>
Subject: Air bag responses
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:33:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



		Thanks to the many of you from this list who provided me
with information.  What a fabulous group.  Because many of the replies were
off-line, I will provide a summary so that all may benefit:

*	Don't neglect other types of Trace Evidence, such as fiber
transfers(bag to clothing or vice versa), or possibly a DNA transfer to the
bag
*	Consider documenting injuries to the suspect to see if they are
consistent with air bag deployment, in which bruising on the forearms is
common
*	The principal explosive charge is sodium azide, but generally it's
combustion products (sodium hydroxide, which will react with the air to form
sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate and possibly some sodium oxide may
be present) remain INSIDE the airbag, and would not transfer to the driver.
*	Powders are used to keep the airbag from sticking to itself, and
would be the more likely material to be transferred.  These "lubricating
powders" are generally cornstarch or talc, and may vary by manufacturer.
*	There are a variety of sources on the web, and airbag and auto
manufacturers as well as the NHTSA can be useful.

		Again - my thanks for the helpful response.

		Julia Ann Dolan
		Forensic Scientist Supervisor
		Trace Evidence
		703-764-4600
		Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 10:37:51 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24219
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:37:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24214
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:37:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from laptop (A097013.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.13]) 
	by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id HAA21712
        for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:37:33 -0800 (PST)
        env-from (pbarnett@crl.com)
Message-Id: <200003161537.HAA21712@mail.crl.com>
X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:47:59 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Air bag responses
In-Reply-To: <A1AD99DCB380D2119C7400805FC719983F07D8@DFS-PDC>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 09:33 AM 3/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>		Thanks to the many of you from this list who provided me
>with information.  What a fabulous group.  Because many of the replies were
>off-line, I will provide a summary so that all may benefit:

Julia - 

Thank you for taking the time to combine the replies and post them.  

Pete Barnett


Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com
http://www.fsalab.com

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 10:44:40 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24412
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:44:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA24407
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:44:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:44:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000316104359.24345B-100000@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster)
Subject: Re: Report Wording, Hair Comparisons
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
CC: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk
In-Reply-To: <200003151450.PAA08215@hola.hospvd.ch>
Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk
Message-Id: <memo.20000315215924.17349A@forensics.compulink.co.uk>

F. Taroni wrote: 
 
""Could have come from the suspect" used in forensic context is a 
transposed conditional as it is expressing a view about the probability of 
the hypothesis."

No it isn't. It is a vague expression, unhelpful to the Court, but 
certainly not a transposed conditional.

I'm more interested in this : "I believe that the scientist should express 
a degree of support for one hypothesis versus the other".

I've been doing some historical research on the concept of "support" 
recently. Sir Harold Jeffreys, in the 1930s, suggested that "support" 
could be viewed as the log of the likelihood ratio: presumably increase 
the LR by a factor of ten and "support" is doubled.

Professor Edwards, in his book "Likelihood", published in the early 
seventies, says that Jefferys later abandoned the concept of "support".

Does anybody know why? Can anybody point me to a reference?

Thanks in anticipation.
 
Mark Webster
(my apologies to all those people I should have communicated with over the 
past few months, various unavoidable commitments occupied my time) 


 


From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 10:45:26 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24492
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:45:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA24475
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:45:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:45:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Basten <cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: forwarded message
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000316104447.24345C-100000@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:44:21 +0100
Subject: DAB and Mixtures
From: Christophe Champod <cchampod@compuserve.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Message-ID: <B4F65C89.57B%cchampod@compuserve.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

At 09:37 AM 3/14/00 -0500, Jeff Sailus wrote:

>
> Given the new DAB document, we do not really have an option to not report
> stats on mixtures any more, unless you want to give a reason why the profile
> was not suitable.


Jeff, would it be possible to obtain more information about the DAB
guidelines for reporting mixtures?

Thanking your in advance

Christophe




From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 10:59:44 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25058
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:59:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hola.hospvd.ch (hola.hospvd.ch [155.105.50.102])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25053
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:59:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pc1ob19473 by hola.hospvd.ch; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:59:02 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000316165857.00833600@hola.hospvd.ch>
X-Sender: ftaroni@hola.hospvd.ch
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:58:57 +0100
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Franco Taroni <Franco.Taroni@inst.hospvd.ch>
Subject: Re: forwarded message
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000316104359.24345B-100000@brooks.statgen.n
 csu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Dear Mark, you wrote :
 
>"Could have come from the suspect" used in forensic context is a 
>transposed conditional as it is expressing a view about the probability of 
>the hypothesis."
>
>No it isn't. It is a vague expression, unhelpful to the Court, but 
>certainly not a transposed conditional.

Are you sure ?
Does this conclusion expresses a view about the probability of the
hypothesis ?

Is the role of the expert to express a view about the probability of the
hypothesis ? I do not think so.

'Could have come ...' is a vague expression ... yes ... but you can
quantify it with a subjective probability, therefore you express a view
about the probability of the hypothesis.

Am I wrong ?

Best wishes,
F. Taroni

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 11:58:45 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26089
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pbsomail.pbso.org (mail.pbso.org [209.149.216.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26084
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:58:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: by PBSOMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GXM0MCD9>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:58:09 -0500
Message-ID: <E8F7CE22EFBAD211B2930090273AB1EA069027@PBSOMAIL>
From: "Barbara K. Caraballo" <CaraballoB@pbso.org>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Replys to "Annual Physicals"
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:58:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Thank you so much for all your comments to me regarding whether your agency
offers annual physicals.  I have made the request, I'll let you know how it
turns out.
Barbara Caraballo - PBSO Crime Laboratory

Information gathered re: Annual Physicals offerred to Crime Lab employees
**********

They are part of the benefits for all city employees.....kind of nice to
know 
that you can get checked out at no cost....

Tony  (Mansfield PD, OH Crime Lab)

**********
Annual physicals are required by OSHA if the person is exposed to hazardous
materials, for example clandestine laboratories.  The exact citation is
unknown, but I will try to locate the information for you.  In addition, it
is mandatory that persons receive approved training in personal protective
equipment.

J. Gabriel Bier
Criminalist / Utah CODIS Administrator


************
The Montana Division of Forensic Science offers annual blood screens for
HIV, Hep C, liver function and Pb for the firearms examiners.  There is an
OSHA requirement that anyone who may need to wear a facemask, needs to have
a signed statement from an M.D. before they can be fit tested.  Fit testing
must be done annually. 

Good Luck! 
Judi Hoffmann

************
Our lab offers annual physicals through the St. Lucie Co. Sheriff's Office.
Our coverage is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield and as long as we go to a
preferred provider, we pay $15.  If a test for PSA or a PAP smear is done,
it's an additional $45. The physical is fairly comprehensive and includes
detailed blood work, EKG, chest X-ray and prostate exam (except for the
PSA).  The physical is strongly encouraged, but certainly not mandatory.
It's not a big expense for our lab,  since we only have 8 employees.  FYI,
our lab also participates in the SO's random drug testing program (we end up
getting tested once or twice a year).  Also, FYI, we get our Hepatitis shots
through the Wellness Dept of the college, which also provides our annual
pathogen training updates.
Take care, 
Dan.   (RCL at IRCC, FT Pierce, FL)

**************
I work for the US Postal Inspection Service Lab and we must have a
comprehensive pre-employment physical and follow-up with annual physical
exams. If after employment an employee refuses the annual exam (with a Dr.
employed by Postal) the employee can be terminated.

Stephanie L. Smith
Senior Forensic Chemist


***************
Our agency does offer yearly physicals. This started as part of a Federal 
Grant to assess the readiness of law enforcement officers throughout the 
state. When the money dried up, the local university in conjunction with 
the Highway Patrol and State Law Enforcement Division have continued the 
program. Each year they do a routine SMACK (blood chemistry), check height, 
weight, body composition, resting EKG, vision with glaucoma screening, lung 
function (spirometry test), hip flexibility, and a stress test on 
stationary bicycles (EKG). Previous years results are reviewed with respect 
to this years results and recommendations are  made as to steps needed to 
improve one's health or at least stop the deterioration.

Robert M. Sears, MS, DFTCB
SC Law Enforcement Division

****************
An annual physical is a good thing for a company to do;  however, the Tulsa
PD does not.

Carla


*******************
We've been giving annual physicals to all technical employees for over
twenty years.  Included in these physicals is a chest x-ray every other
year.  Individual have the opportunity to opt out of the x_ray.
Good Luck !
Frank Garland
Sr. Forensic Chemist
Union County Prosecutor's Lab
300 North Ave E.
Westfield NJ 07090


******************
When I worked at ATF, the chemists who were members of the
National Response Team had annual physicals.  This "benefit" was limited to
NRT members, though, and chemists who did not do crime scene responses were
not included, nor were other forensic analysts who did not have response
duties (i.e. QD examiners, latent FP examiners, F/TM examiners etc.)
		Our physicals and health monitoring program were
administered through the NRT program, meaning that it was mostly agent
types, and maybe 5 - 10% chemists.  The lab didn't have to organize or
administer the program.
		Julia Ann Dolan


*********************
In our system, we offer "liver function" chemistry scans of drawn blood
samples to all employees under the rationale of exposure to solvents. Only
the clandestine lab folks get physicals. In practice, once the blood samples
are drawn, many employees request a full chemistry scan and cardiac profile,
and the administration hasn't objected. We offer this blood work every two
years.  Also, those who wish can arrange to forward specimens to the Health
Dept lab for check of their Hepatitis titer and HIV status.  Our health
insurance options include some plans where a physical exam is part of a
"wellness" benefit, but I think only every other year or so would be
covered. The dollar amount of "wellness" benefits is not enough to cover a
physical every year, and a subscriber to that plan might choose to use some
of the allowance for a mammogram or other "wellness" test.  Hope this helps.


*******************
Missouri State Highway Patrol does offer annual physicals.  It contracts
with several providers from which we can choose.  They have a set battery of
tests and exams included with each package.  With our health insurance
provider we have a "wellness" allotment each year that is applicable to
this.  But we can elect to use it for other things insurance does not cover,
like eyeglasses, dental exams etc. instead of a physical.  Our profession is
exposed to several bad contagions that the general population is not around
as much.  I doubt I would have a physical periodically if it were not
provided.   Good luck with your pitch.
Jenny Smith

******************
I use to work at the Regional Medical Center at Memphis Forensic Science 
Lab, a county crime lab in Tennessee.  The lab staff was required to have an

annual physical.  I think it was because the lab was located in a hospital 
and we were more susceptible to exposure of certain diseases.  At the 
physical I also was always administered a HIV test, due to the type of 
samples the lab examined.
Richard Iwanicki
Mass State Police Crime Lab

*******************
FDLE does not give us physicals.  They do pay for hepatitis vaccines and
they 
used to (maybe they still do) check the Firearms examiners for lead levels.
Dave Baer

*************************
Our Department requires annual physicals to all staff
members who wear SCBAs or are issued respirators.
Pattie Lough
San Diego PD


*********************
Currently, I don't believe that our crims are receiving 
annual exams.  I'm not sure it's mandated in our
policies.  However, our crims who are responding to
clandestine laboratories are being monitored on a
yearly basis.  We kind of tag along with the
CA DOJ Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
agents when they have their annual exam.
Ken Lee
Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
***********************

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I work for a police 
department that has a "Wellness Program".  Nurses from an area hospital come

to the police dept. and give us a yearly physical (stress test, blood work, 
physical assessment, and even an EKG).  This is not only for the police
dept. 
but for all city employees.  The nurses are also on hand for questions at
any 
time.
Stacey Plano Police Dept.


The State of California, Bureau of Forensic Services
mandates a basic physical exam previous to being
formally offered a position.  This is incurred at no
cost to the prospective employee.  Additionally, if an
individual is assigned to Clandestine Lab response
(and we have probably in excess of 50 scientists who
respond statewide), they are mandated to complete a
yearly comprehensive physical with associated testing
to indicate their ability to handle and deal with APRs
(air purifying respirators) and SCBA.  The tests are
conducted at no cost to the employee.  As our
workforce ages, we've found that we are doing more
treadmill stress tests - again, part of the price of
doing business.  I personally think that any
individual in our Bureau should have a physical exam
yearly, paying particular attention to the lab tests
involving liver functions, etc.
Tom Abercrombie
Assistant Lab Director
DOJ/DNA Laboratory

***********************
One of the benefits attached to working for the Washington State Patrol is
that our medical is paid for.  Therefore, an annual physical is paid for.
Helen Griffin

********************
While it is supposed to be a County policy that criminalists have annual
physicals, only those that respond to clandestine laboratopry scenes have
recently been examined.  This is an issue that crops up now and then.  It
appears that it is a too burdensome expense.
Gregory E. Laskowski
Kern County District Attorney

********************
We have hearing and blood test for Pb almost yearly here.  Physicals are on
our own.  When I was at the OSP, we had full "Industrial" physicals every
other year until 40, then every year then on.(I think that is right).
Robert M. Thompson
Senior Firearms and Toolmark Examiner
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco




*************************
CA DOJ offers annual physicals to all clandestine laboratory responders.  It
includes bloodwork, spirometry and the physical exam.  It is being monitored
by the UCDavis Occupational Health Unit.  You can probably obtain more
information by contacting Tom Valentine at (916)227-3575.  Additionally, I
think there is an investigation into lead exposure for firearms examiners.
Tom should have this information as well.
Julie Doerr Senior Criminalist
CA DOJ Freedom Regional Laboratory


Yes, we and our families (if on the family plan) all get annual health &
wellness physicals as part of our Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits which are
standard for all employees of the St. Lucie County SO.  It costs us $15 for
ourselves and $15 for our spouses.  I don't know what the cost is for
children as I don't have any, but it's probably also $15 as that is the
standard out of pocket cost for any office visit involving a PPO provider.
The physical includes complete fasting blood work, office consultation and
exam, chest x-rays, etc.  PSA screening for men under 50 is extra.
You can contact the personnel dept. at SLCSO to find out what this benefit
costs the SO. 
Bob Parsons 

*******************
The lab here doesn't directly offer them. We can get them through our
doctors and it is paid through the insurance carrier.Does this answer your
question?
Tim French  Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 12:15:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26420
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:15:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26415
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:15:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z9X8K>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:14:26 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC1320255B7A3@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Thompson, Roger" <rthompson@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Criminalist II - DNA Analyst Position Announcement
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:14:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: application/msword;
	name="Criminalist II internet ad.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Criminalist II internet ad.doc"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
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From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 21:00:30 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02321
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:00:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02316
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:00:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36])
	by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA06769
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:00:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000317020134.006b3c18@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:01:34 -0500
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Quick Pathology Question
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I'm trying to explain how a trajectory that begins in central midline soft
palate and follows as described in texts [below], veering out to the left of
the foramen magnum and then back right so as to exit out the centre of the
occiput?

In other words, it has travelled in an arc, more or less, although the
pathologist who used a trajectory rod, said the wound path had "good
alignment"? How could it both have "good alignment" and yet (if one follows
the description and the autopsy sketches) contain a bend?

Is it possible that the foramen magnum in this skull, could have been
located further to the right than normal within the skull?

---------

Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head; entrance wound is in the posterior
oropharynx at a point approximately 7 1/2" inches from the top of the head;
there is also a defect in the tissues of the soft palate and some of these
fragments contain probable powder debris.  The wound track in the head
continues backward and upward with an entrance wound just left of the
foramen magnum with tissue damage to the brain stem and left cerebral
hemisphere with an irregular exit scalp and skull defect near the midline in
the occipital region.  No metallic fragments recovered.

---------

Bullet course: Penetrates skull, to left of foramen magnum. Internal
bevelling not appreciated. Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect
of left cerebral hemisphere. No gunpowder residue noted to involve skull,
dura or central nervous system. Exit through comminuted central occipital
skull defect at posterior occiput. Cross-hatched area in diagram represents
fragments of bone not identified. Scalp exit wound stellate, measuring 1 1/4
x 1 inch, located 3 inches below top of head. No evidence of shoring at exit
site.

---------

Thanks for any opinions!


Marilyn, who is NOT a medical/forensic-type person. 


From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 21:23:46 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02608
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:23:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fh102.infi.net (fh102.infi.net [208.131.160.101])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02596
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:23:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bouldernews.infi.net (DNVRA010-0911.splitrock.net [63.253.51.149])
	by fh102.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22717
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:23:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <38D1A5BF.5AA9C20C@bouldernews.infi.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:25:52 -0800
From: edc <carter1@bouldernews.infi.net>
Reply-To: carter1@bouldernews.infi.net
Organization: InfiNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: [Fwd: Quick Pathology Question]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------CBA179F906825E83D92210F4"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------CBA179F906825E83D92210F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit





> 2 possibilities come immediately to mind...
> first is the projectile is rotating about anoff center point, while the
> center of rotation follows a true straight line.
> The second is: the head was in motion, say in a nodding motion while the
> projectile moved in a straight line.
> Hope this helps,best wishes,
> Ed

Marilyn Harris wrote:

> I'm trying to explain how a trajectory that begins in central midline soft
> palate and follows as described in texts [below], veering out to the left of
> the foramen magnum and then back right so as to exit out the centre of the
> occiput?
>
> In other words, it has travelled in an arc, more or less, although the
> pathologist who used a trajectory rod, said the wound path had "good
> alignment"? How could it both have "good alignment" and yet (if one follows
> the description and the autopsy sketches) contain a bend?
>
> Is it possible that the foramen magnum in this skull, could have been
> located further to the right than normal within the skull?
>
> ---------
>
> Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head; entrance wound is in the posterior
> oropharynx at a point approximately 7 1/2" inches from the top of the head;
> there is also a defect in the tissues of the soft palate and some of these
> fragments contain probable powder debris.  The wound track in the head
> continues backward and upward with an entrance wound just left of the
> foramen magnum with tissue damage to the brain stem and left cerebral
> hemisphere with an irregular exit scalp and skull defect near the midline in
> the occipital region.  No metallic fragments recovered.
>
> ---------
>
> Bullet course: Penetrates skull, to left of foramen magnum. Internal
> bevelling not appreciated. Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect
> of left cerebral hemisphere. No gunpowder residue noted to involve skull,
> dura or central nervous system. Exit through comminuted central occipital
> skull defect at posterior occiput. Cross-hatched area in diagram represents
> fragments of bone not identified. Scalp exit wound stellate, measuring 1 1/4
> x 1 inch, located 3 inches below top of head. No evidence of shoring at exit
> site.
>
> ---------
>
> Thanks for any opinions!
>
> Marilyn, who is NOT a medical/forensic-type person.

--------------CBA179F906825E83D92210F4
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <38D1A430.8B1C922E@bouldernews.infi.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:19:15 -0800
From: edc <carter1@bouldernews.infi.net>
Reply-To: carter1@bouldernews.infi.net
Organization: InfiNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
References: <1.5.4.32.20000317020134.006b3c18@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

2 possibilities come immediately to mind...
first is the projectile is rotating about anoff center point, while the
center of rotation follows a true straight line.
The second is: the head was in motion, say in a nodding motion while the
projectile moved in a straight line.
Hope this helps,best wishes,
Ed


--------------CBA179F906825E83D92210F4--


From forens-owner  Thu Mar 16 22:41:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03284
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:41:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA03279
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:41:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 30476 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2000 03:41:06 -0000
Received: from access-7-40.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.41)
  by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 17 Mar 2000 03:41:06 -0000
Message-ID: <005601bf8fc2$acecf120$290d12d0@dwhause>
From: "Dave Hause" <dwhause@rollanet.org>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <1.5.4.32.20000317020134.006b3c18@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:41:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

First, not all forensic pathologists retire when they should.  Next, the
quoted material doesn't say the posterior oro-pharyngeal injury was in the
midline, and assuming the "defect in the soft palate" is the entry wound
passing through the soft palate, which is not what the quote says, it could
have been shoved a little to the left by a revolver barrel, anyway.
Dave Hause
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marilyn Harris" <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 8:01 PM
Subject: Quick Pathology Question


I'm trying to explain how a trajectory that begins in central midline soft
palate and follows as described in texts [below], veering out to the left of
the foramen magnum and then back right so as to exit out the centre of the
occiput?

In other words, it has travelled in an arc, more or less, although the
pathologist who used a trajectory rod, said the wound path had "good
alignment"? How could it both have "good alignment" and yet (if one follows
the description and the autopsy sketches) contain a bend?

Is it possible that the foramen magnum in this skull, could have been
located further to the right than normal within the skull?

---------

Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head; entrance wound is in the posterior
oropharynx at a point approximately 7 1/2" inches from the top of the head;
there is also a defect in the tissues of the soft palate and some of these
fragments contain probable powder debris.  The wound track in the head
continues backward and upward with an entrance wound just left of the
foramen magnum with tissue damage to the brain stem and left cerebral
hemisphere with an irregular exit scalp and skull defect near the midline in
the occipital region.  No metallic fragments recovered.

---------

Bullet course: Penetrates skull, to left of foramen magnum. Internal
bevelling not appreciated. Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect
of left cerebral hemisphere. No gunpowder residue noted to involve skull,
dura or central nervous system. Exit through comminuted central occipital
skull defect at posterior occiput. Cross-hatched area in diagram represents
fragments of bone not identified. Scalp exit wound stellate, measuring 1 1/4
x 1 inch, located 3 inches below top of head. No evidence of shoring at exit
site.

---------

Thanks for any opinions!


Marilyn, who is NOT a medical/forensic-type person.




From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 08:08:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09074
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:08:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09069
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:08:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36])
	by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA00381
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:08:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000317131005.00669db4@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:10:05 -0500
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

>First, not all forensic pathologists retire when they should.  Next, the
>quoted material doesn't say the posterior oro-pharyngeal injury was in the
>midline, and assuming the "defect in the soft palate" is the entry wound
>passing through the soft palate, which is not what the quote says, it could
>have been shoved a little to the left by a revolver barrel, anyway.

Dave;

The forensic panel that reviewed the autopsy report and photographs, said
that the entrance wound was in the soft palate [excerpts below]. 

Assuming that, how much could the palate be moved by the gun's barrel? 

Regarding foramen magnum position; a quick search of Pubmed had an abstract
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=2301559&dopt=Abstract) which indicates that "Foramen position
(expressed as three indices) and inclination are relatively invariant among
the modern human samples".

One last comment. I have been told that tumbling of a bullet in this
circumstance (a .38 shot at near-contact range) would not occur. Does that
sound about right? 

Excerpts:

---

Entrance wound at central midline soft palate, 7.5 inches below top of head,
directly beyond junction with hard palate. Abundant gunpowder residue, with
contusion hemorrhage.

Bullet course: Penetrates skull, to left of foramen magnum. Internal
bevelling not appreciated. Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect
of left cerebral hemisphere. No gunpowder residue noted to involve skull,
dura or central nervous system. Exit through comminuted central occipital
skull defect at posterior occiput. Cross-hatched area in diagram represents
fragments of bone not identified. Scalp exit wound stellate, measuring 1 1/4
x 1 inch, located 3 inches below top of head. No evidence of shoring at exit
site.

----

Physical evidence examined by the Pathologist Panel establishes that the gun
was fired while in Foster's mouth . Microscopic slides taken during Foster's
autopsy reveal a large quantity of gunpowder residue on the soft palate ,
indicating " that Mr . Foster placed the barrel of the weapon into his mouth
with the muzzle essentially in contact with the soft palate when he pulled
the trigger." 

------

"The large quantity of gunpowder residue present on microscopic sections of
the soft palate indicates that Mr. Foster placed the barrel of the weapon
into his mouth with the muzzle essentially in contact with the soft palate
when he pulled the trigger."

------

Thanks again for any commentary;

Marilyn



From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 09:27:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10057
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:27:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10052
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:27:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AYJY9J>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:25:01 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB666@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Quick Pathology Question
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:26:37 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I don't know how much the soft palate could be moved.  I'd be more
questioning about the precision of location of the entry wound.  Intra-oral
photography is something that is seldom done well except by dentists.  As
far as a 158 gr. .38 caliber bullet tumbling on impact, I'd expect less
susceptibility than with rifle bullets, due to the shorter length for the
weight, but don't know if any such testing has been done and published;
most of that research is from military rifle calibers.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Marilyn Harris [mailto:ah247@freenet.carleton.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:10 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question


>First, not all forensic pathologists retire when they should.  Next, the
>quoted material doesn't say the posterior oro-pharyngeal injury was in the
>midline, and assuming the "defect in the soft palate" is the entry wound
>passing through the soft palate, which is not what the quote says, it could
>have been shoved a little to the left by a revolver barrel, anyway.

Dave;

The forensic panel that reviewed the autopsy report and photographs, said
that the entrance wound was in the soft palate [excerpts below]. 

Assuming that, how much could the palate be moved by the gun's barrel? 

Regarding foramen magnum position; a quick search of Pubmed had an abstract
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=2301559&dopt=Abstract) which indicates that "Foramen position
(expressed as three indices) and inclination are relatively invariant among
the modern human samples".

One last comment. I have been told that tumbling of a bullet in this
circumstance (a .38 shot at near-contact range) would not occur. Does that
sound about right? 

Excerpts:

---

Entrance wound at central midline soft palate, 7.5 inches below top of head,
directly beyond junction with hard palate. Abundant gunpowder residue, with
contusion hemorrhage.

Bullet course: Penetrates skull, to left of foramen magnum. Internal
bevelling not appreciated. Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect
of left cerebral hemisphere. No gunpowder residue noted to involve skull,
dura or central nervous system. Exit through comminuted central occipital
skull defect at posterior occiput. Cross-hatched area in diagram represents
fragments of bone not identified. Scalp exit wound stellate, measuring 1 1/4
x 1 inch, located 3 inches below top of head. No evidence of shoring at exit
site.

----

Physical evidence examined by the Pathologist Panel establishes that the gun
was fired while in Foster's mouth . Microscopic slides taken during Foster's
autopsy reveal a large quantity of gunpowder residue on the soft palate ,
indicating " that Mr . Foster placed the barrel of the weapon into his mouth
with the muzzle essentially in contact with the soft palate when he pulled
the trigger." 

------

"The large quantity of gunpowder residue present on microscopic sections of
the soft palate indicates that Mr. Foster placed the barrel of the weapon
into his mouth with the muzzle essentially in contact with the soft palate
when he pulled the trigger."

------

Thanks again for any commentary;

Marilyn


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 09:29:13 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10130
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:29:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f246.hotmail.com [216.32.181.246])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA10117
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:29:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 2780 invoked by uid 0); 17 Mar 2000 14:28:32 -0000
Message-ID: <20000317142832.2779.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 206.172.73.24 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:28:32 PST
X-Originating-IP: [206.172.73.24]
From: "Marie-Catherine Bernard" <marie_catbernard@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: physical anthropology request
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:28:32 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

hello!
I just wanted to write a quick thank you note to everyone who helped me with 
their suggestions! I have found them very useful!
Thanks again
marie-catherine bernard
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 10:12:35 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10917
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:12:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10912
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:12:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA22664;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:12:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:12:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000317020134.006b3c18@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000317094805.24749A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

There are a number of possibilites.  

The most trivial is that in dictation, notetaking, or transcription,
right and left got flipped somewhere.  It's notoriously easy to
do this; I have autopsy reports that I signed off on that have left
in one place and right in another when describing the same wound.
You try to catch these in proofreading, but the bottom line is that
you don't always do it.  Since you have the same left in the wound
and in the description of the brain injury, this is probably not the
case, though.

The second, and more likely, is that you have to remember that these
statements of locations are all approximate.  There's a good reason for
this -- wounds are often sizeable irregular things, and a single
"location" will necessarily be incorrect unless one does some sort of
full-scale mapping of the site.  Since that kind of measurement is
usually not practical, efficient, cost-effective, or necessary, then
you give approximate locations.  The idea is that you want to provide a
semi-quantitative description of where things are on the body.  The
usefulness of measurements in these sorts of things are not really in
doing 3D reconstruction; they good for sorting and ordering wounds
(which is above the other and that sort of thing).



So, look at the description of the trajectory:

1. The defect in the soft palate is not described as *exactly* midline.
It may well be a little to the left.

2. The entrance to the skull is "just left" of the foramen
magnum -- not "way left", not "two inches left." Just enough
left to not hit it right on.

3. The occipital defect is not *exactly* in the midline.  It is
*near* the midline -- probably to the (you guessed it) left.
  
In other words, you have a straight bullet path which is all just a
teensy bit left of the midline.  The fact that the bullet path 
went though the medulla shows how close to the midline it was.
Add to that the fact that the prosector was able to line things 
up on the table with a stick,and I don't really see where the 
problem is.  

I think your misgivings come from overinterpreting the report -- you
are reading the lefts as "way left" and the "center" as "right dead
exactly on the center."  They don't mean that.  "Near the midline"
means just a little off the midline, and "just to the left" of the
foramen means just a little off the midline.  Given that they are
approximate and that he or she was physically able to line up the
wounds, then everything is consistent.


billo





On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Marilyn Harris wrote:

> From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
> 
> ---------
> 
> Perforating gunshot wound mouth-head; entrance wound is in the posterior
> oropharynx at a point approximately 7 1/2" inches from the top of the head;
> there is also a defect in the tissues of the soft palate and some of these
> fragments contain probable powder debris.  The wound track in the head
> continues backward and upward with an entrance wound just left of the
> foramen magnum with tissue damage to the brain stem and left cerebral
> hemisphere with an irregular exit scalp and skull defect near the midline in
> the occipital region.  No metallic fragments recovered.
> 
> ---------
> 
> Bullet course: Penetrates skull, to left of foramen magnum. Internal
> bevelling not appreciated. Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect
> of left cerebral hemisphere. No gunpowder residue noted to involve skull,
> dura or central nervous system. Exit through comminuted central occipital
> skull defect at posterior occiput. Cross-hatched area in diagram represents
> fragments of bone not identified. Scalp exit wound stellate, measuring 1 1/4
> x 1 inch, located 3 inches below top of head. No evidence of shoring at exit
> site.
> 
> ---------
> 
> Thanks for any opinions!
> 
> 
> Marilyn, who is NOT a medical/forensic-type person. 
> 


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 11:41:49 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12308
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:41:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12297
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:41:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z957Z>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:41:08 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC132027192D7@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "French, Tim" <tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens-l'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: question for one-person sections
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:41:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF902F.987BBED4"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF902F.987BBED4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

I would like to get a consensus of analysts who work in labs where there are
one-person sections or disciplines (this will probably pertain more to those
labs that have been accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how
peer review is accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how
any discrepancies that might arise from a review are handled.
Please feel free to respond to this off-line or call if you would like.

 <<...>> 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF902F.987BBED4
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>question for one-person sections</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I would like to get a consensus of =
analysts who work in labs where there are one-person sections or =
disciplines (this will probably pertain more to those labs that have =
been accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how peer =
review is accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how =
any discrepancies that might arise from a review are =
handled.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Please feel free to respond to this =
off-line or call if you would like.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial" SIZE=3D2 COLOR=3D"#000000"> &lt;&lt;...&gt;&gt; =
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF902F.987BBED4--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 12:28:51 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13184
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:28:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13179
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:28:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 17 Mar 2000 17:28:46 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7JRW>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:27:32 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A3476FA@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'French, Tim'" <tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
        "'forens-l'"
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:27:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9036.13C3F4CA"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9036.13C3F4CA
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The way to do peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an
agreement with another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;  i.e.,
periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their
work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews
your work.  This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and
agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly
even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job
each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk
if uncorrected errors are found.  Obviously, the more frequent the visits
the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how far away
is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away from their
own work to make a review visit, etc.).  So long as visits are carried out
on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval between visits does
seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a biannual visit
would be acceptable).
 
ASCLD/LAB guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of
cases to be subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a
"representative number" be done.  The manual gives 20% or six cases
(whichever is less) per examiner per month as an example, but notes that the
number chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each examiner -
e.g., a new examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed while a very
experienced examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each month.  The
determination of what percentage to review is up to management to decide,
based on the lab's particular situation.  The adequacy of the standard for
review set by a lab is subjectively evaluated by the accreditation
inspection team, again taking into consideration the specific conditions
existing in each specific laboratory.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 11:42 AM
To: 'forens-l'
Subject: question for one-person sections



I would like to get a consensus of analysts who work in labs where there are
one-person sections or disciplines (this will probably pertain more to those
labs that have been accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how
peer review is accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how
any discrepancies that might arise from a review are handled.

Please feel free to respond to this off-line or call if you would like. 

<<...>> 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9036.13C3F4CA
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

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

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>The way to do 
peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an agreement with 
another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;&nbsp; i.e., periodically, 
your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their work, and their 
one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews your work.&nbsp; 
This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and agreeable to both 
parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly even annually - but the 
longer the period between visits, the bigger the job each visit, and the more 
cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk if uncorrected errors are 
found.&nbsp; Obviously, the more frequent the visits the better, but 
practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how far away is the other lab, 
how often can each examiner afford to get away from their own work to make a 
review visit, etc.).&nbsp; So long as visits are carried out on a regularly 
scheduled basis, the specific interval between visits does seem to be an issue 
(within reason of course - I doubt a biannual visit would be 
acceptable).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=330135816-17032000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>ASCLD/LAB guidelines 
do not call for any specific number or percentage of cases to be subjected to 
peer review, but rather specifies only that a "representative number" be 
done.&nbsp; The manual gives 20% or six cases (whichever is less) per examiner 
per month as an <STRONG><EM>example</EM></STRONG>, but notes that the number 
chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each examiner - e.g., a new 
examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed while a very experienced 
examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each month.&nbsp; The determination 
of what percentage to review is up to management to decide, based on the lab's 
particular situation.&nbsp; The adequacy of the standard for review set by a lab 
is subjectively evaluated by the accreditation inspection team, again taking 
into consideration the specific conditions existing in each specific 
laboratory.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> French, Tim 
  [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 
  2000 11:42 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> question for 
  one-person sections<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would like to get a consensus of analysts who 
  work in labs where there are one-person sections or disciplines (this will 
  probably pertain more to those labs that have been accredited). In particular, 
  I am interested to know how peer review is accomplished, what percentage is 
  technically reviewed and how any discrepancies that might arise from a review 
  are handled.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please feel free to respond to this off-line or 
  call if you would like.</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>&lt;&lt;...&gt;&gt; 
</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9036.13C3F4CA--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 12:39:43 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13462
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:39:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13457
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:39:35 -0500 (EST)
From: lgriggs@msegroup.com
Received: from pavilion (user-2ivfhpo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.199.56])
	by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA27433;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:39:16 -0500 (EST)
To: "scla@eGroups. com" <scla@eGroups.com>,
        "Insurancefraudinvestigations-Req-S526@Egroups. Com" <insurancefraudinvestigations-req-s526@eGroups.com>,
        "Iaai@Www. Solarspeed. Net" <iaai@www.solarspeed.net>,
        "Forensic-Science@Egroups. Com" <forensic-science@eGroups.com>,
        "Forensic-Locksmiths@Egroups. Com" <forensic-locksmiths@eGroups.com>,
        "Forensic Science" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>,
        "Adjusters" <adjusters@onelist.com>
Subject: Reminder of joint seminar April 29-30, 2000 Columbia, SC
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:37:37 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBIIJCBFDINCPLHMMOMEJMCIAA.lgriggs@msegroup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

A quick reminder: The SC Locksmith Association and the International
Association of Investigative Locksmiths are holding a training seminar
April 29-30, 2000 in Columbia, SC at the Travelodge located at I-20 
and Two Notch Rd.  This seminar is open to locksmiths, insurance SIU,
law enforcement, forensic examiners and other interested individuals.
The seminar begins at 0900 Saturday morning, ending at 5PM with 
a social gathering (and refreshments) at 7PM for networking and 
questions/discussions. The class will begin again Sunday morning at
0900 and end at 5PM. Class fee is $125 for the two days and includes
excellent handout materials.  We already have locksmiths, law enforcement,
fire investigators and insurance personnel signed up as well as military
police, crime lab personnel and other interested parties.  Attendees are
coming from CA, OH, VA, NC, SC, MN, IL, and other places.  Reservations
are required for the class and all checks must be in NO later than
April 10th. Class space is filling.  This seminar will cover depositions,
court testimony, crime scene investigation, forensic examinations, 
auto theft investigations, auto/theft/burn investigations, what the 
insurance investigator should be looking for, working with the forensic
locksmith and more.  For details and instructor information, Email or Fax
for further information.  Invoices will be faxed for organizations that
need them to support the fee. Motel reservation number is 803-736-1600.
Corporate rate includes free breakfast Sunday morning.  Lunch is not 
provided but is available nearby.
Lee Griggs, CFL
President, SCLA

Forensic lock analysis nationwide.
Tel: 803-432-9008  Fax: 803-424-0450
Website: http://www.msegroup.com 

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 12:46:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13608
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:46:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13603
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:46:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z96BY>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:45:30 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B6D@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:45:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9038.9632EC52"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9038.9632EC52
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

and what about "how any discrepancies that might arise from a review are
handled?"  How would that be arbitrated if both are staunch in their
opinions? ie.  identification vs. class characteristics
 
Jeff Sailus
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:28 PM
To: 'French, Tim'; 'forens-l'
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections


The way to do peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an
agreement with another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;  i.e.,
periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their
work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews
your work.  This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and
agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly
even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job
each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk
if uncorrected errors are found.  Obviously, the more frequent the visits
the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how far away
is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away from their
own work to make a review visit, etc.).  So long as visits are carried out
on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval between visits does
seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a biannual visit
would be acceptable).
 
ASCLD/LAB guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of
cases to be subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a
"representative number" be done.  The manual gives 20% or six cases
(whichever is less) per examiner per month as an example, but notes that the
number chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each examiner -
e.g., a new examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed while a very
experienced examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each month.  The
determination of what percentage to review is up to management to decide,
based on the lab's particular situation.  The adequacy of the standard for
review set by a lab is subjectively evaluated by the accreditation
inspection team, again taking into consideration the specific conditions
existing in each specific laboratory.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 11:42 AM
To: 'forens-l'
Subject: question for one-person sections



I would like to get a consensus of analysts who work in labs where there are
one-person sections or disciplines (this will probably pertain more to those
labs that have been accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how
peer review is accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how
any discrepancies that might arise from a review are handled.

Please feel free to respond to this off-line or call if you would like. 

<<...>> 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9038.9632EC52
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<TITLE>question for one-person sections</TITLE>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>and 
what about &quot;how any discrepancies that might arise from a review are 
handled?&quot;&nbsp; How would that be arbitrated if both are staunch in their 
opinions? ie.&nbsp; identification vs. class characteristics</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Jeff 
Sailus</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert Parsons 
    [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 2000 12:28 
    PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'French, Tim'; 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: question 
    for one-person sections<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>The way to do 
    peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an agreement with 
    another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;&nbsp; i.e., 
    periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their 
    work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews 
    your work.&nbsp; This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and 
    agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly 
    even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job 
    each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk 
    if uncorrected errors are found.&nbsp; Obviously, the more frequent the 
    visits the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how 
    far away is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away 
    from their own work to make a review visit, etc.).&nbsp; So long as visits 
    are carried out on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval 
    between visits does seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a 
    biannual visit would be acceptable).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
    class=330135816-17032000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>ASCLD/LAB 
    guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of cases to be 
    subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a 
    &quot;representative number&quot; be done.&nbsp; The manual gives 20% or six 
    cases (whichever is less) per examiner per month as an 
    <STRONG><EM>example</EM></STRONG>, but notes that the number chosen may vary 
    depending on the experience level of each examiner - e.g., a new examiner 
    may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed while a very experienced examiner 
    may have only a few cases reviewed each month.&nbsp; The determination of 
    what percentage to review is up to management to decide, based on the lab's 
    particular situation.&nbsp; The adequacy of the standard for review set by a 
    lab is subjectively evaluated by the accreditation inspection team, again 
    taking into consideration the specific conditions existing in each specific 
    laboratory.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
    size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
    Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
    College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
    <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
        <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir = ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
        size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> French, Tim 
        [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 
        17, 2000 11:42 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> question 
        for one-person sections<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
        <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would like to get a consensus of analysts 
        who work in labs where there are one-person sections or disciplines 
        (this will probably pertain more to those labs that have been 
        accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how peer review is 
        accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how any 
        discrepancies that might arise from a review are handled.</FONT></P>
        <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please feel free to respond to this off-line 
        or call if you would like.</FONT> </P>
        <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>&lt;&lt;...&gt;&gt; 
</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9038.9632EC52--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 13:21:52 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14184
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:21:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA14179
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:21:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 17 Mar 2000 18:21:47 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7JVM>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:20:33 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A3476FC@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:20:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF903D.7BA18150"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF903D.7BA18150
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The same way it would be handled if the examiner and reviewer were from the
same lab - management must have a process specified as SOP for resolving the
issue.  I imagine the only alternative when dealing with one-person sections
would be to enlist yet another examiner (one or more) from another lab to
serve as arbiter(s) and see if a consensus develops.  Then management then
must ultimately decide what remedial action, if any, is called for and act
accordingly.  All this should be delineated as part of the lab's written
quality assurance program.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Sailus, Jeff [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:46 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections


and what about "how any discrepancies that might arise from a review are
handled?"  How would that be arbitrated if both are staunch in their
opinions? ie.  identification vs. class characteristics
 
Jeff Sailus
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:28 PM
To: 'French, Tim'; 'forens-l'
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections


The way to do peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an
agreement with another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;  i.e.,
periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their
work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews
your work.  This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and
agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly
even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job
each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk
if uncorrected errors are found.  Obviously, the more frequent the visits
the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how far away
is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away from their
own work to make a review visit, etc.).  So long as visits are carried out
on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval between visits does
seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a biannual visit
would be acceptable).
 
ASCLD/LAB guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of
cases to be subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a
"representative number" be done.  The manual gives 20% or six cases
(whichever is less) per examiner per month as an example, but notes that the
number chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each examiner -
e.g., a new examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed while a very
experienced examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each month.  The
determination of what percentage to review is up to management to decide,
based on the lab's particular situation.  The adequacy of the standard for
review set by a lab is subjectively evaluated by the accreditation
inspection team, again taking into consideration the specific conditions
existing in each specific laboratory.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 11:42 AM
To: 'forens-l'
Subject: question for one-person sections



I would like to get a consensus of analysts who work in labs where there are
one-person sections or disciplines (this will probably pertain more to those
labs that have been accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how
peer review is accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how
any discrepancies that might arise from a review are handled.

Please feel free to respond to this off-line or call if you would like. 

<<...>> 


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF903D.7BA18150
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

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

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=080491318-17032000>The same way it 
would be handled if the examiner and reviewer were from the same lab - 
management must have a process specified as SOP for resolving the issue.&nbsp; I 
imagine the only alternative when dealing with one-person sections would be to 
enlist yet another examiner (one or more) from another lab to serve as 
arbiter(s) and see if a consensus develops.&nbsp; Then management then must 
ultimately decide what remedial action, if any, is called for and act 
accordingly.&nbsp; All this should be delineated as part of the lab's written 
quality assurance program.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Sailus, Jeff 
  [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 
  2000 12:46 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: 
  question for one-person sections<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>and 
  what about "how any discrepancies that might arise from a review are 
  handled?"&nbsp; How would that be arbitrated if both are staunch in their 
  opinions? ie.&nbsp; identification vs. class 
  characteristics</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Jeff 
  Sailus</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert Parsons 
    [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 2000 12:28 
    PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'French, Tim'; 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: question 
    for one-person sections<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>The way to do 
    peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an agreement with 
    another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;&nbsp; i.e., 
    periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their 
    work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews 
    your work.&nbsp; This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and 
    agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly 
    even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job 
    each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk 
    if uncorrected errors are found.&nbsp; Obviously, the more frequent the 
    visits the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how 
    far away is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away 
    from their own work to make a review visit, etc.).&nbsp; So long as visits 
    are carried out on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval 
    between visits does seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a 
    biannual visit would be acceptable).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
    class=330135816-17032000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>ASCLD/LAB 
    guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of cases to be 
    subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a "representative 
    number" be done.&nbsp; The manual gives 20% or six cases (whichever is less) 
    per examiner per month as an <STRONG><EM>example</EM></STRONG>, but notes 
    that the number chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each 
    examiner - e.g., a new examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed 
    while a very experienced examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each 
    month.&nbsp; The determination of what percentage to review is up to 
    management to decide, based on the lab's particular situation.&nbsp; The 
    adequacy of the standard for review set by a lab is subjectively evaluated 
    by the accreditation inspection team, again taking into consideration the 
    specific conditions existing in each specific 
laboratory.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
    size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
    Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
    College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
    <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
      <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
      size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> French, Tim 
      [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 
      2000 11:42 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> question for 
      one-person sections<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
      <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would like to get a consensus of analysts who 
      work in labs where there are one-person sections or disciplines (this will 
      probably pertain more to those labs that have been accredited). In 
      particular, I am interested to know how peer review is accomplished, what 
      percentage is technically reviewed and how any discrepancies that might 
      arise from a review are handled.</FONT></P>
      <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please feel free to respond to this off-line or 
      call if you would like.</FONT> </P>
      <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>&lt;&lt;...&gt;&gt; 
  </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF903D.7BA18150--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 14:04:26 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14800
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:04:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14795
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:04:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GV9Z96JG>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:03:48 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC132027192D9@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "French, Tim" <tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'Robert Parsons'" <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>,
        "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'"
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:04:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF9043.860A6EE4"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_000_01BF9043.860A6EE4
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9043.860A6EE4"


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9043.860A6EE4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

That is what we are trying to accomplish here - putting something into our
QA manual should this situation arise. Your reply is pretty much what our QA
committee came up with. I personally think that it is quite a burdensome
affair. 
1. I need to find a lab who is willing (and has the time) to review a
percentage of my casework. 
2. Then, should both disagree without any resolution, the lab management
will need to bring in a third party to arbitrate the situation since there
is no one here who would be qualified to interpret the results/opinions
3. and yet another party to perform a re-examination if needed. 
I don't see this as an avoidable situation, but wish there were an easier
way to solve the problem. 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9043.860A6EE4
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">



<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=413585218-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>That 
is what we are trying to accomplish here - putting something into our QA manual 
should this situation arise. Your reply is pretty much what our QA committee 
came up with. I personally think that it is quite a burdensome affair. 
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=413585218-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>1. I 
need to find a lab who is willing (and has the time) to review a percentage of 
my casework. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=413585218-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>2. 
Then, should both disagree without any resolution, the lab management will need 
to bring in </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=413585218-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff 
face=Arial size=2>a third party to arbitrate the situation since there is no one 
here who would be qualified to interpret the 
results/opinions</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=413585218-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>3. and 
yet another party to perform a re-examination if needed. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=413585218-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I 
don't see this as an avoidable situation, but wish there were an easier way to 
solve the problem. </FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9043.860A6EE4--

------_=_NextPart_000_01BF9043.860A6EE4
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Description: RE: question for one-person sections

Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A3476FC@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:20:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_003_01BF9043.860A6EE4"


------_=_NextPart_003_01BF9043.860A6EE4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The same way it would be handled if the examiner and reviewer were from the
same lab - management must have a process specified as SOP for resolving the
issue.  I imagine the only alternative when dealing with one-person sections
would be to enlist yet another examiner (one or more) from another lab to
serve as arbiter(s) and see if a consensus develops.  Then management then
must ultimately decide what remedial action, if any, is called for and act
accordingly.  All this should be delineated as part of the lab's written
quality assurance program.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Sailus, Jeff [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:46 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections


and what about "how any discrepancies that might arise from a review are
handled?"  How would that be arbitrated if both are staunch in their
opinions? ie.  identification vs. class characteristics
 
Jeff Sailus
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 12:28 PM
To: 'French, Tim'; 'forens-l'
Subject: RE: question for one-person sections


The way to do peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an
agreement with another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;  i.e.,
periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their
work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews
your work.  This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and
agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly
even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job
each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk
if uncorrected errors are found.  Obviously, the more frequent the visits
the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how far away
is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away from their
own work to make a review visit, etc.).  So long as visits are carried out
on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval between visits does
seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a biannual visit
would be acceptable).
 
ASCLD/LAB guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of
cases to be subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a
"representative number" be done.  The manual gives 20% or six cases
(whichever is less) per examiner per month as an example, but notes that the
number chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each examiner -
e.g., a new examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed while a very
experienced examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each month.  The
determination of what percentage to review is up to management to decide,
based on the lab's particular situation.  The adequacy of the standard for
review set by a lab is subjectively evaluated by the accreditation
inspection team, again taking into consideration the specific conditions
existing in each specific laboratory.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 11:42 AM
To: 'forens-l'
Subject: question for one-person sections



I would like to get a consensus of analysts who work in labs where there are
one-person sections or disciplines (this will probably pertain more to those
labs that have been accredited). In particular, I am interested to know how
peer review is accomplished, what percentage is technically reviewed and how
any discrepancies that might arise from a review are handled.

Please feel free to respond to this off-line or call if you would like. 

<<...>> 


------_=_NextPart_003_01BF9043.860A6EE4
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

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


<TITLE>question for one-person sections</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=080491318-17032000>The same way it 
would be handled if the examiner and reviewer were from the same lab - 
management must have a process specified as SOP for resolving the issue.&nbsp; I 
imagine the only alternative when dealing with one-person sections would be to 
enlist yet another examiner (one or more) from another lab to serve as 
arbiter(s) and see if a consensus develops.&nbsp; Then management then must 
ultimately decide what remedial action, if any, is called for and act 
accordingly.&nbsp; All this should be delineated as part of the lab's written 
quality assurance program.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Sailus, Jeff 
  [mailto:jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 
  2000 12:46 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: 
  question for one-person sections<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>and 
  what about "how any discrepancies that might arise from a review are 
  handled?"&nbsp; How would that be arbitrated if both are staunch in their 
  opinions? ie.&nbsp; identification vs. class 
  characteristics</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Jeff 
  Sailus</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=205194317-17032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert Parsons 
    [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 2000 12:28 
    PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'French, Tim'; 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: question 
    for one-person sections<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>The way to do 
    peer-review in the case of a one-person section is to make an agreement with 
    another lab in the same situation, round-robin style;&nbsp; i.e., 
    periodically, your one-person section visits their lab and reviews their 
    work, and their one-person section periodically visits your lab and reviews 
    your work.&nbsp; This can be done on whatever timetable is convenient and 
    agreeable to both parties - monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or possibly 
    even annually - but the longer the period between visits, the bigger the job 
    each visit, and the more cases (since the last visit) that might be at risk 
    if uncorrected errors are found.&nbsp; Obviously, the more frequent the 
    visits the better, but practicality will likely drive your scheduling (how 
    far away is the other lab, how often can each examiner afford to get away 
    from their own work to make a review visit, etc.).&nbsp; So long as visits 
    are carried out on a regularly scheduled basis, the specific interval 
    between visits does seem to be an issue (within reason of course - I doubt a 
    biannual visit would be acceptable).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
    class=330135816-17032000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=330135816-17032000>ASCLD/LAB 
    guidelines do not call for any specific number or percentage of cases to be 
    subjected to peer review, but rather specifies only that a "representative 
    number" be done.&nbsp; The manual gives 20% or six cases (whichever is less) 
    per examiner per month as an <STRONG><EM>example</EM></STRONG>, but notes 
    that the number chosen may vary depending on the experience level of each 
    examiner - e.g., a new examiner may have 100% of his/her cases reviewed 
    while a very experienced examiner may have only a few cases reviewed each 
    month.&nbsp; The determination of what percentage to review is up to 
    management to decide, based on the lab's particular situation.&nbsp; The 
    adequacy of the standard for review set by a lab is subjectively evaluated 
    by the accreditation inspection team, again taking into consideration the 
    specific conditions existing in each specific 
laboratory.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
    size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
    Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
    College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
    <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
      <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
      size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> French, Tim 
      [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 17, 
      2000 11:42 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens-l'<BR><B>Subject:</B> question for 
      one-person sections<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
      <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would like to get a consensus of analysts who 
      work in labs where there are one-person sections or disciplines (this will 
      probably pertain more to those labs that have been accredited). In 
      particular, I am interested to know how peer review is accomplished, what 
      percentage is technically reviewed and how any discrepancies that might 
      arise from a review are handled.</FONT></P>
      <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please feel free to respond to this off-line or 
      call if you would like.</FONT> </P>
      <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>&lt;&lt;...&gt;&gt; 
  </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_003_01BF9043.860A6EE4--

------_=_NextPart_000_01BF9043.860A6EE4--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 14:33:31 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15096
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:33:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.halifax.istar.net (lobster.istar.ca [137.186.128.2])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15091
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:33:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tn1-22.knt.istar.ca ([137.186.36.228] helo=fox.nstn.ca)
	by mail1.halifax.istar.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3)
	for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
	id 12W2Uu-0003rq-00; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:33:24 -0500
Message-ID: <38D28903.62BCEB5@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:35:31 -0400
From: "Peter W. Mullen" <pmullen@fox.nstn.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win98; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: "Toxic" mold
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------846F82809A9ED54C0AE32390"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


--------------846F82809A9ED54C0AE32390
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear fellow list members:

I was wondering if anyone, particularly the pathologists and
toxicologists, on this list would wish to comment on the current
controversy re. the health effects (including alleged pulmonary
hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants) of mold, especially Stachybotrys,
in indoor air?

This is really not too off-topic given the existing and potential
litigation relating to this subject fueled by unbalanced scare stories
as recently shown on "48 Hours"  (see
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,167069-412,00.shtml) and here in
Canada on "W5" (http://www.ctv.ca/new%5Fpr%5Fdec99%5Fmould.asp).

The recent CDC report (see summary at
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4909a3.htm) has caused
much consternation amongst the  "mold doomsayers" in the clinical and
industrial hygiene communities.

- Peter

Peter W. Mullen, Ph.D.
Kemic Bioresearch Laboratories
P.O. Box 878
Kentville
Nova Scotia,  B4N 4H8
Canada
Tel.: (902) 678-8195     Fax: (902) 678-2839    URL:  www.kemic.com





--------------846F82809A9ED54C0AE32390
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
Dear fellow list members:
<P>I was wondering if anyone, particularly the pathologists and toxicologists,
on this list would wish to comment on the current controversy re. the health
effects (including alleged pulmonary hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants)
of mold, especially <B><I>Stachybotrys</I></B>, in indoor air?
<P>This is really not too off-topic given the existing and potential litigation
relating to this subject fueled by unbalanced scare stories as recently
shown on "48 Hours"&nbsp; (see <A HREF="http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,167069-412,00.shtml">http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,167069-412,00.shtml</A>)
and here in Canada on "W5" (<A HREF="http://www.ctv.ca/new%5Fpr%5Fdec99%5Fmould.asp">http://www.ctv.ca/new%5Fpr%5Fdec99%5Fmould.asp</A>).
<P>The recent CDC report (see summary at <A HREF="http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4909a3.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4909a3.htm</A>)
has caused much consternation amongst the&nbsp; "mold doomsayers" in the
clinical and industrial hygiene communities.
<P>- Peter
<P>Peter W. Mullen, Ph.D.
<BR>Kemic Bioresearch Laboratories
<BR>P.O. Box 878
<BR>Kentville
<BR>Nova Scotia,&nbsp; B4N 4H8
<BR>Canada
<BR>Tel.: (902) 678-8195&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Fax: (902) 678-2839&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
URL:&nbsp; www.kemic.com
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

--------------846F82809A9ED54C0AE32390--


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 14:57:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15346
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:57:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15341
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:57:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AYKCS0>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:54:28 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB66A@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: "Toxic" mold
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:56:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Television "journists" having been known to broadcast junk science or
reports from junk scientists, I hereby resolve to further reduce the
credibility I attribute to such tabloid TV.  I further resolve not to argue
epidemiology with professional epidemiologists.  But especial thanks to
Peter for the CDC reference.

As long as it's Friday and we are on a junk TV topic, does anyone expect
that, with three years of story preparation time, the Ramseys will
spontaneously confess murder to BaBa WaWa this evening?
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter W. Mullen [mailto:pmullen@fox.nstn.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 1:36 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: "Toxic" mold


Dear fellow list members: 
I was wondering if anyone, particularly the pathologists and toxicologists,
on this list would wish to comment on the current controversy re. the health
effects (including alleged pulmonary hemorrhage/hemosiderosis in infants) of
mold, especially Stachybotrys, in indoor air? 
This is really not too off-topic given the existing and potential litigation
relating to this subject fueled by unbalanced scare stories as recently
shown on "48 Hours"  (see
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,167069-412,00.shtml) and here in
Canada on "W5" (http://www.ctv.ca/new%5Fpr%5Fdec99%5Fmould.asp). 
The recent CDC report (see summary at
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4909a3.htm) has caused much
consternation amongst the  "mold doomsayers" in the clinical and industrial
hygiene communities. 
- Peter 
Peter W. Mullen, Ph.D. 
Kemic Bioresearch Laboratories 
P.O. Box 878 
Kentville 
Nova Scotia,  B4N 4H8 
Canada 
Tel.: (902) 678-8195     Fax: (902) 678-2839    URL:  www.kemic.com 
  
  
  
  

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 18:32:01 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17148
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:32:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17143
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:31:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Flannery64@aol.com
Received: from Flannery64@aol.com
	by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.b8.3375fe6 (3948)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:31:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <b8.3375fe6.26041a46@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:31:18 EST
Subject: Diphenhydramine level
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 66
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi again, folks:

About a month ago, many of you were kind enough to give me help making sense 
of the autopsy of a gentleman who's the subject of a biography I'm 
researching.  Trying to put it all into perspective, I've found a couple odds 
and ends that I still need help with, so I'm hoping somebody out there will 
have the time to answer the following specifics:

1.  Is a Diphenhydramine blood level of 0.62 UG/ML exceedingly high or 
potentially dangerous?  

2.  Could that level -- 0.62 UG/ML -- be obtained by taking a single dose of 
4 Tylenol PMs (which contain Diphendramine) in an hour or so of the blood 
being drawn? Or to put it another way, about how much Diphenhydramine (say, 
Benadryl) in capsule form would be required to attain a 0.62 level in an hour 
or so?

Anne

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 20:09:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18135
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:09:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18130
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:09:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36])
	by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA06577;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:09:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000318011059.006c8ca0@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:10:59 -0500
To: Bill Oliver <billo@radix.net>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

>semi-quantitative description of where things are on the body.  The
>usefulness of measurements in these sorts of things are not really in
>doing 3D reconstruction; they good for sorting and ordering wounds
>(which is above the other and that sort of thing).

Billo;

Yes, but the Forensic panel who reviewed the Foster case, did so, mindful of
the controversy surrounding his death. They used photographs and Beyer's
drawings from the autopsy to help them and did not re-examine the actual body.

>1. The defect in the soft palate is not described as *exactly* midline.
>It may well be a little to the left.

Okay, that is helpful.

>2. The entrance to the skull is "just left" of the foramen
>magnum -- not "way left", not "two inches left." Just enough
>left to not hit it right on.

The only problem with this is that the pathologist drew this wound
[http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/AUTOPSY/a4.gif] on
the left hand side of the forward end of the FM, about an 3/4" from the
midline of the FM and skull. However, in reality it may have been forward of
that position and closer to midline (say, in the area of the letter "n" in
the word "Entrance" in the diagram [a4.gif]).

>3. The occipital defect is not *exactly* in the midline.  It is
>*near* the midline -- probably to the (you guessed it) left.

The forensic panel who reviewed the autopsy said, "Exit through comminuted
central occipital skull defect at posterior occiput."  Does this mean that
the actual exit was not necessarily at the *exact* midline but was centrally
located in the occipital bone? 

>In other words, you have a straight bullet path which is all just a
>teensy bit left of the midline.  The fact that the bullet path 
>went though the medulla shows how close to the midline it was.

Yes, exactly.

In the description, "Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect of
left cerebral hemisphere.", does the "medial aspect" refer to the
inside-facing side of the left c. hemisphere?

Thanks billo,

Marilyn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
M a r i l y n                             H a r r i s
mailto:ah247@freenet.carleton.ca          eFax number : (508) 437-5514     
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 17 20:56:10 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18458
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18453
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA08823;
	Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:55:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:55:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000318011059.006c8ca0@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000317202450.26898A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Marilyn Harris wrote:

> From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
> 
> >semi-quantitative description of where things are on the body.  The
> >usefulness of measurements in these sorts of things are not really in
> >doing 3D reconstruction; they good for sorting and ordering wounds
> >(which is above the other and that sort of thing).
> 
> Billo;
> 
> Yes, but the Forensic panel who reviewed the Foster case, did so, mindful of
> the controversy surrounding his death. They used photographs and Beyer's
> drawings from the autopsy to help them and did not re-examine the actual body.
> 


No "but" there -- there is no contradiction between your point and
my point.


> 
> >2. The entrance to the skull is "just left" of the foramen
> >magnum -- not "way left", not "two inches left." Just enough
> >left to not hit it right on.
> 
> The only problem with this is that the pathologist drew this wound
> [http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/AUTOPSY/a4.gif] on
> the left hand side of the forward end of the FM, about an 3/4" from the
> midline of the FM and skull. However, in reality it may have been forward of
> that position and closer to midline (say, in the area of the letter "n" in
> the word "Entrance" in the diagram [a4.gif]).


Once again, this is an *approximation.*  You want an artist, go
hire Picasso to do your autopsies.  You want a novelist, go
hire Stephen King.  The bottom line is that all of these things
are to give folk a general idea of where on the body these things 
are, not to provide micron-level accuracy for engineering purposes.

There is *no* contradiction in any of the verbiage you
have quoted here, and the fact that some drawn diagram
may be off a smidge to one side or the other is not surprising.
You are straining at gnats.  The only way to get the positional
accuracy you are thinking you have is to put CTs in every
ME office -- and at the moment there are *none* in operation
in the US (though Philly is trying to work something out with GE for
an old obsolete model).  And, by the way, even with a CT,
one study I did showed that estimation of bullet path through
anatomic landmarks on 3D CT reconstructions carried with 
it a nontrivial error rate -- something like 7 degrees (1). 

Until then, you get what you pay for.  Your problem remains
that you are trying to find meaning well beyond the level
of significance in the data.  Your apparent contradictions
are just noise.

> 
> >3. The occipital defect is not *exactly* in the midline.  It is
> >*near* the midline -- probably to the (you guessed it) left.
> 
> The forensic panel who reviewed the autopsy said, "Exit through comminuted
> central occipital skull defect at posterior occiput."  Does this mean that
> the actual exit was not necessarily at the *exact* midline but was centrally
> located in the occipital bone? 

It means farther to the back than to the side.  It's like saying
Oklahoma is in the South Central US.  That doesn't mean that Oklahoma City
is on the Mississippi at the Gulf Coast.  It means that, generally
speaking, it's pretty Central and kinda Southern.    


> 
> >In other words, you have a straight bullet path which is all just a
> >teensy bit left of the midline.  The fact that the bullet path 
> >went though the medulla shows how close to the midline it was.
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 
> In the description, "Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect of
> left cerebral hemisphere.", does the "medial aspect" refer to the
> inside-facing side of the left c. hemisphere?

It means closer to the middle than to the side.



billo


1) Aziz A Boxwala and William R. Oliver. Deforming post-mortem
radiograph images to reconstruct a bullet path through stock
CT data. Proceedings, Visualization in Biomedical Computing, 1994
(VBC '94). SPIE vol 2359:385-391,1994.





From forens-owner  Sat Mar 18 08:52:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24380
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:52:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from us2.usit.net (US2.USIT.NET [199.1.48.18])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA24375
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:52:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from usit.net (DIALUP85.TNNAS2.USIT.NET [216.80.153.85])
	by us2.usit.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA01739
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:53:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <38D389B7.AAC5729B@usit.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:50:47 -0600
From: David Yates <davidy@usit.net>
Reply-To: davidy@usit.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Gulf War Syndrome
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

     Could someone please elucidate the following news item in today's
paper?
    Seems Joye M. Carter, chief medical examiner for Harris County Texas
wrote in an autopsy report that after extensive evaluation of former
soldier Michael Ingram, "it seems probable to include the Gulf War
Syndrome as a contributory cause of death."  Her report listed heart
disease as the primary cause of death and alcoholism as a contributory
factor.  Is the latter perhaps what she means?  A bit of a stretch if
she does.
     I suppose now that every time we autopsy a Gulf War veteran, we'll
be involved in a damage suit over this issue.

                                Dave Yates


From forens-owner  Sat Mar 18 10:44:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25324
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:44:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25319
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:44:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36])
	by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA05430;
	Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:44:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000318154519.006bd148@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:45:19 -0500
To: Bill Oliver <billo@radix.net>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

>> In the description, "Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect of
>> left cerebral hemisphere.", does the "medial aspect" refer to the
>> inside-facing side of the left c. hemisphere?
>
>It means closer to the middle than to the side.

billo;

You mean closer to the middle of the left hemisphere than to the
hemisphere's left side? I had taken that phrase to mean that part of the
hemisphere facing towards the inside of the body. This would be a fairly
significant misunderstanding of mine and others with whom I am debating the
Foster case (all lay-persons, BTW).

Regards,

Marilyn



From forens-owner  Mon Mar 20 08:29:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17479
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:29:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17474
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:29:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA09782;
	Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:29:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:28:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Quick Pathology Question
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000318154519.006bd148@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000320082816.13995A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Marilyn Harris wrote:

> From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
> 
> >> In the description, "Penetrates brain stem (medulla) and medial aspect of
> >> left cerebral hemisphere.", does the "medial aspect" refer to the
> >> inside-facing side of the left c. hemisphere?
> >
> >It means closer to the middle than to the side.
> 
> billo;
> 
> You mean closer to the middle of the left hemisphere than to the
> hemisphere's left side? I had taken that phrase to mean that part of the
> hemisphere facing towards the inside of the body. This would be a fairly
> significant misunderstanding of mine and others with whom I am debating the
> Foster case (all lay-persons, BTW).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marilyn
> 
 

Closer to the midline of the body than to the left side of the body.


billo


From forens-owner  Mon Mar 20 09:47:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18600
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:47:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18572
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:47:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AYK61F>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:46:58 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB66B@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Gulf War Syndrome
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:46:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I just did a Medline search against the concepts "Persian Gulf Syndrome" and
((("pathology"[MeSH Major Topic] OR "pathology, clinical"[MeSH Major Topic])
OR
"pathology, surgical"[MeSH Major Topic]) OR "postmortem changes"[MeSH Major
Topic]) and got no hits.  Maybe she will publish her findings so the rest of
us will know what to look for.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: David Yates [mailto:davidy@usit.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 7:51 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Gulf War Syndrome


     Could someone please elucidate the following news item in today's
paper?
    Seems Joye M. Carter, chief medical examiner for Harris County Texas
wrote in an autopsy report that after extensive evaluation of former
soldier Michael Ingram, "it seems probable to include the Gulf War
Syndrome as a contributory cause of death."  Her report listed heart
disease as the primary cause of death and alcoholism as a contributory
factor.  Is the latter perhaps what she means?  A bit of a stretch if
she does.
     I suppose now that every time we autopsy a Gulf War veteran, we'll
be involved in a damage suit over this issue.

                                Dave Yates

From forens-owner  Mon Mar 20 11:33:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19969
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:33:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19964
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:32:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11691;
	Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:32:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:32:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Gulf War Syndrome
In-Reply-To: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB66B@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000320110144.27932A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


Actually, though, a search on "Gulf War Syndrome" will produce a
surfeit of papers.  It is one of the few cases in which all sizeable
studies of demonstrable disease have essentially uniformly found that
there is no such thing in terms of any physical toxicity.  All sizeable
studies which look at complaints rather than disease have uniformly
found that there is little or no relation to whether or not the troops
were actually deployed in the war (for instance, Danish,peacekeeping
troops deployed after the war have the same statistics in terms of
poorly defined complaints)(1).

There are no unexplained increased risks for postwar hospitalization
for military personnel who have remained on active duty.  Most
recently, a large study has demonstrated no increased risk for Reserve
and separated personnel.  In particular, proportional morbidity ratios
are the same as non-Gulf-War vets for: infectious disease, neoplasm,
endocrine disease, blood disease, skin conditions, diseases of the
nervous system, diseases of the musculskeltal system, and apropros to
the case in question, of the circulatory system (2).  In particular,
Gulf War Veterans did not suffer greater mortality in follow-up
due to cardiovascular disease (or any other disease for that
matter) (3)

The US has had similar post-war epidemics following *every* major
conflict since the Civil war (4).  Unless one is going to suggest
that biological and chemical weapons were also responsible for
these other war-related syndromes, there is much evidence that this
one, like the others, is primarily a social and psychological
phenomenon(5,6).


1)Ishoy T; Suadicani P; Guldager B; Appleyard M; Hein HO; Gyntelberg F
State of health after deployment in the Persian Gulf. The Danish 
Gulf War Study Dan Med Bull 1999 Nov;46(5):416-9

2) Gray GC; Smith TC; Kang HK; Knoke JD.
Are Gulf War veterans suffering war-related illnesses? Federal 
and civilian hospitalizations examined, June 1991 to December 1994.
Am J Epidemiol 2000 Jan 1;151(1):63-71.

3) Writer JV; DeFraites RF; Brundage JF
Comparative mortality among US military personnel in the Persian 
Gulf region and worldwide during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
JAMA 1996 Jan 10;275(2):118-21

4) Hyams KC; Wignall FS; Roswell R
War syndromes and their evaluation: from the U.S. Civil War 
to the Persian Gulf War. Ann Intern Med 1996 Sep 1;125(5):398-405

5) Dlugosz LJ, et al Risk factors for mental disorder hospitalization 
after the Persian Gulf War: U.S. Armed Forces, 
June 1, 1991-September 30, 1993.J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Dec;52(12):1267-78. 

6) Coker WJ; Bhatt BM; Blatchley NF; Graham JT
Clinical findings for the first 1000 Gulf war veterans 
in the Ministry of Defence's medical assessment programme
BMJ 1999 Jan 30;318(7179):290-4



On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Hause, David W LTC GLWACH wrote:

> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
> 
> I just did a Medline search against the concepts "Persian Gulf Syndrome" and
> ((("pathology"[MeSH Major Topic] OR "pathology, clinical"[MeSH Major Topic])
> OR
> "pathology, surgical"[MeSH Major Topic]) OR "postmortem changes"[MeSH Major
> Topic]) and got no hits.  Maybe she will publish her findings so the rest of
> us will know what to look for.
> Dave Hause
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Yates [mailto:davidy@usit.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 7:51 AM
> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Gulf War Syndrome
> 
> 
>      Could someone please elucidate the following news item in today's
> paper?
>     Seems Joye M. Carter, chief medical examiner for Harris County Texas
> wrote in an autopsy report that after extensive evaluation of former
> soldier Michael Ingram, "it seems probable to include the Gulf War
> Syndrome as a contributory cause of death."  Her report listed heart
> disease as the primary cause of death and alcoholism as a contributory
> factor.  Is the latter perhaps what she means?  A bit of a stretch if
> she does.
>      I suppose now that every time we autopsy a Gulf War veteran, we'll
> be involved in a damage suit over this issue.
> 
>                                 Dave Yates
> 


From forens-owner  Tue Mar 21 10:21:00 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02474
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfs.state.va.us (dgsgtfo.dgs.state.va.us [159.169.223.252])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02469
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:20:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DFS-PDC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <GF492P2Y>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:19:52 -0500
Message-ID: <A1AD99DCB380D2119C7400805FC71998823F38@DFS-PDC>
From: "Dolan, Julia" <JDolan@dfs.state.va.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Openings for Institute Training Positions
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:19:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

		For those of you on this list who are trying to get your
foot in the door, so to speak - The Virginia Institute is a training
facility for the forensic sciences and medicine.  It is different from an
academic situation in that its "students" are actually given the equivalent
of OJT.  My understanding is that when one "graduates" from the year-long
program, that he/she will be qualified to do actual forensic casework.  The
Institute is currently accepting application for slots in Tox, DNA and
Firearms/Toolmarks. 

		My knowledge of the program is limited, so please check out
the web site and get the info from the horses mouth.

		http://www.vifsm.org/hta2000.html
<http://www.vifsm.org/hta2000.html> 

		This is coming from me, not the VA DFS or Institute as an
FYI to list members.  If the details are wrong, it's on me, and does not
reflect upon the VA DFS or Institute.

		Julia Dolan


From forens-owner  Tue Mar 21 17:21:28 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07318
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:21:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07306
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:21:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 21 Mar 2000 22:21:24 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD73TC>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:19:58 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A347706@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Diphenhydramine level
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:19:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9383.9765B64C"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9383.9765B64C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

>1.  Is a Diphenhydramine blood level of 0.62 UG/ML exceedingly high or 
>potentially dangerous?  

According to my references, normal therapeutic levels are in the range of
0.049-0.112 ug/mL.  Your stated level is almost six times the upper limit,
but is not apparently toxic.  Toxic concentration level reportedly begins
around 5 ug/mL.

>2.  Could that level -- 0.62 UG/ML -- be obtained by taking a single dose
of 
>4 Tylenol PMs (which contain Diphenhydramine) in an hour or so of the blood

>being drawn? Or to put it another way, about how much Diphenhydramine (say,

>Benadryl) in capsule form would be required to attain a 0.62 level in an
hour or so?

That depends on the dosage per capsule (both Benedryl and Tylenol PM come in
both regular and "extra strength") and on the total body water of the
individual taking it (higher lean body mass = larger necessary dose).
Without knowing the person's physical parameters (height, weight, age,
gender) and the dosage per capsule, it is impossible to say.

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9383.9765B64C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Diphenhydramine level</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;1.&nbsp; Is a Diphenhydramine blood level of 0.62 =
UG/ML exceedingly high or </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;potentially dangerous?&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>According to my references, normal therapeutic levels =
are in the range of 0.049-0.112 ug/mL.&nbsp; Your stated level is =
almost six times the upper limit, but is not apparently toxic.&nbsp; =
Toxic concentration level reportedly begins around 5 ug/mL.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;2.&nbsp; Could that level -- 0.62 UG/ML -- be =
obtained by taking a single dose of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;4 Tylenol PMs (which contain Diphenhydramine) in =
an hour or so of the blood </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;being drawn? Or to put it another way, about how =
much Diphenhydramine (say, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Benadryl) in capsule form would be required to =
attain a 0.62 level in an hour or so?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>That depends on the dosage per capsule (both Benedryl =
and Tylenol PM come in both regular and &quot;extra strength&quot;) and =
on the total body water of the individual taking it (higher lean body =
mass =3D larger necessary dose).&nbsp; Without knowing the person's =
physical parameters (height, weight, age, gender) and the dosage per =
capsule, it is impossible to say.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9383.9765B64C--

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 21 19:23:46 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08403
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:23:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sr02.info.gov.hk (sr02.info.gov.hk [210.176.152.85])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08398
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:23:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from twwong.govtlab.gov.hk ([202.82.110.20])
	by sr02.info.gov.hk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20186
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:23:37 +0800 (HKT)
Message-ID: <002601bf9395$29641be0$040c130a@twwong.govtlab.gov.hk>
From: "T.W. Wong" <twwong@govtlab.gcn.gov.hk>
To: "forensic discussion group" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Facial comparison
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:25:12 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF93D8.24A3D940"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF93D8.24A3D940
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like to know if anybody know any fixed dimension on the face =
which is relatively independent of time (say 2-3 years)?

I get cases involving the comparison of a photo from a passport with a =
person.  Video superimposition was used now but in some cases =
inconclusive.

Can anybody give me some valuable suggestion?

David, HKGL

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF93D8.24A3D940
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dbig5 http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I would like to know if anybody know =
any fixed=20
dimension on the face which is relatively independent of time (say 2-3=20
years)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I get cases involving the comparison =
of a photo=20
from a passport with a person.&nbsp; Video superimposition was used now =
but in=20
some cases inconclusive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Can anybody give me some valuable=20
suggestion?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>David, =
HKGL</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF93D8.24A3D940--


From forens-owner  Tue Mar 21 22:52:33 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10268
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:52:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scn4.scn.org (scn4.scn.org [209.63.95.149])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10263
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:52:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scn.org (bi492@scn [209.63.95.146])
	by scn4.scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA02409
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bi492@localhost)
	by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA10907;
	Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200003220353.TAA10907@scn.org>
From: bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Testing
Reply-To: bi492@scn.org
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Have had trouble lately getting and sending emai.l.  Just wanted to see if this
gets thrgouhg  (trouble spelling, too).

Chesterene

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

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 21 23:27:32 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10605
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:27:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dnai.com (dnai.com [207.181.194.98])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10600
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:27:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23])
	by dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA83167;
	Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000321202842.00b08a30@mail.dnai.com>
X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:31:31 -0800
To: "T.W. Wong" <twwong@govtlab.gcn.gov.hk>,
        "forensic discussion group" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: Kim Kruglick <kim@kruglaw.com>
Subject: Re: Facial comparison
In-Reply-To: <002601bf9395$29641be0$040c130a@twwong.govtlab.gov.hk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_90580544==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--=====================_90580544==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:25 AM 03/22/2000 +0800, T.W. Wong wrote:
>I would like to know if anybody know any fixed dimension on the face which is relatively independent of time (say 2-3 years)?
>  
>I get cases involving the comparison of a photo from a passport with a person.  Video superimposition was used now but in some cases inconclusive.
>  
>Can anybody give me some valuable suggestion?
>  
>David, HKGL

David,
         Don't know if you will find the specific answer to your question, but I've posted a whole page of Facial Recognition links. See,  http://www.kruglaw.com/f_facial.htm.

Best regards,
Kim Kruglick
mailto:kim@kruglaw.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Forensic Resource and
Criminal Law Search Site
http://www.kruglaw.com 
--=====================_90580544==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 08:25 AM 03/22/2000 +0800, T.W. Wong wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2 color="#000000">I would like to
know if anybody know any fixed dimension on the face which is relatively
independent of time (say 2-3 years)?</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font size=2 color="#000000">I get cases involving the comparison of a
photo from a passport with a person.&nbsp; Video superimposition was used
now but in some cases inconclusive.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font size=2 color="#000000">Can anybody give me some valuable
suggestion?</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font size=2 color="#000000">David, HKGL</font></blockquote><br>
David,<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>Don't know
if you will find the specific answer to your question, but I've posted a
whole page of Facial Recognition links. See,&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.kruglaw.com/f_facial.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.kruglaw.com/f_facial.htm</a>.<br>
<br>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Kim Kruglick</div>
<div><a href="mailto:kim@kruglaw.com" EUDORA=AUTOURL>mailto:kim@kruglaw.com</a></div>
<div>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</div>
<div>Forensic Resource and</div>
<div>Criminal Law Search Site</div>
<a href="http://www.kruglaw.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.kruglaw.com</a>
</html>

--=====================_90580544==_.ALT--


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 00:39:29 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11200
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA11195
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:39:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 7696 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 05:39:23 -0000
Received: from access-5-21.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.139)
  by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 05:39:23 -0000
Message-ID: <033601bf93c1$04704120$567237c0@dwhause>
From: "Dave Hause" <dwhause@rollanet.org>
To: <bi492@scn.org>, <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <200003220353.TAA10907@scn.org>
Subject: Re: Testing
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:39:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Naw.  Just ain't hardly nobody been sayin' much.
Dave Hause
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chesterene Cwiklik" <bi492@scn.org>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 9:53 PM
Subject: Testing


Have had trouble lately getting and sending emai.l.  Just wanted to see if
this
gets thrgouhg  (trouble spelling, too).

Chesterene

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



From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 01:21:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11677
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:21:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from server2.rad.net.id (server2.rad.net.id [202.154.1.5])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11672
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from forenserver (dyn3200a.dialin.rad.net.id [202.154.44.200])
	by server2.rad.net.id (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA06636
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:20:54 +0700 (WIB)
Message-ID: <000d01bf93c7$56306390$c82c9aca@forenserver>
From: "Forensik" <forensik@rad.net.id>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: substitute for formaldehyd in embalming
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:24:52 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF9402.017C1DE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF9402.017C1DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear list members,

Can I have info on substitute of formaldehyde in embalming the human =
remains.

Thanks.

Wibisana

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF9402.017C1DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear list members,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Can I have info on substitute of =
formaldehyde in=20
embalming the human remains.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Wibisana</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF9402.017C1DE0--


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 02:16:46 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12271
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:16:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12259
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:16:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roo (h207-21-136-223.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.223])
	by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA00226;
	Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.1.20000321230121.00c2c160@pop.ncal.verio.com>
X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:16:50 -0800
To: Franco Taroni <Franco.Taroni@inst.hospvd.ch>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Charles H. Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: forwarded message
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000316165857.00833600@hola.hospvd.ch>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000316104359.24345B-100000@brooks.statgen.n csu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

At 04:58 PM 3/16/00 +0100, Franco Taroni wrote:

>>"Could have come from the suspect" used in forensic context is a 
>>transposed conditional as it is expressing a view about the probability of 
>>the hypothesis."

Mark Webster replied
>>No it isn't. It is a vague expression, unhelpful to the Court, but 
>>certainly not a transposed conditional.
which I thought reasonable.

But Franco is a purist. He presses the issue (to my consternation):
>Are you sure ?
>Does this conclusion expresses a view about the probability of the
>hypothesis ?
>
>Is the role of the expert to express a view about the probability of the
>hypothesis ? I do not think so.
>
>'Could have come ...' is a vague expression ... yes ... but you can
>quantify it with a subjective probability, therefore you express a view
>about the probability of the hypothesis.
>
>Am I wrong ?

I don't know. If "could have" is taken to mean greater than some specific
positive probability, such as meaning "There is at least a 1% chance that
stain came from the suspect," then if for example the matching odds are
L=1,000,000, I can solve the inequality 

posterior = 1% < L / (L + (1-p)/p) for the p=prior probability, 

to get an inequality of the form p> ..., and that would be wrong in the way
Franco says. At least in principle. But if the conclusion is merely that
p>1/10000000000000000000000000, how wrong is it? Even the alibi is a really
good one, such as evidence that the subject wasn't born yet, does that
really mean p<1/10000000000000000000000000?

Charles
forensic mathematics: www.ccnet.com/~brenner


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 05:36:47 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA13766
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:36:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (root@spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.24])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA13754
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:36:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5])
	by spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27150;
	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:36:38 GMT
Received: from Bruton-Day-PC (bruton-day-pc.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.40])
	by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA07080;
	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:36:31 GMT
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000322103629.00754ad8@pop.brad.ac.uk>
X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:36:29 +0000
To: "T.W. Wong" <twwong@govtlab.gcn.gov.hk>,
        "forensic discussion group" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
From: Geoff Bruton <g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Facial comparison
In-Reply-To: <002601bf9395$29641be0$040c130a@twwong.govtlab.gov.hk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



Hi David,


I don't know how much of the head is visible with regards your request,
but I believe that a person's ears are very useful for identification.  I
understand that they are considered to be unique, like fingerprints, and
can aid in the identification of persons whose faces are no longer
recognisable.


I'm afraid I don't know much more about it, but if this is applicable to
your case, I can dig around to try and find you a reference.


Hope this helps, and warm regards to the list.


Best Wishes,

-G.


At 08:25 AM 3/22/00 +0800, T.W. Wong wrote: 

>>>>

<excerpt><smaller>I would like to know if anybody know any fixed
dimension on the face which is relatively independent of time (say 2-3
years)?

</smaller>  

<smaller>I get cases involving the comparison of a photo from a passport
with a person.  Video superimposition was used now but in some cases
inconclusive.

</smaller>  

<smaller>Can anybody give me some valuable suggestion?

</smaller>  

<smaller>David, HKGL

</smaller>

</excerpt><<<<<<<<



Geoff Bruton

Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences

University of Bradford

United Kingdom

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 07:41:36 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14839
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:41:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA14834
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:41:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Gungozboom@aol.com
Received: from Gungozboom@aol.com
	by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.4e.32082d5 (2701)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:40:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4e.32082d5.260a1957@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:40:55 EST
Subject: Printer for HP GC/MS
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Does anyone out there have any experience with getting a continuous feed printer for their mass spec from HP.  We are purchasing a new mass spec, and the only printer that they would consider is an Epson, and it will need a special macro written to run it.  I am posting this for our chemistry section and do not have all the particulars at this time, just asking for some input to pass on.  Thanks.

Allen Greenspan
Broward County Sheriff's Office
Fort Lauderdale Fl.

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 08:24:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15481
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:24:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15476
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:24:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com
Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com
	by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.78.2f4f8b3 (9666);
	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:23:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <78.2f4f8b3.260a2334@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:23:00 EST
Subject: Re: Testing
To: bi492@scn.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

In a message dated 3/21/00 11:05:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, bi492@scn.org 
writes:

<< Have had trouble lately getting and sending emai.l.  Just wanted to see if 
this
 gets thrgouhg  (trouble spelling, too).
 
 Chesterene
 
 - >>
Chesterene
It got threw.
Fred Whitehurst

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 10:49:26 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17025
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:49:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17020
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:49:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HJ6P4HS7>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:49:21 -0600
Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E5D9C@UMKC-MAIL02>
From: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
To: "'Geoff Bruton'" <g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk>,
        "T.W. Wong"
	 <twwong@govtlab.gcn.gov.hk>,
        forensic discussion group
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Facial comparison
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:49:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

On the subject of ear identification, ear uniqueness, and acceptance of earprint
identification, see the only appellate court case in the US which is State v.
David Wayne Kunze, 97 Wash. App. 832, 988 P.2d 977 (1999), and several entries
on my website: http://www.forensic-evidence.com
<http://www.forensic-evidence.com> 
A few additional entries on the subject, dealing with current and ongoing
research, are waiting to be posted on the same website within the next few
weeks.
Andre A. Moenssens

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Bruton [mailto:g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:36 AM
To: T.W. Wong; forensic discussion group
Subject: Re: Facial comparison





Hi David, 


I don't know how much of the head is visible with regards your request, but I
believe that a person's ears are very useful for identification. I understand
that they are considered to be unique, like fingerprints, and can aid in the
identification of persons whose faces are no longer recognisable. 


I'm afraid I don't know much more about it, but if this is applicable to your
case, I can dig around to try and find you a reference. 


Hope this helps, and warm regards to the list. 


Best Wishes, 

-G. 


At 08:25 AM 3/22/00 +0800, T.W. Wong wrote: 

>>>> 

I would like to know if anybody know any fixed dimension on the face which is
relatively independent of time (say 2-3 years)? 



I get cases involving the comparison of a photo from a passport with a person.
Video superimposition was used now but in some cases inconclusive. 



Can anybody give me some valuable suggestion? 



David, HKGL 


<<<< 



Geoff Bruton 

Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences 

University of Bradford 

United Kingdom


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 12:05:43 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17842
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:05:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17837
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:05:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 17:05:39 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7QDH>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:04:11 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A347708@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'Gungozboom@aol.com'" <Gungozboom@aol.com>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Printer for HP GC/MS
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:04:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9420.A46CDB48"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9420.A46CDB48
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

According to HP, the following HP DeskJet printers will operate in
continuous-feed ("banner") mode, and will load up to 50 sheets of z-fold
paper:

HP DeskJet 670C or 672C printer 
HP DeskJet 680C or 682C printer 
HP DeskJet 690C, 692C, 693C, 694C, 695C, or 697C printer 
HP DeskJet 710C, 712C, 720C, or 722C printer 
HP DeskJet 880C, 882C, 895Cse, or 895Cxi printer 
HP DeskJet 1000C or 1120C printer 

http://www.hp.com/cgi-bin/cposupport/cspt/cds/dlvr.pl?lid=general&fid=bpd050
25&pid=


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Gungozboom@aol.com [mailto:Gungozboom@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:41 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Printer for HP GC/MS


Does anyone out there have any experience with getting a continuous feed
printer for their mass spec from HP.  We are purchasing a new mass spec, and
the only printer that they would consider is an Epson, and it will need a
special macro written to run it.  I am posting this for our chemistry
section and do not have all the particulars at this time, just asking for
some input to pass on.  Thanks.

Allen Greenspan
Broward County Sheriff's Office
Fort Lauderdale Fl.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9420.A46CDB48
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Printer for HP GC/MS</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>According to HP, the following HP DeskJet printers =
will operate in continuous-feed (&quot;banner&quot;) mode, and will =
load up to 50 sheets of z-fold paper:</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>HP DeskJet 670C or 672C printer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>HP DeskJet 680C or 682C printer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>HP DeskJet 690C, 692C, 693C, 694C, 695C, or 697C =
printer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>HP DeskJet 710C, 712C, 720C, or 722C printer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>HP DeskJet 880C, 882C, 895Cse, or 895Cxi printer =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>HP DeskJet 1000C or 1120C printer </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
HREF=3D"http://www.hp.com/cgi-bin/cposupport/cspt/cds/dlvr.pl?lid=3Dgene=
ral&fid=3Dbpd05025&pid=3D" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.hp.com/cgi-bin/cposupport/cspt/cds/dlvr.pl?=
lid=3Dgeneral&fid=3Dbpd05025&pid=3D</A></FONT>
</P>
<BR>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Gungozboom@aol.com [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:Gungozboom@aol.com">mailto:Gungozboom@aol.com</A>]</FONT>=

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:41 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Printer for HP GC/MS</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Does anyone out there have any experience with =
getting a continuous feed printer for their mass spec from HP.&nbsp; We =
are purchasing a new mass spec, and the only printer that they would =
consider is an Epson, and it will need a special macro written to run =
it.&nbsp; I am posting this for our chemistry section and do not have =
all the particulars at this time, just asking for some input to pass =
on.&nbsp; Thanks.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Allen Greenspan</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Broward County Sheriff's Office</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Fort Lauderdale Fl.</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9420.A46CDB48--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 12:32:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18327
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:32:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from vcaf-ex1.ucsf.edu (vcaf-ex1.ucsf.edu [128.218.201.52])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18322
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:31:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: by vcaf-ex1.ucsf.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <H3KR137P>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:32:35 -0800
Message-ID: <939CD285107BD211A94100A0C9E923FC01252BBF@vcaf-ex1.ucsf.edu>
From: "Matthews, Christopher" <CMatthews@hr.UCSF.EDU>
To: "'Geoff Bruton'" <g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk>,
        "T.W. Wong"
	 <twwong@govtlab.gcn.gov.hk>,
        forensic discussion group
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Facial comparison
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:32:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Have you done a comparison of previous cranial x-rays of the individual(s) in question with the current remains?  With the multiple unique indicators in skeletal structures, and the assistance of a forensic anthropologist, this may help to confirm/rule-out identification to which superimposition may not lend itself.
 
Some individuals at this link may be of assistance: http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/ABFA/#Reached <http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/ABFA/#Reached> 
 
Also, the staff at the Forensic Anthropology Center of the University of Tenn., Knoxville may also be helpful : http://web.utk.edu/~anthrop/index.htm <http://web.utk.edu/~anthrop/index.htm> 
 
Christopher Matthews
Univ. of California, San Francisco

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Bruton [mailto:g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 2:36 AM
To: T.W. Wong; forensic discussion group
Subject: Re: Facial comparison





Hi David, 


I don't know how much of the head is visible with regards your request, but I believe that a person's ears are very useful for identification. I understand that they are considered to be unique, like fingerprints, and can aid in the identification of persons whose faces are no longer recognisable. 


I'm afraid I don't know much more about it, but if this is applicable to your case, I can dig around to try and find you a reference. 


Hope this helps, and warm regards to the list. 


Best Wishes, 

-G. 


At 08:25 AM 3/22/00 +0800, T.W. Wong wrote: 

>>>> 

I would like to know if anybody know any fixed dimension on the face which is relatively independent of time (say 2-3 years)? 



I get cases involving the comparison of a photo from a passport with a person. Video superimposition was used now but in some cases inconclusive. 



Can anybody give me some valuable suggestion? 



David, HKGL 


<<<< 



Geoff Bruton 

Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences 

University of Bradford 

United Kingdom


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 12:54:42 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18686
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:54:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18681
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:54:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HJ6P4KVM>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:54:38 -0600
Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E5DA3@UMKC-MAIL02>
From: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: E-mail address Poland?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:54:36 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Does anyone happen to have an e-mail address for Dr. Jozef Wojcikiewicz of the
Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow, Poland? 
Answer off-list to:
MoenssensA@umkc.edu

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 13:35:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19133
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:35:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from t21mta01-app.talk21.com (mta01.talk21.com [62.172.192.171])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19128
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:35:48 -0500 (EST)
From: tiernan@talk21.com
Received: from n7x5g2 ([213.1.62.16]) by t21mta01-app.talk21.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP
          id <20000322183927.LAID29047.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@n7x5g2>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 18:39:27 +0000
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 18:39:47 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Printer for HP GC/MS
In-reply-to: <4e.32082d5.260a1957@aol.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Message-Id: <20000322183927.LAID29047.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@n7x5g2>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


I've experienced some problems with newer HP Deskjet printers 
recently.  So much so that the manufacturers of the instrument in 
question replaced it the Epson equivalent and I haven't had any 
problems since.  I've now been told the manufacturer now 
packages only Epson printers with its instruments.

regards
Tiernan

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 16:15:09 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21033
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:15:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtu.ru (ns.mtu.ru [195.34.32.10])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21028
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:15:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avt171483 (ppp97-3.dialup.mtu-net.ru [212.188.97.3])
	by mtu.ru (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 2246A785A5; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:15:01 +0300 (MSK)
	(envelope-from forens-sa@mtu-net.ru)
From: "Andrew Saenko" <forens-sa@mtu-net.ru>
To: "Forensik" <forensik@rad.net.id>
Cc: "Forensic science" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: substitute for formaldehyd in embalming
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:13:16 -0000
Message-ID: <NDBBIIJPOOGAIGFLIOMEEEMBCAAA.forens-sa@mtu-net.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01BF945C.95C549E0"
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 V4.72.3110.3
In-Reply-To: <000d01bf93c7$56306390$c82c9aca@forenserver>
X-Recipient: forensik@rad.net.id
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BF945C.95C549E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Substitute of Formalinum it is glutar aldehyde.

Also in Russia apply the following prescriptions.
======
Glycerinum - 1700 cubic centimetre
Water - 1000 ml
Thymolum - 5 gram
======
Thymolum - 5 gr
Alcohol - 45.0
Glycerinum - 2160.0
Water - 1080.0
======
There is a fluid COMPLUCAD, but the structure it is unknown.

__________________________________________
Andrew V. Saenko
Forensic Pathologist
Moscow Forensic Bureau
Moscow, Russia
mailto:forens-sa@mtu-net.ru
eFax: (520)441-2685

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On
Behalf Of Forensik
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:25 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: substitute for formaldehyd in embalming


Dear list members,

Can I have info on substitute of formaldehyde in embalming the human
remains.

Thanks.

Wibisana


------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BF945C.95C549E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Substitute of Formalinum it is glutar =
aldehyde.<BR><BR>Also in=20
Russia apply the following =
prescriptions.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>Glycerinum - 1700 cubic=20
centimetre<BR>Water - 1000 ml<BR>Thymolum - 5 =
gram<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>Thymolum - 5=20
gr<BR>Alcohol - 45.0<BR>Glycerinum - 2160.0<BR>Water - =
1080.0<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>There=20
is a fluid COMPLUCAD, but the structure it is=20
unknown.<BR><BR>__________________________________________<BR>Andrew V.=20
Saenko<BR>Forensic Pathologist<BR>Moscow Forensic Bureau<BR>Moscow, =
Russia<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:forens-sa@mtu-net.ru">mailto:forens-sa@mtu-net.ru</A><BR>e=
Fax:=20
(520)441-2685<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:=20
owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [<A=20
href=3D"mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu">mailto:owner-forens@statgen=
.ncsu.edu</A>]On=20
Behalf Of Forensik<BR>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:25 AM<BR>To:=20
forens@statgen.ncsu.edu<BR>Subject: substitute for formaldehyd in=20
embalming<BR><BR><BR>Dear list members,<BR><BR>Can I have info on =
substitute of=20
formaldehyde in embalming the human=20
remains.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR><BR>Wibisana</FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BF945C.95C549E0--


From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 17:22:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22140
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22135
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:22:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 22:22:15 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7Q84>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:20:46 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A34770B@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'tiernan@talk21.com'" <tiernan@talk21.com>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Printer for HP GC/MS
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:20:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF944C.DE4F1214"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF944C.DE4F1214
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

Interesting.  We use HP laser printers exclusively with our instruments
(GC/MS, UV, etc.), but use inkjets with some of our office computers.  We've
never had problems with any of them, except for the LaserJet 5L - for some
reason that printer would not operate properly with our JusticeTrax Forensic
LIMS system - when we swapped it out for an older LaserJet III, the problems
went away.  The 5L works fine with ordinary office software though.
Overall, we've been extremely happy with HP printers.  They run forever with
few problems and little or no maintenance.  Was the problem with your
particular printer/instrument configuration ever identified, or was it one
of those inexplicable driver incompatibilities?  If the latter, updating to
newer drivers sometimes solves the problem (it didn't solve our
JTrax/LaserJet 5L problem, though; only replacing the printer did that).

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


-----Original Message-----
From: tiernan@talk21.com [mailto:tiernan@talk21.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 1:40 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Printer for HP GC/MS



I've experienced some problems with newer HP Deskjet printers 
recently.  So much so that the manufacturers of the instrument in 
question replaced it the Epson equivalent and I haven't had any 
problems since.  I've now been told the manufacturer now 
packages only Epson printers with its instruments.

regards
Tiernan

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF944C.DE4F1214
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Printer for HP GC/MS</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Interesting.&nbsp; We use HP laser printers =
exclusively with our instruments (GC/MS, UV, etc.), but use inkjets =
with some of our office computers.&nbsp; We've never had problems with =
any of them, except for the LaserJet 5L - for some reason that printer =
would not operate properly with our JusticeTrax Forensic LIMS system - =
when we swapped it out for an older LaserJet III, the problems went =
away.&nbsp; The 5L works fine with ordinary office software =
though.&nbsp; Overall, we've been extremely happy with HP =
printers.&nbsp; They run forever with few problems and little or no =
maintenance.&nbsp; Was the problem with your particular =
printer/instrument configuration ever identified, or was it one of =
those inexplicable driver incompatibilities?&nbsp; If the latter, =
updating to newer drivers sometimes solves the problem (it didn't solve =
our JTrax/LaserJet 5L problem, though; only replacing the printer did =
that).</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: tiernan@talk21.com [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:tiernan@talk21.com">mailto:tiernan@talk21.com</A>]</FONT>=

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 1:40 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: Printer for HP GC/MS</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I've experienced some problems with newer HP Deskjet =
printers </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>recently.&nbsp; So much so that the manufacturers of =
the instrument in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>question replaced it the Epson equivalent and I =
haven't had any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>problems since.&nbsp; I've now been told the =
manufacturer now </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>packages only Epson printers with its =
instruments.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>regards</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tiernan</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF944C.DE4F1214--

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 22 23:46:02 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24838
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:46:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scn4.scn.org (scn4.scn.org [209.63.95.149])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24826
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scn.org (bi492@scn [209.63.95.146])
	by scn4.scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA15049
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bi492@localhost)
	by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA26234;
	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200003230446.UAA26234@scn.org>
From: bi492@scn.org (Chesterene Cwiklik)
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Testing
Reply-To: bi492@scn.org
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Thanks to everyone who returned my test message.  I guess it's working noew.

Chesterene

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

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 02:24:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26331
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:24:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from t21mta01-app.talk21.com (mta01.talk21.com [62.172.192.171])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26326
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:24:46 -0500 (EST)
From: tiernan@talk21.com
Received: from n7x5g2 ([213.1.28.111]) by t21mta01-app.talk21.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP
          id <20000323072826.OKOZ29047.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@n7x5g2>;
          Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:28:26 +0000
To: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:28:48 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: RE: Printer for HP GC/MS
In-reply-to: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A34770B@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Message-Id: <20000323072826.OKOZ29047.t21mta01-app.talk21.com@n7x5g2>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi Bob,

We had the Deskjet linked to our Perkin Elmer FTIR Microscope 
and it just kept giving us these errors connected to the Spooling 
process (at least that's what the manual said).  PE tried a number 
of things and eventually just changed the printer entirely.  Whether 
the conflict was particular to PE software we'll never know but 
since the changeover we've had no problems and the software runs 
considerably more smoothly.  

Regards 
Tiernan



From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 02:39:58 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26657
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:39:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from muzak.iinet.net.au (muzak.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.237])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26652
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:39:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iinet.net.au (reggae-16-209.nv.iinet.net.au [203.59.76.209])
	by muzak.iinet.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA31103;
	Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:39:09 +0800
Message-ID: <38D9C9E2.71BCA91E@iinet.net.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:38:10 +0800
From: Robert Weddell <rweddell@iinet.net.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
CC: "'Geoff Bruton'" <g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk>,
        "T.W. Wong" <twwong@govtlab.gcn.gov.hk>,
        forensic discussion group <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Facial comparison
References: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E5D9C@UMKC-MAIL02>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi,

In relation to work being done on 'Ear Prints' contact should be made with the
National Training Centre for Scientific Support to Crime Investigation, e-mail
admin@ntcssci.demon.co.uk, who will be able to assist.
The Centre is working is close collaberation with the Royal Dutch Police Training
Facility in the area of researching 'Ear prints' and their use for evidential
purposes.
Bob Weddell
Forensic Specialist (Physical Evidence)
Perth, Western Australia

"Moenssens, Andre" wrote:

> On the subject of ear identification, ear uniqueness, and acceptance of earprint
> identification, see the only appellate court case in the US which is State v.
> David Wayne Kunze, 97 Wash. App. 832, 988 P.2d 977 (1999), and several entries
> on my website: http://www.forensic-evidence.com
> <http://www.forensic-evidence.com>
> A few additional entries on the subject, dealing with current and ongoing
> research, are waiting to be posted on the same website within the next few
> weeks.
> Andre A. Moenssens
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Bruton [mailto:g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:36 AM
> To: T.W. Wong; forensic discussion group
> Subject: Re: Facial comparison
>
> Hi David,
>
> I don't know how much of the head is visible with regards your request, but I
> believe that a person's ears are very useful for identification. I understand
> that they are considered to be unique, like fingerprints, and can aid in the
> identification of persons whose faces are no longer recognisable.
>
> I'm afraid I don't know much more about it, but if this is applicable to your
> case, I can dig around to try and find you a reference.
>
> Hope this helps, and warm regards to the list.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> -G.
>
> At 08:25 AM 3/22/00 +0800, T.W. Wong wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> I would like to know if anybody know any fixed dimension on the face which is
> relatively independent of time (say 2-3 years)?
>
> I get cases involving the comparison of a photo from a passport with a person.
> Video superimposition was used now but in some cases inconclusive.
>
> Can anybody give me some valuable suggestion?
>
> David, HKGL
>
> <<<<
>
> Geoff Bruton
>
> Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences
>
> University of Bradford
>
> United Kingdom


From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 07:49:48 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00687
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00682
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:49:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Sidg@aol.com
Received: from Sidg@aol.com
	by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.ea.337373f (3896)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:49:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <ea.337373f.260b6cbe@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:49:02 EST
Subject: Computer Help Needed
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi All,
It's rare for me to have to ask a question about computers, but this one has 
me stumped. Any help you all can give would really be appreciated. Any input? 
Thanks, 
Barbara Jean
Injustice is the greatest sin 
that any court can visit upon 
the people of it's land.
(703) 352-8140

Here is this guy's original e-mail to me:
Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been tried and convicted of Computer Trespass (O.C.G.A 16-9-93)
for allegedly deleting files on a computer at my place of business.
During trial the prosecution present printouts of directories that the
owner said the files should have been. The printouts were made with
Norton Disk Editor. If a file had been deleted, a period replaced the
first letter of the file name. A date accompanied each entry. At trial
this date was represented by the investigating detectives as the date
the files were deleted. In reality it is the date the files were last
modified (created or saved). I presented my lawyer with a book by a well
known author on computers The book stated that this date was the date the
file was modified. My lawyer never presented this as evidence.

This is important because the police did not do a forensic search of the
computer until over a week after the said deletions occurred. They did a
search of the directories that the owner told them to look in. One was
the computers temporary directory. Why I don't know. They didn't search
the directories where I had been instructed by the owners to place the
files. As a matter of fact, one printout shows the right directory,
shows that it isn't deleted, but no printout of the directory's contents
were made. The police immediately gave the computer back to the owner,
before they had even talked to me. The owner testified that he was then
able to recover his files. I contend that they were never deleted. I was
not arrest until three weeks after the police had returned the computer
to the owner.

Ironically, sometime between the time I left the company and the time
the police picked up the computer, files were created and deleted. The
printout confirms deleted files created after I left the company. They
were in a deleted state before the police searched the computer. The
owner testified that he had lock the computer up and had not been able
to access the computer due to passwords that I had placed on the
computer. Then how were files being created and deleted?

I believe that my constitutional right to cross examine adverse evidence
has been violate. The prosecutor portrayed the computer as durable when
in fact the computer hard drive changes every time something is written
on it. The hard drive will even choose areas on it surface to write
files where deleted material may be present. After this happens, you
wouldn't be able to tell if a deleted file had occupied that area of the
hard drive. In other words, writing to that hard drive amounted to
tampering with evidence and my bosses assertion that he lock the
computer up amounts to perjury.

My lawyer didn't call a single witness at trial. He didn't call me or my
wife. He called no experts. He didn't present the facts listed above. He

asked for an acquittal based on a lack of evidence. I had been charged
with two counts. One for deleting the files and one for putting
passwords on the computer.  The judge threw out the one for password,
but there was absolutely no evidence to support it. During the
prosecutors closing arguments he repeatedly told the jury, as he pounded
the printouts on the banister, that the printouts showed list of files I
had deleted and that the dates proved it. For some reason the record of
his closing statement is missing from the transcripts although the
transcripts show that opening and closing statements would be included.

I was sentenced to 6 months in jail and ten years probation. After my
release, the judge heard arguments in regard to objections made by my
attorney at trial. Even though I bought my book into court, my lawyer
refused to use it. He never made an argument concerning the
constitutionality of using the printouts at trial nor did he try to show
that they were tainted.

An appeal was submitted to the appellate court. Even though my lawyer
said he would send me a copy of the prosecutions brief, I never received

it. The appeal was denied, and I received a copy of the court's decision

in the mail. four days after the decision. the court allows 10 days to
file a response.  The court has me as admitting to deleting the files, I

never took the stand. I wish I had. I wanted to. The appellate court
based their decision on a very narrow interpretation of the law. They
said that the state didn't have to prove that I deleted files, only that

I used the computer with the intent to delete files. But, they used the
"fact" that the files were deleted to justify this position. So, if I
didn't delete files, I'm guilty of a crime.

Please remember, no one ever presented a itemized list of deleted files
or identified what had been deleted. My boss said under oath that he
recovered the files after the police returned the computer to him. He
was never asked how he recovered the files. He was never asked to
explain what he meant when he said the "program did work like it did
before." If I had deleted those file, the program wouldn't have worked
at all. We are talking about source code need to compile the program.
There was no search of the company's file server either. I stored files
on the server also.

They have portrayed me as being unstable. I have a temper, but that
doesn't mean I deleted anything. They basically said I deleted files,
but they didn't know what files, and I was guilty because I was capable.

My lawyer skipped along making arguments that were weak at best. He
failed to vigorously pursue my interest He totally resisted my
suggestions. And he flat ignored evidence that could, no should have
been presented.

The only thing the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt, if that is
indeed the burden of the state, is that files were created on the
computer after I left. This is in light of the owners denial of
tampering with the machine. And by the way, files are created and
destroyed during the compilation process. These files showed up on the
printouts in the temporary directory. There was a need for someone to
explain which files were illegal deletions. That didn't happen. In
otherwords, every deleted file was presented to the jury as a file I
deleted without authority. The prosecution didn't attempt, nor did my
attorney, to point out the difference between source code and other
files.

The files were there, and in event of some problem, they were also in
zip files on the computer. Ironically a printout of the contents of the
zip files exist yet that didn't matter. Nothing mattered except the
states case. I was never presumed innocent nor was I given any
opportunity to prove my innocence. The computer was back in the hands of
the owner before I could have someone do a forensic search on my behalf.

The printouts of the zip files showed their contents. That content was the 
alleged missing files. Finally, printouts of source code were given to the 
police to assist them in their forensic search. They were printouts of files 
I had modified. Can you believe that, files that were said to have been 
deleted.

Additionally, a juror called the judge and said that she had heard
another juror say befor the trial began that I was a hot-headed Italian
and that he already knew how he was going to vote. The judge called in this 
juror
and she told him which juror had made this comment. The judge then
questioned each juror including the accused juror. No one else said they
heard the comment. The accused juror said he didn't make the statement. But I
noticed at trial he was the only juror keeping notes. Furthermore, he ran 
some kind
of computer security firm and his opinion probably was given considerable 
weight by
the other juror. I wanted him on the jury because I thought he could weed out 
the
bull the prosecution was presenting. I had no idea he didn't like Italians. No
one was removed from the jury, not even the juror who made the accusation.

This ordeal has devastated my family. My health is in decline. I have
never said that I acted wisely or prudently. I know how I could have
avoided this situation, but I will not admit that I deleted any source
files.  You don't have to believe me, I'm a convicted felon now, but I
hope that you will read this message with an open mind. I hope you will
see how dangerous this law is.



Samuel E. Fugarino
Home:(770)729-1351
Work:(770)441-2051 ext. 364
5054E Beverly Glen Village Lane
Norcross, GA 30092

Here's the reply from the computer 'guru' I know that I forwarded to Sam:

Here's the reply from my friend that makes a living by making corporations' 
computers unhackable:
Sounds like this is already a done deal - he needs legal help, not mine -

what he did (or didn't) was closer to a small defiant act of revenge, not a

knowledgeable act of hacking. I would be happy to talk to his lawyer with

some recommendations or some expertise in electronic forensics, if he gets a

lawyer...
Sounds like you need to find a lawyer that's very computer literate and file 
an appeal. Let me know if you need something else.
If you need Dave's assistance (or your new lawyer does) you can contact him 
at: dcdave@worldnet.att.net
Let me know how it works out, okay?
Barbara Jean

Here's Sam's latest reply:
I just got back from discussing this matter with my current lawyer. The way 
the
wording on the indictment reads is the I used the computer with the knowledge
that the use was without authority and with the intent to remove data. He
agrees with the court that the state didn't have to prove I deleted anything.
Or at least his says we can't argue that point. I looked at my bosses
complaint, the police report, and the warrent. All accuse me of deleting 
files.
So now they say they didn't have to prove that. He seems to think we have an
argument on the second point of appeal, that the state didn't prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that I used the computer without authority. They said that 
the
fact that I deleted huge amounts of data was suffucient evidence. That's
circular.

I'm worn out. I thought the trial was about whether I deleted source code.
Basically, there's no way now that I can prove I didn't, they got rid of the
evidence. I was never allowed to  examine the computer before trial; even
before I had talked to the police they had returned the computer to the owner.
I thought that evidence had to be original and complete, but the forensic
search of the computer only looked where the owner told them to.

I need some help.

Sam

My reply this morning to Sam:
In a message dated 3/22/00 9:02:02 PM, sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net writes:

<< I was never allowed to  examine the computer before trial; even
before I had talked to the police they had returned the computer to the owner.
I thought that evidence had to be original and complete, but the forensic
search of the computer only looked where the owner told them to. >>

That in itself sounds like their hiding any type of exculpatory evidence. It 
seems to me that if you were indicted for something, they should have to proof
 you did it. The burden of proof is not on the accused - it's on the 
prosecution. Sounds strange. I forwarded your e-mail to Dave to get his 
input. I'll let you know what he says. B

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 07:52:45 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00776
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:52:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00771
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:52:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Sidg@aol.com
Received: from Sidg@aol.com
	by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.1e.2ef6f42 (3896)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:52:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <1e.2ef6f42.260b6d74@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:52:04 EST
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Expert witness needed]
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_1e.2ef6f42.260b6d74_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


--part1_1e.2ef6f42.260b6d74_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's more on Sam's computer dilemma...

--part1_1e.2ef6f42.260b6d74_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
Received: from  rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by
	air-yb03.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:22
	-0500
Received: from  smtp.atl.mediaone.net (atlasmtp.atl.mediaone.net
	[24.92.1.152]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Wed, 22
	Mar 2000 21:55:10 -0500
Received: from atl.mediaone.net (client122036.atl.mediaone.net
	[24.31.122.36])
	by smtp.atl.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA23071;
	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:55:00 -0500 (EST)
Sender: root@smtp.atl.mediaone.net
Message-ID: <38D8DF9D.FE5811CB@atl.mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:58:37 -0500
From: "Samuel E. Fugarino" <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-1mdklinus i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Moran <wmoran@columbus.rr.com>
CC: "Sidg@aol.com" <Sidg@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Expert witness needed]
References: <38D8DC0A.DC0C1B7E@atl.mediaone.net>
	<38D986F5.E0219247@columbus.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Moran wrote:

> Get the manual for Norton, or print out the help screens. That's as
> expert as it gets.
>
> Samuel E. Fugarino wrote:
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Expert witness needed
> > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:24:17 GMT
> > From: "Samuel E. Fugarino" <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
> > Organization: MediaOne - Atlanta
> > Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
> >
> > I hope that at least sombody has been following my thread, Dear
> > Sir/Madam. I finally have been able to read the prosecutors appealete
> > brief. He claims again that the printouts made by Norton Disk Editor
> > show the date the files were deleted. I maintain they don't . They show
> > the dates the files were modified. Please remember we are talking files
> > in the root, temp, and believe it or not WinFAX directories. We aren't
> > talking about printouts of the source tree.
> >
> > Sam Fugarino
>
> --
> Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
> Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
> FreeBSD: Are you guys coming or what?

You know Bill, I thought the book The PC Upgrade and Maintenance Guide by Mark
Minasi would have been enough. I bought this book into court and no one would
look at it. They clained that it was heresay. Funny, the printouts, although
they weren't complete and couldn't be verified weren't. I'll try to find them.

Sam


--part1_1e.2ef6f42.260b6d74_boundary--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 09:20:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02472
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:20:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02463
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:20:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Gungozboom@aol.com
Received: from Gungozboom@aol.com
	by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.e3.28cccf4 (2701);
	Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:19:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <e3.28cccf4.260b8207@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:19:51 EST
Subject: History of the Army Crime Laboratory
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
CC: pgarland6@juno.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I am posting this for Patrick Garland, a retired Firearm & Tool Mark Examiner from the Army CID Crime Laboratory and the Broward County Sheriff's Office in Fort Lauderdale Florida.  

Pat is working in collaboration with others on documenting the history of the Army Crime Lab.  Pat is mainly concerned with collecting information on those who have worked in the Army lab and then went on to work in other civilian labs. He is trying to contact them to document their years of experience.  According to Pat, he has 4 typed pages of guys and gals who served and then went on to civilian labs and has no way of contacting them.  So if any of you out there reading this have worked in the Army CID lab in the past please contact Pat Garland at the following email address:

pgarland6@juno.com

Pat thanks everyone for their support and cooperation.

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 09:26:49 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02611
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:26:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02606
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:26:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <G9AYNMQQ>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:23:34 -0600
Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB681@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" <David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Computer Help Needed
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:25:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Let me guess:  the lawyer who filed the denied appeal was also the lawyer
who lost the trial in the first place.  Right?  This doesn't sound like a
computer problem to me, it sounds like simple "ineffective assistance of
counsel."  I especially like the idea of assuming a trespass with the intent
to destroy something is proved by the "fact" that the object was destroyed,
but then making the claim that there is no need to prove the "fact" of
destruction, a logical fallacy of assuming in a proof that which is to be
proven.  (Dr. Brenner, help me out on what this is called, please.)
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:49 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Computer Help Needed


Hi All,
It's rare for me to have to ask a question about computers, but this one has

me stumped. Any help you all can give would really be appreciated. Any
input? 
Thanks, 
Barbara Jean
Injustice is the greatest sin 
that any court can visit upon 
the people of it's land.
(703) 352-8140

Here is this guy's original e-mail to me:
Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been tried and convicted of Computer Trespass (O.C.G.A 16-9-93)
for allegedly deleting files on a computer at my place of business.
During trial the prosecution present printouts of directories that the
owner said the files should have been. The printouts were made with
Norton Disk Editor. If a file had been deleted, a period replaced the
first letter of the file name. A date accompanied each entry. At trial
this date was represented by the investigating detectives as the date
the files were deleted. In reality it is the date the files were last
modified (created or saved). I presented my lawyer with a book by a well
known author on computers The book stated that this date was the date the
file was modified. My lawyer never presented this as evidence.

This is important because the police did not do a forensic search of the
computer until over a week after the said deletions occurred. They did a
search of the directories that the owner told them to look in. One was
the computers temporary directory. Why I don't know. They didn't search
the directories where I had been instructed by the owners to place the
files. As a matter of fact, one printout shows the right directory,
shows that it isn't deleted, but no printout of the directory's contents
were made. The police immediately gave the computer back to the owner,
before they had even talked to me. The owner testified that he was then
able to recover his files. I contend that they were never deleted. I was
not arrest until three weeks after the police had returned the computer
to the owner.

Ironically, sometime between the time I left the company and the time
the police picked up the computer, files were created and deleted. The
printout confirms deleted files created after I left the company. They
were in a deleted state before the police searched the computer. The
owner testified that he had lock the computer up and had not been able
to access the computer due to passwords that I had placed on the
computer. Then how were files being created and deleted?

I believe that my constitutional right to cross examine adverse evidence
has been violate. The prosecutor portrayed the computer as durable when
in fact the computer hard drive changes every time something is written
on it. The hard drive will even choose areas on it surface to write
files where deleted material may be present. After this happens, you
wouldn't be able to tell if a deleted file had occupied that area of the
hard drive. In other words, writing to that hard drive amounted to
tampering with evidence and my bosses assertion that he lock the
computer up amounts to perjury.

My lawyer didn't call a single witness at trial. He didn't call me or my
wife. He called no experts. He didn't present the facts listed above. He

asked for an acquittal based on a lack of evidence. I had been charged
with two counts. One for deleting the files and one for putting
passwords on the computer.  The judge threw out the one for password,
but there was absolutely no evidence to support it. During the
prosecutors closing arguments he repeatedly told the jury, as he pounded
the printouts on the banister, that the printouts showed list of files I
had deleted and that the dates proved it. For some reason the record of
his closing statement is missing from the transcripts although the
transcripts show that opening and closing statements would be included.

I was sentenced to 6 months in jail and ten years probation. After my
release, the judge heard arguments in regard to objections made by my
attorney at trial. Even though I bought my book into court, my lawyer
refused to use it. He never made an argument concerning the
constitutionality of using the printouts at trial nor did he try to show
that they were tainted.

An appeal was submitted to the appellate court. Even though my lawyer
said he would send me a copy of the prosecutions brief, I never received

it. The appeal was denied, and I received a copy of the court's decision

in the mail. four days after the decision. the court allows 10 days to
file a response.  The court has me as admitting to deleting the files, I

never took the stand. I wish I had. I wanted to. The appellate court
based their decision on a very narrow interpretation of the law. They
said that the state didn't have to prove that I deleted files, only that

I used the computer with the intent to delete files. But, they used the
"fact" that the files were deleted to justify this position. So, if I
didn't delete files, I'm guilty of a crime.

Please remember, no one ever presented a itemized list of deleted files
or identified what had been deleted. My boss said under oath that he
recovered the files after the police returned the computer to him. He
was never asked how he recovered the files. He was never asked to
explain what he meant when he said the "program did work like it did
before." If I had deleted those file, the program wouldn't have worked
at all. We are talking about source code need to compile the program.
There was no search of the company's file server either. I stored files
on the server also.

They have portrayed me as being unstable. I have a temper, but that
doesn't mean I deleted anything. They basically said I deleted files,
but they didn't know what files, and I was guilty because I was capable.

My lawyer skipped along making arguments that were weak at best. He
failed to vigorously pursue my interest He totally resisted my
suggestions. And he flat ignored evidence that could, no should have
been presented.

The only thing the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt, if that is
indeed the burden of the state, is that files were created on the
computer after I left. This is in light of the owners denial of
tampering with the machine. And by the way, files are created and
destroyed during the compilation process. These files showed up on the
printouts in the temporary directory. There was a need for someone to
explain which files were illegal deletions. That didn't happen. In
otherwords, every deleted file was presented to the jury as a file I
deleted without authority. The prosecution didn't attempt, nor did my
attorney, to point out the difference between source code and other
files.

The files were there, and in event of some problem, they were also in
zip files on the computer. Ironically a printout of the contents of the
zip files exist yet that didn't matter. Nothing mattered except the
states case. I was never presumed innocent nor was I given any
opportunity to prove my innocence. The computer was back in the hands of
the owner before I could have someone do a forensic search on my behalf.

The printouts of the zip files showed their contents. That content was the 
alleged missing files. Finally, printouts of source code were given to the 
police to assist them in their forensic search. They were printouts of files

I had modified. Can you believe that, files that were said to have been 
deleted.

Additionally, a juror called the judge and said that she had heard
another juror say befor the trial began that I was a hot-headed Italian
and that he already knew how he was going to vote. The judge called in this 
juror
and she told him which juror had made this comment. The judge then
questioned each juror including the accused juror. No one else said they
heard the comment. The accused juror said he didn't make the statement. But
I
noticed at trial he was the only juror keeping notes. Furthermore, he ran 
some kind
of computer security firm and his opinion probably was given considerable 
weight by
the other juror. I wanted him on the jury because I thought he could weed
out 
the
bull the prosecution was presenting. I had no idea he didn't like Italians.
No
one was removed from the jury, not even the juror who made the accusation.

This ordeal has devastated my family. My health is in decline. I have
never said that I acted wisely or prudently. I know how I could have
avoided this situation, but I will not admit that I deleted any source
files.  You don't have to believe me, I'm a convicted felon now, but I
hope that you will read this message with an open mind. I hope you will
see how dangerous this law is.



Samuel E. Fugarino
Home:(770)729-1351
Work:(770)441-2051 ext. 364
5054E Beverly Glen Village Lane
Norcross, GA 30092

Here's the reply from the computer 'guru' I know that I forwarded to Sam:

Here's the reply from my friend that makes a living by making corporations' 
computers unhackable:
Sounds like this is already a done deal - he needs legal help, not mine -

what he did (or didn't) was closer to a small defiant act of revenge, not a

knowledgeable act of hacking. I would be happy to talk to his lawyer with

some recommendations or some expertise in electronic forensics, if he gets a

lawyer...
Sounds like you need to find a lawyer that's very computer literate and file

an appeal. Let me know if you need something else.
If you need Dave's assistance (or your new lawyer does) you can contact him 
at: dcdave@worldnet.att.net
Let me know how it works out, okay?
Barbara Jean

Here's Sam's latest reply:
I just got back from discussing this matter with my current lawyer. The way 
the
wording on the indictment reads is the I used the computer with the
knowledge
that the use was without authority and with the intent to remove data. He
agrees with the court that the state didn't have to prove I deleted
anything.
Or at least his says we can't argue that point. I looked at my bosses
complaint, the police report, and the warrent. All accuse me of deleting 
files.
So now they say they didn't have to prove that. He seems to think we have an
argument on the second point of appeal, that the state didn't prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that I used the computer without authority. They said that 
the
fact that I deleted huge amounts of data was suffucient evidence. That's
circular.

I'm worn out. I thought the trial was about whether I deleted source code.
Basically, there's no way now that I can prove I didn't, they got rid of the
evidence. I was never allowed to  examine the computer before trial; even
before I had talked to the police they had returned the computer to the
owner.
I thought that evidence had to be original and complete, but the forensic
search of the computer only looked where the owner told them to.

I need some help.

Sam

My reply this morning to Sam:
In a message dated 3/22/00 9:02:02 PM, sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net writes:

<< I was never allowed to  examine the computer before trial; even
before I had talked to the police they had returned the computer to the
owner.
I thought that evidence had to be original and complete, but the forensic
search of the computer only looked where the owner told them to. >>

That in itself sounds like their hiding any type of exculpatory evidence. It

seems to me that if you were indicted for something, they should have to
proof
 you did it. The burden of proof is not on the accused - it's on the 
prosecution. Sounds strange. I forwarded your e-mail to Dave to get his 
input. I'll let you know what he says. B

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 11:07:23 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04599
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:07:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04594
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:07:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Sidg@aol.com
Received: from Sidg@aol.com
	by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.a0.26d6d0a (3856)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:06:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <a0.26d6d0a.260b9b07@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:06:31 EST
Subject: Fwd: What can I do?
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_a0.26d6d0a.260b9b07_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


--part1_a0.26d6d0a.260b9b07_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's more on the puter case.

--part1_a0.26d6d0a.260b9b07_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
Received: from  rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) by
	air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:28:58
	-0500
Received: from  smtp.atl.mediaone.net (atlasmtp.atl.mediaone.net
	[24.92.1.152]) by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Thu, 23
	Mar 2000 10:28:26 -0500
Received: from atl.mediaone.net (client122009.atl.mediaone.net [24.31.122.9])
	by smtp.atl.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24904
	for <Sidg@aol.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:28:26 -0500 (EST)
Sender: root@smtp.atl.mediaone.net
Message-ID: <38D99034.37362862@atl.mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:32:04 -0500
From: "Samuel E. Fugarino" <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-1mdklinus i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sidg@aol.com
Subject: Re: What can I do?
References: <a.1d2e85e.260b69ca@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sidg@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/22/00 9:02:02 PM, sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net writes:
>
> << I was never allowed to  examine the computer before trial; even
> before I had talked to the police they had returned the computer to the owner.
> I thought that evidence had to be original and complete, but the forensic
> search of the computer only looked where the owner told them to. >>
>
> That in itself sounds like their hiding any type of exculpatory evidence. It
> seems to me that if you were indicted for something, they should have to
> proof you did it. The burden of proof is not on the accused - it's on the
> prosecution. Sounds strange. I forwarded your e-mail to Dave to get his
> input. I'll let you know what he says. B

Thank you,

All along I've tried to tell my lawyer that he needed to call the prosecution on
that. I just talked to his office and discussed several things with them.
Everywhere I read, even in the appealate courts findings, I am accused of
deleting masses of code. It strikes me as odd that the accusor said on the stand
that he was able to recover his code after the police returned the computer to
him, complie the program, but that it wasn't like it was before. So I must have
selectively left those files on the computer that would allow them to compile the
program? I thought they said I deleted huge amounts of code.

You probably don't know this, but as the compiler compiles and links a program,
intermediate files are created and deleted in the temp directory. They actually
show up on the police printouts.  And since there was no differentiation between
deleted source files and any other deleted file when  this "evidence" was dumped
on the jury, I quess I was trespassing by using the compiler?

So here you have the owner with this computer creating and deleting files,
totally rendering the computer hard drive worthless in a further search, before
I'm even arrested. And remember, someone had even written to that disk between
the time I left the company and the time the police picked the computer up.

It seems to me that I should have heard and seen in writing the words "violated
constitutional rights."

Compiler: Visual C++ 5.0

Sam


--part1_a0.26d6d0a.260b9b07_boundary--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 13:09:31 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06463
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:09:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA06458
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:09:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 18:09:26 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7SJN>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:07:54 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A34770E@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'tiernan@talk21.com'" <tiernan@talk21.com>, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Printer for HP GC/MS
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:07:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF94F2.B5D005AE"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF94F2.B5D005AE
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

Sounds like the problem we had with the LaserJet 5L and our JusticeTrax
software.  Some drivers just seem to be incompatible with some software
programs.  Glad it worked out for you in the end.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: tiernan@talk21.com [mailto:tiernan@talk21.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 2:29 AM
To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Printer for HP GC/MS


Hi Bob,

We had the Deskjet linked to our Perkin Elmer FTIR Microscope 
and it just kept giving us these errors connected to the Spooling 
process (at least that's what the manual said).  PE tried a number 
of things and eventually just changed the printer entirely.  Whether 
the conflict was particular to PE software we'll never know but 
since the changeover we've had no problems and the software runs 
considerably more smoothly.  

Regards 
Tiernan


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF94F2.B5D005AE
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Printer for HP GC/MS</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sounds like the problem we had with the LaserJet 5L =
and our JusticeTrax software.&nbsp; Some drivers just seem to be =
incompatible with some software programs.&nbsp; Glad it worked out for =
you in the end.</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: tiernan@talk21.com [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:tiernan@talk21.com">mailto:tiernan@talk21.com</A>]</FONT>=

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 2:29 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: RE: Printer for HP GC/MS</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Bob,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We had the Deskjet linked to our Perkin Elmer FTIR =
Microscope </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>and it just kept giving us these errors connected to =
the Spooling </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>process (at least that's what the manual =
said).&nbsp; PE tried a number </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>of things and eventually just changed the printer =
entirely.&nbsp; Whether </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the conflict was particular to PE software we'll =
never know but </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>since the changeover we've had no problems and the =
software runs </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>considerably more smoothly.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regards </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tiernan</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF94F2.B5D005AE--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 15:31:54 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08407
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:31:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns1.acenusa.com (ns1.acenusa.net [208.245.134.68] (may be forged))
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08402
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:31:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [208.245.133.134] by ns1.butcherfamily.com (NTMail 4.20.0009/AF6804.63.1428298b) with ESMTP id qqkeaaaa for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:30:20 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000323153021.00998910@pop.butcherfamily.com>
X-Sender: devnull@pop.butcherfamily.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:30:21 -0500
To: Chiari Malformation:
From: Devon Null <devnull@butcherfamily.com>
Subject: Chiari Malformation: The Latest BUZZ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Chiari malformation is the latest buzz in health care circles these days. 

Nerve and vessel pathway anomalies outside the brain have taken on almost
mystical qualities and are being touted as the "almost universal" cause of
myriad mysterious maladies like asthma, allergies, narcolepsy,
hypertension, catalepsy, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD],
autism, Fibromyalgia, apnea, lupus, vasculitis, Pulmonary Edema, Panic
Attacks, Emphysema, Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Respiratory Distress
Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome CFS, Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome, Chi Imbalances, Vaccination Reactions, Obsessive-Compulsive
Disorder [OCD] obesity, senility and many other neuromuscular,
cardiopulmonary and psycho-affective disorders.

Is all this hubbub just plain old-fashioned QUACKERY? Is this an example of
creative problem-solving gone amok - serious abuses of anecdotal
information, flawed logic and loose associations? 

Well then, just WHY does surgical correction of Chiari malformations
produce such profound and dramatic improvement in *SOME* patients? -- to
include the cardiac - psychological - metabolic - vascular - pulmonary -
dermatological - autoimmune - glandular - it seems like the "Philosopher's
Stone" of medicine and health care! ( - and other "alternative" or
"complimentary" orientations.)

Follows is a post I sent to The Chronic Pain Support Group at Delphi [CPSG]
<http://www.delphi.com/ChronicPainSup/start> and the Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome Group at Delphi <http://www.delphi.com/ab-chronicfatig/start>

Should I seek psychological help and psychoactive drugs? Should I go back
to school to learn basic health care principles and rudimentary anatomy and
physiology? Should I buy an asbestos suit and keyboard to help with any
anticipated flames?


...or is there some substance to my query? 


I encourage and look forward to any comments.

Best regards.

Devon Null
devnull@butcherfamily.com       
____________________________________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to 
entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle
____________________________________________________
devnull@butcherfamily.com    NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT



========================================================================

[CPSG] Cervical Spine Stenosis, Chiari 1 malformation & Craniovertebral
Stenosis

Cross-Posted to: [CPSG] The Chronic Pain Support Group at Delphi
<http://www.delphi.com/ChronicPainSup/start>

Cross-Posted to: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Group at Delphi
<http://www.delphi.com/ab-chronicfatig/start>
                      
_______________________________________________________________


For those of you interested in this thread, you may want to check out the
following:

Craniovertebral Stenosis
<http://www.immunesupport.com/research/abstracts/decom.htm>

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome [POTS]
<http://www.clipper.net/~calder/POTSWEB.html>

20/20 Overview by ABC's Dr Johnson:
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DrJohnson/drjohnson.html>

For many of us, the diagnosis of CFS, EBS and FMS is in reality a death
sentence -- a diagnostic dumpster -- a medical gulag.

The diagnostics stop and so begins the war over palliative treatments in a
culture that has decided that a whole grouping of medications that are very
effective in ameliorating pain should all but be ruled out.

After the weekend, you may want to visit a new site I am trying to build:

<http://www.onelist.com/group/CervicalSpineStenosis-L>

It will be my private stash of medical and health care articles regarding
Cervical Spine Stenosis -- Craniovertebral Stenosis -- Chiari 1
Malformation -- please be patient as I try to build this site.

If interested, please join. You will *NOT* be able to post to the address,
but will receive new material as I process the information. The site also
has an UNmoderated chat feature -- feel free to check it out.

My role in this will be passive and one of maintenance -- it is so
difficult for me to respond to most of the e-mail I have been receiving
lately, but I still wanted to create this repository. Please don't be
miffed if I don't answer your e-mail -- more days than not, I receive over
a thousand e-mails in just  one 24-hour period.

I have been diagnosed with polymyositis and old neck fractures. I fractured
C-4, C-5 and C-6 38 years ago. In an effort to try to help my doctors help
me, I have been consuming anything and everything related to these two
pathological conditions.

Initially, I was just astonished to find so many people with the same
symptoms who had sustained some sort of neck trauma -- especially old trauma.

I was even more astonished to find many of these patients with breathing
anomalies, and have come away with a more-than-wispy feeling that many of
these patients were suffering from the long-term effects of hypoxia and
anoxia -- brain centers were not disrupted, but the nerve pathways and
vessel paths were disturbed -- at a high cervical level and into the brain
like Chiari 1 malformation, as well as at lower levels of the cervical
spine as a result of damaged discs, subluxations and fractures.

The thought that an structural anomaly could be repaired to correct
horrendous systemic debilitating pathology still intrigues me. Is this some
sort of chaotic dance OUTSIDE the brain between compromised or blunted
phrenic nerve pathways and a resultant incoherent compensatory increase in
vagus nerve impulses?

I am a patient -- *NOT* a health care provider. 

This site is *NOT* about offering treatment. 

This site IS about offering information. 

It's my personal trove of information that I am willing to share in the
most passive manner.

It looks like *SOME* of these patients banished to our Medical Gulag have
been experiencing subclinical hypERventilation resulting in subclinical
respiratory acidosis and subsequent subclinical metabolic alkalosis as a
result of the disrupted nerve and vessel paths from even minor cervical
trauma -- even as a result of the birth trauma.

It's an insidious process and the creeping symptoms are overlooked by
health care practitioners and minimised by the patients themselves -- we
have absolutely no clue as to the status of our autonomic breathing -- not
a clue!

Homeostatic set points are reset, nerve and vessel remodeling occurs and
feed-back mechanism parameters are changed. We are no longer working with a
set of normals. Wildly fluctuating reflex arcs are initiated as the body
settles into a survival mode of conserving energy and resources while other
homeostatic mechanisms kick in to offset those effects of the survival
reflex arcs.

Lungs get physically bigger as the body attempts to cope with these crisis
survival episodes. Over time, those lungs are physically huge, but feedback
mechanisms haven't re-adjusted to match the increase in size. 

That patient ends up breathing very shallow breaths relative to the
physical increase in size of the lungs -- and the patient can't detect
this, and laboratory tests will not demonstrate it. When was the last time
you heard of blood gasses being drawn on one of these Gulag patients to see
what the arterial CO2 levels are?

I haven't come across any cases of doctors being concerned that their
patients' lungs are "too big" or of patients complaining they can't breathe
because their lungs are just too large.

So, what happens when the patient is chronically oxygen-starved?

Vessels will constrict in specific genetically pre-disposed locations
throughout the body in an effort to shunt nutrients and blood to the vital
"survival" areas of the body.

But the whole process is insidious -- probably not even noticed by the
patient for years, as the smallest of vessels constrict and dilate in rapid
cycles of adjustment and become weakened and compromised out of sheer
over-activity.

Depending on genetic predisposition and environmental variables, this
process will eventually move from the micro to the macro -- perhaps at
first involving blood supply to the nerves in specific geographical areas
of the body to greater involvement as the larger vessels begin to be affected.

If in fact we have initiated a chronic sub-optimal level of oxygen exchange
in addition to the sub-optimal reduction of flow rate and perfusion, we
could have large areas of the body that would be chronically and
periodically starved by the cumulative effects resulting in pain -- maybe
even intractable pain.

But there is just so much more to all of this, as over a long period of
time, chronic hypoxia can elicit an autoimmune response as the body is
constantly going through a "shut down" for conservation, healing and
survival. Once that auto-immune box has been opened, Pandora's deed would
pale in comparison to the potential dangers that could occur in the body --
and does occur.

I don't have the knowledge to get the answers to the many questions I have
posed here. I don't even have the background to ask the "correct" questions!

...but I do have the desire to explore these issues. Who knows? Maybe
someone with the necessary knowledge and skills will read this and will be
able to pose the "correct" questions. Maybe even someone will drop by who
has the skills and resources to start seeking the "correct" answers. 

I'm just exploring, but you're more than welcome to come along for the ride!

<http://www.onelist.com/group/CervicalSpineStenosis-L>

Be well.

Best regards.

Devon Null
devnull@butcherfamily.com       
_____________________________________________________________
	Knowing is not enough; we must apply. 
		Willing is not enough; we must do.
			-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
_____________________________________________________________
devnull@butcherfamily.com             NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT

      |-----------------<-30->-----------------|

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 16:22:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09026
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:22:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp1.verio.net (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.161])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09021
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:21:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from roo (h207-21-136-162.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.162])
	by smtp1.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA15132
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.1.20000323130336.00c3e130@pop.ncal.verio.com>
X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:22:46 -0800
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "Charles H. Brenner" <cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Computer Help Needed
In-Reply-To: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB681@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.
 ARMY.MIL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_4765274==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--=====================_4765274==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:25 AM 3/23/00 -0600, Hause, David wrote:

> ... a logical fallacy of assuming in a proof that which is to be
>proven.  (Dr. Brenner, help me out on what this is called, please.)
>Dave Hause

I was going to settle for the term "circular reasoning" that Sam
himself suggested.For those who would like something fancier, 
something perhaps with a Latinate flavor, I recall some 
index entries from a book I think by the mathematician Paul
Halmos. 

Circular reasoning (see principio principii).

Consulting the index for the later term, we find, naturally,

Principio principii (see begging the question), 

and 

Begging the question (see circular reasoning).

For a nice web discussion, see
http://www.pleasurepoint.com/~justin/logical.html#question_begging

Charles Brenner
(once proud forensic mathematician, now reduced to 
the pretention of classical learnedness)
www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner

--=====================_4765274==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 08:25 AM 3/23/00 -0600, Hause, David wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; ... a logical fallacy of assuming in a proof that which is to
be<br>
&gt;proven.&nbsp; (Dr. Brenner, help me out on what this is called,
please.)<br>
&gt;Dave Hause<br>
<br>
I was going to settle for the term &quot;circular reasoning&quot; that
Sam<br>
himself suggested.For those who would like something fancier, <br>
something perhaps with a Latinate flavor, I recall some <br>
index entries from a book I think by the mathematician Paul<br>
Halmos. <br>
<br>
Circular reasoning (<i>see</i> principio principii).<br>
<br>
Consulting the index for the later term, we find, naturally,<br>
<br>
Principio principii (<i>see</i> begging the question), <br>
<br>
and <br>
<br>
Begging the question (<i>see</i> circular reasoning).<br>
<br>
For a nice web discussion, see<br>
<a href="http://www.pleasurepoint.com/~justin/logical.html#question_begging" eudora="autourl">http://www.pleasurepoint.com/~justin/logical.html#question_begging</a><br>
<br>
Charles Brenner<br>
(once proud forensic mathematician, now reduced to <br>
the pretention of classical learnedness)<br>
<a href="http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner" eudora="autourl">www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner</a><br>
</html>

--=====================_4765274==_.ALT--


From forens-owner  Thu Mar 23 22:52:51 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13740
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:52:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13735
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:52:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36])
	by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA14178
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:52:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000324035401.006c4f88@pop.ncf.carleton.ca>
X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:54:01 -0500
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: Marilyn Harris <ah247@freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Skull Fracture Question
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Do the fractures described below basically run around the skull - ie; from
base to top of head on both sides?;

---

Other skull fractures: Symmetrical, linear fractures of anterior aspects of
posterior fossa, extending through sella turcica and coursing across both
parietal regions of calvarium diagonally, anterior left to posterior right. 

---

What are posterior fossa?

My question is - would such a fracture be more commonly associated with the
impact of a .38 cartridge perforating the skull, or can it also be seen
frequently from .22s that do not exit the head?

Thanks to all who respond!

Marilyn who is NOT a forensic/medical-type person


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 24 17:11:43 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26770
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:11:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f70.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.70])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA26765
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:11:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 88379 invoked by uid 0); 24 Mar 2000 22:11:07 -0000
Message-ID: <20000324221107.88378.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 209.244.73.112 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:11:07 PST
X-Originating-IP: [209.244.73.112]
From: "chris breyer" <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: dog poisoning case
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:11:07 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Yes, I apparently have time to look into a dog-poisoning case.  One of the 
two dogs survived.  Each was throwing up blood.  Veterinary report on the 
survivor indicates poisoning, but I have no specifics (yet).

A frozen-food grocery-item burrito plastic wrapper was collected, as well as 
a partially digested burrito, both from the backyard of the surviving 
canine.

Any suggestions on how to proceed, and possible poisonous substance 
candidates?

Chris Breyer
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 24 18:57:07 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27932
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:57:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27927
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:57:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.225.223])
          by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP
          id <20000324235631.ZGEM10526.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>;
          Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:56:31 +0000
Message-ID: <38DC015A.5CC6D153@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:00:23 -0500
From: "E. J. Wagner" <EJWagner@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net
Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: chris breyer <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: dog poisoning case
References: <20000324221107.88378.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I must have come in in the middle-don't know the background of this
case-but it sounds awfully familiar.

Some years ago a small present was pushed under our gardem gate for our
two labs.
The offending agent was called "Just One Bite"-it was rat poison and
contained warfarin, which causes internal bleeding. It needn't be
ingested to work-it leaches thru mucous membranes, so just smelling it
can me dangerous.

Usually, owners don't realize the problem until the dog's condition is
terminal JOB is slow acting. A number of other dogs in the area were
poisoned a few montgs before. We were lucky-we noticed the dogs' nosing
something and raced to the emergency clinic.
We don't let our dogs out alone anymore.Get the creeps.

EJ

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 24 18:58:00 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27996
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:57:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA27979
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:57:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 24 Mar 2000 23:57:46 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7424>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:56:11 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A347716@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: Forens E-mail Group <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: court/demonstration charts
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:56:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF95EC.878765A2"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF95EC.878765A2
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Forgive me, but I'm catching up on some old threads I never had a chance to
pursue.

<<I have never once encountered a situation in which one of
Bob's "shyster lawyers" recommended trying a case in which
a plea bargain was offered -- regardless of whether the client
was perceived as guilty or innocent.>>

Jerry, did you really mean what you literally said, or are you just yanking
my chain?  We all know some lawyers who love to drag out cases - more time
spent means more money made on their fees.  That type of unscrupulous lawyer
loves to try hopeless causes, convincing their clients they have more than a
snowball's chance in Hades, then they continue with endless meritless
appeals afterward.  They're quite content to keep the gravy train running,
selling false hope so long as the client or his patron has money to spend.
You've really never met one of these?  You must lead a very sheltered life
my friend.

More shocking to me, though, is the suggestion that any reputable lawyer
would routinely recommend that a client who maintains his innocence should
accept a plea bargain rather than go to trial.  Yes, I understand the
concept that an innocent might have seemingly damning evidence stacked
against him and his best chance at escaping a serious and undeserved penalty
might actually be to plead guilty to a lesser charge, but any lawyer who
routinely advises innocent people to plead guilty to things they haven't
done should be disbarred for malpractice.  Sure sounds like an archetypical
"shyster" to me.

<<Minor correction to Bob's long rebuttal of Jerry's comment on...

PROSECUTORS aren't supposed to be focused on winning, but on justice.
Defense counsel, OTOH, have an ethical obligation to seek the client's best
interest, AS DETERMINED BY THE CLIENT.  I had a really amusing evening
several years ago with several defense counsel telling stories about their
idiot guilty clients who had refused plea offers, insisted on trial, and
gotten much harsher sentences than offered by the prosecutor for a plea.
Did an old cop's heart good.
Dave Hause>>

Dave, clients surely do sometimes ignore their attorney's advice, but from
what I have seen in criminal cases at least, they more often than not go
along with whatever the attorney thinks is best.  The attorney is supposed
to be the expert at legal strategy, after all, and few clients know enough
or are confident enough to significantly question the course their attorney
sets.

Besides, as I have stated before I don't buy the "ethical" principle of an
attorney being obliged to seek the client's interest above ALL else - taking
that principle to the extremes commonly seen in our courts is about the most
UNethical act I can think of, from anyone but a lawyer's perspective, I
guess - but I'm not really interested in starting that debate again.  We've
been there and done that, with no resolution.  Suffice it to say that the
"ethics" lawyers are supposedly taught are diametrically opposed to the ones
scientists are taught.  

IMO, a double standard depending on which side an attorney works for is
without merit, and the pursuit of justice should be the primary goal of
_everyone_ involved in the legal system (yes even defense attorneys)- but it
isn't, and that's the problem with the adversarial system as currently
practiced in this country.  Winning for the client (or one's own political
ambitions) often takes precedence over everything - over truth, over
justice, over good of the victims in the instant case, over the well-being
of other potential future victims, over all reasonable concepts of right and
wrong.  The very nature of an adversarial system has corrupting influences
on advocates because for there to be a winner, there must be a loser, and no
attorney wants to lose - it can damage their career plans.  So to win their
cases, some lawyers literally lie, cheat, and steal, doing everything they
can to obfuscate the facts and mislead the court, violating their oath as an
officer of the court and even violating the law themselves by obstructing
discovery, tampering with evidence, and other malfeasant practices - and
they too like to spout their "ethical obligation" to serve their client's
best interest as a justification for their excesses, knowing how difficult
it would be to bring and prove any charges against them.  I'm sorry, but
even if they never cross the line to actually break the law themselves, that
argument doesn't wash with me or with most people I've talked to.  An
attorney's ethical obligation should be to see that their client gets a fair
hearing, is competently represented, does not have his/her rights violated,
and that all the established facts are displayed to the trier of fact; it
should NOT be to pull every dirty trick in the book to win (whether their
cause is just or not).  That's going too far.

Whoops, I really meant it when I said I didn't want to start that debate
again, but I guess I probably have.  C'est la vie.


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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF95EC.878765A2
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: court/demonstration charts</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Forgive me, but I'm catching up on some old threads I =
never had a chance to pursue.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;I have never once encountered a situation in =
which one of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob's &quot;shyster lawyers&quot; recommended trying =
a case in which</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>a plea bargain was offered -- regardless of whether =
the client</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>was perceived as guilty or innocent.&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jerry, did you really mean what you literally said, =
or are you just yanking my chain?&nbsp; We all know some lawyers who =
love to drag out cases - more time spent means more money made on their =
fees.&nbsp; That type of unscrupulous lawyer loves to try hopeless =
causes, convincing their clients they have more than a snowball's =
chance in Hades, then they continue with endless meritless appeals =
afterward.&nbsp; They're quite content to keep the gravy train running, =
selling false hope so long as the client or his patron has money to =
spend. You've really never met one of these?&nbsp; You must lead a very =
sheltered life my friend.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>More shocking to me, though, is the suggestion that =
any reputable lawyer would routinely recommend that a client who =
maintains his innocence should accept a plea bargain rather than go to =
trial.&nbsp; Yes, I understand the concept that an innocent might have =
seemingly damning evidence stacked against him and his best chance at =
escaping a serious and undeserved penalty might actually be to plead =
guilty to a lesser charge, but any lawyer who routinely advises =
innocent people to plead guilty to things they haven't done should be =
disbarred for malpractice.&nbsp; Sure sounds like an archetypical =
&quot;shyster&quot; to me.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;Minor correction to Bob's long rebuttal of =
Jerry's comment on...</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>PROSECUTORS aren't supposed to be focused on winning, =
but on justice.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Defense counsel, OTOH, have an ethical obligation to =
seek the client's best</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>interest, AS DETERMINED BY THE CLIENT.&nbsp; I had a =
really amusing evening</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>several years ago with several defense counsel =
telling stories about their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>idiot guilty clients who had refused plea offers, =
insisted on trial, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>gotten much harsher sentences than offered by the =
prosecutor for a plea.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Did an old cop's heart good.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave Hause&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave, clients surely do sometimes ignore their =
attorney's advice, but from what I have seen in criminal cases at =
least, they more often than not go along with whatever the attorney =
thinks is best.&nbsp; The attorney is supposed to be the expert at =
legal strategy, after all, and few clients know enough or are confident =
enough to significantly question the course their attorney =
sets.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Besides, as I have stated before I don't buy the =
&quot;ethical&quot; principle of an attorney being obliged to seek the =
client's interest above ALL else - taking that principle to the =
extremes commonly seen in our courts is about the most UNethical act I =
can think of, from anyone but a lawyer's perspective, I guess - but I'm =
not really interested in starting that debate again.&nbsp; We've been =
there and done that, with no resolution.&nbsp; Suffice it to say that =
the &quot;ethics&quot; lawyers are supposedly taught are diametrically =
opposed to the ones scientists are taught.&nbsp; </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>IMO, a double standard depending on which side an =
attorney works for is without merit, and the pursuit of justice should =
be the primary goal of _everyone_ involved in the legal system (yes =
even defense attorneys)- but it isn't, and that's the problem with the =
adversarial system as currently practiced in this country.&nbsp; =
Winning for the client (or one's own political ambitions) often takes =
precedence over everything - over truth, over justice, over good of the =
victims in the instant case, over the well-being of other potential =
future victims, over all reasonable concepts of right and wrong.&nbsp; =
The very nature of an adversarial system has corrupting influences on =
advocates because for there to be a winner, there must be a loser, and =
no attorney wants to lose - it can damage their career plans.&nbsp; So =
to win their cases, some lawyers literally lie, cheat, and steal, doing =
everything they can to obfuscate the facts and mislead the court, =
violating their oath as an officer of the court and even violating the =
law themselves by obstructing discovery, tampering with evidence, and =
other malfeasant practices - and they too like to spout their =
&quot;ethical obligation&quot; to serve their client's best interest as =
a justification for their excesses, knowing how difficult it would be =
to bring and prove any charges against them.&nbsp; I'm sorry, but even =
if they never cross the line to actually break the law themselves, that =
argument doesn't wash with me or with most people I've talked to.&nbsp; =
An attorney's ethical obligation should be to see that their client =
gets a fair hearing, is competently represented, does not have his/her =
rights violated, and that all the established facts are displayed to =
the trier of fact; it should NOT be to pull every dirty trick in the =
book to win (whether their cause is just or not).&nbsp; That's going =
too far.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Whoops, I really meant it when I said I didn't want =
to start that debate again, but I guess I probably have.&nbsp; C'est la =
vie.</FONT></P>
<BR>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF95EC.878765A2--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 24 20:29:48 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28665
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:29:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.79])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA28660
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:29:42 -0500 (EST)
From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com
Received: (qmail 30256 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Mar 2000 01:29:13 -0000
Message-ID: <20000325012913.30255.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [207.205.133.125]
To: "chris breyer" <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
Cc: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <20000324221107.88378.qmail@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: dog poisoning case
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:28:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Disposition-Notification-To: <shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Yo quiero Taco Bell?

----- Original Message -----
From: "chris breyer" <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: dog poisoning case


> Yes, I apparently have time to look into a dog-poisoning case.  One of the
> two dogs survived.  Each was throwing up blood.  Veterinary report on the
> survivor indicates poisoning, but I have no specifics (yet).
>
> A frozen-food grocery-item burrito plastic wrapper was collected, as well
as
> a partially digested burrito, both from the backyard of the surviving
> canine.
>
> Any suggestions on how to proceed, and possible poisonous substance
> candidates?
>
> Chris Breyer
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 24 21:39:08 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29231
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:39:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29226
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:39:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from inland (iii-pm3-2-22.inland.net [209.85.112.85])
	by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04510
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <005d01bf9602$ceb606c0$557055d1@inland.net>
From: "mike horton" <scitch@inland.net>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: new member
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 18:35:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi, I just subscribed to this list and already find the discussions very
interesting.
I'm a high school chemistry and physics teacher who is trying to break into
the forensics field.  Any suggestions for how to do that in Southern
California?  Any websites, books, videos, etc. that will help me would be
appreciated.  I'm reading Criminalistics: An introduction. . . by Saferstein
right now and have ordered Forensic Science Handbook by Saferstein which
should be arriving soon.  I just finished More Chemistry and Crime recently.
My degree is in physical science with about 30 units of chem and 25 units of
physics.  I will be taking Quantitative Analysis at UC Riverside this
summer.  I'll also be looking for a lab to do some volunteer work in this
summer.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Horton
Physics/Chem teacher
Science Dept. Chair
Perris High School, CA
scitch@inland.net
Mike Horton
Physics/Chem teacher
Science Dept. Chair
Perris High School, CA
scitch@inland.net


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 24 23:03:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29911
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:03:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29906
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:03:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 207-172-178-28.s28.as1.sjc.ca.dialup.rcn.com ([207.172.178.28] helo=oemcomputer)
	by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3)
	id 12Yhn2-0005Zl-00; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:03:08 -0500
Message-ID: <007101bf960e$fe6c9260$1cb2accf@oemcomputer>
From: "Amy Bridgeford" <amybridgeford@erols.com>
To: "mike horton" <scitch@inland.net>, <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: CAC meeting
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:02:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

I would like to invite everyone to attend the spring CAC meeting, hosted
this year by Serological Research Institue.  The meeting will be held May
8-12 in Napa Valley, CA.  This will be the third joint meeting with the
Forensic Science Society.  Abstracts for technical papers and poster
presentations are still being accepted.  For more information call SERI
(510) 223-7374 or visit www.serolgical.com

We look forward to seeing you in Napa.


From forens-owner  Sat Mar 25 10:32:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06375
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA06370
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:32:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 31142 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2000 15:32:05 -0000
Received: from access-7-35.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.36)
  by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 25 Mar 2000 15:32:05 -0000
Message-ID: <003301bf966f$51117ca0$240d12d0@dwhause>
From: "Dave Hause" <dwhause@rollanet.org>
To: "Forens E-mail Group" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
References: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A347716@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
Subject: Re: court/demonstration charts
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:32:22 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Just one more quote on lawyers doing illegal actions, I think from a book by
a public defender called "How can you defend those people?":  "Remember!
If, after the trial, someone has to go to jail, be sure it is the client."
Dave Hause
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Parsons" <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
<snip>
So to win their
cases, some lawyers literally lie, cheat, and steal, doing everything they
can to obfuscate the facts and mislead the court, violating their oath as an
officer of the court and even violating the law themselves by obstructing
discovery, tampering with evidence, and other malfeasant practices - and
they too like to spout their "ethical obligation" to serve their client's
best interest as a justification for their excesses, knowing how difficult
it would be to bring and prove any charges against them.


From forens-owner  Sat Mar 25 20:44:57 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11027
	for forens-outgoing; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:44:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11022
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from laptop ([63.204.133.190])
 by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9)
 with SMTP id <0FS0002H1A3RKU@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu;
 Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:43:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:27:09 -0800
From: "Peter D. Barnett" <pbarnett@crl.com>
Subject: Friday afternoon (was RE: court/demonstration charts)
X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Message-id: <Version.32.20000325083656.00dfd9d0@mail.crl.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id UAA11023
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


>
> It's Friday afternoon, and I don't write haiku, so. . .
> At 06:56 PM 3/24/2000 -0500, Bob Parsons wrote: 
>
>>
>> IMO, a double standard depending on which side an attorney works for is
>> without merit, and the pursuit of justice should be the primary goal of
>> _everyone_ involved in the legal system (yes even defense attorneys)- 
>
>
> But there is automatically a double standard - the prosecution has all the
> cops, and a substantial amount of the money, on their side.  That makes
it an
> unequal playing field from the get-go.  Besides which the folks who lived
> through some rough times in  Merry Old England decided that it should not be
> a level playing field.  There SHOULD be obligations on the government
because
> the government had then (in 1776), and continues to, demonstrate a
remarkable
> lack of self restraint.  
>
>
>>
>> Winning for the client (or one's own political ambitions) often takes
>> precedence over everything - over truth, over justice, over good of the
>> victims in the instant case, over the well-being of other potential future
>> victims, 
>
>
> Since when does the justice system have anything to do with the
well-being of
> the victim?  The purpose of the criminal justice system is to do something
> (Rehabilitate? Punish?) to offenders.  The parties to the litigation are the
> defendant and the people - each of who presumably has something at stake in
> the process.  If the victim of a crime wants some (revenge? satisfaction?
> compensation?) there are civil and/or administrative remedies to follow.  To
> make the justice system serves the needs of the victim as well as those of
> the People is like trying to make a firearm that is useful for elephant
> hunting and child rearing.
>
>>
>> An attorney's ethical obligation should be to see that their client gets a
>> fair hearing, is competently represented, does not have his/her rights
>> violated, and that all the established facts are displayed to the trier of
>> fact;
>
>
> "Fair hearing" - one that follows all of the rules - I agree.
>
> "Competently represented" - but without doing say of those things that some
> people think are unethical, sleazy, reprehensible, or dishonest. Who gets to
> decide?
>
> "Rights violated" - who decides this? and which rights are we going to make
> sure are not violated.  There are more rights these days than Carter has
> pills.  What about conflicting rights.  At its very essence a trial is about
> conflicting rights: The right of the victim not to be one, and the right of
> the defendant not to have his freedom restricted by rules and regulations. 
> What are the rights that cannot be violated, and which are the ones that can
> be violated? And under what circumstances? And what happens when someone who
> has the authority to violate someone's rights does so improperly?
>
> "Established facts" - which ones are these?  How established must they be? 
> What does one do with a bunch of established facts (like mass fragment
> percentages, DNA allele types, or 15 matching fingerprint points)?  Or are
> these not what you mean by facts - the facts being "cocaine is present",
"the
> semen sample is the defendant's", or "the fingerprint was made by the
> victim's left little finger."
>
> The rules we have to get beyond all of the platitudes are called due
> process.  By following those rules we have and end result we call justice. 
> By following those rules, and accepting the resultant justice, we hope that
> we accomplish what we want.  Perhaps what we want is mostly guilty people go
> to prison, the presence in the world of people who go against what we
> consider acceptable behavior is a minimum, and, at the same time, the
rest of
> us are free to do what we want.  Maybe what other people want is different -
> but then they would have to have a different system.
>
> Well,  enough rambling. . .
>
> Pete Barnett
>
>
>



Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com
http://www.fsalab.com

From forens-owner  Mon Mar 27 09:59:39 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05985
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:59:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from post2.fast.net (post2.fast.net [198.69.204.22])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05980
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:59:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www.fast.net (maxtnt09-abe-170.fast.net [209.92.14.170])
	by post2.fast.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA17314
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:59:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:00:20 -0500
Message-ID: <01BF97D3.4314E640.meddetectives1@medstar.com>
From: Tina Keller <meddetectives1@medstar.com>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:00:19 -0500
Organization: Medstar Television, Inc.
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



----------
From: 	Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]
Sent: 	Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM
To: 	'forens@statgen.ncsu'
Subject: 	saliva from cigarette butt

Dear List:

Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would extract saliva from 
a cigarette butt for DNA testing?  If so, could you give me the citation?

What was the first court case in where the results of DNA taken from a 
cigarette butt was used in testimony?

As always, your help is appreciate.

Tina Keller



From forens-owner  Mon Mar 27 10:48:38 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07229
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:48:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07224
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:48:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Gervforsci@aol.com
Received: from Gervforsci@aol.com
	by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.97.3705e34 (2706)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:47:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <97.3705e34.2610dc9a@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:47:38 EST
Subject: DNA Dilutions
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Dear List:

I am curious how different laboratories prepare their dilutions when conducting sensitivity studies on the ABI 310 for validation.  We quantitate with the colorimetric method on the Gibco slot-blot apparatus using PE's prtocol and kit.  I know that this is not an exact quantitation, so is the dilution just an estimate or is there a known DNA smaple out there that is sold for this purpose - One with a known concentration and set of genotypes, such as the known DNA supplied with the Profiler Plus Kit?

Thanks,
Chuck

From forens-owner  Mon Mar 27 11:40:06 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08339
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08334
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:39:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HMR4CRTC>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:39:08 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B94@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: DNA Dilutions
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:39:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF980A.F88E5C7C"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF980A.F88E5C7C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The NIST standard set is a good set to use.  They are very consistent.  But
in reality, Quantiblot is not that bad, because after all you want your test
to reflect your casework as closely as possible.  So, I would use quantiblot
but use different sample types, extraction methods, etc. and compare them
all at once with at least two dilutions below the detectable limit of QB.
In fact, if possible use adjudicated case samples.  A certain combination of
sample type and extraction method may produce more interlocus imbalance due
to the incomplete removal of inhibitors, and you can track that with serial
dilutions using Quantiblot.  I would also pay close attention to allele
imbalance and use that information to set your lower threshold for
amplification.  This of course differs from lab to lab slightly. That is the
way I handled it.  One thing we also did was compare the dilutions to DQ
typing and monitored the ability to obtain correct types throughout the
dilution series.  If you have that capability you might try that.

I am not sure exactly how they prepare the control in the PE kit, but I amp
20 ul of the control which is supposed to be 2.5 ng of DNA.  If I were to
amp 2.5 ng of a sample, I would get excessive -A.  I shoot more for 1 ng on
evidence.  So I would not rely on the control too much because it was not
prepared using "caselike" samples and extraction methods.

Hope this helps a little,

My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Gervforsci@aol.com [mailto:Gervforsci@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:48 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: DNA Dilutions


Dear List:

I am curious how different laboratories prepare their dilutions when
conducting sensitivity studies on the ABI 310 for validation.  We quantitate
with the colorimetric method on the Gibco slot-blot apparatus using PE's
prtocol and kit.  I know that this is not an exact quantitation, so is the
dilution just an estimate or is there a known DNA smaple out there that is
sold for this purpose - One with a known concentration and set of genotypes,
such as the known DNA supplied with the Profiler Plus Kit?

Thanks,
Chuck

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF980A.F88E5C7C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: DNA Dilutions</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The NIST standard set is a good set to use.&nbsp; =
They are very consistent.&nbsp; But in reality, Quantiblot is not that =
bad, because after all you want your test to reflect your casework as =
closely as possible.&nbsp; So, I would use quantiblot but use different =
sample types, extraction methods, etc. and compare them all at once =
with at least two dilutions below the detectable limit of QB.&nbsp; In =
fact, if possible use adjudicated case samples.&nbsp; A certain =
combination of sample type and extraction method may produce more =
interlocus imbalance due to the incomplete removal of inhibitors, and =
you can track that with serial dilutions using Quantiblot.&nbsp; I =
would also pay close attention to allele imbalance and use that =
information to set your lower threshold for amplification.&nbsp; This =
of course differs from lab to lab slightly. That is the way I handled =
it.&nbsp; One thing we also did was compare the dilutions to DQ typing =
and monitored the ability to obtain correct types throughout the =
dilution series.&nbsp; If you have that capability you might try =
that.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am not sure exactly how they prepare the control in =
the PE kit, but I amp 20 ul of the control which is supposed to be 2.5 =
ng of DNA.&nbsp; If I were to amp 2.5 ng of a sample, I would get =
excessive -A.&nbsp; I shoot more for 1 ng on evidence.&nbsp; So I would =
not rely on the control too much because it was not prepared using =
&quot;caselike&quot; samples and extraction methods.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hope this helps a little,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views =
or policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Gervforsci@aol.com [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:Gervforsci@aol.com">mailto:Gervforsci@aol.com</A>]</FONT>=

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:48 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: DNA Dilutions</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dear List:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am curious how different laboratories prepare their =
dilutions when conducting sensitivity studies on the ABI 310 for =
validation.&nbsp; We quantitate with the colorimetric method on the =
Gibco slot-blot apparatus using PE's prtocol and kit.&nbsp; I know that =
this is not an exact quantitation, so is the dilution just an estimate =
or is there a known DNA smaple out there that is sold for this purpose =
- One with a known concentration and set of genotypes, such as the =
known DNA supplied with the Profiler Plus Kit?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chuck</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF980A.F88E5C7C--

From forens-owner  Mon Mar 27 12:03:18 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08966
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:03:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08926
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:02:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HMR4CRV7>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:02:07 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B95@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: saliva from cigarette butt
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:02:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF980E.2EF80FDA"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF980E.2EF80FDA
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

There are many more but here are a few.  

Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, Postage Stamps, Envelope
Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained Material, in Lincoln PJ, et al.
Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 98:  Forensic DNA Profiling Protocols,
Humana Press, 1998

Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R.
PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts.
Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33.

Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid from Saliva and Forensic
Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 37, No 2, 1992

Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of highly polymorphic
fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems using two generations of
DNA sequencers.
J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66.

Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .  Evaluation and usefulness of reverse
dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in forensic case work. Forensic Sci Int 1996
Jul 31;81(1):61-72

My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Keller [mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt




----------
From: 	Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]
Sent: 	Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM
To: 	'forens@statgen.ncsu'
Subject: 	saliva from cigarette butt

Dear List:

Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would extract saliva from 
a cigarette butt for DNA testing?  If so, could you give me the citation?

What was the first court case in where the results of DNA taken from a 
cigarette butt was used in testimony?

As always, your help is appreciate.

Tina Keller


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF980E.2EF80FDA
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: saliva from cigarette butt</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There are many more but here are a few.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, =
Postage Stamps, Envelope Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained =
Material, in Lincoln PJ, et al. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol =
98:&nbsp; Forensic DNA Profiling Protocols, Humana Press, =
1998</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey =
CT, Dirnhofer R. PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette =
butts.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid =
from Saliva and Forensic Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol =
37, No 2, 1992</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of =
highly polymorphic fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems =
using two generations of DNA sequencers.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .&nbsp; =
Evaluation and usefulness of reverse dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in =
forensic case work. Forensic Sci Int 1996 Jul 31;81(1):61-72</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views =
or policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Tina Keller [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com">mailto:meddetectives1@medstar=
.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>----------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: &nbsp; Tina =
Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: &nbsp; Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 'forens@statgen.ncsu'</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; saliva =
from cigarette butt</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dear List:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Does anybody know of an article detailing how one =
would extract saliva from </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>a cigarette butt for DNA testing?&nbsp; If so, could =
you give me the citation?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What was the first court case in where the results of =
DNA taken from a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>cigarette butt was used in testimony?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As always, your help is appreciate.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tina Keller</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF980E.2EF80FDA--

From forens-owner  Mon Mar 27 21:54:14 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18402
	for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:54:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.janics.com (mail.janics.com [206.102.184.12])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18397
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:54:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mikespooter [208.137.35.148] by mail.janics.com
  (SMTPD32-5.04) id AFD3B4C01B4; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:58:27 -0600
Message-ID: <008801bf9861$1ac2ffe0$da2389d0@mikespooter>
From: "M Davis" <mdavis@clandjop.com>
To: "FORENS-L" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Date rape drugs - info needed
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:55:37 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

The effects of Rohypnol have been well documented, but is anyone
aware of a drug that will cause loss of consciousness after a few
minutes, yet wear off quickly (30-60 minutes) allowing the victim 
to "come to" and realize (s)he is being assaulted?

Mike Davis
MSSC Regional Crime Lab, Joplin MO
Deputy Sheriff, Newton County MO
mailto:mdavis@janics.com
ICQ#38952146


From forens-owner  Tue Mar 28 11:26:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27658
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27653
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:25:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.48.186])
          by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net
          (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP
          id <20000328162442.RUKO10526.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>
          for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:24:42 +0000
Message-ID: <38E0DB5B.72C0B268@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:18:35 -0800
From: John Bowden <jaybow@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: saliva from cigarette butt
References: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B95@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------B0DCF1B084104BE711E755C8"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


--------------B0DCF1B084104BE711E755C8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Quick Note:

My knowledge of DNA is that gained by being around the edges of the
technology.  Indeed to me DNA stands for "Drugs and Narcotic Analyses."

In a recent hallway conversation with CCI (DNA) Program Manager Terry
Spear I asked the same question, "How to get DNA from a cigarette
butt?"  Her reply was that the richest source normally is the epithelial
cells adhering to the outside of the butt, not the saliva.

Perhaps some one more knowledgeable on the subject would care to
comment.

John Bowden
"Dum Spiro Spero"

"Sailus, Jeff" wrote:

>
>
> There are many more but here are a few.
>
> Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, Postage Stamps,
> Envelope Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained Material, in Lincoln
> PJ, et al. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 98:  Forensic DNA
> Profiling Protocols, Humana Press, 1998
>
> Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R.
> PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts.
>
> Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33.
>
> Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid from Saliva and
> Forensic Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 37, No 2, 1992
>
> Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of highly polymorphic
> fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems using two
> generations of DNA sequencers.
>
> J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66.
>
> Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .  Evaluation and usefulness of
> reverse dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in forensic case work. Forensic
> Sci Int 1996 Jul 31;81(1):61-72
>
> My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of
> CMPD.
>
> Jeff Sailus, MSFS
> CMPD Crime Lab
> DNA Section
> 601 E. Trade Street
> Charlotte, NC 28202
> ph  704-336-7755
> fax 704-353-0088
> email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tina Keller [mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM
> To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
> Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt
>
>
>
> ----------
> From:   Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]
> Sent:   Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM
> To:     'forens@statgen.ncsu'
> Subject:        saliva from cigarette butt
>
> Dear List:
>
> Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would extract saliva
> from
> a cigarette butt for DNA testing?  If so, could you give me the
> citation?
>
> What was the first court case in where the results of DNA taken from a
>
> cigarette butt was used in testimony?
>
> As always, your help is appreciate.
>
> Tina Keller

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for two free plane tickets:
http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/


--------------B0DCF1B084104BE711E755C8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Quick Note:
<p>My knowledge of DNA is that gained by being around the edges of the
technology.&nbsp; Indeed to me DNA stands for "Drugs and Narcotic Analyses."
<p>In a recent hallway conversation with CCI (DNA) Program Manager Terry
Spear I asked the same question, "How to get DNA from a cigarette butt?"&nbsp;
Her reply was that the richest source normally is the epithelial cells
adhering to the outside of the butt, not the saliva.
<p>Perhaps some one more knowledgeable on the subject would care to comment.
<p>John Bowden
<br>"Dum Spiro Spero"
<p>"Sailus, Jeff" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p><font size=-1>There are many more but here are a few.</font>
<p><font size=-1>Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, Postage
Stamps, Envelope Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained Material, in Lincoln
PJ, et al. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 98:&nbsp; Forensic DNA Profiling
Protocols, Humana Press, 1998</font>
<p><font size=-1>Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT,
Dirnhofer R. PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts.</font>
<p><font size=-1>Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33.</font>
<p><font size=-1>Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid from
Saliva and Forensic Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 37, No
2, 1992</font>
<p><font size=-1>Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of highly
polymorphic fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems using two
generations of DNA sequencers.</font>
<p><font size=-1>J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66.</font>
<p><font size=-1>Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .&nbsp; Evaluation
and usefulness of reverse dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in forensic case
work. Forensic Sci Int 1996 Jul 31;81(1):61-72</font>
<p><font size=-1>My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or
policies of CMPD.</font>
<p><font size=-1>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</font>
<br><font size=-1>CMPD Crime Lab</font>
<br><font size=-1>DNA Section</font>
<br><font size=-1>601 E. Trade Street</font>
<br><font size=-1>Charlotte, NC 28202</font>
<br><font size=-1>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</font>
<br><font size=-1>fax 704-353-0088</font>
<br><font size=-1>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</font>
<br>&nbsp;
<p><font size=-1>-----Original Message-----</font>
<br><font size=-1>From: Tina Keller [<a href="mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com">mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com</a>]</font>
<br><font size=-1>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM</font>
<br><font size=-1>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</font>
<br><font size=-1>Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt</font>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p><font size=-1>----------</font>
<br><font size=-1>From:&nbsp;&nbsp; Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]</font>
<br><font size=-1>Sent:&nbsp;&nbsp; Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM</font>
<br><font size=-1>To:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 'forens@statgen.ncsu'</font>
<br><font size=-1>Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; saliva
from cigarette butt</font>
<p><font size=-1>Dear List:</font>
<p><font size=-1>Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would
extract saliva from</font>
<br><font size=-1>a cigarette butt for DNA testing?&nbsp; If so, could
you give me the citation?</font>
<p><font size=-1>What was the first court case in where the results of
DNA taken from a</font>
<br><font size=-1>cigarette butt was used in testimony?</font>
<p><font size=-1>As always, your help is appreciate.</font>
<p><font size=-1>Tina Keller</font></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>-----------------------------------------------------
<br>Click here for two free plane tickets:
<br><A HREF="http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/">http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------B0DCF1B084104BE711E755C8--


From forens-owner  Tue Mar 28 12:17:21 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28453
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:17:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA28448
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:17:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 28 Mar 2000 17:17:17 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7WL1>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:15:30 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A34771C@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: saliva from cigarette butt
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:15:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF98D9.37929D06"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF98D9.37929D06
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

I would imagine that dead epithelial cells from the lips and in saliva would
indeed adhere to the outside of cigarette butts.  Saliva usually contains
some epithelial cells which slough off from the mucus membranes of the
mouth.  Collecting cheek cells for microscopic examination is a typical high
school and college freshman biology experiment, and is usually accomplished
by sampling one's spittle or lightly rubbing a tongue depressor along the
inside of one's cheek.  The cells are easily dislodged and easy to find.
I'm not sure how much saliva actually gets deposited inside the typical
cigarette butt, though.  I would not be surprised if the outside of the
filter actually was the richest source of cells in the butt, as John's
friend noted.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bowden [mailto:jaybow@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:19 AM
Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: Re: saliva from cigarette butt


Quick Note: 

My knowledge of DNA is that gained by being around the edges of the
technology.  Indeed to me DNA stands for "Drugs and Narcotic Analyses." 


In a recent hallway conversation with CCI (DNA) Program Manager Terry Spear
I asked the same question, "How to get DNA from a cigarette butt?"  Her
reply was that the richest source normally is the epithelial cells adhering
to the outside of the butt, not the saliva. 


Perhaps some one more knowledgeable on the subject would care to comment. 


John Bowden 
"Dum Spiro Spero" 


"Sailus, Jeff" wrote: 


  

There are many more but here are a few. 


Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, Postage Stamps, Envelope
Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained Material, in Lincoln PJ, et al.
Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 98:  Forensic DNA Profiling Protocols,
Humana Press, 1998 


Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R.
PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts. 


Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33. 


Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid from Saliva and Forensic
Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 37, No 2, 1992 


Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of highly polymorphic
fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems using two generations of
DNA sequencers. 


J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66. 


Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .  Evaluation and usefulness of reverse
dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in forensic case work. Forensic Sci Int 1996
Jul 31;81(1):61-72 


My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD. 


Jeff Sailus, MSFS 
CMPD Crime Lab 
DNA Section 
601 E. Trade Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755 
fax 704-353-0088 
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us 
  


-----Original Message----- 
From: Tina Keller [ mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com
<mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com> ] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM 
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' 
Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt 
  
  


---------- 
From:   Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com] 
Sent:   Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM 
To:     'forens@statgen.ncsu' 
Subject:        saliva from cigarette butt 


Dear List: 


Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would extract saliva from 
a cigarette butt for DNA testing?  If so, could you give me the citation? 


What was the first court case in where the results of DNA taken from a 
cigarette butt was used in testimony? 


As always, your help is appreciate. 


Tina Keller

-- 
----------------------------------------------------- 
Click here for two free plane tickets: 
http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/ <http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/>  
  


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF98D9.37929D06
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">


<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=450143916-28032000>I 
would imagine that dead epithelial cells from the lips and in saliva would 
indeed adhere to the outside of cigarette butts.&nbsp; Saliva usually contains 
some epithelial cells which slough off from the mucus membranes of the 
mouth.&nbsp; Collecting cheek cells for microscopic examination is a typical 
high school and college freshman biology experiment, and is usually accomplished 
by sampling one's spittle or lightly rubbing a tongue depressor along the inside 
of one's cheek.&nbsp; The cells are easily dislodged and easy to find.&nbsp; I'm 
not sure how much saliva actually gets deposited inside the typical cigarette 
butt, though.&nbsp; I would not be surprised if the outside of the filter 
actually was the richest source of cells in the butt, as John's friend 
noted.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Bowden 
  [mailto:jaybow@worldnet.att.net]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:19 
  AM<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: saliva from 
  cigarette butt<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Quick Note: 
  <P>My knowledge of DNA is that gained by being around the edges of the 
  technology.&nbsp; Indeed to me DNA stands for "Drugs and Narcotic Analyses." 
  <P>In a recent hallway conversation with CCI (DNA) Program Manager Terry Spear 
  I asked the same question, "How to get DNA from a cigarette butt?"&nbsp; Her 
  reply was that the richest source normally is the epithelial cells adhering to 
  the outside of the butt, not the saliva. 
  <P>Perhaps some one more knowledgeable on the subject would care to comment. 
  <P>John Bowden <BR>"Dum Spiro Spero" 
  <P>"Sailus, Jeff" wrote: 
  <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">&nbsp; 
    <P><FONT size=-1>There are many more but here are a few.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, Postage 
    Stamps, Envelope Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained Material, in 
    Lincoln PJ, et al. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 98:&nbsp; Forensic DNA 
    Profiling Protocols, Humana Press, 1998</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT, 
    Dirnhofer R. PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid from 
    Saliva and Forensic Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 37, No 2, 
    1992</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of highly 
    polymorphic fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems using two 
    generations of DNA sequencers.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .&nbsp; Evaluation and 
    usefulness of reverse dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in forensic case work. 
    Forensic Sci Int 1996 Jul 31;81(1):61-72</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or 
    policies of CMPD.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>CMPD Crime 
    Lab</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>DNA Section</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>601 E. 
    Trade Street</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>Charlotte, NC 28202</FONT> <BR><FONT 
    size=-1>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>fax 
    704-353-0088</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>email&nbsp; 
    jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT> <BR>&nbsp; 
    <P><FONT size=-1>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>From: 
    Tina Keller [<A 
    href="mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com">mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com</A>]</FONT> 
    <BR><FONT size=-1>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM</FONT> <BR><FONT 
    size=-1>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>Subject: FW: 
    saliva from cigarette butt</FONT> <BR>&nbsp; <BR>&nbsp; 
    <P><FONT size=-1>----------</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>From:&nbsp;&nbsp; Tina 
    Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]</FONT> <BR><FONT 
    size=-1>Sent:&nbsp;&nbsp; Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM</FONT> <BR><FONT 
    size=-1>To:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 'forens@statgen.ncsu'</FONT> <BR><FONT 
    size=-1>Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; saliva from 
    cigarette butt</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Dear List:</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would 
    extract saliva from</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>a cigarette butt for DNA 
    testing?&nbsp; If so, could you give me the citation?</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>What was the first court case in where the results of DNA 
    taken from a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>cigarette butt was used in 
    testimony?</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>As always, your help is appreciate.</FONT> 
    <P><FONT size=-1>Tina Keller</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P>-- <BR>----------------------------------------------------- <BR>Click here 
  for two free plane tickets: <BR><A 
  href="http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/">http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/</A> 
  <BR>&nbsp; </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF98D9.37929D06--

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 28 12:41:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28838
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:41:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28833
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:41:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HMR4CVCV>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:40:35 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B98@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: saliva from cigarette butt
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:41:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF98DC.B8527724"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF98DC.B8527724
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The paper portion of the butt is where the skin cells are.  You try to avoid
the actual filter portion because few cells would rub off there and tobacco
contains inhibitors.  It is actually very easy to get a full profile from
the entire paper portion of a fully smoked cigarette.

My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD. 

Jeff Sailus, MSFS 
CMPD Crime Lab 
DNA Section 
601 E. Trade Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755 
fax 704-353-0088 
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us 
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:15 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: RE: saliva from cigarette butt


I would imagine that dead epithelial cells from the lips and in saliva would
indeed adhere to the outside of cigarette butts.  Saliva usually contains
some epithelial cells which slough off from the mucus membranes of the
mouth.  Collecting cheek cells for microscopic examination is a typical high
school and college freshman biology experiment, and is usually accomplished
by sampling one's spittle or lightly rubbing a tongue depressor along the
inside of one's cheek.  The cells are easily dislodged and easy to find.
I'm not sure how much saliva actually gets deposited inside the typical
cigarette butt, though.  I would not be surprised if the outside of the
filter actually was the richest source of cells in the butt, as John's
friend noted.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bowden [mailto:jaybow@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:19 AM
Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: Re: saliva from cigarette butt


Quick Note: 

My knowledge of DNA is that gained by being around the edges of the
technology.  Indeed to me DNA stands for "Drugs and Narcotic Analyses." 


In a recent hallway conversation with CCI (DNA) Program Manager Terry Spear
I asked the same question, "How to get DNA from a cigarette butt?"  Her
reply was that the richest source normally is the epithelial cells adhering
to the outside of the butt, not the saliva. 


Perhaps some one more knowledgeable on the subject would care to comment. 


John Bowden 
"Dum Spiro Spero" 


"Sailus, Jeff" wrote: 


  

There are many more but here are a few. 


Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, Postage Stamps, Envelope
Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained Material, in Lincoln PJ, et al.
Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 98:  Forensic DNA Profiling Protocols,
Humana Press, 1998 


Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R.
PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette butts. 


Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33. 


Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid from Saliva and Forensic
Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 37, No 2, 1992 


Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of highly polymorphic
fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems using two generations of
DNA sequencers. 


J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66. 


Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .  Evaluation and usefulness of reverse
dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing in forensic case work. Forensic Sci Int 1996
Jul 31;81(1):61-72 


My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD. 


Jeff Sailus, MSFS 
CMPD Crime Lab 
DNA Section 
601 E. Trade Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755 
fax 704-353-0088 
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us 
  


-----Original Message----- 
From: Tina Keller [ mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com
<mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com> ] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM 
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' 
Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt 
  
  


---------- 
From:   Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com] 
Sent:   Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM 
To:     'forens@statgen.ncsu' 
Subject:        saliva from cigarette butt 


Dear List: 


Does anybody know of an article detailing how one would extract saliva from 
a cigarette butt for DNA testing?  If so, could you give me the citation? 


What was the first court case in where the results of DNA taken from a 
cigarette butt was used in testimony? 


As always, your help is appreciate. 


Tina Keller

-- 
----------------------------------------------------- 
Click here for two free plane tickets: 
http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/ <http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/>  
  


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF98DC.B8527724
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">



<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=524083717-28032000><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>The 
paper portion of the butt is where the skin cells are.&nbsp; You try to avoid 
the actual filter portion because few cells would rub off there and tobacco 
contains inhibitors.&nbsp; It is actually very easy to get a full profile from 
the entire paper portion of a fully smoked cigarette.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>My opinion are my own and may not 
reflect the views or policies of CMPD.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT> <BR><FONT 
color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#000000 
face=Arial size=2>DNA Section</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT><BR><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT> <BR><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial 
size=2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT> <BR><FONT 
color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;</FONT> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert Parsons 
    [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 28, 2000 
    12:15 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: 
    saliva from cigarette butt<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=450143916-28032000>I 
    would imagine that dead epithelial cells from the lips and in saliva would 
    indeed adhere to the outside of cigarette butts.&nbsp; Saliva usually 
    contains some epithelial cells which slough off from the mucus membranes of 
    the mouth.&nbsp; Collecting cheek cells for microscopic examination is a 
    typical high school and college freshman biology experiment, and is usually 
    accomplished by sampling one's spittle or lightly rubbing a tongue depressor 
    along the inside of one's cheek.&nbsp; The cells are easily dislodged and 
    easy to find.&nbsp; I'm not sure how much saliva actually gets deposited 
    inside the typical cigarette butt, though.&nbsp; I would not be surprised if 
    the outside of the filter actually was the richest source of cells in the 
    butt, as John's friend noted.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Parsons, F-ABC</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial 
    size=2>Forensic Chemist</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regional Crime 
    Laboratory</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>at Indian River Community 
    College</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ft. Pierce, FL</FONT> </P>
    <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
        <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir = ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
        size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Bowden 
        [mailto:jaybow@worldnet.att.net]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 28, 2000 
        11:19 AM<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: 
        saliva from cigarette butt<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Quick Note: 
        <P>My knowledge of DNA is that gained by being around the edges of the 
        technology.&nbsp; Indeed to me DNA stands for &quot;Drugs and Narcotic 
        Analyses.&quot; 
        <P>In a recent hallway conversation with CCI (DNA) Program Manager Terry 
        Spear I asked the same question, &quot;How to get DNA from a cigarette 
        butt?&quot;&nbsp; Her reply was that the richest source normally is the 
        epithelial cells adhering to the outside of the butt, not the saliva. 
        <P>Perhaps some one more knowledgeable on the subject would care to 
        comment. 
        <P>John Bowden <BR>&quot;Dum Spiro Spero&quot; 
        <P>&quot;Sailus, Jeff&quot; wrote: 
        <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE = CITE>&nbsp; 
            <P><FONT size=-1>There are many more but here are a few.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Hochmeister MN, PCR Analysis from Cigarette Butts, 
            Postage Stamps, Envelope Sealing Flaps, and Other Saliva-Stained 
            Material, in Lincoln PJ, et al. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol 
            98:&nbsp; Forensic DNA Profiling Protocols, Humana Press, 
            1998</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Jung J, Borer UV, Comey 
            CT, Dirnhofer R. PCR-based typing of DNA extracted from cigarette 
            butts.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Int J Legal Med. 1991;104(4):229-33.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Walsh DJ, et al. Isolation of Deoxyribonucleic Acid 
            from Saliva and Forensic Science Samples Containing Saliva, JFS, Vol 
            37, No 2, 1992</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Fregeau CJ, Bowen KL, Fourney RM. Validation of 
            highly polymorphic fluorescent multiplex short tandem repeat systems 
            using two generations of DNA sequencers.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>J Forensic Sci. 1999 Jan;44(1):133-66.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Dimo-Simonin N, Brandt-Casadevall C .&nbsp; 
            Evaluation and usefulness of reverse dot blot DNA-PolyMarker typing 
            in forensic case work. Forensic Sci Int 1996 Jul 
            31;81(1):61-72</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views 
            or policies of CMPD.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>CMPD 
            Crime Lab</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>DNA Section</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>601 E. Trade Street</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>Charlotte, NC 
            28202</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT> 
            <BR><FONT size=-1>fax 704-353-0088</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT> 
            <BR>&nbsp; 
            <P><FONT size=-1>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>From: Tina Keller [<A 
            href="mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com">mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com</A>]</FONT> 
            <BR><FONT size=-1>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:00 AM</FONT> 
            <BR><FONT size=-1>To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>Subject: FW: saliva from cigarette butt</FONT> <BR>&nbsp; 
            <BR>&nbsp; 
            <P><FONT size=-1>----------</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>From:&nbsp;&nbsp; Tina 
            Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com]</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>Sent:&nbsp;&nbsp; Monday, March 27, 2000 9:34 AM</FONT> 
            <BR><FONT size=-1>To:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
            'forens@statgen.ncsu'</FONT> <BR><FONT 
            size=-1>Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; saliva 
            from cigarette butt</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Dear List:</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Does anybody know of an article detailing how one 
            would extract saliva from</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>a cigarette butt 
            for DNA testing?&nbsp; If so, could you give me the citation?</FONT> 
            
            <P><FONT size=-1>What was the first court case in where the results 
            of DNA taken from a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=-1>cigarette butt was used 
            in testimony?</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>As always, your help is appreciate.</FONT> 
            <P><FONT size=-1>Tina Keller</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
        <P>-- <BR>----------------------------------------------------- 
        <BR>Click here for two free plane tickets: <BR><A 
        href="http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/">http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/</A> 
        <BR>&nbsp; </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF98DC.B8527724--

From forens-owner  Tue Mar 28 17:28:15 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02864
	for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:28:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailgw3.prontomail.com (mailgw3.prontomail.com [209.185.149.199])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02859
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:28:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail46.prontomail.com (209.185.149.146) by mailgw3.prontomail.com (NPlex 2.0.123) for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:23:05 -0800
Received: from web18 (209.185.149.218) by mail46.prontomail.com (NPlex 2.0.123) for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:27:19 -0800
X-Version: medscape 6.0            .2057.0
From: "mary raidy" <mary_raidy@medscape.com>
Message-Id: <B76E854EFB404D11788100807CF9C8EF@mary_raidy.medscape.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 100 17:30:36 +0500
X-Priority: Normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: RE: saliva from cigarette butt
X-Mailer: Web Based Pronto
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

in reference to getting saliva from a cigarette butt:

how is it determined who smoked the cigarette ?

how is it determined whether the persoon who smoked the cigarette
wasn't kissing someone exhuberantly before, during, or after the
cigarette was smoked.

Mary RAidy

Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move
http://www.medscape.com

From forens-owner  Wed Mar 29 07:50:24 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10253
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10248
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:50:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Sidg@aol.com
Received: from Sidg@aol.com
	by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.cb.3985ec2 (5727)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:49:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <cb.3985ec2.261355de@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:49:34 EST
Subject: More on the computer felony
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Good Morning Everyone,
Poor Sam seems to be having a real tough time of it. Here's a little more 
about his case. He seems to be piece-mealing it - I think that's probably 
because he's so upset.
For some odd reason, I really feel that this guy has been terrribly wronged 
by the system. Any help for him would be very much appreciated.
Thanks - Barbara Jean
Injustice is the greatest sin
that any court can visit upon
the people of it's land.

What I wrote to him after he told me how ineffective his lawyer is:
<<If your lawyer doesn't call you - call your lawyer. You're paying him and 
that's the bottom line. B>>

Sam's reply:

B,

That's the big problem, I haven't paid him much. I originally had a different
lawyer. He charged me $500 to go to the police station and another $1000 for
the peliminary hearing. He wanted a $10000 retainer for the criminal and $175
an hour to handle the civil. I got hit with a civil complaint on the Monday
after I was arrested. I was to report to court that Wednesday. I sent the 
paper
work up to the lawyer on Monday. He called me Tuesday afternoon to tell me 
that
he had a conflict and couldn't be in court. So, I ended up going to a hearing
the next day without a lawyer. I was made to proceed without him. Of course,
there was no court reporter that day, it was my responsibility to hire one, or
so I'm told.

I don't know this for sure, but I believe at one time he did business with the
father of the lawyer who is "representing" me.  I had been appointed a civil
defendent in July 1997. After begging this lawyer to meet with me without
success and receiving a notice that I had been indicted 6 weeks prior, he 
fired
me and I fired him. When I walked out of court that day, I was approached by a
man saying that he knew people who had supreme court cases against Gwinnett
County. He gave me the numer to a Ben Chambers. This guy is some sort of
unofficial paralegel.  I told him my story and he gave me the phone number to
my lawyer, Scott King. Being almost broke by this time and unemployed, I 
called
Scott up. He offered to do the case for $1500. I should have known better. You
can't get a lot for $1500 and I still owe him around $300. I have no idea what
he is charging me for this appealate work. I've spent around $3000 for a 
felony
case, pretty stupid, huh. At the time I had posted a $2500 cash bond. That
money went to my wife and kids while I was in jail. The rest of my  saving 
were
spent on living expenses. Between April 1997 and and December 1998, I work a
total of 6 weeks. When I wasn't in jail I spent most of the time running
circles around myself and being a fool. Dimtry Karamozov at his worst.

Barabara, I had never been arrested in my life. I honestly felt that someone
was going to do the right thing sooner or later.  There were so many
inconsistancies in my accusers stories. I couldn't understand how I could be
tried for deleting files that no one could identify or list. I thought that
because the computer had been returned to the owners that the state didn't 
have
any physical evidence. They didn't, but I suppose that doesn't matter these
days. My wife was absolutely convinced I wouldn't see a day in jail. Everyone
else seem to think that the worst I could get would be community service. I
spent the first four months in jail expecting my lawyer to get me out.  About
the only thing I can do with an level of competance anymore is write source
code and that's what got me into this mess in the first place.

Sam



From forens-owner  Wed Mar 29 08:23:03 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10775
	for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:23:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10770
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:22:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HMR4CX32>; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:22:27 -0500
Message-ID: <D7DDF3558CC5D11180CE00805F6FC13201F62B9D@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
From: "Sailus, Jeff" <jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: saliva from cigarette butt
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:23:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9981.D40796A2"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9981.D40796A2
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

how is it determined who smoked the cigarette ?>>>>>

Comparison to standards.

<<<how is it determined whether the persoon who smoked the cigarette
wasn't kissing someone exhuberantly before, during, or after the
cigarette was smoked.>>>

After wouldn't matter.  Before or during could result in a mixture of the
two.

My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.

Jeff Sailus, MSFS
CMPD Crime Lab
DNA Section
601 E. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 
ph  704-336-7755
fax 704-353-0088
email  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us
 


-----Original Message-----
From: mary raidy [mailto:mary_raidy@medscape.com]
Sent: None
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: RE: saliva from cigarette butt


in reference to getting saliva from a cigarette butt:

how is it determined who smoked the cigarette ?

how is it determined whether the persoon who smoked the cigarette
wasn't kissing someone exhuberantly before, during, or after the
cigarette was smoked.

Mary RAidy

Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move
http://www.medscape.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9981.D40796A2
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: RE: saliva from cigarette butt</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>how is it determined who smoked the cigarette ?&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Comparison to standards.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&lt;&lt;&lt;how is it determined whether the persoon who smoked the cigarette</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>wasn't kissing someone exhuberantly before, during, or after the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>cigarette was smoked.&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>After wouldn't matter.&nbsp; Before or during could result in a mixture of the two.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>My opinion are my own and may not reflect the views or policies of CMPD.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Jeff Sailus, MSFS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>CMPD Crime Lab</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>DNA Section</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>601 E. Trade Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Charlotte, NC 28202 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ph&nbsp; 704-336-7755</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>fax 704-353-0088</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>email&nbsp; jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: mary raidy [<A HREF="mailto:mary_raidy@medscape.com">mailto:mary_raidy@medscape.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: None</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: RE: saliva from cigarette butt</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>in reference to getting saliva from a cigarette butt:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>how is it determined who smoked the cigarette ?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>how is it determined whether the persoon who smoked the cigarette</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>wasn't kissing someone exhuberantly before, during, or after the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>cigarette was smoked.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Mary RAidy</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://www.medscape.com" TARGET="_blank">http://www.medscape.com</A></FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9981.D40796A2--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 14:34:41 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00533
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:34:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00528
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:34:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003301934.OAA00528@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0)
	id G94QFZZM; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:40:37 +1200
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:33:00 +1200
From: "Walsh, Kevan" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>
Subject: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Cc: "'bstrubm@rmi.net'" <bstrubm@rmi.net>
X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


I have received an attachment to an email that was described as pretty   
park.exe.  This is a worm virus thing.
It came through the forens-l system.  Don't open it unless you like the   
thrill of testing your anti-virus software!
Mark & Becky Strub - whoever you are, you might like to run some   
antivirus software, if you haven't already.
See below for info from the Norton site.

Kevan Walsh
ESR
PB 92021
Auckland
New Zealand
Ph: 09-8153903
email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/prettypark.worm.html
This worm program behaves similarly to Happy99 Worm. It was originally   
spread by email spamming from a French email address. The original report   
of this worm was submitted through our exclusive Scan&Deliver system on   
May 28, 1999 from France.
When the attached program file, PrettyPark.exe, is executed, it may   
display the 3D pipe screen saver. It also creates a file called   
files32.vxd in the Windows\System directory and modifies the following   
registry entry value from "%1" %* to files32.vxd "%1" %* without your   
knowledge:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Classes\exefile\
shell\open\command
Once the worm program is executed, it tries to email itself automatically   
every 30 minutes (or 30 minutes after it is loaded) to email addresses   
registered in your Internet address book.
It also tries to connect to an IRC server and join a specific IRC   
channel. The worm sends information to IRC every 30 seconds to keep   
itself connected, and to retrieve any commands from the IRC channel.
Via IRC, the author or distributor of the worm can obtain system   
information including the computer name, product name, product   
identifier, product key, registered owner, registered organization,   
system root path, version, version number, ICQ identification numbers,   
ICQ nicknames, victim's email address, and Dial Up Networking username   
and passwords. In addition, being connected to IRC opens a security hole   
in which the client can potentially be used to receive and execute files.   

Repair Information
To remove the PrettyPark worm:
On the Windows taskbar, click Start > Run.
Type REGEDIT, then click OK.
Modify the following Registry value:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\exefile\ shell\open\command

and change

files32.vxd "%1" %*

to

"%1" %*

For clarity, these seven characters are the following: double quote,   
percent sign, the numeral one, double quote, space, percent sign, and   
asterisk. Don't forget the space.

Delete the PrettyPark.exe file.
Restart your computer.
Delete the \Windows\System\Files32.vxd file.
Safe Computing
Because of Worms and Trojan Horse programs, you must practice safe   
computing. Be suspicious of executable file attachments (for example,   
.exe, .shs, or MS Word, or MS Excel files), especially ones from   
newsgroups or unknown sources. For continuous protection, always run   
Norton AntiVirus Auto-Protect and use LiveUpdate to make sure you have   
the latest virus definitions.

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 15:08:58 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00976
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:08:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mhub3.tc.umn.edu (mhub3.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.43])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00971
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:08:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from amethyst.tc.umn.edu by mhub3.tc.umn.edu with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:08:21 -0600
Received: from [128.101.160.170] by amethyst.tc.umn.edu for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:08:19 -0600
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
From: "mcdo0272" <mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Graduate School
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:08:53 
X-Tick-Nemesis: Chairface Chippendale
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <iss.7519.38e3b433.4c862.1@amethyst.tc.umn.edu>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hello, 

I will be attending grad school this fall to get a Masters in forensics. 
One of my choices is John Jay, however they seem to be lacking in 
assistantship opportunities. I am checking out various grant and 
fellowship programs, as I really do not want to take out a loan. Does 
anyone know of good programs I can apply to, or assistantships at CUNY that 
I'm not finding out about?

Thank you for your help,

Kristin McDonald
mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu




From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 15:09:26 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01012
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:09:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01003
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:09:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <HWRZK40Y>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:09:15 -0600
Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E5DF2@UMKC-MAIL02>
From: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
To: "'Walsh, Kevan'" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>,
        "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'"
	 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Cc: "'bstrubm@rmi.net'" <bstrubm@rmi.net>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:09:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Am I correct in assuming that if the e-mail was received, and the pretty
park.exe not opened and deleted instead, nothing needs to be done?
Andre Moenssens

-----Original Message-----
From: Walsh, Kevan [mailto:KWalsh@esr.cri.nz]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 1:33 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Cc: 'bstrubm@rmi.net'
Subject: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe



I have received an attachment to an email that was described as pretty   
park.exe.  This is a worm virus thing.
It came through the forens-l system.  Don't open it unless you like the   
thrill of testing your anti-virus software!
Mark & Becky Strub - whoever you are, you might like to run some   
antivirus software, if you haven't already.
See below for info from the Norton site.

Kevan Walsh
ESR
PB 92021
Auckland
New Zealand
Ph: 09-8153903
email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/prettypark.worm.html
This worm program behaves similarly to Happy99 Worm. It was originally   
spread by email spamming from a French email address. The original report   
of this worm was submitted through our exclusive Scan&Deliver system on   
May 28, 1999 from France.
When the attached program file, PrettyPark.exe, is executed, it may   
display the 3D pipe screen saver. It also creates a file called   
files32.vxd in the Windows\System directory and modifies the following   
registry entry value from "%1" %* to files32.vxd "%1" %* without your   
knowledge:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Classes\exefile\
shell\open\command
Once the worm program is executed, it tries to email itself automatically   
every 30 minutes (or 30 minutes after it is loaded) to email addresses   
registered in your Internet address book.
It also tries to connect to an IRC server and join a specific IRC   
channel. The worm sends information to IRC every 30 seconds to keep   
itself connected, and to retrieve any commands from the IRC channel.
Via IRC, the author or distributor of the worm can obtain system   
information including the computer name, product name, product   
identifier, product key, registered owner, registered organization,   
system root path, version, version number, ICQ identification numbers,   
ICQ nicknames, victim's email address, and Dial Up Networking username   
and passwords. In addition, being connected to IRC opens a security hole   
in which the client can potentially be used to receive and execute files.   

Repair Information
To remove the PrettyPark worm:
On the Windows taskbar, click Start > Run.
Type REGEDIT, then click OK.
Modify the following Registry value:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\exefile\ shell\open\command

and change

files32.vxd "%1" %*

to

"%1" %*

For clarity, these seven characters are the following: double quote,   
percent sign, the numeral one, double quote, space, percent sign, and   
asterisk. Don't forget the space.

Delete the PrettyPark.exe file.
Restart your computer.
Delete the \Windows\System\Files32.vxd file.
Safe Computing
Because of Worms and Trojan Horse programs, you must practice safe   
computing. Be suspicious of executable file attachments (for example,   
.exe, .shs, or MS Word, or MS Excel files), especially ones from   
newsgroups or unknown sources. For continuous protection, always run   
Norton AntiVirus Auto-Protect and use LiveUpdate to make sure you have   
the latest virus definitions.

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 15:40:34 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01525
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01520
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:40:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003302040.PAA01520@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0)
	id G94QFZ8L; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:46:33 +1200
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:39:00 +1200
From: "Walsh, Kevan" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


Yes

 ----------
From:  Moenssens, Andre[SMTP:MoenssensA@umkc.edu]
Sent:  Friday, 31 March 2000 08:09
To:  'Walsh, Kevan'; 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Cc:  'bstrubm@rmi.net'
Subject:  RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe

Am I correct in assuming that if the e-mail was received, and the pretty
park.exe not opened and deleted instead, nothing needs to be done?
Andre Moenssens

 -----Original Message-----
From: Walsh, Kevan [mailto:KWalsh@esr.cri.nz]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 1:33 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Cc: 'bstrubm@rmi.net'
Subject: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe



I have received an attachment to an email that was described as pretty
park.exe.  This is a worm virus thing.
It came through the forens-l system.  Don't open it unless you like the   
    

thrill of testing your anti-virus software!
Mark & Becky Strub - whoever you are, you might like to run some
antivirus software, if you haven't already.
See below for info from the Norton site.

Kevan Walsh
ESR
PB 92021
Auckland
New Zealand
Ph: 09-8153903
email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/prettypark.worm.html
This worm program behaves similarly to Happy99 Worm. It was originally
spread by email spamming from a French email address. The original report   
    

of this worm was submitted through our exclusive Scan&Deliver system on   
    

May 28, 1999 from France.
When the attached program file, PrettyPark.exe, is executed, it may
display the 3D pipe screen saver. It also creates a file called
files32.vxd in the Windows\System directory and modifies the following
registry entry value from "%1" %* to files32.vxd "%1" %* without your
knowledge:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Classes\exefile\
shell\open\command
Once the worm program is executed, it tries to email itself automatically   
    

every 30 minutes (or 30 minutes after it is loaded) to email addresses
registered in your Internet address book.
It also tries to connect to an IRC server and join a specific IRC
channel. The worm sends information to IRC every 30 seconds to keep
itself connected, and to retrieve any commands from the IRC channel.
Via IRC, the author or distributor of the worm can obtain system
information including the computer name, product name, product
identifier, product key, registered owner, registered organization,
system root path, version, version number, ICQ identification numbers,
ICQ nicknames, victim's email address, and Dial Up Networking username
and passwords. In addition, being connected to IRC opens a security hole   
    

in which the client can potentially be used to receive and execute files.   
    


Repair Information
To remove the PrettyPark worm:
On the Windows taskbar, click Start > Run.
Type REGEDIT, then click OK.
Modify the following Registry value:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\exefile\ shell\open\command

and change

files32.vxd "%1" %*

to

"%1" %*

For clarity, these seven characters are the following: double quote,
percent sign, the numeral one, double quote, space, percent sign, and
asterisk. Don't forget the space.

Delete the PrettyPark.exe file.
Restart your computer.
Delete the \Windows\System\Files32.vxd file.
Safe Computing
Because of Worms and Trojan Horse programs, you must practice safe
computing. Be suspicious of executable file attachments (for example,
.exe, .shs, or MS Word, or MS Excel files), especially ones from
newsgroups or unknown sources. For continuous protection, always run
Norton AntiVirus Auto-Protect and use LiveUpdate to make sure you have
the latest virus definitions.

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 16:07:29 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01949
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:07:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01942
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:07:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA08249;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:07:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:07:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: "Walsh, Kevan" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>
cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
In-Reply-To: <200003302040.PAA01520@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000330160022.14617A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



Heh, heh.  Another one of those Windoze things
again, eh?

As the Unix guy said to the Windoze guy
in the Dilbert cartoon, "Here's a dime
kid.  Go out and buy yourself a real operating
system."

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  Sorry.  Really.


billo


Q:  What operating system is fast, efficient, 
scalable, easy to use, upgradeable, portable,
allows individualized shells and windowing systems,
comes with free compilers, free graphics programs,
free office programs, is itself completely
free, and is immune to viruses?

A: Not Windows.


On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Walsh, Kevan wrote:

> From: "Walsh, Kevan" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
>  ----------
> From:  Moenssens, Andre[SMTP:MoenssensA@umkc.edu]
> Sent:  Friday, 31 March 2000 08:09
> To:  'Walsh, Kevan'; 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
> Cc:  'bstrubm@rmi.net'
> Subject:  RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe
> 
> Am I correct in assuming that if the e-mail was received, and the pretty
> park.exe not opened and deleted instead, nothing needs to be done?
> Andre Moenssens
> 


From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 17:34:42 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02958
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:34:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02953
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:34:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 30 Mar 2000 22:34:38 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7YSJ>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:32:44 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A347727@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:32:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9A97.DDF28B24"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9A97.DDF28B24
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"


Billo wrote:

>Heh, heh.  Another one of those Windoze things
>again, eh?
>
>As the Unix guy said to the Windoze guy
>in the Dilbert cartoon, "Here's a dime
>kid.  Go out and buy yourself a real operating
>system."
>
>Sorry, couldn't help myself.  Sorry.  Really.

>Q:  What operating system is fast, efficient, 
>scalable, easy to use, upgradeable, portable,
>allows individualized shells and windowing systems,
>comes with free compilers, free graphics programs,
>free office programs, is itself completely
>free, and is immune to viruses?
>
>A: Not Windows.


Unfortunately, not Unix or Linux, either - not anymore.  ELF parasites and
viruses first began to inflict Unix/Linus platforms over a year ago, and
will become more prevalent as those platforms gain wider usage.  The only
thing that has protected them up until now is that so few people use them
that virus programmers didn't bother to spend the time to write the
(admittedly more complicated) malicious code for them.  It was easier and
more fun to attack the 98% (thereabouts) of computers that use Microsoft
products.  Unix is certainly a much more stable and robust platform than
Windows (especially now that it's former and often disastrous vulnerability
to power fluctuations has been solved), but is isn't immune to the same kind
of mischief that has plagued the DOS/Windows world for two decades.  The bad
guys just haven't gotten around to spending much time on it yet.

Here's just a few Unix viruses that a casual search of security/virus web
sites found:
------------
* VIT The VIT Virus is a Linux x86 parasitic virus that infects ELF
executeables by using the padding of the text segment. For replication,
direct infection via attempted infection of executeables in the current
directory is employed. This virus is documented in the article UNIX ELF
VIRUS AND PARASITES. The name of this virus by curiosity was given by the
people at FProt who noticed the virus created a temp file using the letters
VIT.
* FILE The FILE Virus is a simple UNIX virus that concatenates the host to
the parasite portion of the virus. The virus then extracts the original host
from itself and executes it as a seperate file. Direct infection is used
infecting executeables in the current directory. This virus is not strip
safe.
* SIILOV The SIILOV Virus is a Linux x86 parasitic virus that infects
execteables by appending itself to the end of the data segment after filling
in a pseudo bss section. The entry point of the host after infection doesn't
change as the virus is chained by inserting jump code where the original
entry point code once resided. Residency is maintained by infecting the PLT
of the process and infecting programs called for by the 'execve' library
call. Direct infection is also used by infecting executeables in the current
directory. If the superuser is executing the virus, 'init' is infected,
which when then run will infect the entire system as every process is a
descendant of it (using PLT residency).
-------------------------

Granted, the total numbers up until now pale in comparison to the many
thousands of DOS/Windows viruses, but that will change in time.  For more
info on Unix viruses, here's an interesting (but highly technical) site:
http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/, the source of the above quotes.

There are also a number of Java applet based bugs that can mess with
Unix-based web sites by adding and deleting graphics to a page, and that
sort of thing.  The biggest problem with Unix platforms regarding viruses to
date has of course been the fact that Unix servers can host and spread a
wide variety of DOS/Windows viruses, while not being themselves affected; a
typhoid-Unix carrier situation.

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



------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9A97.DDF28B24
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Billo wrote:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Heh, heh.&nbsp; Another one of those Windoze =
things</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;again, eh?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;As the Unix guy said to the Windoze guy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;in the Dilbert cartoon, &quot;Here's a =
dime</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;kid.&nbsp; Go out and buy yourself a real =
operating</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;system.&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Sorry, couldn't help myself.&nbsp; Sorry.&nbsp; =
Really.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;Q:&nbsp; What operating system is fast, =
efficient, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;scalable, easy to use, upgradeable, =
portable,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;allows individualized shells and windowing =
systems,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;comes with free compilers, free graphics =
programs,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;free office programs, is itself =
completely</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;free, and is immune to viruses?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;A: Not Windows.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Unfortunately, not Unix or Linux, either - not =
anymore.&nbsp; ELF parasites and viruses first began to inflict =
Unix/Linus platforms over a year ago, and will become more prevalent as =
those platforms gain wider usage.&nbsp; The only thing that has =
protected them up until now is that so few people use them that virus =
programmers didn't bother to spend the time to write the (admittedly =
more complicated) malicious code for them.&nbsp; It was easier and more =
fun to attack the 98% (thereabouts) of computers that use Microsoft =
products.&nbsp; Unix is certainly a much more stable and robust =
platform than Windows (especially now that it's former and often =
disastrous vulnerability to power fluctuations has been solved), but is =
isn't immune to the same kind of mischief that has plagued the =
DOS/Windows world for two decades.&nbsp; The bad guys just haven't =
gotten around to spending much time on it yet.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Here's just a few Unix viruses that a casual search =
of security/virus web sites found:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>* VIT The VIT Virus is a Linux x86 parasitic virus =
that infects ELF executeables by using the padding of the text segment. =
For replication, direct infection via attempted infection of =
executeables in the current directory is employed. This virus is =
documented in the article UNIX ELF VIRUS AND PARASITES. The name of =
this virus by curiosity was given by the people at FProt who noticed =
the virus created a temp file using the letters VIT.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>* FILE The FILE Virus is a simple UNIX virus that =
concatenates the host to the parasite portion of the virus. The virus =
then extracts the original host from itself and executes it as a =
seperate file. Direct infection is used infecting executeables in the =
current directory. This virus is not strip safe.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>* SIILOV The SIILOV Virus is a Linux x86 parasitic =
virus that infects execteables by appending itself to the end of the =
data segment after filling in a pseudo bss section. The entry point of =
the host after infection doesn't change as the virus is chained by =
inserting jump code where the original entry point code once resided. =
Residency is maintained by infecting the PLT of the process and =
infecting programs called for by the 'execve' library call. Direct =
infection is also used by infecting executeables in the current =
directory. If the superuser is executing the virus, 'init' is infected, =
which when then run will infect the entire system as every process is a =
descendant of it (using PLT residency).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-------------------------</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Granted, the total numbers up until now pale in =
comparison to the many thousands of DOS/Windows viruses, but that will =
change in time.&nbsp; For more info on Unix viruses, here's an =
interesting (but highly technical) site:</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2><A HREF=3D"http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/</A>, the source of the =
above quotes.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There are also a number of Java applet based bugs =
that can mess with Unix-based web sites by adding and deleting graphics =
to a page, and that sort of thing.&nbsp; The biggest problem with Unix =
platforms regarding viruses to date has of course been the fact that =
Unix servers can host and spread a wide variety of DOS/Windows viruses, =
while not being themselves affected; a typhoid-Unix carrier =
situation.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9A97.DDF28B24--

From forens-owner  Thu Mar 30 19:12:51 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03759
	for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:12:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03750
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:12:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA09972;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:12:39 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:12:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
In-Reply-To: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A347727@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000330175439.7026F-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Robert Parsons wrote:

> From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
> 
> 
> Billo wrote:
> 
> >Heh, heh.  Another one of those Windoze things
> >again, eh?
> >
> >As the Unix guy said to the Windoze guy
> >in the Dilbert cartoon, "Here's a dime
> >kid.  Go out and buy yourself a real operating
> >system."
> >
> >Sorry, couldn't help myself.  Sorry.  Really.
> 
> >Q:  What operating system is fast, efficient, 
> >scalable, easy to use, upgradeable, portable,
> >allows individualized shells and windowing systems,
> >comes with free compilers, free graphics programs,
> >free office programs, is itself completely
> >free, and is immune to viruses?
> >
> >A: Not Windows.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, not Unix or Linux, either - not anymore.  ELF parasites and
> viruses first began to inflict Unix/Linus platforms over a year ago, and
> will become more prevalent as those platforms gain wider usage.  The only
> thing that has protected them up until now is that so few people use them
> that virus programmers didn't bother to spend the time to write the
> (admittedly more complicated) malicious code for them.  It was easier and
> more fun to attack the 98% (thereabouts) of computers that use Microsoft
> products.  Unix is certainly a much more stable and robust platform than
> Windows (especially now that it's former and often disastrous vulnerability
> to power fluctuations has been solved), but is isn't immune to the same kind
> of mischief that has plagued the DOS/Windows world for two decades.  The bad
> guys just haven't gotten around to spending much time on it yet.
> 
> Here's just a few Unix viruses that a casual search of security/virus web
> sites found: [lists Silvio's three viruses]

Actually, those are three "viruses" from the web site by Silvio, who
wrote the article rejected by phrack.  What he has done has been
to post his article over all the mailing lists, which gives
a fairly large hit rate, but which also boils down to one
guy with big claims if you read the sites.  

While he may have found a vulnerability, your claim that ELF parasites
have been infecting UNIX boxes for over a year is not particularly
true, unless you just include Silvios test boxes.  Moreover, the virus
resistance of UNIX does not lie in the structure of its binaries; it
lies in its directory structure and permissions system.  If you have an
example where these "ELF parasites" have actually turned out to be a
problem in the real world, I would dearly like to see it.

In any case, I am not claiming that UNIX does not have security
vulnerabilities.  I claim that it is immune to the effects of
Windoze-style viruses.  It still is. The big threat to Linux 
does not lie in it's UNIX-ness.  It lies in the fact that it 
often shares space with Windoze on a dual-boot box or because it is laid
on top of a Micosoft disk with a FAT.

In terms of real attacks, you will note that there are, for 
instance, no CERT UNIX virus vulnerabilities noted, no DISA UNIX virus 
vulnerabilities.

Your claim that the only reason there haven't been more UNIX viruses
because nobody used UNIX in the past is simply unfounded.  In fact,
UNIX boxes have been targeted harder and longer than Windoze boxes
because they have been around longer, they are used for bigger sites
and projects, they have traditionally dominated the academic world,
they make up most servers, and they have traditionally been "where the
money is."  In fact, the dual of your claim is actually the truth --
that UNIX has traditionally been the target of choice, but that Windoze
boxes have increased in value as a target over the past decade.  If you
go to CERT and look at the vulnerabilities listing, you will see that
UNIX boxes have had plenty of attention.  The increasing use of
Linux for home use *will* lead to big security problems, but not
from silvio and his "virus."  They will come from the fact that
folk are going to leave unsecured boxes attached to the web and
walk away -- and this will get them hosed whether they are running
UNIX, Linux, or a Windoze variant.

If, in fact, silvio's articles were an active threat, it would be all
over the place, instead of silvio reposting notices of his web site a
zillion times for a year.

However, to be fair, the truth is that under the technical definition
of virus as a self-replicating program, it is possible to write one for
any computer.  However, with UNIX, you can only write viruses for
programs you have write-permissions for.   For instance, it is not
difficult to write a script that will append a replicator to all the C
code in your src directory, so that every time you compile and run a
program without looking at the code and run it, it will look wherever
it is for source code and attach itself.

The bottom line, though, is that the thing that makes viruses a problem
in the Windoze world, and the thing that makes them not a problem in
the UNIX world is that permissions and file system structure thing.  A
superuser who executes random programs with superuser permissions will
get screwed.

Immunity to viruses in UNIX is like immunity to a virus in a human.  It
doesn't mean that one cannot be innoculated, and it doesn't mean that
one cannot be exposed.  It means that they don't spread and they don't
cause the problems you see in WIndoze because of its inherent design
flaws.

As Nick Fizgerals writes in the VIRUS-L faq:


> Basically, you shouldn't bother scanning for Unix viruses at this
> point in time.  Although it is possible to write Unix-based viruses we
> have yet to see any instance of a non-experimental virus in that
> environment.  Someone with sufficient knowledge and access to write an
> effective virus would be more likely to conduct other activities than
> virus-writing. Furthermore, the typical form of software sharing in
> the Unix environment does not support virus spread as easily as some
> others.
>
> This answer is not meant to imply that Unix viruses are impossible, or
> that there aren't security problems in a typical Unix
> environment--there are, and Fred Cohen's first experimental virus was
> implemented and tested on a Unix system.  True viruses in the Unix
> environment are, however, unlikely to spread well.

 

Windoze advocates have been wishing for a UNIX virus that poses
a real threat for almost two decades.  They are still waiting.


> 
> There are also a number of Java applet based bugs that can mess with
> Unix-based web sites by adding and deleting graphics to a page, and that
> sort of thing.  


This is not a virus.  Look, if you invite random people to run random
programs on your box, don't be surprised that some of them do bad 
things.  That's not a hole in UNIX, that's a hole in the user.
*No* operating system can protect a user from running self-destructive
programs or from opening himself or herself up to damage by
allowing strangers to run random programs with his or her permissions.



> The biggest problem with Unix platforms regarding viruses to
> date has of course been the fact that Unix servers can host and spread a
> wide variety of DOS/Windows viruses, while not being themselves affected; a
> typhoid-Unix carrier situation.


This is exactly *not* a UNIX problem.  UNIX does not "spread" DOS
viruses.  All operating systems store files on disks.  The fact
that UNIX boxes doesn't *also* emulate Windows so it can  clean up 
after Windows messes in the files it stores in addition to taking 
care of its own security is not a problem with UNIX -- the messes 
are still Windoze messes.


billo


What's your favorite Windows 2000 bug?

Mine is: from the bugnet.com "BugNet Top 30 Windows 2000 Bugs"


 > According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 Professional may hang after you
 > install Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.2. Microsoft says that pressing
 > CTRL-ALT-DELETE will not help. To resolve this problem, Microsoft says you
 > have to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional.


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 00:25:51 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06310
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:25:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crick.fmed.uniba.sk (kovac@crick.fmed.uniba.sk [158.195.48.201])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06305
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:25:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (kovac@localhost) by crick.fmed.uniba.sk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA29929; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:22:30 +0200
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:22:30 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Agent 000 <kovac@crick.fmed.uniba.sk>
To: "Moenssens, Andre" <MoenssensA@umkc.edu>
cc: "'Walsh, Kevan'" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>,
        "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>,
        "'bstrubm@rmi.net'" <bstrubm@rmi.net>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe
In-Reply-To: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E5DF2@UMKC-MAIL02>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000331062128.29898B-100000@crick.fmed.uniba.sk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Moenssens, Andre wrote:

> Am I correct in assuming that if the e-mail was received, and the pretty
> park.exe not opened and deleted instead, nothing needs to be done?

Absolutely.
Peter Kovac


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 00:43:52 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06555
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:43:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f225.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.225])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA06550
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:43:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 79277 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2000 05:43:16 -0000
Message-ID: <20000331054316.79276.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 63.212.140.17 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:43:15 PST
X-Originating-IP: [63.212.140.17]
From: "chris breyer" <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:43:15 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Once saw a letter written in to a computer techie magazine to wit:

##########
Attention:  Bill Gates paid $50,000 for DOS, and stole Windows from Apple.  
Just thought you'd like to know.
#########

I, of course, have no personal feelings or opinions in those matters.

Chris Breyer (properly capitalizing and punctuating, though that first 
sentence lacks something....)



>From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
>To: "Walsh, Kevan" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>
>CC: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
>Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
>Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:07:11 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>
>Heh, heh.  Another one of those Windoze things
>again, eh?
>
>As the Unix guy said to the Windoze guy
>in the Dilbert cartoon, "Here's a dime
>kid.  Go out and buy yourself a real operating
>system."
>
>Sorry, couldn't help myself.  Sorry.  Really.
>
>
>billo
>
>
>Q:  What operating system is fast, efficient,
>scalable, easy to use, upgradeable, portable,
>allows individualized shells and windowing systems,
>comes with free compilers, free graphics programs,
>free office programs, is itself completely
>free, and is immune to viruses?
>
>A: Not Windows.
>
>
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Walsh, Kevan wrote:
>
> > From: "Walsh, Kevan" <KWalsh@esr.cri.nz>
> >
> >
> > Yes
> >
> >  ----------
> > From:  Moenssens, Andre[SMTP:MoenssensA@umkc.edu]
> > Sent:  Friday, 31 March 2000 08:09
> > To:  'Walsh, Kevan'; 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
> > Cc:  'bstrubm@rmi.net'
> > Subject:  RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe
> >
> > Am I correct in assuming that if the e-mail was received, and the pretty
> > park.exe not opened and deleted instead, nothing needs to be done?
> > Andre Moenssens
> >
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 08:09:17 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10329
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:09:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10324
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:09:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Sidg@aol.com
Received: from Sidg@aol.com
	by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.5a.3346514 (3988)
	 for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:08:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <5a.3346514.2615fd57@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:08:39 EST
Subject: Fwd: Sam Fugarino -- Computer Crime? Re: Wrongly convicted.
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_5a.3346514.2615fd57_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


--part1_5a.3346514.2615fd57_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

--part1_5a.3346514.2615fd57_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
Received: from  rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226])
	by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2000
	18:44:40 -0500
Received: from  smtp.atl.mediaone.net (atlasmtp.atl.mediaone.net
	[24.92.1.152]) by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Thu, 30
	Mar 2000 18:44:21 -0500
Received: from atl.mediaone.net (client122216.atl.mediaone.net
	[24.31.122.216])
	by smtp.atl.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13371
	for <Sidg@aol.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:44:18 -0500 (EST)
Sender: root@smtp.atl.mediaone.net
Message-ID: <38E3E7A1.33964B02@atl.mediaone.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:47:45 -0500
From: "Samuel E. Fugarino" <sfugarino@atl.mediaone.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-1mdklinus i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sidg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Sam Fugarino -- Computer Crime? Re: Wrongly convicted.
References: <10.1aea39b.2612094f@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Barbara,

I taked to my lawyer, well to one of his assistants. She told me that he had
filed a motion for reconsideration of the appealate courts findings. I don't
have a copy of it, so I can't tell you what the contents are. If it goes like
everything else has, I probably just cost myself more time.

I hope I haven't alienated you. What I have told you in my messages is true. I
have transcipts of the trial, the printouts, and most of the other documents at
home. I have instructed my lawyer to go after these people. It still amazes me
that I can't get any action from any law enforcement people. It seems pretty
well cut and dry that if my boss said he locked the computer up, yet files were
written to the disk, he lied. It also seems pretty simple to me that since the
computer was given back to him before my arrest and the forensic search was
incomplete, my rights were violated.  Ask yourself why these people would have
to lie and why they had to have that computer back so quickly.

If you could, please respond to this message so that I will know that you
received it.

Sam Fugaarino




--part1_5a.3346514.2615fd57_boundary--

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 08:13:38 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10517
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:13:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10512
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:13:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA04063;
	Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:13:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:13:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: chris breyer <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
In-Reply-To: <20000331054316.79276.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000331072652.6850A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, chris breyer wrote:

> From: chris breyer <crimguychris@hotmail.com>
> 
> Once saw a letter written in to a computer techie magazine to wit:
> 
> ##########
> Attention:  Bill Gates paid $50,000 for DOS, and stole Windows from Apple.  
> Just thought you'd like to know.
> #########



Actually, that's unfair in that it doesn't give Micro$oft credit for
good work it did on the look and feel, and it gives Apple too much
credit since the basic Windows design was actually developed (as I
remember) at Xerox PARC.  Xerox just decided, as it did with laser
printing and color copying, that there was just no future market for
that technology.

I remember when I was a grad student when GUIs first became practical.
We had to write papers on the relative merits of tiled vs overlapping
windows.  There was a period there when folk seriously considered
making tiled windows the standard since it was thought that allowing
windows to stack and overlap would make the screen disorganized.

For those who are not "look and feel" enthusiasts, tiled windows
are windows which are not allowed to overlap.  Instead, they lie
side by side, up and down, but all in the plane of the screen -- like
panes on a real glass window.  You can resize the GUI window, and 
the others will shrink to make room, but you can't stack -- there's 
a right and left and up and down, but no forward and back.

Windows as a GUI is pretty good.  It's the OS underneath that sucks.

One of the nice things about the resurgence of UNIX and Linux, however,
is that the GUI and the OS are designed to be detached.  In fact, the
*command line* interface and the OS are disjoint. You can write shells
to talk to the UNIX OS in any way you want -- there are shells around
that make UNIX look like DOS, and windowing systems that make it look
like Windows.  It's just that both are so limiting that nobody uses
them once they get beyond  the "It's not Windows" syndrome.

The beauty of this, though, is that it re-allows the exploration of
other metaphors for user interface, and exploration that sorta died
once Windows became the 500-pound gorilla.

The "Desktop" is not the only workable metaphor for a GUI.  Amiga used
a "Workshop" metaphor with "drawers" and "tools" and "cabinets."
Another metaphor I saw was a "Neighborhood" with houses and stores and
repair shops and such.  Instead of dumping your folders into the
"recycle bin" (so much more PC than the "trash can"), you can take them
to the landfill.  I also saw one guy experimenting with a "house"
metaphor, with a "library" and a "utility room" and such.

While this may seem a bit silly on the surface, the metaphor you use in
GUI design (or programming in general) in turn strongly influences how
you make other things work.  Do you allow "tools" to be left in the
"library," or will they automatically return to the "utilityy closet"
when "dropped?"  "Folders" and "drawers" are naturally stackable, but
"rooms" are not.

This is even more important in software engineering in general, where
the metaphor drives the development process.  There's a new high-level
paradigm for software design called "design patterns" which formalizes
metaphors -- so that you have things like "factories" and "observers"
and "bridges" and such which formalize functions within a metaphor.  A
"factory", for instance, will take small pieces of data and
construct an instantiation of a complex data class or other such
product.  A properly designed factory will be abstract enough
so that it can create objects independent of platform. An "observer" 
might enter a "factory" and collect data on efficiency and process.
For one description of a factory pattern, see 
http://rampages.onramp.net/~huston/dp/patterns.html
For a good place to look at patterns in general, see
http://hem.passagen.se/gumby/cs/patterns.html

The importance for software design is that this allows more of the
design process to be done at a high and abstract level, with the actual
writing of code done later in the cycle ("extreme programming"
enthusiasts notwithstanding).  The trick is that for large software
projects, *design* should take up as much time as actual coding,
regardless of the speed of the design/code/test cycle.

I was recently on a review committee for the NIH regarding a sofware
design contract for an image segmentation toolbox system.  As I
remember, the last I saw, of a three-year contract, design will take up
the first year and a half.  No code will be written until the second
half of the contract.

There are a lot of good things you can do with different metaphors
for GUIs and other kinds of way of having the computer interact
with the world and the world with the computer.  Anything that
takes the blinders off the Windoze world is a good thing.



> 
> I, of course, have no personal feelings or opinions in those matters.
> 

Me neither :-)


billo


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 08:16:29 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10881
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:16:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10876
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:16:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA04535;
	Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:16:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:16:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: Sidg@aol.com
cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: C:\CoolProgs\Pretty Park.exe
In-Reply-To: <a2.26cd497.2615fbdb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000331081406.6850B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO



On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote:

> From: Sidg@aol.com
> 
> DON'T OPEN THIS!!!!!!! I just got this thru the list again. Someone's got a 
> problem with ForensL... They're using a different screen name now, but the 
> same domain.
> 


I don't think it's anything so malicious as being out to get Forens-L.
It's just that as Pretty Park propagates, it looks through Outlook
Address books, and picks up what's there.  It's not surprising that
as readers of Forens-L get infected, Forens-L will receive multiple
mailings.

billo


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 08:26:20 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11102
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:26:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.upjs.sk (IDENT:root@mail.upjs.sk [158.197.16.41])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11097
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:26:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 158.197.16.30.upjs.sk ([158.197.114.97])
	by mail.upjs.sk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA30401
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:25:56 +0200
Message-ID: <003601bf9bdd$ab8bb240$6172c59e@158.197.16.30.upjs.sk>
From: "Bobrov N.,MD,PhD" <bobrov@central.medic.upjs.sk>
To: "FORENS-L" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Virus through forens-l - pretty park.exe
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 15:24:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi, all,
Found a source of "pretty-parked" email from Mark & Becky Strub (were they
here before?):

Received: from rmi.net (dial-76.227.cosco.rmi.net [166.93.76.227])
by chevalier.rmi.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA26093;
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:27:35 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200003301827.LAA26093@chevalier.rmi.net>

From: "Mark & Becky Strub" <bstrubm@rmi.net>
To: <mailbox@rmi.net>

Subject: C:\CoolProgs\Pretty Park.exe
MIME-Version: 1.0
Text> "Test: Pretty Park.exe  :)
           Mark & Becky Strub
           (+ dumb application)
----------------------------------
My comment: a dial-up contact to rmi.net server means that Mark, Becky & Co
is not a group with own mailserver. And my question is: if the text "Test:
Pretty Park.exe  :)" [why not: Don't test .. :-Q] was generated by worm or
was entered by Mark &  Becky? If the second is true, we have another case of
unresponcibility...

           N.Bobrov, MD., PhD




From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 09:17:24 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12000
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:17:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11995
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:17:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])
	by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA14769;
	Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:17:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:17:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Oliver <billo@Radix.Net>
To: Sidg@aol.com
cc: crimguychris@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Help with puter...please...
In-Reply-To: <6e.1bcb9d1.26160bad@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1000331091641.16199A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


Sorry, not a Mac guy.

billo



From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 10:41:35 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13474
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:41:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlas.dnai.com (atlas.dnai.com [207.181.194.95])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13469
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:41:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23])
	by atlas.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA67035;
	Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000331074452.00a8f8f0@mail.dnai.com>
X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:45:58 -0800
To: "Christopher J. Basten":;
From: Kim Kruglick <kim@kruglaw.com>
Subject: April 2000 issue of Forensic Science Communications
Cc: dna-defense@egroups.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_28148698==_.ALT"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

--=====================_28148698==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Folks,

The April 2000 issue of Forensic Science Communications has been posted on the Federal Bureau of Investigation Web site (www.fbi.gov). Forensic Science Communications is a quarterly journal published by FBI Laboratory personnel.
  
To link directly to the table of contents of the current issue, please click
  
www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/fsc/current/index.htm
  

Best regards,
Kim Kruglick
mailto:kim@kruglaw.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Forensic Resource and
Criminal Law Search Site
http://www.kruglaw.com 
--=====================_28148698==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font face="arial" size=2>Folks,<br>
<br>
The April 2000 issue of <i>Forensic Science Communications</i> has been
posted on the Federal Bureau of Investigation Web site
(<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/" eudora="autourl">www.fbi.gov</a>).
<i>Forensic Science Communications</i> is a quarterly journal published
by FBI Laboratory personnel.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
To link directly to the table of contents of the current issue, please
click<br>
&nbsp;<br>
<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/fsc/current/index.htm" eudora="autourl">www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/fsc/current/index.htm</a><br>
&nbsp;<br>
</font><br>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Kim Kruglick</div>
<div><a href="mailto:kim@kruglaw.com" EUDORA=AUTOURL>mailto:kim@kruglaw.com</a></div>
<div>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</div>
<div>Forensic Resource and</div>
<div>Criminal Law Search Site</div>
<a href="http://www.kruglaw.com/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.kruglaw.com</a>
</html>

--=====================_28148698==_.ALT--


From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 18:37:46 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18154
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:37:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web61.mcafee.com ([208.228.231.196])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18149
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:37:40 -0500 (EST)
From: mshuman@the-beach.net
Received: from mail pickup service by web61.mcafee.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:31:19 -0800
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Computer Virus Alert!
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:31:18 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Message-ID: <029c01931231f30WEB61@web61.mcafee.com>
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Greetings, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu

I thought you would be interested in knowing about this computer virus...

Virus Name: W32/Pretty.worm.unp

Virus Characteristics:
*March 2, 2000 Update: AVERT has received numerous samples of this
Internet worm. Many users reporting this worm are also users of <b>Outlook
Express</b>. This is the unpacked edition of the originally packed
W32/Pretty.worm Internet worm.*

This is an Internet worm that installs on Windows 9x/NT systems. It
arrives via email from affected users who have also run this Internet
worm. It appears as an icon of a character from the animated comedy series
Southpark. Emails containing this Internet worm have this format:

-------------<br>
Subject: C:\CoolProgs\Pretty Park.exe

 Test: Pretty Park.exe  :)<br>
-------------

Attached is the file Pretty park.exe and in some cases Pretty~1.exe.

This worm will try to <b>email itself</b> automatically every 30 minutes
<b>to all email addresses</b> listed in the Windows address book
associated with Outlook Express.

A second function of this worm is that it will also try to connect to
several IRC servers and send data packets to the connected server. While
your system is connected to the Internet, it is sending and listening to
random ports on both UDP and TCP ports. The range is from 1000 to 4900 (or
at least so far in testing) and is a random assigned port. First it will
choose a random
port on UDP and/or TCP, then it will listen to that port, next it will
respond with a packet to that port then close it. This happens
approximately once every 30 seconds or so. The time intervals are not
specific and appear
to be random as well. In testing, the following IRC servers are connected
to just for a few seconds and are also chosen at random:

banana.irc.easynet.net:6667<br>
irc.ncal.verio.net:6667<br>
irc.stealth.net:6667<br>
irc.twiny.net:6667<br>
irc1.emn.fr:6667<br>
krameria.skybel.net:6667<br>
mist.cifnet.com:6667<br>
zafira.eurecom.fr:6667

While connected, this worm tries to stay connected by sending information
to the IRC server, and will also retrieve any commands from the IRC
channel. While on the determined IRC server, the author of this worm could
use the connection as a remote access trojan in order to get information
such as the computer name, registered owner, registered organization,
system root path, and Dial Up Networking username and passwords.

Users should download 4067 DAT set or above for detection and removal of
this Internet worm. To <b>download the DAT files</b>, <a
href='http://www.nai.com/asp_set/download/introduction/default.asp'>
follow this link </a>.

To check your system for this virus, and to learn how to protect yourself
from computer viruses, visit the McAfee PC Clinic at
http://clinic.mcafee.com.

This email was sent to you by Mark Shuman



From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 18:48:24 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18372
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:48:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from neptune.lacoeoc.org (lacoeoc.org [207.217.215.1])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA18367
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:48:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.lasd.org by neptune.lacoeoc.org
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2000 23:39:47 UT
Received: by mail.lasd.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <HZKMN2LJ>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:40:12 -0800
Message-ID: <0E266EEB8EB3D3119F1300805F65B49E0189CFA4@1-SHQ-MAIL>
From: "Lee, Chien-Hsing K." <CKLee@lasd.org>
To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: 1,4-Butanediol
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:47:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

Hi List,

I was just wondering what is everyone doing to identifiy 1,4-butanediol?
Additionally, if your lab is identifying and calling 1,4-BD how are you
reporting it?  
Lastly, is anyone testifying to 1,4-BD as an analogue of GHB or GBL?
Since the scheduling of GHB and recently GBL in CA, we at the LA County
Sheriff's
Crime Lab have begun seeing 1,4-BD.  Recently, we saw a case of 1,4-BD in
tablet form. 
I don't have addition details of this case at this time.  It was assigned to
one of our other analyst.  

Thanks in advance,

Ken Lee
Senior Criminalist
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Scientific Services Bureau
(562) 940-0358
  

From forens-owner  Fri Mar 31 19:10:53 2000
Return-Path: <owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18678
	for forens-outgoing; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:10:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4])
	by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA18673
	for <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:10:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us
          via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 1 Apr 2000 00:10:48 UT
Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <GJCD7ZRB>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:08:52 -0500
Message-ID: <A663E01BFF57D31181971000964B857A34772F@exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us>
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: "'Bill Oliver'" <billo@Radix.Net>
Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:08:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF9B6E.75A86EC6"
Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9B6E.75A86EC6
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1252"

Billo wrote:

<<<<Actually, those are three "viruses" from the web site by Silvio, who
wrote the article rejected by phrack.  What he has done has been
to post his article over all the mailing lists, which gives
a fairly large hit rate, but which also boils down to one
guy with big claims if you read the sites.  

While he may have found a vulnerability, your claim that ELF parasites
have been infecting UNIX boxes for over a year is not particularly
true, unless you just include Silvios test boxes.  Moreover, the virus
resistance of UNIX does not lie in the structure of its binaries; it
lies in its directory structure and permissions system.  If you have an
example where these "ELF parasites" have actually turned out to be a
problem in the real world, I would dearly like to see it.

In any case, I am not claiming that UNIX does not have security
vulnerabilities.  I claim that it is immune to the effects of
Windoze-style viruses.  It still is. The big threat to Linux 
does not lie in it's UNIX-ness.  It lies in the fact that it 
often shares space with Windoze on a dual-boot box or because it is laid
on top of a Micosoft disk with a FAT.

In terms of real attacks, you will note that there are, for 
instance, no CERT UNIX virus vulnerabilities noted, no DISA UNIX virus 
vulnerabilities.>>>>


My reply:  

If you say so, Bill.  I'm not a computer or OS wonk, just a
semi-knowledgeable user.  You obviously know a lot more about it than I.  I
just know what I read from time to time in consumer computer publications
and on the various virus sites, and I have read in several places over the
last year that Unix viruses, worms, Trojans, whatever, exist and are
expected to increase.  They are rare now, but not non-existent, or so I have
read.  I agree Unix is immune to "Windoze style viruses" but apparently
there are a small but growing number of "Unix style" bugs as well.  In
McAfee's updates to their antivirus program, they always list a "Unix"
section in their list of new bugs detected by the update, although more
often than not the Unix section lists "none."  That SEEMS to indicate there
are enough Unix viruses around to justify including a section for them in
the listing, but perhaps I misunderstand.  I know the McAfee VirusScan
product for Unix is designed to screen not for Unix bugs but rather for
Windows bugs residing on Unix servers, which contrarily seems to indicate
that viruses are not yet deemed enough of a problem for Unix itself to
justify a program written specifically to protect Unix systems, but rather
that one is needed for Windows users who interface with Unix systems that
may be harboring Windows bugs.  Both the McAfee and Norton sites claim that
Unix servers can be reservoirs for Windows viruses.  Granted, they are
trying to sell their products but they are pretty reputable sources of info
about viruses and the like.

Billo:
<<<<Your claim that the only reason there haven't been more UNIX viruses
because nobody used UNIX in the past is simply unfounded.  In fact,
UNIX boxes have been targeted harder and longer than Windoze boxes
because they have been around longer, they are used for bigger sites
and projects, they have traditionally dominated the academic world,
they make up most servers, and they have traditionally been "where the
money is."  In fact, the dual of your claim is actually the truth --
that UNIX has traditionally been the target of choice, but that Windoze
boxes have increased in value as a target over the past decade.  If you
go to CERT and look at the vulnerabilities listing, you will see that
UNIX boxes have had plenty of attention.  The increasing use of
Linux for home use *will* lead to big security problems, but not
from silvio and his "virus."  They will come from the fact that
folk are going to leave unsecured boxes attached to the web and
walk away -- and this will get them hosed whether they are running
UNIX, Linux, or a Windoze variant.

If, in fact, silvio's articles were an active threat, it would be all
over the place, instead of silvio reposting notices of his web site a
zillion times for a year.

However, to be fair, the truth is that under the technical definition
of virus as a self-replicating program, it is possible to write one for
any computer.  However, with UNIX, you can only write viruses for
programs you have write-permissions for.   For instance, it is not
difficult to write a script that will append a replicator to all the C
code in your src directory, so that every time you compile and run a
program without looking at the code and run it, it will look wherever
it is for source code and attach itself.

The bottom line, though, is that the thing that makes viruses a problem
in the Windoze world, and the thing that makes them not a problem in
the UNIX world is that permissions and file system structure thing.  A
superuser who executes random programs with superuser permissions will
get screwed.

Immunity to viruses in UNIX is like immunity to a virus in a human.  It
doesn't mean that one cannot be innoculated, and it doesn't mean that
one cannot be exposed.  It means that they don't spread and they don't
cause the problems you see in WIndoze because of its inherent design
flaws.

As Nick Fizgerals writes in the VIRUS-L faq:


> Basically, you shouldn't bother scanning for Unix viruses at this
> point in time.  Although it is possible to write Unix-based viruses we
> have yet to see any instance of a non-experimental virus in that
> environment.  Someone with sufficient knowledge and access to write an
> effective virus would be more likely to conduct other activities than
> virus-writing. Furthermore, the typical form of software sharing in
> the Unix environment does not support virus spread as easily as some
> others.
>
> This answer is not meant to imply that Unix viruses are impossible, or
> that there aren't security problems in a typical Unix
> environment--there are, and Fred Cohen's first experimental virus was
> implemented and tested on a Unix system.  True viruses in the Unix
> environment are, however, unlikely to spread well.  >>>>>


My Reply:

Of course, you are right that any OS has it's vulnerabilities.  Unix has
been around a long time, but precisely because it is only used in high-power
applications by deep-pocket government and corporate users is the reason it
escapes the notice of the average virus author, whereas the almost
immeasurably greater customer base for Windows makes it a much more
appealing target.  Plant a virus on a DOD system and no one outside DOD pays
any attention, but plant one on a Windows site so that it infects millions
of office, business and home computers, and you're instantly notorious - and
notoriety is the primary goal of the average virus author (a strange kind of
anonymous fame).  Unix has been the target of many SECURITY breach attempts
("back doors") to gain access to the system, some successful some not, but
from what I have read not much effort has been expended by the
run-of-the-mill hacker to write malicious code that damages the system or
its files just for the heck of it, like goes on in the Windows world.  That
could change with enough interest and effort by the more talented cyber
miscreants.  Since at least a few have proven its POSSIBLE to write Unix
bugs, it follows that some day more will be written.   It's ironic that the
very characteristic which makes Linux so attractive, user-friendly, and
increasingly popular (as opposed to it's predecessor Unix) is also it's
greatest vulnerability, namely its open architecture.


Billo:
<<<<Windoze advocates have been wishing for a UNIX virus that poses
a real threat for almost two decades.  They are still waiting.>>>>


My reply:

Nah, not me.  I'd LOVE to see the Gatesian Empire take a fall and have some
serious competition in the consumer market.  Unfortunately, it hasn't
happened yet, despite sloppy inefficient code and a wealth of bugs and
vulnerabilities in Windows.  The problem is that there just aren't enough
affordable Unix, Linux (or any other OS) software applications around that
appeal to consumers' needs enough to convince consumers to try any OS other
than Windows.  Oh yeah, there's the Apple OS, but despite the much
ballyhooed resurgence of Apple, they're still a drop in the bucket of
consumerism.

Billo:
<<<<<
> There are also a number of Java applet based bugs that can mess with
> Unix-based web sites by adding and deleting graphics to a page, and that
> sort of thing.  

This is not a virus.  Look, if you invite random people to run random
programs on your box, don't be surprised that some of them do bad 
things.  That's not a hole in UNIX, that's a hole in the user.
*No* operating system can protect a user from running self-destructive
programs or from opening himself or herself up to damage by
allowing strangers to run random programs with his or her permissions.>>>>


My reply:

I didn't say it was technically a virus, I just said it was something that
reportedly can mess with Unix-based web sites.  Applets are risky things,
but Java is becoming increasingly ubiquitous on the web, and if you want to
get maximum bells and whistles when you visit a Java site, you have to
enable the applets.  Ya makes yer choice, and takes yer chances.

Billo:
<<<<> The biggest problem with Unix platforms regarding viruses to
> date has of course been the fact that Unix servers can host and spread a
> wide variety of DOS/Windows viruses, while not being themselves affected;
a
> typhoid-Unix carrier situation.

This is exactly *not* a UNIX problem.  UNIX does not "spread" DOS
viruses.  All operating systems store files on disks.  The fact
that UNIX boxes doesn't *also* emulate Windows so it can  clean up 
after Windows messes in the files it stores in addition to taking 
care of its own security is not a problem with UNIX -- the messes 
are still Windoze messes.>>>>>>


My reply:

Agreed.  I was just pointing out that Unix servers are frequently used to
spread Windows viruses, for the reason you state - any server that accepts
file uploads can become a reservoir for malicious executables.  Windows
users can't assume that a server they connect to is safe just because it is
a Unix system.  As you say, Unix servers don't unusually police Windows
files stored on them, which is why McAfee and Norton both sell anti-virus
products designed to run on Unix servers - not to protect the server or Unix
users, but to protect Windows users who download Windows files from those
servers.  Their hope I guess is that server owners will want to protect
their sites' reputations by protecting Windows users who visit the sites.

Hey Bill, now that the Unix brown-out problem is solved, I'm a Unix fan -
but the fix came too late for the military.  They got tired of having to pay
contractors huge fees to remain on site at all times to re-write damaged
Unix code every time a power fluctuation caused a crash.  So now that those
problems are ancient history, they have pretty much transitioned to NT-based
systems for tactical applications, and are discovering an entire new set of
problems.  It IS nice, though, to be able to use a cheap off-the-shelf
laptop for an application that used to require a refrigerator-sized Sun
MicroSystems Unix box.  Everything's a trade-off, I guess.

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9B6E.75A86EC6
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Virus through forens-l - pretty park</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Billo wrote:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Actually, those are three =
&quot;viruses&quot; from the web site by Silvio, who</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>wrote the article rejected by phrack.&nbsp; What he =
has done has been</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>to post his article over all the mailing lists, =
which gives</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>a fairly large hit rate, but which also boils down =
to one</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>guy with big claims if you read the sites.&nbsp; =
</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>While he may have found a vulnerability, your claim =
that ELF parasites</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have been infecting UNIX boxes for over a year is =
not particularly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>true, unless you just include Silvios test =
boxes.&nbsp; Moreover, the virus</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>resistance of UNIX does not lie in the structure of =
its binaries; it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>lies in its directory structure and permissions =
system.&nbsp; If you have an</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>example where these &quot;ELF parasites&quot; have =
actually turned out to be a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>problem in the real world, I would dearly like to =
see it.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In any case, I am not claiming that UNIX does not =
have security</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>vulnerabilities.&nbsp; I claim that it is immune to =
the effects of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Windoze-style viruses.&nbsp; It still is. The big =
threat to Linux </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>does not lie in it's UNIX-ness.&nbsp; It lies in the =
fact that it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>often shares space with Windoze on a dual-boot box =
or because it is laid</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>on top of a Micosoft disk with a FAT.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In terms of real attacks, you will note that there =
are, for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>instance, no CERT UNIX virus vulnerabilities noted, =
no DISA UNIX virus </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>vulnerabilities.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My reply:&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If you say so, Bill.&nbsp; I'm not a computer or OS =
wonk, just a semi-knowledgeable user.&nbsp; You obviously know a lot =
more about it than I.&nbsp; I just know what I read from time to time =
in consumer computer publications and on the various virus sites, and I =
have read in several places over the last year that Unix viruses, =
worms, Trojans, whatever, exist and are expected to increase.&nbsp; =
They are rare now, but not non-existent, or so I have read.&nbsp; I =
agree Unix is immune to &quot;Windoze style viruses&quot; but =
apparently there are a small but growing number of &quot;Unix =
style&quot; bugs as well.&nbsp; In McAfee's updates to their antivirus =
program, they always list a &quot;Unix&quot; section in their list of =
new bugs detected by the update, although more often than not the Unix =
section lists &quot;none.&quot;&nbsp; That SEEMS to indicate there are =
enough Unix viruses around to justify including a section for them in =
the listing, but perhaps I misunderstand.&nbsp; I know the McAfee =
VirusScan product for Unix is designed to screen not for Unix bugs but =
rather for Windows bugs residing on Unix servers, which contrarily =
seems to indicate that viruses are not yet deemed enough of a problem =
for Unix itself to justify a program written specifically to protect =
Unix systems, but rather that one is needed for Windows users who =
interface with Unix systems that may be harboring Windows bugs.&nbsp; =
Both the McAfee and Norton sites claim that Unix servers can be =
reservoirs for Windows viruses.&nbsp; Granted, they are trying to sell =
their products but they are pretty reputable sources of info about =
viruses and the like.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Billo:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Your claim that the only reason =
there haven't been more UNIX viruses</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>because nobody used UNIX in the past is simply =
unfounded.&nbsp; In fact,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UNIX boxes have been targeted harder and longer than =
Windoze boxes</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>because they have been around longer, they are used =
for bigger sites</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>and projects, they have traditionally dominated the =
academic world,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>they make up most servers, and they have =
traditionally been &quot;where the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>money is.&quot;&nbsp; In fact, the dual of your =
claim is actually the truth --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that UNIX has traditionally been the target of =
choice, but that Windoze</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>boxes have increased in value as a target over the =
past decade.&nbsp; If you</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>go to CERT and look at the vulnerabilities listing, =
you will see that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UNIX boxes have had plenty of attention.&nbsp; The =
increasing use of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Linux for home use *will* lead to big security =
problems, but not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>from silvio and his &quot;virus.&quot;&nbsp; They =
will come from the fact that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>folk are going to leave unsecured boxes attached to =
the web and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>walk away -- and this will get them hosed whether =
they are running</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UNIX, Linux, or a Windoze variant.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If, in fact, silvio's articles were an active threat, =
it would be all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>over the place, instead of silvio reposting notices =
of his web site a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>zillion times for a year.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>However, to be fair, the truth is that under the =
technical definition</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>of virus as a self-replicating program, it is =
possible to write one for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>any computer.&nbsp; However, with UNIX, you can only =
write viruses for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>programs you have write-permissions for.&nbsp;&nbsp; =
For instance, it is not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>difficult to write a script that will append a =
replicator to all the C</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>code in your src directory, so that every time you =
compile and run a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>program without looking at the code and run it, it =
will look wherever</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>it is for source code and attach itself.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The bottom line, though, is that the thing that makes =
viruses a problem</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>in the Windoze world, and the thing that makes them =
not a problem in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the UNIX world is that permissions and file system =
structure thing.&nbsp; A</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>superuser who executes random programs with =
superuser permissions will</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>get screwed.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Immunity to viruses in UNIX is like immunity to a =
virus in a human.&nbsp; It</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>doesn't mean that one cannot be innoculated, and it =
doesn't mean that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>one cannot be exposed.&nbsp; It means that they =
don't spread and they don't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>cause the problems you see in WIndoze because of its =
inherent design</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>flaws.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As Nick Fizgerals writes in the VIRUS-L faq:</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Basically, you shouldn't bother scanning for =
Unix viruses at this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; point in time.&nbsp; Although it is possible to =
write Unix-based viruses we</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; have yet to see any instance of a =
non-experimental virus in that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; environment.&nbsp; Someone with sufficient =
knowledge and access to write an</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; effective virus would be more likely to conduct =
other activities than</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; virus-writing. Furthermore, the typical form of =
software sharing in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the Unix environment does not support virus =
spread as easily as some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; others.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; This answer is not meant to imply that Unix =
viruses are impossible, or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; that there aren't security problems in a =
typical Unix</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; environment--there are, and Fred Cohen's first =
experimental virus was</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; implemented and tested on a Unix system.&nbsp; =
True viruses in the Unix</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; environment are, however, unlikely to spread =
well.&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My Reply:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Of course, you are right that any OS has it's =
vulnerabilities.&nbsp; Unix has been around a long time, but precisely =
because it is only used in high-power applications by deep-pocket =
government and corporate users is the reason it escapes the notice of =
the average virus author, whereas the almost immeasurably greater =
customer base for Windows makes it a much more appealing target.&nbsp; =
Plant a virus on a DOD system and no one outside DOD pays any =
attention, but plant one on a Windows site so that it infects millions =
of office, business and home computers, and you're instantly notorious =
- and notoriety is the primary goal of the average virus author (a =
strange kind of anonymous fame).&nbsp; Unix has been the target of many =
SECURITY breach attempts (&quot;back doors&quot;) to gain access to the =
system, some successful some not, but from what I have read not much =
effort has been expended by the run-of-the-mill hacker to write =
malicious code that damages the system or its files just for the heck =
of it, like goes on in the Windows world.&nbsp; That could change with =
enough interest and effort by the more talented cyber miscreants.&nbsp; =
Since at least a few have proven its POSSIBLE to write Unix bugs, it =
follows that some day more will be written.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's ironic =
that the very characteristic which makes Linux so attractive, =
user-friendly, and increasingly popular (as opposed to it's predecessor =
Unix) is also it's greatest vulnerability, namely its open =
architecture.</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Billo:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;Windoze advocates have been wishing =
for a UNIX virus that poses</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>a real threat for almost two decades.&nbsp; They are =
still waiting.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My reply:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Nah, not me.&nbsp; I'd LOVE to see the Gatesian =
Empire take a fall and have some serious competition in the consumer =
market.&nbsp; Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet, despite sloppy =
inefficient code and a wealth of bugs and vulnerabilities in =
Windows.&nbsp; The problem is that there just aren't enough affordable =
Unix, Linux (or any other OS) software applications around that appeal =
to consumers' needs enough to convince consumers to try any OS other =
than Windows.&nbsp; Oh yeah, there's the Apple OS, but despite the much =
ballyhooed resurgence of Apple, they're still a drop in the bucket of =
consumerism.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Billo:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; There are also a number of Java applet based =
bugs that can mess with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Unix-based web sites by adding and deleting =
graphics to a page, and that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; sort of thing.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is not a virus.&nbsp; Look, if you invite random =
people to run random</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>programs on your box, don't be surprised that some =
of them do bad </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>things.&nbsp; That's not a hole in UNIX, that's a =
hole in the user.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>*No* operating system can protect a user from =
running self-destructive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>programs or from opening himself or herself up to =
damage by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>allowing strangers to run random programs with his =
or her permissions.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My reply:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I didn't say it was technically a virus, I just said =
it was something that reportedly can mess with Unix-based web =
sites.&nbsp; Applets are risky things, but Java is becoming =
increasingly ubiquitous on the web, and if you want to get maximum =
bells and whistles when you visit a Java site, you have to enable the =
applets.&nbsp; Ya makes yer choice, and takes yer chances.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Billo:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&gt; The biggest problem with Unix =
platforms regarding viruses to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; date has of course been the fact that Unix =
servers can host and spread a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; wide variety of DOS/Windows viruses, while not =
being themselves affected; a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; typhoid-Unix carrier situation.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is exactly *not* a UNIX problem.&nbsp; UNIX does =
not &quot;spread&quot; DOS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>viruses.&nbsp; All operating systems store files on =
disks.&nbsp; The fact</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that UNIX boxes doesn't *also* emulate Windows so it =
can&nbsp; clean up </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>after Windows messes in the files it stores in =
addition to taking </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>care of its own security is not a problem with UNIX =
-- the messes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>are still Windoze =
messes.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My reply:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Agreed.&nbsp; I was just pointing out that Unix =
servers are frequently used to spread Windows viruses, for the reason =
you state - any server that accepts file uploads can become a reservoir =
for malicious executables.&nbsp; Windows users can't assume that a =
server they connect to is safe just because it is a Unix system.&nbsp; =
As you say, Unix servers don't unusually police Windows files stored on =
them, which is why McAfee and Norton both sell anti-virus products =
designed to run on Unix servers - not to protect the server or Unix =
users, but to protect Windows users who download Windows files from =
those servers.&nbsp; Their hope I guess is that server owners will want =
to protect their sites' reputations by protecting Windows users who =
visit the sites.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hey Bill, now that the Unix brown-out problem is =
solved, I'm a Unix fan - but the fix came too late for the =
military.&nbsp; They got tired of having to pay contractors huge fees =
to remain on site at all times to re-write damaged Unix code every time =
a power fluctuation caused a crash.&nbsp; So now that those problems =
are ancient history, they have pretty much transitioned to NT-based =
systems for tactical applications, and are discovering an entire new =
set of problems.&nbsp; It IS nice, though, to be able to use a cheap =
off-the-shelf laptop for an application that used to require a =
refrigerator-sized Sun MicroSystems Unix box.&nbsp; Everything's a =
trade-off, I guess.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF9B6E.75A86EC6--